Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research, Christoph Awender's WW2 day by dayand Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld.

Skip to content

If you found the forum useful please consider supporting us. You can also support us by buying books through the AHF Bookstore.

World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mistakes

Discussions on WW2 covering more than one theatre of the war.

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby LWD on 31 Jan 2013 17:14

Alixanther wrote: .... 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.

I'm not so sure this is the case. The German economy was in some ways disfunctional. In the US however there was a lot of cooperation. The US insured this by way of controllling access to limited resources. Indeed while the percentage of US industry engaged in manufacturing war materials never reached the levels of German industry it was from what I've read enough more efficient that one could not reasonable contend that German output was "better".
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).

Again it is very disputable that it improved over time. Certainly Germany got access to additional resources however the demand for those resources also increased and the utilzation of some of them (in particular labor) was far from efficient (drafting many of the experianced coal miners for example). One need only look at food or gasoline rationing to get a good picture of t his.

... 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.

I'd like to see some sources for this. Certainly it's not the position painted by Wages of Destruction
User avatar
LWD
Member
United States
 
Posts: 8558
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby Alixanther on 31 Jan 2013 23:37

I could play my card your way too:

"The German economy was in some ways disfunctional". I'd like to see some sources for this.
"It is very disputable that it improved over time." I'd like to see some sources for this.

However, that's not my style. Disregard what's above and let's discuss.
The "cooperation" you pretend was the case in US is due to plain, ole PROPAGANDA. People were told to cooperate to win over the great Satan state which will come and kill their liberties here, in the good ole US of A. Of course people wanted their cousins, the Brits, to win. They started to rationalize stuff too. Wanna bring some posters over here, to see that US played the rationalizing card, too?
Of course, it wasn't compulsory like back there in Europe. But there were lots of stuff said and said again, and repeated until even a kindergarten kid was able to get it right: Uncle Sam needed steel, coal, food and oil and it was better to save up and donate, so our pilots could help Britain win their skies. Nevermind this was when BoB was already over, American farmers had nothing against seeing it as a perpetual battle which was waging until ordinary people could save up bits, nuts and bolts, and send them "to Europe". Which, most of the time was SU, through Kamchatka, or Arhanghelsk, or whatever.

Rationing food or gasoline has nothing to do with economy efficiency and you know it very well. By the way, I didn't say "more efficient", I said a better output. Which has nothing to do with efficiency, or should I've said a BIGGER output. Then you might say, OH YOU'RE MISTAKEN, US HAD A BIGGER WHATEVER, oh noes, here comes grammar police again. No, mate, it's BETTER output, meaning they had less resources yet produced more stuff possibly less efficient than US, don't know, don't care, they simply produced more stuff related to their resources.
Well, you say again, DR used stolen materials so this doesn't count as a real economy, 'cause this is in effect a pillage economy, based on stealing resources, stealing industrial stuff, underpaid foreign labor, slave labor, food holdups from East farms, food packages from Romania sent to German soldiers and officers families back in Germany, and so on and so forth.
I'm not here to debate all of that (or at least not on this topic), I'm aware of all that happened and a lot more and if you really want to discuss something then bring a REAL subject 'cause I'm kinda fed up with copouts, grammar police and preaching the official bible. What do you want me to say? "Oh, I believe in every word of Wages of Destruction, so help me God"???

To summarize, if my assertion is still unclear, I simply stated that the % of Deutsches Reich economy involved into war material was bigger that the % of US economy. I also stated that US neither wanted, nor needed this % to peak up to or above German counterpart. It puzzles me someone still need to polish this assertion further, we could waste our time on forums in a more pleasurable way than this.
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby ljadw on 01 Feb 2013 08:36

The claim that the populations of the conquered Western European countries (which means:France,Belgium,Holland) were spoiled with a high living standard,possibly higher than that of the US,is TOTAL NONSENS.The living standard of the US during the war was astronomically higher than the living standard in the conquered countries:,where there were shortages of everything,and where there were few or no jobs :millions were forced to go working in Germany.

It is the same for the claim that Germany was unwilling to give up its living standard for a total war :also nonsens.
ljadw
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby South on 01 Feb 2013 12:01

Good morning Alixanther,

Less the distinctions without a difference, the US economy could - and was - at the "twist of a finger".......actually FDR's signature pen on documents...........adjusting for upward to 100% output for war preparations and material.

