Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

[LWD]

How long would the collaborators survive without the German presence ? How long would survive Quisling,Mussert,Hoare/Mosley,if the Germans had left ? What would happen if the Germans were leaving Poland,Belgium, CZ,Yugoslavia,etc?

The idea that the forces tied outside the Eastern Front could arrive at a certain day in the East,restore the German chances and give Germany victory,is wishfull-thinking .

They would remain where they were,and the Ostheer would have to do the job with the forces of the OTL.
Therefore,the forces outside the East can not be used to claim that Germany was economically stronger than the SU .
There is also the point that a big part of the German war effort was produced / financed by the occupied countries,thus that the figures for the German war effort are unreliable and that,if the Westheer was leaving for the East,Renault,etc,would stop with the production for the WM.. No occupation forces in France = no occupation taxes from France.

???
This is hardly relevant to the question at hand. Indeed even if we are talking about the somewhat off topic question of what happens with the West not in the war. We are talking a what if. In that case one of the most reasonable is simply no guarantee to Poland and no declaration of war by France or Britain when Germany invades the former. Other possiblities abound.
But it really doesn't matter the point is the German ecoomy was at least on the data supplied to date stronger than the Soviet one up until 45 at that point it hardly mattered.

You don't improve your argument by avoiding the central issue and nit picking marginally relevant ones and/or creating straw men.

[ljadw]

"I never claimed that Britain would give up" : yes you did :"absent the West,the resources available for deployment in the East,would be much larger ."

Absent the west = if Britain gave up .

NO. It's a hypothetical, it could be arrived at in a number of ways. Of course they might have different impacts on the number of troops available but I'm not sure how significant that is for this discussion.

The weight of evidence produced so far is that up until 45 the answer to the title question would have to be no.

If Germany was stronger than the SU,it would have won . It lost,thus the SU was stronger .The forces outside the SU can not be counted,because they could not be present in the East .

otherwise,it is the old trick from the usual suspects :

1) Germany was stronger than the SU,because one should count the forces outside the east

2) Germany was stronger than Britain,because one should count the forces in the east .

On point 2 : if at a certain moment,the SU would give up,that would not mean that Germany would be stronger in the war against Britain : millions of Germans would be tied in the east .

[ljadw]

How long would the collaborators survive without the German presence ? How long would survive Quisling,Mussert,Hoare/Mosley,if the Germans had left ? What would happen if the Germans were leaving Poland,Belgium, CZ,Yugoslavia,etc?

The idea that the forces tied outside the Eastern Front could arrive at a certain day in the East,restore the German chances and give Germany victory,is wishfull-thinking .

They would remain where they were,and the Ostheer would have to do the job with the forces of the OTL.
Therefore,the forces outside the East can not be used to claim that Germany was economically stronger than the SU .
There is also the point that a big part of the German war effort was produced / financed by the occupied countries,thus that the figures for the German war effort are unreliable and that,if the Westheer was leaving for the East,Renault,etc,would stop with the production for the WM.. No occupation forces in France = no occupation taxes from France.

???
This is hardly relevant to the question at hand. Indeed even if we are talking about the somewhat off topic question of what happens with the West not in the war. We are talking a what if. In that case one of the most reasonable is simply no guarantee to Poland and no declaration of war by France or Britain when Germany invades the former. Other possiblities abound.
But it really doesn't matter the point is the German ecoomy was at least on the data supplied to date stronger than the Soviet one up until 45 at that point it hardly mattered.

You don't improve your argument by avoiding the central issue and nit picking marginally relevant ones and/or creating straw men.

It is very relevant : if the Germans were leaving the occupied countries,the war in the west would start again .

About the what if : he is totally out of the question .

A German invasion of Poland means AUTOMATICALLY war with B + F .

A German invasion of the SU is impossible without securing the Western borders = war with F + B.

Without the continuation of the war in the west,there would be no war with the SU .Hitler stated it very clearly : the aim of Barbarossa is to force Britain to give up .This implies that there would still be a war with Britain on 22 june 1941.

