Making Hitler Stronger by 1939

Karlos said:
Well, I've always read that Hitler kept a hig level of civilian production up until Stalingrad, then he ordered total war economy. Maybe I'm wrong.

That was the traditional view, there is still a lively debate.
Much of what has been written recently suggests otherwise - including Richard Overy War and Economy in the Third Reich and Harrison the Economics of World War II

Overy argues that because of the high degree of mobilization in Germany before WWII the US Strategic Bombing Survey in 46/47 misread the data - they did not seen an expansion of war production (or indeed a growth of the mobilization of women) in 39-42 and so falsely concluded that the Nazi economy was not on a war footing during this period.

He shows, pretty exhaustively, that the Nazi economy was highly war oriented before 1939 with quite a low standard of living for the population, and indeed high rates of female participation.

I think some of his figures have been challenged but I have not seen a catergorial rebuttal.
 
Wozza said:

"Sighs and shakes head sadly" Time to go into alot of statistics and interpretations.

Lets take a look at Statistics by Michael Freeman's Atlas of Nazi Germany pg. 110. Between 1934 and 1935 fiscal year, military spending was 3 billion RM and 4.5 billion RM respectively while Civilian investment was 5 billion RM and 6 billion RM. Basic Industry was half -a- billion RM and 1.7 billion RM. Major Transport and Roads was 1 billion RM and 1.5 billion RM.

1936 Military spending increase above Civilian Investment, but it still was below combined non-military spending. Most of that military spending went into building bases and training. 1937 saw the first order of Panzer 4s delivered. Because most of the military funding was still invested in training the Wehrmach so it would equal the size of France's Army in Infantry, few Panzer 4s are created. With Speer the initial 45 delivered tanks would 135. Panzer 3s would go from 75 made in 1937 to 230. Thats really helps later on.http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/Tank_Production_Germany_ww2.htm

The Link will show production numbers.

As for your contention about the Luffwaffe. That rings false. The BF 109 went into production in 1935 followed by the Stuka.

1938 saw mass training excercises followed by the annexation of Austria that greatly aided the German Economy. Then Sudtenland and so forth.

However due to ineffiency in planning and different groups doing duplicated work, though not as bad as Italy, there were bottlenecks. Speer erases those bottlenecks.

Updated equipment creates no problems as you are not doing something radically new. Adding a longer barrel gun is simpler than building a whole new tank. Likewise existing vehicles can always be updated in the field as well.

Further, what you keep forgetting my friend is that prior to 1935, the German Army only had 100,000 men. It takes time to train a vastly enlarged army as you must break up the regular army, train new Officers and NCOs, build bases, buy uniforms, get rifles, get ammunition, etc before you can even begin to start adding Panzers in. Panzers then require reorganization and a specialised logistics tail and etc... The true wonder is that the Germans were able to launch a war on a shoestring and last as long as they did.

As for the Italians, you forget several things. One they don't have access to a wide variety of raw materials like Germany and their B... Ah, Dale Cozort can explain it better than me. http://members.aol.com/althist1/Jan01/italian.htm

Look, the point is with Speer's reforms, things get better for the Germans as Speer will cut costs across the board and enable the Reich to purchase more Panzers and Trucks. Thats helps greatly in Russia.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I guess one of the strange things about 1939 was that Germany was both extremely militarised AND surprisingly unprepared for war.

The low stocks of artillery ammo, which was very serious in autumn of 1939, could probably have been improved without drastic changes in german economy. But apparently Hitler was so convinced of his bluff working one more time, that he explicitly forbade preparations, even to that extent.

In 1939 and well into the war the allies had very exagerated impression of German strength, especially regarding the Luftwaffe. They simply had bought the bait laid out by German propaganda. In this context actually having what the allies thought they had ought not to lead to changed attitudes among the allies. Except in naval strength, here UK clearly was very keen on Germany sticking to the Anglo-German naval agreement of 1935. Any attempt to break it will probably make the next bluff from Hitler turn into war instantly.

