World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mistakes

[ljadw]

This was the opinion of Marshall,Dill,etc

[john becktel]

. . .

The initial response of the British and American militaries was that the Soviet army would be defeated in a couple of weeks.

This was the opinion of Marshall,Dill,etc

i think these were in response to my statement below:

. . .



" . . . this was indeed the turning point in the wartime relations of great britain and the united states with the soviet union. no longer would all anglo-american calculations be based on the probability of early russian collapse - after this, the whole approach to the problem was changed."

i think you are both correct, but perhaps we should cut them a little slack on this. maybe they were doing what the german military were not able to do, that is, to plan the worst case. their doubts, however, never had any real effect on the war, and they really weren't important so long as fdr and churchill held different views. the anti-hitler coalition was formed at the time of hopkins visit in july 41. fdr's intent was to do all the us could do to keep ussr and gb in the war, short of war for the us.

[Guaporense]

I have made these tables using all the data I could find on the economies of each major power of WW2:

The Allies:


Notice how energy consumption and GNP are closely correlated. Our modern economies are less energy dependent and thus the correlation is much weaker.

The Axis:


The"tons of oil eqv." statistic is derived from coal, lignite and oil converted to oil in terms of energy equivalence.

[Mr.No one]

Some clarification,please?

Are you trying to say that "So, overall, it was the US that made total allied victory feasible"?


Regards,Séan

[Alixanther]

Some clarification,please?

Are you trying to say that "So, overall, it was the US that made total allied victory feasible"?


Regards,Séan

It seems that's pretty obvious.

US = 3rd Reich (a little plus over US side, not that much)
GB > Japan + Italy
SU > Japan + Italy
It's pretty obvious that US + GB + SU is >> than 3rd Reich + Japan + Italy. The only chance for DR (Deutsches Reich) to win is to knock out the weakest one on the Allied side. The Allies employed the same strategy (against Italy who was the weakest on the Axis side)
The weakest is SU, so Barbarossa was inevitable.
I agree that attacking Poland in '39 was setting the tracks for a world war. That was mainly the artifice of the Soviets, which didn't attacked east Poland until Germany was at war with the Western Powers. Hitler naively thought the Soviets would attack AT THE SAME TIME, thinking :
a) either France and Britain declare war on BOTH Germany and Soviet Union
b) they are afraid of setting a strong alliance so they abstain declaring war (Soviet Union in the Axis would have been an Axis victory by far, although it may have been the Soviets who might have become prevalent as primus inter pares inside the Axis, who knows)
Hitler is outwitted by Soviets and the West only declares war on Germany (and cleverly opt out a blind eye to see the Soviet agressors in the same boat as Germany against Poland). De facto, SU was at war from '39.
Before saying "Hitler lost the war", we must ask which kind of war he was willing to wage. Was it a military one, an ideological war, a social emancipation war, a global domination war etc, etc. ?
Britain was very much afraid of Napoleon but not on military terms. They were afraid he was so popular to the revolutionary public that the British Army would collapse from inside (much like the czarist army later). They weren't afraid of Napoleon anymore when he proclaimed himself emperor and married the Austrian princess.
History is never a precise science like mathematics. We deal with stuff which cannot say for sure which side will eventually prevail. Britain invaded Unites States and yet US not only got its independence but became a global superpower. Czarist Russia was torn into a bloody civil war only to emerge into the other global superpower of the Cold War. There were signs they would win, yet it was its leader, Gorbatchew, who "kicked the door and everything went down".

[mescal]

US = 3rd Reich (a little plus over US side, not that much)

On which scale ??
If you're speaking of economic power, it's completely false.

[Alixanther]

US = 3rd Reich (a little plus over US side, not that much)

On which scale ??
If you're speaking of economic power, it's completely false.

Look, if you want to bring me into technicalities, this won't happen. I've seen a pattern on these forums, if you can bring up sources, then you're earned some degree of respect, if you don't, you're frowned upon. I don't mind being treated as a pariah, but since it's a forum, I'm discussing it. I have never said it as an ABSOLUTE, neither as a mathematical truth.
Both in their leading role and their economical aspect projected upon their camp, US and DR come close. US being much more of an economic powerhouse than DR? I don't disagree. However being the case, I would only reject seeing US being THAT MUCH POWEFUL over the 3rd Reich on a Kardaschev scale, like US being a grade 2 civilization and Germany grade 1 or something. This is not Star Trek and it's perfectly understandable that, given the right circumstances, either one of them can win a war against the other. And that's it.

[LWD]

Actually from his past posting Mescal was probably just asking for clarification.
I.e. if you were comparing the economies of the US vs Germany the US economy was obviously much larger.
Now if you were saying the US industrial participation among the allies was porportional to the German industrial particiapation among the Axis or the European Axis that's a different matter.
My experiance on this board has been that unless there is some strong indicator otherwise assume that a question is a legitimate one and not one trying to bait you into making a mistake. Note that there was no question about your overall statement that the allies had a substantially greater (power, economy, military might, ???) than the axis.

[Alixanther]

Actually from his past posting Mescal was probably just asking for clarification.