[RichTO90]

If Germany was stronger than the SU,it would have won . It lost,thus the SU was stronger .The forces outside the SU can not be counted,because they could not be present in the East .

That is quite possibly the single most solipsistic reply of all the many solipsistic replies I have seen you give.

otherwise,it is the old trick from the usual suspects :

1) Germany was stronger than the SU,because one should count the forces outside the east

Nonsense and nothing like what anyone here has argued. Germany - alone - was stronger than the USSR - alone. That is the long and short of what is being argued. It is also quite correct.

2) Germany was stronger than Britain,because one should count the forces in the east .

That is also never been argued and it is, at best, stupidly juvenile on your part to continue to argue that is what others have said. Germany was stronger than the UK - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland by quite a bit, but the Empire and it's unfettered access to manpower and the strength of the U.S. - no. However, that is all absolutely irrelevant, since the UK was immeasurably stronger as a naval power and effectively as an island impregnable to direct attack from Germany.

On point 2 : if at a certain moment,the SU would give up,that would not mean that Germany would be stronger in the war against Britain : millions of Germans would be tied in the east .

It might help if your replies occasionally made sense. What are you trying to argue here? "If the SU would give up..." Would they? Why would they when they had strong Allies in Britain and had stalled the first German onrush. However, if they did give up, then of course Germany would be "stronger in the war against Britain"...why do you make the silly statement that "millions would be tied in the east"? Doing what? Lounging about the Ukrainian sunflower fields?

[ljadw]

Sigh,why are people unwilling to grasp simple facts ?

About Germany and the SU :if the SU had been eliminated (some where in the autumn of 1941) this would not have helped Germany :millions of Germans would have been tied for occupation duties (the Germans planned an occupation army of 100 divisions;source = Stahel) who would not be available for the war against Britain,and,if one is additioning the losses (more than 400000 men on 1 september 1941)......
The only possible benefit would be that Britain would give up the fight the moment the Germans were entering Moscow,were at the A/A line,were at the Ural .

If one is looking at the possibility that this would happen( =end of the war in the east,end of the war with Britain,no war with the SU),the outlooks would be even worse for Germany: the occupationof Europe(directly or indirectly) would result in less than 10 years in the collaps of the Third Reich:such occupation was out of the question : military,economically,politically,demographically :the Germans would need (for generations) a standing WM of 4 million,which was out of the question ,unless one would accept the possibility for the US to have in peacetime armed forces of 15 million men .


About Germany and Britain (which means: Britain AND the Empire/Commonwealth,whatever you call it:they were inseparable in WWII): those who are arguing that Germany was stronger than the SU,because one must include the German forces/resources not used in the east/tied elsewhere)must be prepared to accept the replies

1) that this means that Germany was stronger than Britain (including the Commonwealth),because one must include the German forces/resources tied up in the east: it is the same flawed argument.

or /and 2 ) that Britain (and the Commonwealth) was stronger than Germany,because one must include the British/Commonwealth resources tied up elsewhere= by the war against Japan :it is the same flawed argument.

With these arguments,one can prove anything and nothing :why not include in a comparison Britain /Italy,the Italian forces used in the East? Or the forces of Slim in Burma ? Or the forces of Mac Arthur in a comparison between the US and Germany .

I have seen the usual suspects (=the fanbois) using these arguments to "prove" that a)Germany was stronger than the SU and b) that Germany was stronger than Britain and the Commonwealth.(must I always ad Commonwealth ? )

The only possible comparison is to use the forces/resources that were used in the fighting betwen the 2 opponents . I don't see why one should use a German soldier guarding the frontier with Spain in Bayonne in a discussion about who was stronger :Germany or the USSR .

[KDF33]

Sigh,why are people unwilling to grasp simple facts ?

About Germany and the SU :if the SU had been eliminated (some where in the autumn of 1941) this would not have helped Germany :millions of Germans would have been tied for occupation duties (the Germans planned an occupation army of 100 divisions;source = Stahel) who would not be available for the war against Britain,and,if one is additioning the losses (more than 400000 men on 1 september 1941)......
The only possible benefit would be that Britain would give up the fight the moment the Germans were entering Moscow,were at the A/A line,were at the Ural .

