Opening days of Barbarossa

[ljadw]

The WM had in the summer of 1942 8.7 million men ,while there were also 5.1 million workers who were fit for the war but were declared indespensible in their functiion (the "UK " persons ) . In june 1941,the WM had some 7.2 million men :the manpower which was available in 1941 was lower .
For 1943,the Germans planned to call up the class 1925 (485000 men fit for the front and 110000 not fit) and 1.5 million men from the Heimat (UK men) : the result was a failure .

The manpower situation was in 1942 already that bad that Hitler gave the order to send to the front men who were condemned by the military justice and also the so-called Wehrunwürdige (men of whom the reliability was unsure,or men who had a suspected grand-father from a racial POV ).

[Alixanther]

ljawd, you're contradicting yourself. First you say there are obvious reasons why '44 manpower was bigger than '41 manpower (and you gave a ridiculous explanation which I'll come back to) then you say that Germany depleted its manpower sincer 41-42.

In order to a country manpower to increase there should be an increase of its population and Germany's population throughput (if I may express this way) stayed quite constant during the conflict. Losses were compensated by enlisting more and more bodies of population which became available naturally, as time passes, and so on.
If class 24 was "available" in 44, how could it not have been available in 41? Not to mention that - following the same logic - in 41 WH had at its disposition class 21, 22, 23, 24 - there, I gave you the same argument. What gives?
What makes you think that '44 manpower was bigger that '41 manpower? Were classes 25, 26, 27 bigger that classes 21, 22, 23? I doubt it.

[ljadw]

In order to a country manpower to increase there should be an increase of its population and Germany's population throughput (if I may express this way) stayed quite constant during the conflict.


If class 24 was "available" in 44, how could it not have been available in 41? .

1)This is wrong :the increase of the available manpower had nothing to do with the increase of the population


2)Sigh : the class 24 was called up in 1942,25 in 1943,26 in 1943 and 1944 :these classes could not be called up in 1941,because they were to young : 17,16,15.

Besides,the call up of a class was not only depending on the military necessities,but also on the possibility of the Ersatzheer to train these men,and this possibility was limited .

And,in all countries,a class was called up only partially ,because ,a lot of the men of a class who were declared fit for the armed forces,were not called up because they were needed in the Heimat .And,there was the problem (for Germany) that a lot of classes were largely untrained at the start of the war and were thus not available for the WM .(the classes 1900-1913)

In may 1940,the WM had a strength of 4.2 million men,while France had mobilized 5.5 million men .This proves that you can't use population figures to define available manpower .

Between may 1940 and june 1941,the WM called up 3 million men (losses not included) : these 3 million were not available in may 1940,otherwise they would have been called up before may 1940.

The same for 1942 : 1.5 million men were called up between 1941 and 1942:they were not available in 1942

The same for 1944 : 2 million men were called up between 1942 and 1944 (losses not included):they were not available in 1944.

Manpower is not something static but something dynamic .

[Alixanther]

My man, you don't know (or you obstinately ignore) the difference between manpower and military power. Military power is fluid, manpower never is.
You continue to mix and match these 2 different notions, hoping to sustain your ideas, which - for the love of God - I cannot figure out what they are.

The increase of population (men and women) are in direct proportion with the increase of manpower (man - power). Until WW2 especially men were recruited, in some special instances women.
The game you're playing using Wehmacht policy of bringing up classes for recruitment is a zero-sum game: it's obvious that if you don't recruit a class, that's remains available for a subsequent year. Also, if you recruit it, it's obviously not available anymore. However, these are details regarding military power (the amount of the military) not the manpower (the total available and recruitable people in that country).

I don't necessarily deny (nor I necesarrily agree) with your numbers and details, since they do not disprove my point.
I said that one country's manpower stays the same on average in a short period of time, because humans are not rats or insects. You're keen on demonstrating the opposite, using false terms, employed in false relationships, reaching - obviously - wrong conclusions.

[ljadw]

I said that one country's manpower stays the same on average in a short period of time.

And you are wrong : in 1939,Belgium mobilised 600000 men,during the whole WWI,it never mobilised even 300000 men .In 1939 the available Belgian manpower was more than the double than in 1914 .

[Alixanther]

I said that one country's manpower stays the same on average in a short period of time.

And you are wrong : in 1939,Belgium mobilised 600000 men,during the whole WWI,it never mobilised even 300000 men .In 1939 the available Belgian manpower was more than the double than in 1914 .

Geez, you're thick. There was no time to mobilize that much in WW1. Read more of the context and you'll understand why this was the case. Not to mention that in 39 they already had the "experience" beforehands and tried to prevent the way they could.

[ljadw]

No : even if they had the time to mobilize that much in WWI,it would be impossible,because :in august 1914,the available manpower was lower than in 1939 ,there were in 1914 less trained men available than in 1939.

