WAS THE RUSSIAN MILITARY A STEAMROLLER?

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, Childress said:

But we can't impeach  the noted British historian Niall Ferguson , can we?

Probably. I've tended to stay away from him based on critical reviews of some of his books. Maybe I have missed something, but my time is limited and I tend to be picky where I commit it. I get the impression that he is playing to an audience of which I am not a member. Take that for whatever it is worth...

Michael

[JonS]

3 hours ago, Childress said:

unknown to me it was a Holocaust denial site.

That's fine, although you lack of awareness tells me you probably aren't worth talking to.

[76mm]

49 minutes ago, JonS said:

That's fine, although you lack of awareness tells me you probably aren't worth talking to.

Personally I'd be re-thinking my reading list or personal values if I found I was espousing the same views as a Holocaust denial site, even unknowingly, or saying stuff like "Just givin' the Devil his due" about Hitler  

Edited July 24, 2016 by 76mm

[Childress]

52 minutes ago, 76mm said:

Personally I'd be re-thinking my reading list or personal values if I found I was espousing the same views as a Holocaust denial site, even unknowingly, or saying stuff like "Just givin' the Devil his due" about Hitler  

 

 

 

A bit sanctimonious,no?

The 3rd Reich did enjoy, for several years, an economic resurgence based on traditional scoring- off a low baseline, granted. Hitler crushed the unions at the same time vastly expanding the bureaucracy. There were considerable distortions, notably foreign exchange, that would have eventually doomed this prosperity. Not to mention the gluttonous arms and munitions sectors. In retrospect, it was likely a mirage. GDP numbers notwithstanding.

We clear?

Edited July 24, 2016 by Childress

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, Childress said:

We clear?

As long as you have finally come around to my position, sure.

Michael

[76mm]

9 hours ago, Childress said:

A bit sanctimonious,no?

Perhaps, and my my post did come across a bit harsher than intended--generally you've never come across as one of the mouth-breathing neo-Nazis we encounter from time to time on this site, so I didn't mean to lump you in with them.  That said, your latest post does include significant nuance which did not leap out from previous posts.

[hattori]

Interesting discussion for sure.  Emrys -- I give you full props for reading Adam Tooze's book.  Incredibly interesting, one of the very few to actually talk about this subject, but an enormous slog to anyone not interested in economic matters (although the backbone of any war effort ...)

I don't like to give Hitler too much credit for the economy -- he basically ran a short term stimulus package right at the tail end of a global recession, so yah, the short term results were going to be good.  Increase the amount of government employees by almost 2 million ... eh voila, there goes some of your employment issues.  Pour government money into infrastructure projects and over 10% of GDP into domestic military spending ... ya, you're going to see a short term gain, no doubt.  It's not like Hitler cared in the least about potential long term debt obligations, and the long term footing of his economy.

Hitler didn't do away with unions, he just reorganized them all into the German Labour Front and banned strikes.  Not quite the same thing.

I'm also not entirely sure Germany industry wasn't producing a lot of goods for foreign consumption.  I *think* they even had to move some steel allocation away from the military to meed foreign consumption demands of goods -- in essence, I believe they were basically trading things like German made radios and the like to countries like Yugoslavia in return for desperately needed raw resources.  Germany certainly didn't have the spare foreign currency to straight up buy globally all that they wanted.  It has been too long since Tooze's book, I'm not sure what percentage was allocated to this.

Anyways, always value all your different viewpoints.

[Childress]

Technicians have postulated that the market is driven by the ying/yang of hope and fear, 'fundamentals' being merely a smoke screen. Elliott Wave theory, for example, claims to forecast trends by charting extremes in investor psychology, ie., the swings of optimism to pessimism and vice versa.  Did Hitler, in the short term, generate optimism? If so, it seems that would have a bearing on the reported rise in birthrates.

And, please, no pro-Nazi insinuations. Let's keep it at room temperature.

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, hattori said:

Emrys -- I give you full props for reading Adam Tooze's book.  Incredibly interesting, one of the very few to actually talk about this subject, but an enormous slog to anyone not interested in economic matters (although the backbone of any war effort ...)

I found it a real page turner, but then this was a discussion I was really ready for. What impressed me the most was how he was able to show how political, economic, and military-strategic factors interrelated and influenced each other.

8 hours ago, hattori said:

I'm also not entirely sure Germany industry wasn't producing a lot of goods for foreign consumption.  I *think* they even had to move some steel allocation away from the military to meed foreign consumption demands of goods -- in essence, I believe they were basically trading things like German made radios and the like to countries like Yugoslavia in return for desperately needed raw resources.

Okay, I may be able to give you this, but the main point was that the country had a serious balance of payments problems and was rapidly heading towards bankruptcy.