First, Hitler stated in Directive 32 that the Eastern garrison army should be set at about 60 divisions, a far cry from your 100 divisions. We're talking tops 1 million men.

Second, you speak of 400,000 German losses on 1.9.41 as if these were all irrecoverable losses. In fact, only 107,177 were KIA / MIA, with the other 302,821 WIA, the overwhelming majority of which would be recovered for duty in the armed forces in relatively short order.

Beyond that, the Eastern war would stop consuming massive German resources in fuel, ammunition, vehicles, logistical equipment and casualties.

Thus, your argument is flawed.

Edit: Besides, what the hell has any of this to do with military production?

Regards,

KDF

[ljadw]

It has a lot to do :
1) I am saying that the SU was economically stronger during the war with Germany

2) You are saying that Germany was economically stronger,giving some figures

3) I am saying that your figures are unreliable,because
a)they include things that have been produced by the German allies/occupied countries (the occupied countries,not including the SU,were giving Germany for more than 90 billion of RM on goods and service).
You choose wisely to ignore my point a,which is debunking your claim that Germany was stronger.

b)they include resources/manpower that was not used in the east/could not be used in the east/ if would be used in the east,would be useless.

Your attempts that they could/would be used in the east are less than convincing .

Exemple :from 1950/1953,the US spent a lot of resources in the Korean war and to built Nato: well,it is not so(following your argumentation) that,without a war in Korea,the resources spent in Korea,would be used in Europe to strengthen NATO/that,if there was no need to build NATO,the resources spent in Europe would be used in Korea .

Thus,your argumentation that Germany was stronger,depending on the figures you have given,is flawed .

The only thing one can use,are the resources both parties were using on the easteren front,and the figures are proving that the SU was able to spend more resources,thus,the SU was stronger.

[ljadw]

Sigh,why are people unwilling to grasp simple facts ?



First, Hitler stated in Directive 32 that the Eastern garrison army should be set at about 60 divisions, a far cry from your 100 divisions. We're talking tops 1 million men.


Regards,

KDF

No,Hitler did not state in Directive 32 that the Eastern garrison army should be set at about 60 divisions : he said:

Wie stark sich diese Sicherungskräfte im russischen Raum zu bemessen sind,lässt sich mit sicherheit erst später übersehen .
Aller Voraussicht nach werden aber etwa 60 Divisionen und eine Luftflotte,neben den verbündeten und befreundeten Kräften,für die weitere Aufgaben im Osten genügen


Translation : We only can know later how much men will be needed in the East,but we can assume that 60 divisions and an Airfleet with allied forces will suffice .

Comments:
1) As usual,Adolf was not shrinking back from own-goals : first :we only will know later how many men will be needed,but we can assume ( ) that 60 divisions will be enough : if you don't know,you can't assume .I imagine Rumsfeld saying to Bush : well,we don't know how many men will be needed as occupation forces in Iraq,but,we can assume it will be 100000.

2)60 divisions must be enough,with the allied forces :this means :60 divisions,if there will be allied forces(how many ?),and,if there are no allied forces,60 divisions will not be enough

3) 60 divisions + an Air Fleet + SS and Police = more,much more than 1 million .

4)My source said that the plans were : 50 divisions on the AA line,without those in the other parts,and 50 divisions would be disbanded,which means an occupation army of 100 divisions (150 minus 50)

5) Even an occupation army of 60 divisions in the east,during decennia,was out of the question :imagine the US with an army of more than 1.5 million men in Europe between 1945/1975

6) To this occupation army should be added the occupation forces elsewhere,the army in Germany,the LW,KM,SS: it was out of the question : there was no way that Gemany could dominate Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals .

[John Hilly]

Are you Troll ljadw?

[LWD]

From a number of previous threads I don't think he is a troll. However he is a believer and is very good at ignoring evidence that conflicts with his beliefs.