Well, you might be right but when I see a guy with 1100+ posts asking for a clarification from someone with only 50 posts then I probably have my reasons not to be that gullible.
First time I went "live" on these forums (to make a confession, it was my first forum ever, I've tried my hands afterwards on several others) I was more like a kid. A bit naive and tried to express my true guts, no matter how distasteful might be for others. At that time (for me at least) there were no such things like "political corectness" or other newly acquired post- 9/11 habits.
I make then the mistake of expressing my personal opinion on a Lounge sub-forum thread where I "dared" to say that fat noses and big jaws represented ugliness from an aesthetic point of view. Not that everyone seemed to think we have the right to see beauty from the eye of the beholder, because what happens next, one moderator comes out of the blue and outright tells me I'm an idiot, erases some of my posts, some of his, then the lounge becomes off-limit if you have no less that 500+ posts (how convenient). Of course there's an awfully long time since then and I can't remember everything I said (nor that I care much after all this time) but this one quite had a long lasting impression on me (also being one of my first online experiences).
I see now that the Lounge has reverted to the original status, after it has been "purged" of the vile posts of those times. I thought on a history forum we have the stomach to endure the past. Oh, the irony.

[Takao]

No offense, Alixanther, but it is rather hard to debate a simple statement such as your "US = 3rd Reich (a little plus over US side, not that much) " without any sort of clarification on how you arrived at such a conclusion. Especially considering that, two posts above yours, Guaporense posted economic tables that show that, in terms of GNP, the United States, in 1942, was equal to Germany + Britain + $10 Billion. In other words: US = 3rd Reich + 63%

I'd say 63% over is "quite a bit," as opposed to your "not that much." Therefore, clarification is most certainly necessary, if not required, on your part.

[South]

Good morning Alixandther,

Re: "We must ask what kind of war [Hitler] was willing to wage,a military,...ideological, global domination...?";

A key philosophical thrust forming a part of the response to above was the German use of the views of General Erich von Ludendorff, author of "Der Totale Krieg" (Total War). Ludendorff's views eclipsed the von Clausewitz diplomacy by other means. As an aside, Frau Ludendorff was worse in views.

His book must be read to grasp the governing philosophy of the Third Reich.

Although Ludendorff distorted major historical matters (eg from Charlemagne to 1871, Germany was more akin to Metternick's term for Italy: "a geographical expression". The post 1871 Prussian Reich lacked a historical cohesive background. Germany's WWI defeat was first a military defeat before the German psychological defeat.) he can be called the Third Reich's "philosopher".

He sought a specific German "religion" concurrent with eliminating the entities present in pre-defeated WWI Germany.

Warm regards,

Bob

[South]

Good morning LWD,

This is just to clarify and amplify a point; no argument or disagreement involved.

Re: "the US economy was obviously much larger";

Correct.......and besides its larger size, the US economy was more diversified with large powerhouse components. It had huge financial markets. It had a global finance center (New York City; slowly replacing London after the US Federal Reserve System (US central bank) allowed for competitive transactions to occur in the US in lieu of London). The US had a huge insurance industry. Foreign factories, merchant vessels and inventories paid directly or indirectly into US insurance companies. The US had commodity markets (think of the grain trade). The US labor force was large and cheap.

Germany was a relative new-comer to the nations of the world. Ge demonstrated superlative economic performance (especially steel production) but national economies take time to develop.

A tangent:

Throughout the thread is reference to "GDP" - Gross Domestic Product".

In economic warfare and in the combination of economic warfare plus military warfare, the view requires looking at the GNP: the Gross National Product. GDP does not account for a nation's offshore economic activities (I'm omitting much). Yet, large business overseas operations, sometimes to avoid the host nation's tax authorities, contribute to the waring state. Recall the US WWII use of Panama-flagged merchant vessels for the war effort. Many other examples get on the list.

.......

Still, the WWII era US economy was geometricly larger than Germany's, regardless of what the US tax attorneys and accountants might say.


Warm regards,

Bob

[steverodgers801]

Even though an industrialized nation, Germany was still behind not just in sized but in depth of industrialization. Germany had not yet adapted mass production methods in most factories and agriculture was still horse dependent, resulting in Germany having to import food.

[ljadw]

The mass production also was absent in other European countries.

I also should not make a relation between the number of horses in the German agriculture and the need to import food.The French agriculture also was mainly depending on horses.

[Alixanther]

No offense, Alixanther, but it is rather hard to debate a simple statement such as your "US = 3rd Reich (a little plus over US side, not that much).

This statement was put in some context and I assume I've already gave a little insight on the matter (let me quote myself: "I would only reject seeing US being THAT MUCH POWEFUL over the 3rd Reich on a Kardaschev scale, like US being a grade 2 civilization and Germany grade 1 or something. This is not Star Trek and it's perfectly understandable that, given the right circumstances, either one of them can win a war against the other")

So yeah, while there is a (major) discrepancy between the two economies, the modus operandi of each one make them more or less comparable in means of wage war. While I agree US was more mechanized than Germany, don't let us forget that the private sector of the US economy was prevalent and you could not make it, at the twist of a finger, give a 100% output for war preparation and materials. Germany was also a private economy but, given the major economic decision-makers were included in the "bureau" of war, it was an economy more prone to give a better output (albeit from a lower level) of war materials. US followed Germany's trend but never reached (nor it required, to be fully honest) the degree of dependency towards war output of Germany. Neither Germany ever reached the percent allocated towards war of SU, of course.

At the start of the war, Germany was in a very precarious situation which improved over the time, due mainly to conquest of France (industrial output), Norway(raw materials and securing Sweden steel), bringing Romania into the Pact of Steel (oil, military assistance), conquering Poland and Ukraine (coal, food and a bit of oil).

Of course, it would be very simplistic to think Reich's conquests only brought positive aspects to it. Population of Western European countries conquered (or brought into submission) by the 3rd Reich were "spoiled" with a particularly high standard of living (possibly even higher than US) which made matters worse when Germans tried to switch those economies from "butter" position to "guns" position. Germany itself wasn't willing to abandon the newly acquired living standards for a total war economy.