Michael

[76mm]

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I found it a real page turner...

I've had this book on my Kindle for some time but haven't worked up the nerve to read it yet--the "page turner" description should help!

[JonS]

Yeah, it's very lucid and ... uh, not exactly an easy ready, given the complexity and scope and scale, but if you've read anything by, say, Glantz you will LOVE this by comparison.

[Sgt Joch]

Tooze is a great book, chock full of interesting details, but I don't agree with all the interpretations.

Germany did enjoy an economic boom in 1933-39. There were 6,000,000 unemployed in jan. 33. By 1939, unemployment was below 3% while in the U.S.A/U.K., it was still in the 10-15% range. The standard of living of the German workers improved, real wages went up and they were able to get better jobs as employment shifted from farm/mining to manufacturing/office jobs.

Of course, there was nothing magic about the Nazi economic policies, they just blundered into Keynesian economics, massive spending on the military and infrastructure stimulated demand creating jobs and part of the unemployed were absorbed into the expanding Wehrmacht.

In 1938-39, the German economy was hitting a wall, but there was nothing catastrophic about it. It is no different that what we see regularly with our own economies. First, there was a cash crunch, spending was too high and it was difficult to obtain foreign loans because of the international situation. However, that would have been easily resolved by cutting military spending and/or raising taxes, both of which would have resolved the economic issue. Hitler chose not to do it for political reasons, but there was a simple economic solution.

Second, there was a severe balance of payment problem/foreign exchange shortage which was caused by the fact that the  Reichsmark  was pegged too high at a fixed exchange rate. Again, devaluating the RM or even allowing it to float freely would have solved many of these issues since it would have stimulated exports/lowered imports. The Nazis decided not to do it for political reasons, i.e. fear of a repeat of the 1923 currency collapse, but there was a simple economic solution.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Sgt Joch

[Childress]

On 7/24/2016 at 11:36 AM, JonS said:

That's fine, although you lack of awareness tells me you probably aren't worth talking to.

That sounds like a win/win for both of us.

Sorry, just noticed your post.

[Michael Emrys]

7 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

First, there was a cash crunch, spending was too high and it was difficult to obtain foreign loans because of the international situation. However, that would have been easily resolved by cutting military spending and/or raising taxes, both of which would have resolved the economic issue.

Not to have committed Germany to a crash rearmament program and spent less money on a more gradual expansion of the economy would have achieved the same goal. But that would not have served Hitler's long term goal of taking Germany to war as early as possible. Conquest was always his primary focus and intent, and everything he did was done to bring that about. Once he became chancellor, everything flowed naturally in that direction.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

Agreed. Hitler's policies made war pretty much unavoidable.

Some however have argued that the Nazi economy was a house of cards and that Hitler was forced to start the war to prevent economic collapse. Nothing in Tooze supports that analysis. Hitler could have stepped back from the brink at any time with the only cost being a recession and increased unemployment. 

[Childress]

On 7/26/2016 at 5:57 AM, Sgt Joch said:

Tooze is a great book, chock full of interesting details, but I don't agree with all the interpretations.

Germany did enjoy an economic boom in 1933-39. There were 6,000,000 unemployed in jan. 33. By 1939, unemployment was below 3% while in the U.S.A/U.K., it was still in the 10-15% range. The standard of living of the German workers improved, real wages went up and they were able to get better jobs as employment shifted from farm/mining to manufacturing/office jobs.

1

Damn, I should have stuck to my guns.

[JonS]

On 7/28/2016 at 0:57 AM, Sgt Joch said:

Agreed. Hitler's policies made war pretty much unavoidable.

Some however have argued that the Nazi economy was a house of cards and that Hitler was forced to start the war to prevent economic collapse. Nothing in Tooze supports that analysis. Hitler could have stepped back from the brink at any time with the only cost being a recession and increased unemployment. 

But, isn't that like saying 'Hitler could have won WWII if he hadn't invaded Russia', or 'Hitler could have made Allies out of the Ukrainians if he hadn't tried to kill them all'. It's true but trivial since the Hitler you're talking about bears no relation to reality.

[hattori]

If Hitler doesn't invade Russia, it's not really a world war, it's probably going to stay just a European war.  My suggestion of promoting Ukrainian independence at first ... well, I don't think it would be beyond Hitler to "promise" Ukrainian independence, then turn on them after Russia was knocked out.  Divide and conquer and all that.  I certainly don't think Estonia was really going to get it's independence in the end.  Hitler just figured once he 'kick[ed] in the door, the whole rotten structure [would] collapse', and didn't need to bother with anything other than a frontal assault on Russia.

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, hattori said:

If Hitler doesn't invade Russia, it's not really a world war, it's probably going to stay just a European war.

