PODs for Leningrad in 1941

[daveshoup2MD]

Fundamentally the problem with Hitler (apart, obviously, from his amorality) was his extremely high tolerance for risk-taking, which is what truly stands out compared to the other leaders in question.

I meant more in terms that he was not necessarily interested in "surviving". The high risks and poor odds were obvious. He wanted himself- and his country to go down a certain "heroic/romantic" path. He found it intolerable that Germany would be just an medium-sized power, and he had to act fast, even if the chances were slim. This was related to their view that the US and SU were soon to dominate world affairs. This is was mindset in the 30s.

I think the posters here do not understand that his values, and those of the SS, nazis, or hard core German soldiers, etc. were very different from western statesmen or those hobbits from the shire

They were rather be dead or be a failure than not live on their terms.

Rational thinking was not widely prized in those circles, of course, any more than it was in Imperial Japan, where "spirit" was going to overcome everything. Didn't work out, of course.

The amazing thing is, of course, that after losing the first war to a global coalition that controlled the sea and was economically 3 or 4 times stronger than Germany, they really thought the situation had changed to their benefit by 1939...

[KDF33]

The same table includes France at 4.5%, Japan at 3.8%, and Italy at 2.9% - Yay!

Even Germany "with" France, Japan, and Italy is all of 23.4%; the US, USSR, and UK are 55.5 - and that's better than 2-1 in OUTPUT as of 1938, years before the US economic and military mobilization.

But then Hitler's entire concept was precisely to quickly defeat the USSR and absorb its economic potential.

Thus:

Axis: Germany + USSR + France + Japan + Italy = 42%
Allies: U.S. + U.K. = 37.9%

To the Axis figure should be added the rest of Europe, plus Japan's conquests. To the Allies should be added more-or-less the rest of the world.

Intentions and capabilities are not he same thing, of course; expecting one's enemies (plural) to limit themselves to what one thinks are their intentions, as opposed to the capabilities, only ends one way.

Indeed. But then pretty much every single belligerent, on either side, was guilty of that at some point(s) during the war.

[historygeek2021]

As I see it, Hitler's main deficiences as a warlord were:

1. Formulated plans on the basis of his a priori, rather than careful deliberation and analysis
2. Faced with failure, tended to retreat into uncertainty and passivity until jolted by subsequent events
3. Took extreme risks

I would add that Hitler's a priori was rooted in extreme hatred and desire for revenge based on his experience in WWI and life of poverty before that, which manifested into an irrational worldview based on race and a pathological obsession with the Jews. The Nazis, moreover, exalted the traditional agricultural lifestyle above urban industrialization, which they viewed as a corrosive Jewish influence on society. Hence the absurd plan to find living space for overcrowded German farmers instead of moving them to work in the cities.

Western leaders on the other hand were generally brought up in affluent circles that had exercised authority in global powers for decades if not centuries. That brings with it a certain sobriety and rational understanding of what their countries are capable of rather than delusions about finding living space for the master race.

AH's utter inability to listen to anyone else's counsel, much less even recognize that consensus is a strength (especially in terms of coalition warfare), probably should be listed, as well.

It's also worth noting that while WSC and FDR were members of wartime cabinets or executive branch agencies in 1914-18 and had personal experience with overseeing the mobilization of manpower, capital, and resources for global war, Hitler was an enlisted infantryman.

FDR was college educated, and trained as a lawyer; Churchill graduated from Sandhurst; Hitler had, essentially, a high school education. WSC and FDR both seem to have had fairly typical family lives and marriages for men of their generation; Hitler? Not so much, to be charitable...

Halifax thought Hitler was a footman when they met and handed him his coat. Hitler was just a childish amateur from the dregs of society trying to play war against the class of people who had been ruling most of the world for centuries. It would be comical if the lunatic hadn't murdered millions of Jews and gotten tens of millions more killed.

[KDF33]

The amazing thing is, of course, that after losing the first war to a global coalition that controlled the sea and was economically 3 or 4 times stronger than Germany, they really thought the situation had changed to their benefit by 1939...

It had, though.

In 1914, Germany and Austria-Hungary faced Britain, France and Russia. Italy was a nominal partner, but ultimately chose to side with Germany's adversaries.

In 1939, Germany had absorbed the richest areas of the former Austro-Hungarian state, had concluded a non-aggression pact with the USSR and was thus facing only Britain and France. Italy was a flaky ally, but there was this time little chance to it would side with the democracies.