Famous US personalities of President Wilson's WWI colleagues clustered around FDR. Recall the financier Bernard Baruch advising FDR on economic war mobilizing. The Union Pacific Railroad's president was present. Many examples abound.

Note that pre Pearl Harbor, building a US shipyard allowed for the construction of dry docks with "duel use" - building luxury liners and, with a few adjustments, building warships. Many examples abound.

US labor had extensive US Government restrictions - especially after the conscription law was signed (draining away civilian workers into the military).

The US economy's scientific research labs (think of RCA) was war-oriented. Civilian aeronautical development (think of Pan Am's China Clipper fleet of sea planes) was........please don't laugh.........military oriented.

Who got financing from the banks? ...... Look for FDR's signature pen (It wasn't a Mont Blanc) to get the answer.

The US had a sophisticated "'bureau' of war".

......

I'm joining others here interested in the high standard of living in the war-conquered countries of western Europe.

......

US wartime consumer (private citizen level) rationing was compulsary. Gasoline was rationed, less exceptions for national interest matters such as for medical doctors who used private cars to visit patients at their homes). Home food products were also rationed (sugar, as an example).

There is a relationship between "better output" and efficiency. We can see this in examples from labor economics. Germany's professional soldiers were highly efficient. Yet, like Stalin is credited with saying = Sometimes qualtity is, in itself, a form of quality =. (The world's 10 best merchant mariners will fail to safely run the vessel if the minimum crew size for safety is 20.)

......

US citizen voluntary collections of items for the war effort gets more than a footnote in the history books. Aprocot seeds were collected for gas mask filter elements. Aluminum foil from cigarette packages was collected and rolled into balls for donation. Many other examples are recorded.

These voluntary collections were less focused on helping the Soviet Union and more so the British.

......

I must contest your summary. The Third Reich's % of economy involving their war effort was not "bigger" than the US per centage. Both nations were on war economies at the max level. The rest is academic calibrations.


Warm regards,

Bob
South
Financial supporter
United States
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby Alixanther on 03 Feb 2013 13:56

ljadw wrote:The claim that the populations of the conquered Western European countries (which means:France,Belgium,Holland) were spoiled with a high living standard,possibly higher than that of the US,is TOTAL NONSENS.The living standard of the US during the war was astronomically higher than the living standard in the conquered countries:,where there were shortages of everything,and where there were few or no jobs :millions were forced to go working in Germany.

It is the same for the claim that Germany was unwilling to give up its living standard for a total war :also nonsens.


Yep, right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

They had such a standard they rioted and the Establishment feld the need to use military force against them
instead of simply comply to their demands. Come on! ASTRONOMICALLY higher? I very much doubt it and reject it. There's no such equivalent in Germany (other than the Spartakist, which is a totally different movement from political reasons). And what's up with "millions were forced to go working"??? Would have been better not to have work to do? Stay idle and die from starvation? Beg on the streets? I don't get it.
If you plan on shouting "TOTAL NONSENS" al over again, at least please enlighten me with some numbers.


South wrote: The rest is academic calibrations.


Warm regards,

Bob


I agree. It's what we did here, anyway :)
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby Takao on 04 Feb 2013 00:32

Alixanther,

I presume that you are aware that the "Bonus Army" happened in 1932, at the height of the "Great Depression," and the time frame we are talking about is around 1940-44. The economical situation in the United States in 1932 was far different than it was in 1940-41.
User avatar
Takao
Member
United States
 
Posts: 2174
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby nota on 04 Feb 2013 07:41

GRAND STRATEGIC what ?

the axis had no strategy grand or other wise

blunder in to a war hitler didNOT expect
not make the reds go in to poland first to see what if

there was no common goal for the axis
or any real combined strategy
and not much cooperation

example japan and italy provide the fleets needed to land troops in england
did they even war game it ?
hope for a quick end to the war that was about it for GRAND STRATEGIC ideas

the eastern occupation policy was perfect to raise partisan armys but not to gain anything useful
nota
Member
United States
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 16:35
Location: miami

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby ljadw on 04 Feb 2013 12:36

Alixanther wrote:
ljadw wrote:The claim that the populations of the conquered Western European countries (which means:France,Belgium,Holland) were spoiled with a high living standard,possibly higher than that of the US,is TOTAL NONSENS.The living standard of the US during the war was astronomically higher than the living standard in the conquered countries:,where there were shortages of everything,and where there were few or no jobs :millions were forced to go working in Germany.