[LWD]

It has a lot to do :
1) I am saying that the SU was economically stronger during the war with Germany

Yes you are saying that but the fact say otherwise.

2) You are saying that Germany was economically stronger,giving some figures

Actually I wasn't the one giving the figures but if you want some. Nor was I saying that. What I was saying is that your statement was not correct, but on to the figures. The standard of reference for economic strength is GDP. From:
http://www.onwar.com/articles/0302.htm

year 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
USSR 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310

Only in 38, 40, and 45 is the Soviet economy stronger than the German one. In the first two cases the difference is less than 10% and in the third case right at 10%. During the critical war years (41, 42, 43, and 44) the GErman ecomomy is always more than 10% greater than the Soviet one.

3) I am saying that your figures are unreliable,because
a)they include things that have been produced by the German allies/occupied countries (the occupied countries,not including the SU,were giving Germany for more than 90 billion of RM on goods and service).
You choose wisely to ignore my point a,which is debunking your claim that Germany was stronger.

Your point is a very marginal one. Those occupied territories were incorporated in the German economy. And of course you are not counting the LL which was encorporated into the Soviet economy. Now if you can quantify these two then we could consider the question you seem to want to ask which is not what the title to this thred asks. It is:

Was the USSR economically stronger than Germany?

and the answer based on the data presented to date has to be no.

b)they include resources/manpower that was not used in the east/could not be used in the east/ if would be used in the east,would be useless.

Irrelevant.

Your attempts that they could/would be used in the east are less than convincing .

Your attempt to warp the question into one that has an answer you like is a very flawed debating technique.

Thus,your argumentation that Germany was stronger,depending on the figures you have given,is flawed .

Nope.

The only thing one can use,are the resources both parties were using on the easteren front,and the figures are proving that the SU was able to spend more resources,thus,the SU was stronger.

That's the way you would like to see the question framed but that's not the question asked. Even if that was the question asked you have not supported you position very well.

[ljadw]

The use of GDP and billions of $ to compare the German and the Soviet economy is very questionable :the Soviet economy was a closed Marxist economy,thus,how to compare her with the German economy,especially by using $?
Even for the German economy,it is questionable to use $ as parameter:how to convert RM in $ ? And,a priori,it is ,IMHO,impossible to convert Rubles in $ : till 1989,Rubles ,East German Marks,etc were valueless outside the communist block.

Thus,the only way to compare both economies,is to compare what both produced ,DURING the war,:1938 is irrelevant .But,this also is problematic:how to estimate the importance of LL/the production of the occupied countries ?

We have 1/2 year (2/2 of 1941) and a part of 1942 where the SU had no help of LL,while from in the beginning(22 june 1941) Germany was aided by the production in the occupied countries,by the work of the foreign workers in Germany,by the exploitation of the occupied countries :thus,for the first war year (june 1941:june 1942) Germany was benefited,and,what do we see? The output(= the commitment) was benefiting the SU. As this can't be a proof that Germany was stronger,the consequence is that the SU was stronger .

The argumentation of those who are claiming that Gemany was stronger,is depending on ONE argument,oNE only : on the question why a stronger Germany lost,the answer is :a) a lot of resources were tied elsewhere b) if they were committed on the East,Germany would have won .

My reply is :

a) this is irrelevant,unless one would count the forces of Slim , or the Ostheer and its resources for a comparison Germany/ Britain,Commonwealth .,or unless one should count the Japanese forces in China in a comparison Japan /Britain .

b) using IFS is going in quick sand :the forces/ resources tied elsewhere (here in the West) only would be committed in the East ,if the war in the West had ended(and,this happened in the OTL),and this would depend on the possibility of Britain giving up . As Britain only would give up if the Germans had won in the East,the forces in the West would remain where they were.and can not be used in a comparison .
What not was used in the war between the SU and Germany can not be used in a discussion about which of both was economically stronger .

Who would use the US LL to the SU to claim that the US were stronger than Japan ?

