Barbarossa

[rendulic]

I see a lot of (insoluble) problems
1)sowing :who would do it ? What about seedling? What about tractors,thus fuel ?
2)conservation of the harvest:how ? fuel for heating ,guards
3)transport of the harvest :for 1 million tons,one would need 2500 trains:where would Germany get these trains and the staff,and the coal,...?
4)if all that grain and meat would arrive in Germany,the results on the prices for the German farmers would be very adverse
etc

A lot of supposition which clearly illustrates that you have not done any reading to ascertain what was effectively done in the area of economic exploitation.

[ljadw]

I am not a general

[steverodgers801]

Most of the food gained during the conflict was used to supply the German army in Russia. The Germans used the Kolkohlz in place and continued the Soviet practices of forced labor. Germany actually received less food during the occupation then before.

[Posthumousdecay]

good point, the Germans did exploit everything possible as fast as possible, can't forget all the livestock and food that was already harvested. Its not like they attained nothing at all from initial invasion. These are the same people who exploited the Jews for every possible gain imaginable, from gold teeth, to hair,skin, and even their ashes for fertilizer. If there was anything to be gained i'm sure they found and used it to the maximum.

[waldzee]

I see a lot of (insoluble) problems
1)sowing :who would do it ? What about seedling? What about tractors,thus fuel ?
2)conservation of the harvest:how ? fuel for heating ,guards
3)transport of the harvest :for 1 million tons,one would need 2500 trains:where would Germany get these trains and the staff,and the coal,...?
4)if all that grain and meat would arrive in Germany,the results on the prices for the German farmers would be very adverse
etc

A lot of supposition which clearly illustrates that you have not done any reading to ascertain what was effectively done in the area of economic exploitation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even for our fav. onboard Sock puppet, that is rather -lame...
If you can't answer an economist- try SILENCE
Meanwhile read the board rules= general...

Da General writes:
"That is not true as it was exploited very quickly. Hitler arguing against the giving up of the Donets area and the Nikopol area in 1943 are suffient illustration of this. He even argued that without the Donets area the war effort could not be sustained.|

AFAIKR, the syn fuel & fertilizer plants planned for the Ukraine were not completed. Very little of the damaged industrial plant was restored. Your view of Koch's administration as a success is , at best , uninformed.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... becker.htm
Read it, please.

[rendulic]

Hitlers refusal of considering the idea of abandoning the Donets for reasons of war economy is part of the story of the decisionmaking before Kursk. Among others, neatly mentioned in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 Die Ostfront 1943/1944 Der Krieg im Osten und an den Nebenfronten, DVA 2011 pp 61-62.

[waldzee]

A number of us, Ijadw & others, spend a lot of time providing easily accessable references to refine, or in rare cases , refute some 'dubious history'.
I am cutting back my posts to a minimun, as I am tired of oddball challenges that flout the Board rules of research.

"Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 Die Ostfront 1943/1944 Der Krieg im Osten und an den Nebenfronten, DVA 2011 pp 61-62. " is not an accessable source.

[Marcus Wendel]

Everyone, drop the personal remarks and stay on topic. If you think a post or poster is violating the guidelines, report it using the "!" button in the post instead of making the problem worse by commenting in the thread.

/Marcus

[rendulic]

A number of us, Ijadw & others, spend a lot of time providing easily accessable references to refine, or in rare cases , refute some 'dubious history'.
I am cutting back my posts to a minimun, as I am tired of oddball challenges that flout the Board rules of research.

"Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 Die Ostfront 1943/1944 Der Krieg im Osten und an den Nebenfronten, DVA 2011 pp 61-62. " is not an accessable source.

The book I referred to is actually a volume of what can be considered the official german history of the second world war.
Easy to get on amazon.de . Those that are well informed will know this voluminous series to which among others contributed Karl-Heinz Frieser who is wellknown to those that know german historians.
I therefore suspect you consider it alledgedly not easily accessible because it is in german.