I'm very sceptical towards how real an option the Germans had in going to total war economy much before they did in 1942. The OTL rearmament programmes had already strained the economy to breaking point, and popularity of the Nazis clearly had to do with common Germans getting lots of butter - and pictures of guns. Lots of guns and pictures of butter doesn't work that well.

You should think that war actually breaking out should provide any necessary reason to go to total war economy, but it obviously didn't in 1939. That is even more strange as the Germans had no clue in 1939 that Blitzkrieg would work that well, they expected a much longer campaign vs. France - but still didn't seriously prepare for it. Had the campaign developed like the Germans had expected, France would have been much better prepared. I will not exclude you could find plausible PoDs to have total war economy initiated before 1942, but not much before and I seriously think they need some shock motivation like the defeat before Moscow in Decemebr 1941.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
ThomasG said:
"Sighs and shakes head sadly" Time to go into alot of statistics and interpretations.
I can see this is going to get long and complex, but maybe ultimately enlightening all round, Remind me to bring a book tomorrow.


L
ThomasG said:
"ets take a look at Statistics by Michael Freeman's Atlas of Nazi Germany pg. 110. Between 1934 and 1935 fiscal year, military spending was 3 billion RM and 4.5 billion RM respectively while Civilian investment was 5 billion RM and 6 billion RM. Basic Industry was half -a- billion RM and 1.7 billion RM. Major Transport and Roads was 1 billion RM and 1.5 billion RM..

Thank you for naming the book.
I see the original publication date is 1987, with a paperbook edition in 1995. the work I am referring to (Over) was published in 1995, and 1997 (Harrison).
What I am interested in is something that rebuts Overy's figures.

Overy goes into the figures you use above in great detail, suggesting that much of what is classified as civilian is actually used for military purposes already. The link you posted is useful, if wierd, I still do not understand where you get your revised figures, they seem arbirtrary.

Also the investment element of the spending is vital, part of the reason for the post 42 take-off is that so many industrial infrastructure programmes come to fruition that year. This is because war was planned for 1944.

ThomasG said:
"
However due to ineffiency in planning and different groups doing duplicated work, though not as bad as Italy, there were bottlenecks. Speer erases those bottlenecks.

Here is your deus ex machina. You have to ask serious questions about whether it can live up to your expectations.

ThomasG said:
"

Further, what you keep forgetting my friend is that prior to 1935, the German Army only had 100,000 men. It takes time to train a vastly enlarged army as you must break up the regular army, train new Officers and NCOs, build bases, buy uniforms, get rifles, get ammunition, etc before you can even begin to start adding Panzers in. Panzers then require reorganization and a specialised logistics tail and etc... The true wonder is that the Germans were able to launch a war on a shoestring and last as long as they did.

Yes, agreed. and they all have to live somewhere as well. That is why lots of the civilian investment is actually barracks building.

ThomasG said:
"
Look, the point is with Speer's reforms, things get better for the Germans as Speer will cut costs across the board and enable the Reich to purchase more Panzers and Trucks. Thats helps greatly in Russia.

The crux of the issue is that war was planned for 1944.
The Nazis concluded that Germany had lost before because it was not ready for a long war.
Even if Speer is given the powers you want him to be given, and is able to use them at this date, with the right results. He is unlikely to do what you want him to.
He does not have a crystal ball and does not know that war will start in 1939.

Therefore he will continue to invest in infrastructure before weapons as he will be committed to the long-war programme.
 
Redbeard said:
II'm very sceptical towards how real an option the Germans had in going to total war economy much before they did in 1942. The OTL rearmament programmes had already strained the economy to breaking point, and popularity of the Nazis clearly had to do with common Germans getting lots of butter - and pictures of guns. Lots of guns and pictures of butter doesn't work that well.

Apparently there was not much butter either. Hence jokes about margarine made from Ruhr coal. If you look at indicators such as meat consumption Germany was far lower than Britain or France. Overy gives some very good standard of living data.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Wozza said:
Apparently there was not much butter either. Hence jokes about margarine made from Ruhr coal. If you look at indicators such as meat consumption Germany was far lower than Britain or France. Overy gives some very good standard of living data.