And,about the Germans: in WWII,the available manpower was evoluating from month to month : on 15 april 1942 the Germans started with the call up of the class 1923,something which took several months,at the end,the available manpower was increased by some 500000.

It was the same for the US : on 8 december 1941,the available manpower was 1.7 million me, (standing forces) + a small number of trained reservists.In september 1945,the available manpower of the US was more than 12 million (all belonging to the standing forces).

For Germany : on 14 april 1942,the class 1923 was not available : these man were not called up and not trained .

[Alixanther]

No : even if they had the time to mobilize that much in WWI,it would be impossible,because :in august 1914,the available manpower was lower than in 1939 ,there were in 1914 less trained men available than in 1939.

And,about the Germans: in WWII,the available manpower was evoluating from month to month : on 15 april 1942 the Germans started with the call up of the class 1923,something which took several months,at the end,the available manpower was increased by some 500000.

It was the same for the US : on 8 december 1941,the available manpower was 1.7 million me, (standing forces) + a small number of trained reservists.In september 1945,the available manpower of the US was more than 12 million (all belonging to the standing forces).

For Germany : on 14 april 1942,the class 1923 was not available : these man were not called up and not trained .

I could settle to "Less". Obviously Belgium (like many other European nations) had a slight increase of manpower during the first half of the century. And how do you know exactly about the manpower of Belgium in 1914? Have you counted them all?

Then you "switch" back to military power. German MILITARY POWER was evolving from month to month: they called up whatever class, so on and so forth. Their MILITARY POWER increased by some 500k. Their manpower stayed the same (the German males switched civilian clothes with military ones).

The manpower of U.S. was considerably larger than Germany. Their MILITARY POWER was at 1.7 million (to quote you) and in 1945 (also quoting you) their MILITARY POWER was more than 12 million.
During all this time, their manpower roughly stayed the same. See the difference between manpower and MILITARY POWER?

[ljadw]

The difference between manpower and military power is an arteficial one .

Before 1914,Belgium planned to mobilize in case of war 6 ID ,because there was no manpower enough for more divisions .

Before 1939,Belgium decided to mobilize in case of war 22 ID,because the available manpower was bigger than before 1914.

In 1914,the available manpower was small because only a small part of the préwar classes had been called up in peacetime ,and only a part of this small part was called up in 1914.
My grand-father never was called up in peacetime (he was the youngest of 4 brothers) and his three brothers,who had done their military service,were not mobilised in 1914 .

[Alixanther]

The difference between manpower and military power is an arteficial one .

Before 1914,Belgium planned to mobilize in case of war 6 ID ,because there was no manpower enough for more divisions .

Before 1939,Belgium decided to mobilize in case of war 22 ID,because the available manpower was bigger than before 1914.

In 1914,the available manpower was small because only a small part of the préwar classes had been called up in peacetime ,and only a part of this small part was called up in 1914.
My grand-father never was called up in peacetime (he was the youngest of 4 brothers) and his three brothers,who had done their military service,were not mobilised in 1914 .

No, the difference is quite obvious but you're either too stubborn or too superficial to admit it.

There's no link whatsoever between Belgium technicalities for war and their available manpower (aside the fact their manpower was indeed relatively small compared to potential enemies). The fact that their manpower was - in their opinion - poorly fit for recruitment and / or combat - has nothing to do with the availability (or, better put, the existence) of this manpower.
When the Soviet Union raised their levies there was no such fluff involved - they were going to learn combat by doing it.
I understand Belgium cannot wage war like SU, but I offered you one example to see the difference between manpower and military power.

If your rhetorical question is "where do these divisions come from" there's quite an obvious answer, which I partially gave to you before.
There's a slight manpower increase which gave a little more military potential (there are 25 years from 1914 to 1939). There's a slightly more concern for war in the future of Belgium which involved less slacking and more training (hence a greater availability of this manpower for recruitment) and also the military reorganisation of modern armies requires less % infantry - therefore the manpower can be used to form more divisions than in the armies of the recent past.
All these small increases added to one another and gave Belgium a better war plan for WW2 than for WW1 - although still pointless in retrospect.

P.S. There were lots who were not mobilised in 1914, because the speed of the German attack and occupation of Belgium rendered moot such a practice: more than 90 % of Belgium was held under German occupation - if I'm not mistaken. So the army had to do without supplements.

[ljadw]

NO :manpower is the standing army + the number of reservists + later the new conscripts, minus those who are exempted . Nothing more .And for Belgium,in 1914,the number of reservists was much lower than in 1939.In 1939,the number of reservists was more than 500000,in 1914 less than 150000,which means that the available manpower was bigger in 1939 .

In 1939,France mobilised 5.5 million men. In august 1914,3.8 million :here also,the manpower was different .