[ljadw]

the general still is not be able to give us informations on what the occupied territories were yielding to Germany,and,how much Germany had to invest for every RM that it received from the occupied territories of the SU .

[ljadw]

I have the book in question,and it is NOT giving any information about the importance of the manganese ore of Nikopol,or the power plant of Zaporoz'e.

[rendulic]

I have the book in question,and it is NOT giving any information about the importance of the manganese ore of Nikopol,or the power plant of Zaporoz'e.

Not a smart move by you as notes 3, and 4 at the bottom of pages 61 and 62 do give exactly that information. Under note 3 Bernd Wegnerr writes that Hitlers attitude got support from the chief of the Wehrmachtwirtschaftsstabes(Ausl) who stated on 31.03.1943 that the loss of Saporoshje would mean the breaking down of the war economical power not only of the area to the east of the Dnjepr but also to the west of the Dnjepr.
Under note 4 Wegner writes that ,in spite of the fact that the manganese production was only half of that before the war, it could still cover the entire need of the Reich for manganese.
These notes are sourced to two books on german economic policy, including Geschichte der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft, Eichhloz,vol. 2.
These notes concern the mention by Wegner of the rejecting by Hitler in the beginning of 1943 of the propsal to give up terrain because he particularly considered the coal of Stalino, the powerplant of Saporoshe and the manganese ore of Nikopol of decisive importance. According to Hitler the loss of ore would in itself mean the losss of the war. This statement is sourced to the war diary of Armygroup South.

[rendulic]

It is ironic that ljadw, who normally considers anything Hitler said or did as gospel, here actually completely contradicts him.
Obviously Hitler was overstating the case when he said to Manstein that germany would lose the war if it lost the Donets area but the statement certainly implies that it was contributing to the german war effort. And as mentioned in the source given, he did have support for what he said.

[waldzee]

A number of us, Ijadw & others, spend a lot of time providing easily accessable references to refine, or in rare cases , refute some 'dubious history'.
I am cutting back my posts to a minimun, as I am tired of oddball challenges that flout the Board rules of research.

"Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 Die Ostfront 1943/1944 Der Krieg im Osten und an den Nebenfronten, DVA 2011 pp 61-62. " is not an accessable source.

The book I referred to is actually a volume of what can be considered the official german history of the second world war.
Easy to get on amazon.de . Those that are well informed will know this voluminous series to which among others contributed Karl-Heinz Frieser who is wellknown to those that know german historians.
I therefore suspect you consider it alledgedly not easily accessible because it is in german.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your inablity to post any supporting on line links leads me to believe that you are selectively interpeting passages to support another 'Unkel Adoph's Kabun' account denying the looting of Ukraine.
My German is sketchy. My Father's was extremely good. So, good, he was detailed to interview death camp guards in April 1945.
Revisionist Anti bellum pap pulp has a certain following...but is not considered acceptable for posting on this board.

[Urmel]

A number of us, Ijadw & others, spend a lot of time providing easily accessable references to refine, or in rare cases , refute some 'dubious history'.
I am cutting back my posts to a minimun, as I am tired of oddball challenges that flout the Board rules of research.

"Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 Die Ostfront 1943/1944 Der Krieg im Osten und an den Nebenfronten, DVA 2011 pp 61-62. " is not an accessable source.

The book I referred to is actually a volume of what can be considered the official german history of the second world war.
Easy to get on amazon.de . Those that are well informed will know this voluminous series to which among others contributed Karl-Heinz Frieser who is wellknown to those that know german historians.
I therefore suspect you consider it alledgedly not easily accessible because it is in german.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your inablity to post any supporting on line links leads me to believe its just another 'Unkel Adoph's Kabun' account of the looting of Ukraine.
My German is sketchy. My Father's was extremely good. So, good, he was detailed to interview death camp guards in April 1945.
Revisionist Anti bellum pap pulp has a certain following...

Let me help you out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_an ... _World_War

Yes, that's a better source than the Air Force studies, or Wikipedia, even though its not online. For some, accessability does not beat quality of content. Yet.