[daveshoup2MD]

The same table includes France at 4.5%, Japan at 3.8%, and Italy at 2.9% - Yay!

Even Germany "with" France, Japan, and Italy is all of 23.4%; the US, USSR, and UK are 55.5 - and that's better than 2-1 in OUTPUT as of 1938, years before the US economic and military mobilization.

But then Hitler's entire concept was precisely to quickly defeat the USSR and absorb its economic potential.

Thus:

Axis: Germany + USSR + France + Japan + Italy = 42%
Allies: U.S. + U.K. = 37.9%

To the Axis figure should be added the rest of Europe, plus Japan's conquests. To the Allies should be added more-or-less the rest of the world.

Intentions and capabilities are not he same thing, of course; expecting one's enemies (plural) to limit themselves to what one thinks are their intentions, as opposed to the capabilities, only ends one way.

Indeed. But then pretty much every single belligerent, on either side, was guilty of that at some point(s) during the war.

But "economic potential" is dependent on labor, capital, and resources, and the willingness of the laborers and capitalists to sign on - mergers & acquisitions at the point of a gun tend to upset the capitalists, and slave laborers are generally not that productive compared to free labor. A lot of scientists tend to leave as well, especially when many of them had been told for a decade they were dead men walking.

Moreover, the Germans had tried to do the same thing in 1917-18 in terms of economic gains from conquered lands and peoples in eastern Europe; didn't work then, either.

In the western democracies, of course, if the wartime leadership fouled things up enough, they would be replaced, as had happened to British wartime prime repeatedly, as witness Chamberlain in 1940 and Asquith in 1916. Not something that Hitler was at risk of, of course.

[daveshoup2MD]

As I see it, Hitler's main deficiences as a warlord were:

1. Formulated plans on the basis of his a priori, rather than careful deliberation and analysis
2. Faced with failure, tended to retreat into uncertainty and passivity until jolted by subsequent events
3. Took extreme risks

I would add that Hitler's a priori was rooted in extreme hatred and desire for revenge based on his experience in WWI and life of poverty before that, which manifested into an irrational worldview based on race and a pathological obsession with the Jews. The Nazis, moreover, exalted the traditional agricultural lifestyle above urban industrialization, which they viewed as a corrosive Jewish influence on society. Hence the absurd plan to find living space for overcrowded German farmers instead of moving them to work in the cities.

Western leaders on the other hand were generally brought up in affluent circles that had exercised authority in global powers for decades if not centuries. That brings with it a certain sobriety and rational understanding of what their countries are capable of rather than delusions about finding living space for the master race.

AH's utter inability to listen to anyone else's counsel, much less even recognize that consensus is a strength (especially in terms of coalition warfare), probably should be listed, as well.

It's also worth noting that while WSC and FDR were members of wartime cabinets or executive branch agencies in 1914-18 and had personal experience with overseeing the mobilization of manpower, capital, and resources for global war, Hitler was an enlisted infantryman.

FDR was college educated, and trained as a lawyer; Churchill graduated from Sandhurst; Hitler had, essentially, a high school education. WSC and FDR both seem to have had fairly typical family lives and marriages for men of their generation; Hitler? Not so much, to be charitable...

Halifax thought Hitler was a footman when they met and handed him his coat. Hitler was just a childish amateur from the dregs of society trying to play war against the class of people who had been ruling most of the world for centuries. It would be comical if the lunatic hadn't murdered millions of Jews and gotten tens of millions more killed.

Fair.

[KDF33]

Halifax thought Hitler was a footman when they met and handed him his coat. Hitler was just a childish amateur from the dregs of society trying to play war against the class of people who had been ruling most of the world for centuries. It would be comical if the lunatic hadn't murdered millions of Jews and gotten tens of millions more killed.

Albeit it feels a little weird to 'defend' Hitler here, this sentence reeks of old-fashioned classism. The irony, of course, is that in the final analysis, the essential component of victory for that fine class of world-rulers was another regime whose leaders, either civilian or military, would presumably also have been seen as belonging to the 'dregs of society' by the élites of London and Washington.

Not sure what the anecdote about Halifax almost handing his coat to Hitler demonstrates. At that moment, he could only see his legs.

And even had he seen him fully, what ought we make of it? That service staff looks a certain way?

[daveshoup2MD]

The amazing thing is, of course, that after losing the first war to a global coalition that controlled the sea and was economically 3 or 4 times stronger than Germany, they really thought the situation had changed to their benefit by 1939...

