I'd probably say "causation and consequence." It's about what caused the allied victory, right?
That said, I hope you're not getting bogged down in terminology. I mean, if your teacher is requiring you to think in terms of substantive and second-order concepts, or if you find it personally helpful, then cool, go right ahead.
But if you're thinking you need to answer that question in order to understand the conversation about whether it was more important in the 40s to use tanks or to make tanks, you're probably tying yourself in knots for no reason. These questions are complicated enough without putting dry, obscure labels on them. Yes, it's important to understand that this is a question with no simple answer and that, I believe, it's an exploration into why things turn out the way they do, but I wouldn't put any more time than you absolutely have to into figuring out whether to call it "causation and consequence" or "historical significance" or "similarity and difference" or whatnot.