German economic collapse in 1944-45

[Stiltzkin]

Meanwhile, I admit to getting a tad irritated when the OP decides to channel the late Trevor Dupuy and deliberately distorts his work to fit his own inane ideas. I WORKED for Trevor for nearly ten years and for TDI for more than another ten years doing the same work. I had extended daily DISCUSSIONS with him regarding this work. I ATTENDED his funeral at Arlington. I WORKED on the QJM/TNDM. I DID the work researching the new data and checking the original engagements.

Whenever someone quotes the work of Dupuy it is automatically rejected. It seems to me that people try to ridicule or refute his work. Working for Dupuy does not guarantee thinking like Dupuy or accepting his figures.
Guaporense might not be always precise, nor do I always agree, but he surely hits the nail most of the time when it comes to economy. While posting precise and accurate figures is of utmost importance, a difference of 1 or 0,5% or if unit A had 52 instead of 51tanks on date XX.XX.XX is irrelevant. That is what most discussions revolve and degrade to on this forum, instead of talking about more complex issues.

I UNDERSTAND the intent behind the QJM/TNDM.

Alright, im listening, then we should have a first class opportunity here. What is the intent behind the QJM/TNDM (and also in regards to what Guaporense posted)?

[Yoozername]

Guaporense might not be always precise, nor do I always agree, but he surely hits the nail most of the time when it comes to economy. While posting precise and accurate figures is of utmost importance, a difference of 1 or 0,5% or if unit A had 52 instead of 51 tanks on date XX.XX.XX is irrelevant. That is what most discussions revolve and degrade to on this forum, instead of talking about more complex issues.

Can you give an example of this degradation, here, in this thread, in regards to 1 or 0,5%?

I know from just reading the past few posts by you, that you just ignore that you have been cited out for disregarding information entirely. And have been called out for it. And yet you continue to post about 'economic complexities' that just you and Guaporense can fully comprehend.

You must have some interesting inner-world.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

[Richard Anderson]

Whenever someone quotes the work of Dupuy it is automatically rejected. It seems to me that people try to ridicule or refute his work. Working for Dupuy does not guarantee thinking like Dupuy or accepting his figures.

Are you serious? Try searching for my user name (and my old user name richto90) and "Dupuy" or "QJM" or "CEV".

Guaporense might not be always precise, nor do I always agree, but he surely hits the nail most of the time when it comes to economy.

No, he is not imprecise, he is wrong. And even if corrected, he refuses to accept the correction and instead continues to use the incorrect figures. That is dishonest and has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement and everything to do with facts.

BTW, the facts in question here have zero to do with "economy", please try to stay on topic instead of falling back onto a strawman yet again.

While posting precise and accurate figures is of utmost importance, a difference of 1 or 0,5% or if unit A had 52 instead of 51tanks on date XX.XX.XX is irrelevant. That is what most discussions revolve and degrade to on this forum, instead of talking about more complex issues.

Except we are not talking about a difference of "1 or 0,5%". Again, please try to stay on topic. We are discussing a difference of circa 72,000 versus a claim of 120,000, which then grew, in his "explanation" to 160,000, or maybe 141,000, or even 200,000. That is a difference of 167%, or 196% or 278%.

Discussions of complex issues cannot be talked about when the actual complexities are so dishonestly dismissed and reduced to absurd figures pulled out of thin air.

Alright, im listening, then we should have a first class opportunity here. What is the intent behind the QJM/TNDM (and also in regards to what Guaporense posted)?

Sorry, but I will not reinvent the wheel for you, especially given your evident desire to be complicit in the OP's trolling.

[Yoozername]

I thought the Grossraum was not effectively integrated, thats what you stated in your previous posts.

there was no point in making an effort because it was futile

Is that the reason why German factories were sometimes captured by the Allies while workers were still producing equipment, when American soldiers busted in (such as the example of Stg44s which were all in the warehouses, nobody could wield or distribute them anymore)?

You seem to be at odds with his economic claims here? And his 'Grossraum' consistency? So, do you also have a consistency issue?

[Yoozername]

Discussions of complex issues cannot be talked about when the actual complexities are so dishonestly dismissed and reduced to absurd figures pulled out of thin air.

Yes they can, didn't you watch the presidential debates???

[Stiltzkin]

I know from just reading the past few posts by you, that you just ignore that you have been cited out for disregarding information entirely. And have been called out for it. And yet you continue to post about 'economic complexities' that just you and Guaporense can fully comprehend.

You must have some interesting inner-world.

I forgot about your "superior" knowledge.
You are one of those guys who is very obsessed about tank numbers, yet you do not realize what this thread is about. It is about finding out what caused the economic collapse. While we have the consensus that it had a disruptive effect, the USSBS showed the impact on industry by percent (and working-hours), either way it cannot be regarded as the decisive or only factor.
Whenever someone starts to disagree with you, you then switch to personal attacks. Just because you are more impertinent or cry louder than others, does not automatically improve the quality of your opinion.
Plot twist: If you would have paid attention then you would have realized that I did not come to a final conclusion yet. Scherner and Streb argued that the USSBS report might understate the effects, by how much is unkown as their work on this is not accessible. On the other hand, I doubt that there will be any groundbreaking revelation. My theory is that the occupied areas started to realize that Nazi Germany could not enforce their will onto them anymore (the closer the end) and they started to turn away (while the 3rd Reich was getting stripped of its territory by the Allies/Soviets gradually anyway). While bombing did have effect on the infrastructure, it primarily killed civilians and workers.