That is true, but for the Germans there was great improvement from the 20's and early 30's to the late 30's. Much of it was promises/expectations but still most people saw it as progress - also outside Germany - where Hitler often was seen as the man bringing order and social security into the chaotic post war (WWI) Germany.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Wozza, do you even read or think clearly. All right lets try it this way.

The main thing holding back German development back is Beaucratic inefficiency. Speer solves that problem by streamlining the Beaucracy. That saves money that can be spent elsewhere. Speer also was an avocate of the assembly line which if he starts early will have a marked impact in German panzer production and truck production.

By investing in manufacturing, things get even better as that can be turned toward War Production which I pointed out earlier.

Also where does civilian investment become military spending? They are seperate. Civilians tend to build houses and open businesses, not invest in War unless they own a weapon factory.

Finally, between 1935-1938 poor weather destroyed a bit of the Harvest, but it went back up in 1939. During that time as well, Germany was trying increase grazing land which bore fruit in 1939.

If you still don't get it, I'm going to use my suicide smily as I'll give up on you.
 
German military suffered from poor infrastructure. Most Infantry Divisions relied on horse drawn transportation right up to the end of the war.

Had German concentrated on building trucks early on and made it possible to motorize the majority of the army they could have increased their speed of advance (the Panzers moved at one speed, the Infantry at the speed of foot/horse travel). This 'motoriziation' could have been done within the civilain domain - it would not have been an overt 'militiarization'.

Also, Germany needed to develop fuel reserves to insure that the mechanized forces, air and naval units could operate at a wartime tempo for extended periods. Again, building up fuel reserves or expanding production could have been done within the civilian sector and justified by the expanded use of motor transport.

Remember the old saw: Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics
 
;)
ThomasG said:
Wozza, do you even read or think clearly. All right lets try it this way.

I hope this is your attempt at humour.

As a matter of fact I do read clearly, and I have clearly read books on this topic that you are not even aware of, containing theories you have not considered. You might dwell on the prospect that there is much more to this topic than you are aware of.

ThomasG said:
The main thing holding back German development back is Beaucratic inefficiency. Speer solves that problem by streamlining the Beaucracy. That saves money that can be spent elsewhere. Speer also was an avocate of the assembly line which if he starts early will have a marked impact in German panzer production and truck production..
Speer rationalised production. At this stage production is expanding. There are clear tensions between breakneck expansion and rationalisation.

ThomasG said:
By investing in manufacturing, things get even better as that can be turned toward War Production which I pointed out earlier..
They did invest in manufacturing, it came on line in 1941/42.

ThomasG said:
Also where does civilian investment become military spending? They are seperate. Civilians tend to build houses and open businesses, not invest in War unless they own a weapon factory..
Much of the investment you refer to is buildings actually being used by the military. Then there are basic dual use items (eg clothes) going to the military, and a vast number of components ultimately finding a military use. It is fair enough that you are not convinced, I will provide figures tomorrow.

ThomasG said:
If you still don't get it, I'm going to use my suicide smily as I'll give up on you.

I do "get it". I am not convinced, I was never convinced by the "Blitzkrieg economy" concept, and when I found a theory debunking it I bought it hook, line and sinker. I have not found it comprehensively challenged yet, although I am on the lookout for one.

Now, some pleasantries to stop things degenerating;) :D :p :) :) ::D :D :p :p :) ;)
 
Wozza said:

And it still does not adress the issue. Further such economic hardships you are trying to prove would be offset by the war and by exporting arms to China, Persia, Turkey, Japan, and to the Americas.
 
It's alive!:p
Heinkel gets the fighter contracts instead of Messerschmitt, this give the Luffwaffe a far more manueverable, faster, and longer ranged fighter in the HE-112.
I do wonder if Luftwaffe would actually buy the more expensive type...
Radar is fitted to the Kriegsmarine's Ships.
Uhh...KM had shipborne radar before RN...
The U.S. Marines would probably negotiate for the Panzer 3
LOL. I want to see that appropriation get past Congress.:rolleyes:
 
Top