[LWD]

The use of GDP and billions of $ to compare the German and the Soviet economy is very questionable :the Soviet economy was a closed Marxist economy,thus,how to compare her with the German economy,especially by using $?
Even for the German economy,it is questionable to use $ as parameter:how to convert RM in $ ? And,a priori,it is ,IMHO,impossible to convert Rubles in $ : ...

There certainly is room for some error there. On the otherhand enough ecomomists have looked at the GDP numbers that they should be in the ball park. The conversion is usually done from what I recall reading in much the same way that inflation indexes are calculated. I.e. they take a broad range of items and compare what they cost and use it to produce "equivalant" values for the currencies.

Thus,the only way to compare both economies,is to compare what both produced ,DURING the war,:1938 is irrelevant .But,this also is problematic:how to estimate the importance of LL/the production of the occupied countries ?

It is certainly not the only way. Indeed it's hardly possible because the data simply doesn't exist. One can also take other measures steel production is a pretty decent one during that period of course it doesn't support your contention. Another would be to look at several broad sectors like metals, energy, chemical, and food. But most would require breaking down into more detail to do a good job. From what I've seen of such numbers though they also don't support your contention.

We have 1/2 year (2/2 of 1941) and a part of 1942 where the SU had no help of LL,while from in the beginning(22 june 1941) Germany was aided by the production in the occupied countries,by the work of the foreign workers in Germany,by the exploitation of the occupied countries :thus,for the first war year (june 1941:june 1942) Germany was benefited,and,what do we see? The output(= the commitment) was benefiting the SU. As this can't be a proof that Germany was stronger,the consequence is that the SU was stronger .

Where did we see that?

The argumentation of those who are claiming that Gemany was stronger,is depending on ONE argument,oNE only : on the question why a stronger Germany lost,the answer is :a) a lot of resources were tied elsewhere b) if they were committed on the East,Germany would have won .

Straw man. I haven't seen that argument in this thread certainly not recently. Then there are factors you have failed to account for such as; if one looks at the details more of the Soviet industry was devoted to military expenditures especially in the early parts of the war. From what I recall in 41 or 42 almost half the German economy was still devoted to civilian production. Then there were the German capacity that was devoted to essentially worthless items (I suspect some existed for the Soviets as well but will admit that I'm not aware of sepcific ones).

My reply is :
....
What not was used in the war between the SU and Germany can not be used in a discussion about which of both was economically stronger .

Editting out the irrelevant part we are left with the sentence above which is wrong.

Who would use the US LL to the SU to claim that the US were stronger than Japan ?

A totally off the mark analogy but it might in and of itself have some merit even though you don't recognize it.

[ljadw]

About the GDP :there is bo way to compare 3 different GDP's by converting their respective currencies to one currency :

US GDP = X billion $

German GDP : X billion RM

Soviet GDP: X billion rubles .

There is no way to calculate how much X billion RM were worth in $,the same for the rubles .Even the conversion rate of 1£ to 1 $ was totally arbitrary .

When Germany and the SU were doing business before june 1941,they were paying each other in gol/goods,not in RM /r ubles or $.
Already before the end of the war,the RM was worthless,because one could not buy anything with even thousands of RM,it was the same for the ruble,while in the US,the $ kept its value because one could buy things with it .

[ljadw]

Then there are factors you have failed to account for such as; if one looks at the details more of the Soviet industry was devoted to military expenditures especially in the early parts of the war. From what I recall in 41 or 42 almost half the German economy was still devoted to civilian production. Then there were the German capacity that was devoted to essentially worthless items (I suspect some existed for the Soviets as well but will admit that I'm not aware of sepcific ones).

I expected you to be the last man to fall for the Speer myth:half of the German economy beying devoted to civilian production in 1942

It is the opposite : in june 1941,Germany was a country with a war economy,and 9 % of its population in the military (7.2 million on 80 million),while the SU had a peace economy,with 3 % of its population in the military ( 5.7 million on 190 million):Germany had gathered anarmy of 3 million with a lot of supplies on the Soviet border,notwithstanding this,the SU mobilized and supplied 1 million men per month,and stopped the Germans .
How could a country in peace stop a country at war,unless it was stronger economically .