It is the same for the claim that Germany was unwilling to give up its living standard for a total war :also nonsens.


Yep, right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

They had such a standard they rioted and the Establishment feld the need to use military force against them
instead of simply comply to their demands. Come on! ASTRONOMICALLY higher? I very much doubt it and reject it. There's no such equivalent in Germany (other than the Spartakist, which is a totally different movement from political reasons). And what's up with "millions were forced to go working"??? Would have been better not to have work to do? Stay idle and die from starvation? Beg on the streets? I don't get it.
If you plan on shouting "TOTAL NONSENS" al over again, at least please enlighten me with some numbers.






















South wrote: The rest is academic calibrations.


Warm regards,

Bob


I agree. It's what we did here, anyway :)


Numbers? You want numbers ?

Volunteers to go to work in Germany:
France :1 million
Italy:250000
Holland:100000
Denmark :185000
Belgium :185000

This is WITHOUT all those who were working for the Germans in their own country .
I know some one (he died last week) who in 1941 (at the age of 13) was working with his brother,father and uncle ,in France on a German airfield .Reason :there was no work at home,and,there still is none.
ljadw
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby LWD on 04 Feb 2013 16:02

Alixanther wrote:I could play my card your way too:

"The German economy was in some ways disfunctional". I'd like to see some sources for this.
"It is very disputable that it improved over time." I'd like to see some sources for this.

See Tooze Wages of Destruction
Normally that's considered a shotgun sourcing which isn't favored on this board but since the whole book is on that topic I think it's acceptable for now.
However, that's not my style. Disregard what's above and let's discuss.

It is however the "style" of these boards. If you make an assertion and are asked for sources you are suppose to provide them. The purpose of these boards is not to offer unsupported oppinions.
The "cooperation" you pretend was the case in US is due to plain, ole PROPAGANDA.

Take a look at the following if that's what you think:
http://www.history.army.mil/documents/mobpam.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... index.html
http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-21.htm
http://www.history.army.mil/documents/WWII/ww2mob.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/index.html

Of course, it wasn't compulsory like back there in Europe.

Why do you think that.

Rationing food or gasoline has nothing to do with economy efficiency and you know it very well.

It doesn't?
By the way, I didn't say "more efficient", I said a better output. Which has nothing to do with efficiency, or should I've said a BIGGER output.

But of course it does. If you have two economies that have equal potential then the more efficient one will produce more. If the larger one is also more efficient then it's got a huge edge.
No, mate, it's BETTER output, meaning they had less resources yet produced more stuff possibly less efficient than US, don't know, don't care, they simply produced more stuff related to their resources.

But they didn't produce "more stuff".
To summarize, if my assertion is still unclear, I simply stated that the % of Deutsches Reich economy involved into war material was bigger that the % of US economy.

You did not simply state this, you stated a fair amount more. There's also the question of just how important or even relevant this is. Whether it's accurate may also depend on just what point in time.
User avatar
LWD
Member
United States
 
Posts: 8558
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby Alixanther on 04 Feb 2013 17:15

ljadw wrote:
Alixanther wrote:
ljadw wrote:The claim that the populations of the conquered Western European countries (which means:France,Belgium,Holland) were spoiled with a high living standard,possibly higher than that of the US,is TOTAL NONSENS.The living standard of the US during the war was astronomically higher than the living standard in the conquered countries:,where there were shortages of everything,and where there were few or no jobs :millions were forced to go working in Germany.

It is the same for the claim that Germany was unwilling to give up its living standard for a total war :also nonsens.


Yep, right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

They had such a standard they rioted and the Establishment feld the need to use military force against them
instead of simply comply to their demands. Come on! ASTRONOMICALLY higher? I very much doubt it and reject it. There's no such equivalent in Germany (other than the Spartakist, which is a totally different movement from political reasons). And what's up with "millions were forced to go working"??? Would have been better not to have work to do? Stay idle and die from starvation? Beg on the streets? I don't get it.
If you plan on shouting "TOTAL NONSENS" al over again, at least please enlighten me with some numbers.


Numbers? You want numbers ?

