The US and UK had achieved the same degree of military mobilization as Japan and the Soviet Union in terms of military expenditures/GDP taking into account net imports.Stiltzkin wrote:Yes, thats what I used so far, it is overall a more reliable estimate, but do note that efficiency and skill are two different things.In that case if the nation is capable of fielding armed forces in the same proportion to their labor force the labor force multiplied by the combat effectiveness will yield an estimate of aggregate warmaking potential.
The Soviets weren't less effective, it was a large military complex, their per capita equipment value was overall lower. They were more proficient in conducting modern warfare than most participants, actually only Germany, USSR and Japan mattered in terms of military effectiveness during WW2 (pure militarized systems). Of the Democracies, France mattered, but it was knocked out in 1940. Every other system was undermilitarized and/or inexperienced in warfare (we could add the British Empire or Poland into the list, Finland was forced to be effective but they did not possess the manpower nor the war industry to lead prolonged wars, Italy never made a coherent decision).
Germany was very weird since their nominal military expenditures reached 3/4 of GDP by 1943 and even more in 1944 but that's was thanks to massive support they had from occupied territories.
Correct, munitions increase beyond necessary levels has also diminishing returns.This is the economic principle of diminishing returns: if you increase your military expenditures per soldier by 100% it will not double the soldiers' effectiveness.
Well, in both World Wars almost all German losses were caused by European armies: In WW1, out of 1.8 million killed, only 40,000 were caused by the US, while 98% were caused by other European armies. In WW2, up to December 1944, 97% of German KIA were caused by European armies.Germany, too large for Europe, too small for the world.3 superpowers instead of 1
It's nice to remember that despite being the largest economy in Europe, German GDP was only about 20% of Europe in 1913 and in 1937, while population wise it was about 14%. Germany declared war on most of Europe in WW1 and WW2 and predictably, lost both times: Germany was just not large enough to dominate Europe in the way the US dominates the Americas.
The US for instance fought several expansionist wars in the Americas and since it was the only real power on the whole continent it stablished itself as the absolute hegemon of the continent. Germany tried to do the same for Europe but that continent was a bit harder to tame.
WW1 and WW2 were essentially European Civil Wars. They are "World Wars" because the world was extremely Eurocentric: Europe was the center and the rest was periphery (with the US also emerging as part of the center after WW1, but only as the new center after WW2), so a big war that happened at the center affected the whole periphery, hence, the whole world. For instance, Japan tried to conquer Asia by taking advantage of the mess in Europe, as the Great Powers were all fighting each other, Japan, being the only relatively "modern" country in Asia at the time had an enormous military advantage over China, even though China was 7 times bigger in terms of population.