It was also the same for Germany,which in 1914 had 40 classes of reservists, in 1939 some 10 .In 1939,the German manpower was much lower than in 1914.

[ljadw]

P.S. There were lots who were not mobilised in 1914, because the speed of the German attack and occupation of Belgium rendered moot such a practice: more than 90 % of Belgium was held under German occupation - if I'm not mistaken. So the army had to do without supplements.

This is not correct :in 1914,Belgium mobilised very quickly ALL its reserves,there were no lots who were not mobilised in 1914 because the speed of the German attack .

The occupation of Belgium only had an importance LATER,not in 1914,later,when the classes 1915,1916,1917,1918 could not be mobilised .At the end of 1914 there were no thousands of trained reservists living in occupied Belgium .

[Alixanther]

NO :manpower is the standing army + the number of reservists + later the new conscripts, minus those who are exempted . Nothing more .And for Belgium,in 1914,the number of reservists was much lower than in 1939.In 1939,the number of reservists was more than 500000,in 1914 less than 150000,which means that the available manpower was bigger in 1939 .

In 1939,France mobilised 5.5 million men. In august 1914,3.8 million :here also,the manpower was different .

It was also the same for Germany,which in 1914 had 40 classes of reservists, in 1939 some 10 .In 1939,the German manpower was much lower than in 1914.

As I said. Manpower is the total recruitable number of bodies available to a country.

Standing army + reservists + conscripted people = MILITARY POWER. Military power + the rest of available (not yet conscripted) people = MANPOWER.

Manpower includes military power. Military power does not include manpower. That's why these 2 terms are not interchangeable at whim and why you should learn when to use one and when another.

You seem to brush aside everything I said and repeat your mantra - which I did not necessarily deny. 500k plus one people is still more than 500k people. That's not a point, though.
The number of reservists one country has is no indication of the total manpower that country has. You yourself said that U.S. had a pitiful number of reservists when they entered the war yet they managed to get to a more healthier number due to conscription. So I don't buy your argument. Number of reservists is in no way related to the total available manpower. Got it?
Your conclusion is pants.

P.S. There were lots who were not mobilised in 1914, because the speed of the German attack and occupation of Belgium rendered moot such a practice: more than 90 % of Belgium was held under German occupation - if I'm not mistaken. So the army had to do without supplements.

This is not correct :in 1914,Belgium mobilised very quickly ALL its reserves,there were no lots who were not mobilised in 1914 because the speed of the German attack .

The occupation of Belgium only had an importance LATER,not in 1914,later,when the classes 1915,1916,1917,1918 could not be mobilised .At the end of 1914 there were no thousands of trained reservists living in occupied Belgium .

As I said before. You lack of comprehension skills is frightful.
Belgium mobilised very quickly all its RESERVES, thank you very much. However, they had no time to conscript ALL OTHER available people, through conscription methods. While reserves are usually trained people (maybe not as high as the regular army, depending on doctrine), you can bring less or even not trained at all people into the army to bolster forces. As I said, check U.S. Also check the Soviets: all those several tens of million people were not reservists. Some of them were. But most of them weren't. Stop playing childish games.
LATER? What? Do you expect Belgium army to wage decisive battles against Germans during 1914? You're SO funny. These classes never had any importance, otherwise Belgium would have reacted like the Soviets: bringing up everyone under the banner. And a lot earlier, too.

[ljadw]

I see that you have no notion of Belgium mobilisation procedures .

At the start of the war,Belgium mobilised its available manpower =those men younger than 40,who had been called up in peacetime (=less than 50% of the available classes) some 140000 men, and than, Belgium was out of manpower .The men born in 1896,1897,1898,1899, were not called up in august 1914,because,they were not needed,there was no possibility to train them,and because they were to young :those born in 1899 were only 15 at the start of the war.
NO country was calling up untrained men of middle age at the start of the war .

In august 1914,there were no other available people in Belgium .

[ljadw]

As I said. Manpower is the total recruitable number of bodies available to a country.

Standing army + reservists + conscripted people = MILITARY POWER. Military power + the rest of available (not yet conscripted) people = MANPOWER.

Manpower includes military power. Military power does not include manpower. That's why these 2 terms are not interchangeable at whim and why you should learn when to use one and when another.

You seem to brush aside everything I said and repeat your mantra - which I did not necessarily deny. 500k plus one people is still more than 500k people. That's not a point, though.


The number of reservists one country has is no indication of the total manpower that country has. You yourself said that U.S. had a pitiful number of reservists when they entered the war yet they managed to get to a more healthier number due to conscription. So I don't buy your argument. Number of reservists is in no way related to the total available manpower. Got it?
Your conclusion is pants.

1)Wrong

2)WRONG

3)Wrong

4)You said a lot of things and they are wrong

5)The number of reservists is the manpower .

China has a population of 1.3 billion : it has not a manpower of 400 million .