Volunteers to go to work in Germany:
France :1 million
Italy:250000
Holland:100000
Denmark :185000
Belgium :185000

This is WITHOUT all those who were working for the Germans in their own country .
I know some one (he died last week) who in 1941 (at the age of 13) was working with his brother,father and uncle ,in France on a German airfield .Reason :there was no work at home,and,there still is none.


It's funny you give numbers of things irrelevant to your assertions (namely, that US had an ASTRONOMICALLY higher standard of living. While I never engaged into a "number war" myself (if you care to read what I've said I didn't say OCCUPIED countries enjoyed a high standard of living; I said that Europe at that time was spoiled with a relatively high standard of living PRIOR TO THAT which means the 3rd Reich could not treat their population the same way Stalin did: 24/7 round-the-clock working runs, eating and sleeping in the factory, dislocating whole towns and cities worth of population at a whim, and so on), I only rejected your grandiose vision about the ASTRONOMICALLY-belched US standard of living. You can't be serious to say that a country who shoots its former soldiers from a previous world war conflict while at peace ( in '32) is going to spoil their population during yet another world war conflict with showers of consumer goods.
Yes, the US standard of living might have been good enough to be comparable to Western-European countries prior to German occupation. It might even be higher than that. Certainly NOT astronomically higher than that. It's your fault if you misunderstood, next time you might read carefully before posting "NONSENS". :)
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby Alixanther on 04 Feb 2013 17:52

LWD:

Please read this fragment:

Although President Roosevelt neither shared nor pandered to this viewpoint, he understood the strength of the isolationist position. With one eye on his upcoming reelection bid in 1940, he acted carefully. Some of his New Deal supporters, notably labor leaders, feared that a preparedness drive centered on a powerful War Resources Administration would undermine much recent social legislation. So, rather than begin a massive central rearmament effort, he launched a limited preparedness campaign at the start of 1939, with his emphasis on increasing the striking power of the Army Air Corps.

And this one:

Although full-scale mobilization remained politically impossible, the government started the financial transition from parsimony to abundance.

Note the "politically impossible" aspect. You cannot wage a war without a cassus belli in a country hostile to extra-continental wars.

And this one:

A calculated risk, lend-lease ultimately delayed mobilization by reducing, for example, the number of aircraft available to the U.S. Army Air Corps; the program slowed training. Later foreign munitions aid also became a problem to other Army elements.

And this one:

At first, increases in the force for the protective mobilization plan and the procurement of the equipment to meet this expansion were made piecemeal. But the desperate need for a coherent plan became plain as the Army went through eight separate expenditure programs between August 1940 and June 1942. (...)

And this:

Troop construction ultimately mushroomed into a $7.5 billion program, but the lack of industrial facilities constituted a greater barrier to mobilization during the defense period. The Depression had created much idle but largely obsolete industrial capacity. With demand low, there had been no incentives to modernize. The government had to encourage industrial expansion before its armed forces were engaged.

6 months, huh? I wouldn't say so.

Other things:
I didn't say "more stuff" period. I said "more stuff related to their resources".
US economy could not be shifted to war "at a push of a button" because of the political situation, your own sources said it. I never said US couldn't have done it if they would (and probably with a 3rd Reich-style government they would). And you're right about whether this is important or relevant, I said "it never required to do so" myself.
Your piecemeal arguing style is much more effective against "targets" who pretend they know everything. I don't.
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby LWD on 04 Feb 2013 23:30

It's customary and infact required by this board I believe to give sources when you are quoting an article or web page. I'm not sure which of the sources I listed this is from but I'm pretty sure it's from one of them.
Alixanther wrote:LWD:

Please read this fragment:

Although President Roosevelt neither shared nor pandered to this viewpoint, he understood the strength of the isolationist position. With one eye on his upcoming reelection bid in 1940, he acted carefully. Some of his New Deal supporters, notably labor leaders, feared that a preparedness drive centered on a powerful War Resources Administration would undermine much recent social legislation. So, rather than begin a massive central rearmament effort, he launched a limited preparedness campaign at the start of 1939, with his emphasis on increasing the striking power of the Army Air Corps.

And this one:

Although full-scale mobilization remained politically impossible, the government started the financial transition from parsimony to abundance.

Note the "politically impossible" aspect. You cannot wage a war without a cassus belli in a country hostile to extra-continental wars.

