On the surface it appears that, for all the controversies and byways into which planners and statesmen were led or wandered, what emerged was a balanced strategy fundamentally in line with the resources available for its pursuit, and that the logistical effort was consequently channeled in the right direction and was reasonably economic and efficient despite the waste that must inevitably attend war. All that can really be said with any certainty, however, is that complete military victory was achieved, and that it is difficult to see how it could have been achieved in much less time and at much less cost. The processes by which victory was gained were not the product of any grand design determined in advance but of a series of decisions made under conditions of stress and uncertainty. Flexibility in adjusting to circumstances and in making allocations among many theaters and nations in a multifront coalition was was one of the principal keys to victory. From another vantage point, the American absorption in the pursuit of the goal of complete military victory to the exclusion of postwar political aims is attested in the whole story of resources allocation. Not in the strictly national sphere, or in the partnership with the British, or in the broader international field of lend-lease to other members of the embryo United Nations, did other than military considerations often govern.
(Klik for at vise Advarsel: Kan indeholde afsløringer.)