Instead, O'Brien argues that the war was a global struggle for air and sea supremacy, won through production, technology, and the systematic destruction of Axis equipment before it ever reached the "battlefield". Core Arguments
In , Phillips Payson O'Brien presents a revisionist history that challenges the idea that massive land battles like Stalingrad or Kursk were the primary drivers of Allied victory.
: Attacking equipment while it was in transit to the front lines. Reception and Perspectives How the War was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied V...
: He argues that land battles were relatively minor in terms of equipment losses and that the Red Army primarily engaged in a war of personnel, while the Anglo-Americans conducted the decisive high-tech material war. Phases of Attrition
: O'Brien defines the true conflict as a thousand-mile-long air-sea "super-battlefield" where the Allies used their industrial might to inhibit Axis movement. Instead, O'Brien argues that the war was a
You can find further analysis of his arguments in discussions at the U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons or via expert lectures on YouTube .
: Reviewers from The University of Chicago Press and Cambridge University Press describe the work as "compelling" and "cliché-busting" for its data-driven approach to economic and industrial warfare. Reception and Perspectives : He argues that land
: The book highlights that the vast majority of military production for all major belligerents—including Germany—was devoted to air and sea warfare rather than land forces. For instance, air and sea weapons accounted for at least two-thirds of German weapons production.
Content