And your point is? The US wasn't at war yet so why would you expect them to be have implemented a fully wartime economy. No one else did either that I can see.
And this one:

A calculated risk, lend-lease ultimately delayed mobilization by reducing, for example, the number of aircraft available to the U.S. Army Air Corps; the program slowed training. Later foreign munitions aid also became a problem to other Army elements.

Which doesn't speak to the US economy at all.

And this one:

At first, increases in the force for the protective mobilization plan and the procurement of the equipment to meet this expansion were made piecemeal. But the desperate need for a coherent plan became plain as the Army went through eight separate expenditure programs between August 1940 and June 1942. (...)

??? What is your point? The US started shifting to a wartime economy prior to the pointit enter the war. By 6 months after it entered all the pieces were in place. Germany certainly didn't do that well.

And this:

Troop construction ultimately mushroomed into a $7.5 billion program, but the lack of industrial facilities constituted a greater barrier to mobilization during the defense period. The Depression had created much idle but largely obsolete industrial capacity. With demand low, there had been no incentives to modernize. The government had to encourage industrial expansion before its armed forces were engaged.

6 months, huh? I wouldn't say so.

Which 6 months are you talking about to do what?
Other things:
I didn't say "more stuff" period. I said "more stuff related to their resources".

Did they? How do you define "more stuff" and how do you relate it to resources? And how is that important? And of critical importance over what time period? (The US for instance could have increased production of both tanks and aircraft in 44 and 45 but started cutting back because it realized they weren't needed)
US economy could not be shifted to war "at a push of a button" because of the political situation, your own sources said it.

Neither could the German, British, Soviet, Italian, French, etc.
I never said US couldn't have done it if they would (and probably with a 3rd Reich-style government they would).

You should have. No government can.
Your piecemeal arguing style is much more effective against "targets" who pretend they know everything. I don't.

It is an entirely reasonable style where what is said is important. You may get to the right answer using bad data and poor logic but it's not at all clear that you indeed have the right answer if that's how you did it. If you make a statement on this board that someone questions prepare to be challenged on it. If you can't back it up your better off sayings so and dropping it or better yet not saying it at all. If you are not sure of something ask a question rather than making a statement. It might help if you read the FAQs for this site. The moderators frequently make the point that these boards are not for just stating opinions.
Last edited by LWD on 05 Feb 2013 15:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LWD
Member
United States
 
Posts: 8558
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby Alixanther on 05 Feb 2013 08:34

Don't try to patronize me. Being able to quote from "serious" publications doesn't make you have an upper hand. Even if "these boards" assume a certain conduct, I don't think I've commited a crime by discussing things in a non-canon way.
You're much discussing a discussion here, instead of making a point.
You're asking me for clarification, you're asking me for making a point, you're pointing a finger saying what I DO NOT, but you're not setting an example. Step up with a flawless posting technique and I'll be happy to oblige.
Most discussions over this respected board give me the impression of a piss contest (a very articulate one, on sources, but nevertheless a piss contest) which has a trivial meaning and scope.
It's not this board fault, it's their posters'.
Then you have the nerve to reproach me what you're doing on a daily basis (not you yourself, it's the generic "you" so don't take it personally).
If you (this time I include your person in the generic "you") really want this boards to improve in communicating ideas and answers we better establish a methodology of the "critique".
It seems nobody is interested in establishing a true consensus THROUGH DISCUSSION. The only consensus I've witnessed here on these boards is when someone provides some data based "on hard evidence" and then everything you see is "consensus through silence" (everybody goes back to their holes and this starts somewhere else again). Have you ever admitted of being wrong on this forums? Were you always right? There, I thought so.
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby ljadw on 05 Feb 2013 10:07

Alixanther wrote:
ljadw wrote:
Alixanther wrote:
ljadw wrote:The claim that the populations of the conquered Western European countries (which means:France,Belgium,Holland) were spoiled with a high living standard,possibly higher than that of the US,is TOTAL NONSENS.The living standard of the US during the war was astronomically higher than the living standard in the conquered countries:,where there were shortages of everything,and where there were few or no jobs :millions were forced to go working in Germany.

It is the same for the claim that Germany was unwilling to give up its living standard for a total war :also nonsens.