[Michael Kenny]

Guaporense might not be always precise,

Not precise is putting it mildly. He fabricates data and discards that which contradicts. In short he lies.

but he surely hits the nail most of the time when it comes to economy. While posting precise and accurate figures is of utmost importance, a difference of 1 or 0,5% or if unit A had 52 instead of 51tanks on date XX.XX.XX is irrelevant. That is what most discussions revolve and degrade to on this forum, instead of talking about more complex issues.

Well to be precise a single example of the loss of 700 stug. is 3 months production for Alkett or a 25% reduction over a year. A bit more than the ill-informed posters claimed c. '3%' and 'insignificant.

There are many other examples like the Friedrichshafen raid of 27/28 April 1944 that completely neutralized the factory that produced over half of all Stug engine and transmissions.

[Stiltzkin]

Well to be precise a single example of the loss of 700 stug

So stripping the German population of Stug supply caused an economic collapse?

[Michael Kenny]

Well to be precise a single example of the loss of 700 stug

So stripping the German population of Stug supply caused an economic collapse?

It can contribute to a 'front collapse' which in turn will result in a very significant economic collapse when the enemy gets to the factory gates before the morning shift turns up.
An average 2100 Stug in service in The East in 1944 so 700 is a substantial loss.

Note that I said 'single example' because I knew you would try and distract from the point by nit-picking. I am never quite sure if your ignorance is an affectation or an affliction

[Yoozername]

I forgot about your "superior" knowledge.
You are one of those guys who is very obsessed about tank numbers, yet you do not realize what this thread is about. It is about finding out what caused the economic collapse. While we have the consensus that it had a disruptive effect, the USSBS showed the impact on industry by percent (and working-hours), either way it cannot be regarded as the decisive or only factor.

My theory is that the occupied areas started to realize that Nazi Germany could not enforce their will onto them anymore (the closer the end) and they started to turn away (while the 3rd Reich was getting stripped of its territory by the Allies/Soviets gradually anyway). While bombing did have effect on the infrastructure, it primarily killed civilians and workers.
Last edited by Stiltzkin on 05 Apr 2017, 20:56, edited 2 times in total.

Well, the major premise of your buddy was that the economy collapsed in mid 1944 (a year after the 'war ended'?). He claims the workers all gave up, morale thing you know? Well, the manufacturing numbers do not support that. Hence, the "tank numbers", that show he is wrong (using data, not a snotty remark like you seem to rely on).

The "tank numbers", and other weapon systems data, sort of supports that the bombing was a real data-backed cause. The "Oil Numbers" also back that the lifeblood of the German War machine (OK, call it an economy if it makes you feel 'economically complex'), was being targeted and diminished to the point that its air force was crippled when needed most.

Your theory have any time frame? By mid-1944, The Germans never needed the French, just France as a battlefield. Italy flipped already? Romania was bombed out before the Soviets got there? So, what occupied areas are you talking about? Poland??? What parts of the German Economy are you talking about? The Czech were cranking out weapons. WHEN exactly do YOU think this collapse happened????

I think you live in a little bubble that is supported by your poor attitude and sense of superiority.

[Yoozername]

I will say this about the bombing. Like many endeavors in WWII, it had not been done before, so the scales that it grew to, and how it was used was somewhat unprecedented. It is easy to look back, and say that IF they bombed this or that, it would have been better. I do oppose the area bombing, especially at night since it is inherently inaccurate. The US did at least try to develop daytime bombing and precision targeting (no matter what some say). But even then, alternate target were done off the electronics if there was cloud cover. Burning down cities to destroy whatever was being made inside does not sit well with me.

In some cases, bombing was effective and given the bad weather conditions, it was not even known to what extent. The German intercepts sometimes provided data at a later date regarding transportation destruction that was otherwise unknown. Speer himself was the source as far as what percentage of industries were being stopped due to the resulting effects of the bombing. Coal was not getting to plants, parts were being backed-up and industries ground to a halt.

In hindsight, industries like synthetic rubber could have been directly targeted, transmission/engine manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers could have all been targeted earlier.

[Yoozername]

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?

[Michael Kenny]

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.

[South]

Good afternoon Yoozername,

You fortified my point re terms being assigned different meanings by different persons.

On 4 Apr 17, 11:54 AM, Guaporense wrote "WW2 was a war between Germany and Russia. The other countries didn't do anything substantial on strategic terms".



~ Bob
Virginia, USA

[South]

Good afternoon Stilzkin,

Guaporense's military production tallies with the charts are actually his stronger arena to view his work product.......in contradistinction to "economy".

Toning this post to avoid slights / insults / and related, ......

Guaporense is heavy into GDP. Once he wrote here that Romania didn't fit into his formula. I suggested he lessen his study of GDP and, especially for the themes of AHF, place emphasis on FOREX reserves.

To date, still waiting for some viable WWII economic analysis.

~ Bob
Virginia, USA