allied losses 1944/1945

[teg]

Why were allied losses in NW Europe so small in comparison with annual losses in 1914-1918?

[stg 44]

Why were allied losses in NW Europe so small in comparison with annual losses in 1914-1918?

Broadly speaking strategic bombing breaking the LW and German production and the much larger and more bloody war in the East compared to WW1. The German army was largely broken by 1944 due to the losses in the East in 1941-43 and the losses in the air from 1940-44 (by February 1944 the LW was effectively dead). The Eastern Front in WW2 was far larger than in WW1 so that sucked up so many more German resources so that by 1944-45 NW Europe and Italy, while still large, were the sideshow, while in 1914-18 the Western Front was the bigger one for the Germans and where the war was won and lost. So the entire context of the world wars was different in WW2 compared to WW1. If the USSR had been beaten in 1942-43 in 1944-45 the NW European Front would have been a LOT bloodier for the Wallies and dragged on until nukes were an option.