Why did Germany lose World War II?

[bf109 emil]

....
I noticed that people that advocate the notion that the Wehrmacht wasn't superior, that it was a myth, are always Anglo Saxons (for example, JonS, Rich, Enigma, LWD, are Anglo Saxons), while the people that defend the opposite, are from other countries, most of the time ....

Wrong in at least two ways.
1) I'm not Anglo Saxon.
2) The whole concept of saying one military is superior to another is only significant if you have a clear, consistent, and agreeable defintion of what "superior" means. Such does not exist here and any number of reasonable definitions of the term do not support your contention.

Your use of bad data and flawed logic also don't help your case much.

Economists...nuff said

[Guaporense]

Some flaming here.

I expected nothing else. Rich was specially aggressive.

The definition of Anglo Saxon that I used was the open definition (we use it in Brazil): If you were born in a English speaking family in a English speaking country, you are Anglo Saxon. We call the US/Canada block the Anglo Saxon America, while the rest is called Latin America.

I think it was quite obvious that I used in that definition. Though I can be wrong (that's culture shock).

[bf109 emil]

If you were born in a English speaking family, you are Anglo Saxon.

really, my grand kids where born in Germany to English speaking parents...well at least they are able to refrain from being labeled German by your definition and thankfully can be touted as Anglo Saxon, although that's not what their Birth certificate says.

[Guaporense]

I haven't used Abelshauser's figures for calculating these numbers.

I didn't suggest that you did. I just take continued issue with your claims re German production efficiency - a claim which you first canvassed by making reference to Abelshauser's figures.

Claims about the 100% increase of efficiency between 1941 and 1944? Well, I don't see a problem about that. Could you point me to some criticism of it? I haven't read anything about it.

I have used Goldsmith's 1946 estimates of total munitions production and total employment in the munitions industry as second to Mark Harrison estimates for the USSR (using the British classification system), US, Germany and UK.

I note your preference for using old secondary sources over more up-to-date analysis.

I do not know any other estimates of munitions production in terms of dollar value, so that they could be compared between countries.

I would surely like to have other estimates.

That aside, you do note that Goldsmith substantially bases his numbers for German munitions production on the very same USSBS figures which you yourself take issue with?

Take issue? I took issue about the USSBS estimates of the impact of strategic bombing over German war production.

The USSBS statistics of German war production are taken from German sources.

Actually, I think that these figures understate the German productivity and overstate the Soviet productivity. That's because they assumed that German total war production was roughly of the same size as the USSR's (it was a bit higher actually).

To quote Goldsmith '...Figures for the USSR are derived from published figures on total defense expenditures and scattered information of expenditures on nonmunitions items. They are then adjusted on the assumption of a slight downward trend in munitions prices...'*

How firm conclusions do you think you can base on that? An economist might make a lot out of it (cue frantic arm-waving); to a historian conclusions made on such basis is worth fuck all.

Goldsmith was an economic historian. Those types like to make estimates out of anything. The usefulness of estimates is always above zero. Though one should be able to interpret it correctly.

Also, Goldsmith based his estimates on the fact that the USSR produced 40,000 planes in 1944, while the US produced 96,000. So his estimate was that USSR's munitions production in 1944 were 40% of the US's, with he cross checked with his estimates of expenditures on munitions.

Considering that the two estimates fit, they cannot be too wrong (i would give a margin of error from 35% of the US to 45%).

Also, about the increase in productivity of German war production: Yes, it was real.

Prove it :roll:

My estimate about the productivity of airframe and aero engine plans between 1941 and 1944:



An 105.8% increase in productivity between mid 1941 and mid 1944 in airframe plans, and 35.6% increase in productivity in aero engine plants between January 1942 and march 1944.

Sources for the data is the USSBS report on the German aircraft industry, (http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/document/index/150/200).

Tooze claims it was a statistical illusion, but them his book shows that the time taken to produce a Me-109 airframe declined from 7,000 hours to 2,000 hours. It was natural: British and American productivity increased as well.

Economies of scale: a concept pionereed in American industry and well known to all WW2 combatants.

The main factor was not the existence of economies of scale. It was the process of learning that takes place with time, as time passes, the people involved learn how to optimize production. Since the armament industries were much smaller before the war, this sector was a new economy during the war, and hence productivity increased as time passed.

This effect occurred for all participants of WW2.

Economies of scale explain why productivity increased with greater scale, not why productivity increases with the passage of time in a new industry.

The adoption of mass production methods and the economies of scale derived are perhaps one measure that is learned during the process of learning that takes place with the passage of time.

I've suggested you read Tooze before. I hope you get round to doing it sometime.

I am sorry?