Yep, right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

They had such a standard they rioted and the Establishment feld the need to use military force against them
instead of simply comply to their demands. Come on! ASTRONOMICALLY higher? I very much doubt it and reject it. There's no such equivalent in Germany (other than the Spartakist, which is a totally different movement from political reasons). And what's up with "millions were forced to go working"??? Would have been better not to have work to do? Stay idle and die from starvation? Beg on the streets? I don't get it.
If you plan on shouting "TOTAL NONSENS" al over again, at least please enlighten me with some numbers.


Numbers? You want numbers ?

Volunteers to go to work in Germany:
France :1 million
Italy:250000
Holland:100000
Denmark :185000
Belgium :185000

This is WITHOUT all those who were working for the Germans in their own country .
I know some one (he died last week) who in 1941 (at the age of 13) was working with his brother,father and uncle ,in France on a German airfield .Reason :there was no work at home,and,there still is none.


It's funny you give numbers of things irrelevant to your assertions (namely, that US had an ASTRONOMICALLY higher standard of living. While I never engaged into a "number war" myself (if you care to read what I've said I didn't say OCCUPIED countries enjoyed a high standard of living; I said that Europe at that time was spoiled with a relatively high standard of living PRIOR TO THAT which means the 3rd Reich could not treat their population the same way Stalin did: 24/7 round-the-clock working runs, eating and sleeping in the factory, dislocating whole towns and cities worth of population at a whim, and so on), I only rejected your grandiose vision about the ASTRONOMICALLY-belched US standard of living. You can't be serious to say that a country who shoots its former soldiers from a previous world war conflict while at peace ( in '32) is going to spoil their population during yet another world war conflict with showers of consumer goods.
Yes, the US standard of living might have been good enough to be comparable to Western-European countries prior to German occupation. It might even be higher than that. Certainly NOT astronomically higher than that. It's your fault if you misunderstood, next time you might read carefully before posting "NONSENS". :)


Every thing you are saying is wrong ,to begin with your claim that in 1932,the US Army was shooting on the veterans,which would mean several dead and wounded by bullets.
And,yes,during the war,the US standard of living was astronomically higher than the standard of living of the countries occupied by Germany .
ljadw
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mista

Postby KDF33 on 05 Feb 2013 10:13

Hello Alixanther,

Pretty much any kind of vigorous discussion takes the form of a "pissing contest", "articulate" polish or not. It doesn't mean that some arguments aren't better than others, even if at it's core everyone is more trying to win the argument than to find the truth (a judgement which would, IMO, be excessive cynicism if applied without caveats). People don't like losing, and will rarely admit being wrong, especially if there's absolutely no cost in not doing so, so "consensus through silence" is probably the best you can hope for. With that being said, I'll mention that LWD has close to 8,000 posts, so I'm pretty sure that a) You haven't read all of them, b) On some on them, he probably admits being wrong and / or lacking knowledge in a certain area, so accusing him of thinking he is always right sounds really specious to me.

Fundamentally, I think that the reason why everyone is kind of "piling up" on you in this thread is that the point your trying to make isn't clear. You previously claimed that it was simply that the U.S. was proportionally less mobilized for war than Germany, which is probably true (with some caveats), but you in fact went much further, arguing that such a difference in total mobilization meant that "under some conditions" one or the other belligerent could have defeated the other, i.e. that they were roughly comparable. You also argued, somewhat confusingly considering the previous argument, that Germany couldn't effectively mobilize for "total war" because Europe's population was "spoiled". Lastly, you seem to have claimed that the U.S. couldn't effectively mobilize like Germany because of political / "spoiling" considerations, while giving as evidence Roosevelt's considerations in the pre-war period when, obviously, political considerations still weighted heavily.

Regarding this comment,
Being able to quote from "serious" publications doesn't make you have an upper hand. Even if "these boards" assume a certain conduct, I don't think I've commited a crime by discussing things in a non-canon way.


You've obviously committed no crime, but if you argue a point without source material to back you up, it's kind of difficult to see what kind of discussion you are expecting. If you claim something and then someone disagrees with you, but have absolutely nothing to reply but "I restate my claim", the conversation will just go in a full circle. It's not bad faith on the part of LWD or the other forumers, it's just that your claims are unsupported.
KDF33
Member
Canada
 
Posts: 477
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

PreviousNext

Return to WW2 in general

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests