What was more culpable to the allied victory in WW2? Allied prowess or Hitler's incompetence as leader of the armed forces?

by Justoneaccount1234
Prufrock451

As I pointed out in a discussion yesterday, it's hard to dismiss Hitler out of hand because the entire war was a strategic blunder. He started the war believing full well that Germany was already locked in a losing death-struggle, that defeat was the likely outcome, and only by winning could Germany prove itself worthy of survival.

If you accept that apocalyptic worldview, as Hitler did, then you believe that only radical gambles with slim chances of success can open a tiny window for victory. Hitler's decisions make sense within this frame of mind. He wasn't a sensible person, trying to thread the needle. He wasn't trying to negotiate the best possible settlement. In his mind, he had to annihilate his enemies completely and create a Germany that would span from the Rhine to the Urals or it was all for nothing.

He knew the Soviets outnumbered him, that the British had him landlocked, that the Americans could flood the skies with planes and the ground with tanks. He knew defeat was likely and that conventional, careful decisions would lead inevitably to that defeat. With this in mind, it's possible to understand a lot of Hitler's decisions without agreeing with them.