*From Raymond W. Goldsmith The Power of Victory: Munitions Output in World War II, Military Affairs, vol. 10, no. 1 (Spring 1946), pp 72n

It may be an unknown concept to you, but historians - and by extension participants in historical debates - provide precise references for their claims. That way you can check and cross-check their claims for yourself. But what would an Economics student know about that.

Well, this is quite an informal discussion on the Internet. But if the rules are to make reference to specific pages for any point data, I will follow them.

[Guaporense]

If you were born in a English speaking family, you are Anglo Saxon.

really, my grand kids where born in Germany to English speaking parents...well at least they are able to refrain from being labeled German by your definition and thankfully can be touted as Anglo Saxon, although that's not what their Birth certificate says.

I modified the definition: English speaking family and country.

[bf109 emil]

If you were born in a English speaking family, you are Anglo Saxon.

really, my grand kids where born in Germany to English speaking parents...well at least they are able to refrain from being labeled German by your definition and thankfully can be touted as Anglo Saxon, although that's not what their Birth certificate says.

I modified the definition: English speaking family and country.

aw you mean my grand kids are not Anglo Saxons, but really Krauts?

[Guaporense]

The simple fact is that the German military had been preparing, training, organising, and expanding at a greater rate than either French or British. The French military had a defensive doctrine, relied on half trained reservists, was incapable of offensive fighting and the British military needed time to expand.

6 years before, the Allies had much bigger defense budgets than the Germans, as result they accumulated a stocks of munitions, while Germany needed to make up for the difference. They managed to reduce the difference by 1940, but the Allies still had greater quantities of guns, tanks and aircraft.

France had defensive doctrine, since that was the way France won WW1. The relative degree of training between German and Allied forces in May 1940 has been compared in any of the books that you mentioned? German forces weren't fully trained as well.

Most of the German divisions weren't fully trained in 1940 and they had to use training tanks in 1940.

Just how many of the British and French divisions were fully trained? The French, as stated repeatly, manpower came from reservists - who had been trained as far as back as the 20s! The British fighting power was also based - but to a lesser extent - on the reservists and the TA; the former had men as far back as 13 years and the latter had been underfunded for 20 years - both arms needed time, granted the British regulars were well trained (although repeatly noted by historians not to the extent of their fathers and grandfathers of the first BEF) but were spread around the globe. Again documented facts - go read David French, or PHM Bell.

So, to be considered prepared for the Germans in May 1940 what would you need? All soldiers under training for 2 years before the German offensive?

Considering they had no intention of beating the German military in 1940 your position has just been made null and boid right there.

No, it hasn't.

What numerical superiority do you need to defeat an opponent when you plan to fight a defensive war and halt them were they stand?

You need a smaller degree of numerical superiority to fight a defensive war than to be on the offensive.

The fact you dont want to - or at least dont seem to - recognise the concept of schwerpunkt also poo poos your postion.

The implication that I don't want/seem to recognize this concept does not follow from my post.

Further more, how did the French and British employ their tanks compared to the Germans? Should we also take into considerion that the French airforce was outdated when compared to the RAF or Luftwaffe? Should we also note that the British bomber force was somewhat outdated as well - just look what happened to the advanced strike force. Should we even look at doctrine, the make up of divisions, how the men were used, the breakdown between frontline and rearline troops, how many men were cooks etc?

So, for my argument that the Allies were prepared in may 1940 you say that they should have had 100% up to date airforces, 100% up to date soldiers and equipment?

That was the situation of the western allies in 1944. Never was the situation of the Germans.

Well, the fact is that your "arguments" are not convincing. Simply because you fail to understand that ready for war doesn't equal the position of the US in 1944.

Who gives two hoots about the USA in 1944, that is the biggest red herring i have ever seen! (It is this big!!!) We are talking about the battle of france and how you do not want to accept the French and British were not ready for war they needed time to organise, train, fully mobilise etc etc

There is not such think as being "ready" for war in your definition. You can always point that something could be improved.

The fact is that the Allies were preparing for the war with the Germans for years before May 1940. That they were at war with the Germans for 8 months, they they mobilized roughly the same proportion of their population into the armed forces by May 1940 and that the quantities of equipment that both sides had were proportional to their industrial potential.

German military expenditures in proportion to national income were larger than of the Allies for the 1935-1938 period, but the Allies had greater military expenditures in proportion to national income than the Germans for the 1920-1934 period.

I don't. I read them and think about it

.

Am pretty sure that last bit is open to debate ...

You don't get tired of personal offenses?

[Guaporense]

If you were born in a English speaking family, you are Anglo Saxon.

really, my grand kids where born in Germany to English speaking parents...well at least they are able to refrain from being labeled German by your definition and thankfully can be touted as Anglo Saxon, although that's not what their Birth certificate says.

I modified the definition: English speaking family and country.

aw you mean my grand kids are not Anglo Saxons, but really Krauts?

If they speak German at home and at school, consider themselves as part of that country, well.... What better term I can use to describe Americans, Canadians, British, Aussies and New Zealanders?

[JonS]

What better term I can use to describe Americans, Canadians, British, Aussies and New Zealanders?

The Good Guys™
alternately
The Ones With A Clue™

[bf109 emil]

economically Germany had no chance as economical resources for assets pertaining to Germany where almost nil in 1938. Without the annexing of Austria, the looting of Czechoslovakia, the forceful governing of Bohemia and Moraine, which helped the Nazi coffers pillage other nations gold reserves, along with the illegal seizure of assets from individual victims, the raping of materials, labor and resources from Poland, Holland, Belgium, France...and an artificial inflation of the mark in trading for raw materials along with the shady bank dealings of Switzerland to launder plundered gold reserves, money...Germany would not have survived, let alone the Nazi regimes ability to govern come 1939. source reel 128 frames 176-332http://www.archives.gov/research/holoca ... g-242.html

a list of nazi laws in order to obtain illegal money from Jewish assetshttp://www.crt-ii.org/nazi_laws.phtm

but hey here is even a greater list of holocaust assets Germany used and added to their coffers in order to portray the illusion of being economically sound while relying on confiscated and pillaged loot...be warned though their are 8 pages each listing around 50 different companies and holding per page...what a haul for the Reich through tyranny of others in order to paint an illusion of economicshttp://www.archives.gov/research/holoca ... 26-3d.html

records of Germany's illegal banking and laundering of money can be sourced from the 3 volumes...
FRUS, 1944, Vol. II, pp. 213-251. "Concern of the United States over Enemy Attempts to Secrete Funds or Other Assets in Neutral Countries; Inception of the Safehaven Program."

FRUS, 1945, Vol. II, pp. 852-932. "Concern of the United States over Enemy Attempts to Secrete Funds or Other Assets in Neutral Countries; Implementation of the Safehaven Program."

FRUS, 1946, Vol. V, pp. 202-220. "Implementation of the Safehaven Program; Negotiation of Accords with Switzerland and Sweden on Liquidation of German External Assets in their Countries."

Nazi Expropriation (Aryanization) of Jewish Property...http://edwardvictor.com/Holocaust/expro ... n_main.htm

The Holocaust – Economic Exploitationhttp://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... index.html

shall i continue, or does the myth Nazi Germany was an independent and economically self sustained running with no reliance of seized assets, plundered loot and unfair trade policy's seem rather comical and both necessary as for without these illegally obtained assets, the Reich as we know it was both poorly ran, managed, and economically inferior to Allied economies.

But i am sure Guapranes, being an economist and showing no bias towards either Germany or an allied country could tell you the same thing...Oh wait are economists actually non-bias and base decisions rationally or do they tend to favor one side or another such as Germany when making posts? tsk tsk as an economist should be totally non-partial.

Guaporense wrote:What better term I can use to describe Americans, Canadians, British, Aussies and New Zealanders?

Non losers of 2 world wars would be one.

[The_Enigma]

Some flaming here.

I expected nothing else. Rich was specially aggressive.

The definition of Anglo Saxon that I used was the open definition (we use it in Brazil): If you were born in a English speaking family in a English speaking country, you are Anglo Saxon. We call the US/Canada block the Anglo Saxon America, while the rest is called Latin America.

I think it was quite obvious that I used in that definition. Though I can be wrong (that's culture shock).

So what about our Celtic origins? The Roman invasion and the Roman Empire? The Vikings? The Jutes? The Picts? The Normans? Our French connection? Our European connection? The Scots? The Welsh? The Irish? The Dutch? The Germans? The various peoples of the British Empire?

And the fact we are British not Anglo-Saxons ....

[ljadw]

Some flaming here.

I expected nothing else. Rich was specially aggressive.

The definition of Anglo Saxon that I used was the open definition (we use it in Brazil): If you were born in a English speaking family in a English speaking country, you are Anglo Saxon. We call the US/Canada block the Anglo Saxon America, while the rest is called Latin America.

I think it was quite obvious that I used in that definition. Though I can be wrong (that's culture shock).

So what about our Celtic origins? The Roman invasion and the Roman Empire? The Vikings? The Jutes? The Picts? The Normans? Our French connection? Our European connection? The Scots? The Welsh? The Irish? The Dutch? The Germans? The various peoples of the British Empire?

And the fact we are British not Anglo-Saxons ....

Please,don't ask G these difficult questions
OTOH:for a lot of people,there is no difference between English,British,Anglo Saxon ,I know,the Irish,Scots,Welsh will not be happy,bur,fortunate for G,he lives in Brazil,thus the risk of meeting an angry Scot,Welshman or Irishman is insignificant .

[The_Enigma]

6 years before, the Allies had much bigger defense budgets than the Germans, as result they accumulated a stocks of munitions, while Germany needed to make up for the difference. They managed to reduce the difference by 1940, but the Allies still had greater quantities of guns, tanks and aircraft.

So in essence, you have ignored the point raised. :roll:

France had defensive doctrine, since that was the way France won WW1.

So the various French offensives had nothing to do with it? The initial attempt to barge stright into Germany, the counterattacks that ended the Verdun battle, their asaults during the Somme, their contributions to the Hundred Days offensive?

No, they had a defenseive doctrine because of the heavy losses incurred in the First World War, the want to ensure the Germans never set foot on French soil, the want to avoid the same level of bloodshed. Coupled with the fact that they had a conscript army and had to increase the year of service due to the fallign population i.e. there wasnt enough men in each year to conscript to keepthe Army at the same size.

So, to be considered prepared for the Germans in May 1940 what would you need? All soldiers under training for 2 years before the German offensive?

Would you like to come back with some sort of logical, thought out response than ... pure crap?

No, it hasn't.

Actually it pretty much did.

You need a smaller degree of numerical superiority to fight a defensive war than to be on the offensive.

So you have admited your talking shit

The implication that I don't want/seem to recognize this concept does not follow from my post.

It does since you keep talking about every single body with a rifle spread along a 1,000 mile front - when most of the fighting occured in a relevelty short read led by the German panzer spearheads.

So, for my argument that the Allies were prepared in may 1940 you say that they should have had 100% up to date airforces, 100% up to date soldiers and equipment?

No it renders the stright up comparison of figures useless. If you have an outclassed airforce it doesnt matter how many planes you have if the other side are going to swat them down, it doesnt matter how many tanks you have unless they are concetrated etc etc

The fact is that the Allies were preparing for the war with the Germans for years before May 1940. That they were at war with the Germans for 8 months, they they mobilized roughly the same proportion of their population into the armed forces by May 1940 and that the quantities of equipment that both sides had were proportional to their industrial potential.

Wrong on so many levels: the western allies had attempted to avoid war for the entire 1920-30 year period. Yes they had started to rearm but as noted by the outdated equippement and half completed material orders they were not ready for war when it landed.

So you retreat back to your assertion that the French and British mobolised to the same levels the Germans did however once again you hae simpley ignored the points raised that question the worthness of that stat. In those eight months how many of the French conscript reservists had recieved the full level of training to make them fit, trained and equipped for war?

How many of them had been fully organised? What level of organisation was the French army at when the Germans launched their attack - i would suggest probably only their northern forces were ready and able since this was their best divisions. The second/third class units the Germans smashed through during their encirclement, what was their readness?

How many of the British regular and TA reservists had recieved their full level of retraining? Where they all rearmed during this time period? Were these men able to be trained in the use of mobile warfare in time per British army doctirne? Was a decade of underfunding overcame in eight months?

Just what defensive preperations were the northern army group able to make considering they moved into Belgium on the outbreak of the war? Just how many of these men were ready?

German military expenditures in proportion to national income were larger than of the Allies for the 1935-1938 period, but the Allies had greater military expenditures in proportion to national income than the Germans for the 1920-1934 period.

So the bi-planes and early tanks, the outdated guns and trucks etc spent with this money was a godsend when they had to march to war agaisnt the well funded (funded in regardless to the national econemy) German military - that had recent battle experience and generally more modern equipment? :roll:

You don't get tired of personal offenses?

Do you get tired of having your posts ripped apart by everyone?

[The_Enigma]

What better term I can use to describe Americans, Canadians, British, Aussies and New Zealanders?

The Ones With A Clue™

Instant classic!

Please,don't ask G these difficult questions

Sorry!

[bf109 emil]

The fact is that the Allies were preparing for the war with the Germans for years before May 1940. That they were at war with the Germans for 8 months, they they mobilized roughly the same proportion of their population into the armed forces by May 1940 and that the quantities of equipment that both sides had were proportional to their industrial potential.

Na i think Germany learned the industrial potential of Britain later with the flattening of Cologne, Hamburg, Vienna, Nuremberg, Ruhr dams, Berlin was a nice city by early 1945 a symbol of the reich power, lovely remains of Dresden, the sinking of countless submarines, ending the 1 and only sortie of the Bismarck, tirpitz turning turtle, punting the AK out of Afirca...na i think Nazi Germany painted a portrait that they defeated an industrious and equal foe being Great Britain by allowing a meagre token force of fighting men (BEF) as having done something spectacular...but perhaps a short while later and with the industrial potential of the United Kingdom playing possum we are now able to look directly as superior German industrial potential first hand. Cologne
Hamburg
Cologne
Dresden
Nuremberg the town to hold rallys...lol
Berlin, aw Hitlers germania...