It had, though.

In 1914, Germany and Austria-Hungary faced Britain, France and Russia. Italy was a nominal partner, but ultimately chose to side with Germany's adversaries.

In 1939, Germany had absorbed the richest areas of the former Austro-Hungarian state, had concluded a non-aggression pact with the USSR and was thus facing only Britain and France. Italy was a flaky ally, but there was this time little chance to it would side with the democracies.

And in 1941, the Germans invaded the USSR with the UK still in the fight, and then made a point of ensuring the US would bring its main strength to the war in Europe.

[historygeek2021]

Halifax thought Hitler was a footman when they met and handed him his coat. Hitler was just a childish amateur from the dregs of society trying to play war against the class of people who had been ruling most of the world for centuries. It would be comical if the lunatic hadn't murdered millions of Jews and gotten tens of millions more killed.

Albeit it feels a little weird to 'defend' Hitler here, this sentence reeks of old-fashioned classism. The irony, of course, is that in the final analysis, the essential component of victory for that fine class of world-rulers was another regime whose leaders, either civilian or military, would presumably also have been seen as belonging to the 'dregs of society' by the élites of London and Washington.

Not sure what the anecdote about Halifax almost handing his coat to Hitler demonstrates. At that moment, he could only see his legs.

And even had he seen him fully, what ought we make of it? That service staff looks a certain way?

It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away.

[KDF33]

But "economic potential" is dependent on labor, capital, and resources, and the willingness of the laborers and capitalists to sign on - mergers & acquisitions at the point of a gun tend to upset the capitalists, and slave laborers are generally not that productive compared to free labor. A lot of scientists tend to leave as well, especially when many of them had been told for a decade they were dead men walking.

Moreover, the Germans had tried to do the same thing in 1917-18 in terms of economic gains from conquered lands and peoples in eastern Europe; didn't work then, either.

The problem here is that evidence points in another direction. German forced labor, albeit somewhat less productive than free labor, was not an order of magnitude less productive - depending on the type and country of origin, the average productivity was in the 60/70% range of a German worker.

German economic exploitation of the Grossraum was, in fact, quite effective. It transformed Germany into a world power, however briefly. Without it, Germany would never have posed so large a threat.

In the western democracies, of course, if the wartime leadership fouled things up enough, they would be replaced, as had happened to British wartime prime repeatedly, as witness Chamberlain in 1940 and Asquith in 1916. Not something that Hitler was at risk of, of course.

The assumption here is that democracies replacing their chief executive improved their performance. Daladier was replaced by Reynaud in March 1940 - did it improve French performance? Chamberlain was replaced by Churchill in May 1940 - did it improve British performance?

Heck, Reynaud was replaced by Pétain in June 1940. Did that improve French performance?

Unless that assumption can be substantiated, the point is irrelevant to the conversation.

[KDF33]

It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away.

Heh... I didn't expect that twist.

1. World is rightly ruled by an hereditary class. Lower classes are vermin that must be put in their place when they cause trouble.

But also...

2. Nazism sucks.

[KDF33]

And in 1941, the Germans invaded the USSR with the UK still in the fight, and then made a point of ensuring the US would bring its main strength to the war in Europe.

Well, in 1941 the Germans really had two choices:

1. Remain focused on Britain, with no immediate prospect of ending the war and with ever-increasing U.S. support for London, which risked, in time, to confront Berlin with an active Anglo-American war coalition... While having the Soviets in your rear, thus being de facto at their mercy.

2. Eliminate the USSR while Britain was prostrate, then turn back to face Britain and, if it came to pass, the Anglo-American war coalition. But face them in control of a well-resourced continental empire, with no further prospective threats within the international system.

[historygeek2021]

It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away.

Heh... I didn't expect that twist.

1. World is rightly ruled by an hereditary class. Lower classes are vermin that must be put in their place when they cause trouble.

But also...

2. Nazism sucks.

When you can't argue the substance, just distort when the other person said and make a snide comment.

[KDF33]

When you can't argue the substance, just distort when the other person said and make snide comment.

Are you serious? Exactly what is the substance in 'It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away'?

Is it normative or descriptive? Both? Do you actually think it is a correct representation of the world over the last couple centuries?

If you feel I've distorted your words, clarify them. Because right now I don't think I'm distorting anything.

[daveshoup2MD]

Chamberlain was replaced by Churchill in May 1940 - did it improve British performance?

Yes. Ask the Germans...