That is sort of a matter of semantics. As soon as the British and French empires were involved, that pretty much made it a world wide war. Or if you define it a different way, someone could say that it wasn't a world war until the US came in. In any event, I'm not disputing that Barbarossa made it a much bigger war.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

Tooze brings up a lot of very interesting points when dealing with the war economy.

For example, the standard view is that Hitler kept the economy at a peacetime setting to keep the support of the German people and only switched to a "Total War" economy in 1943.

Tooze however argues quite convincingly that Germany had switched to a "Total War" economy as early as 1939-41, i.e.:

-production for the domestic consumer market was cut to the bare minimum; 

-around 85% of German men in their 20's were serving in the Wehrmacht;

-once you add in German women who were working on their family farms, while their husband/fathers were away, the percentage of German women active in the workforce is basically the same as in the U.K./USA.

Again the standard view is that the massive increase in armament production in 1942-44 is due to switching from a peacetime to a war time economy. The implication being that if Hitler had switched earlier, he might have won the war.

However, according to Tooze, Germany was already in a Total War economy and the increase in production is due to better manpower use and reallocation of resources. In 1940-42, many arms factory only worked one 8 hour shift, not because Germany was in a peacetime economy, but due to lack of basic resources. Germany was facing a labour shortage, since so many men were in the Wehrmacht, and a shortage of basic raw materials. Raw steel production stayed basically the same from 1939 to 1944.

Where Tooze's analysis gets a bit fuzzy though is in trying to explain the 1944 "Armaments miracle". He does not want to give any credit to Speer who he views as basically just a politician trying to build a bureaucratic empire. I agree that Speer's reputation is overblown, but he did have managerial skills. According to Tooze, the 1944 production figures boil down to:

- increased workforce: the remaining German workers were working 80 hour weeks and there was a massive use of "Slave Labour";

-better allocation of raw resources: by 1944, Speer could allocate resources/labour which allowed him to kick start many projects like the V1/V2;

-creative fudging of the books.

This however, does not explain why Tank/aircraft production went up 3-4 times from 1942 to 1944. What is skimmed over in Tooze is that rationalization in programs (what was being built) and how they were built were both improved which had an impact,  and the rationalization push came from Speer's department

However, no matter my quibbles, I consider Tooze's book to be one of the most important book on ww2 to come out in  a long time.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Sgt Joch

[JonS]

35 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

Where Tooze's analysis gets a bit fuzzy though is in trying to explain the 1944 "Armaments miracle".

It's been a while since I read it, but the way I recall Tooze's explanation of that is that Speer benefited from earlier investment which came to fruition just as Speer moved into the role of Armaments Minister. Basically he benefited from - and took all the credit for - the foresight and planning of other, more competent, bureaucrats.

This was an exact replication of what happened in the UK in WWI during the 'shell crisis' in 1915 - when Lloyd George took over, he was able to promptly show a massive increase in shell production, which he of course took credit for, because others had already done the planning and laid the ground work for exactly that expansion. (IIRC, something similar happened again in the UK again in WWII, but the details are beyond my grasp right at the minute)

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, JonS said:

It's been a while since I read it, but the way I recall Tooze's explanation of that is that Speer benefited from earlier investment which came to fruition just as Speer moved into the role of Armaments Minister. Basically he benefited from - and took all the credit for - the foresight and planning of other, more competent, bureaucrats.

I remember him writing that too. Speer was a clever opportunist who definitely knew how to play the game, a skill that enabled him to avoid the hangman at Nuremberg.

Michael

[niall78]

On 24/07/2016 at 4:10 PM, Childress said:

LOL, unknown to me it was a Holocaust denial site. Just picked it off Google. But we can't impeach  the noted British historian Niall Ferguson , can we?

Reason magazine has a more negative take on the Nazi recovery. Hitler did slay inflation and employment but at a great cost further down the line.:

http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

Niall Ferguson is a well unknown for his contrarian views on a lot of subjects. Not necesssary a bad thing for a historian but unfortunitly Ferguson allows his personnal contrarian viewpoint influence his writings and in many ways writes counter-factual history because of this or distorts history though ommission of vital facts.

His history of the British Empire is fawning. He credits it with every development in the world during its hayday while ignoring the genocide, murder, servitute and theft that it actually entailed. His view is the British Empire was a great thing for mankind. His books tries to reinforce this view point instead of giving a balanced view of history.

I try to avoid such writers like the plague. Lots to read and my time is limited. I can make up my own mind about a given subject given good sources of fairly unbiased information. I don't get that from Ferguson. I find tawdy propoganda dressed in the clothes of history insulting frankly.

[Sgt Joch]

14 hours ago, JonS said:

It's been a while since I read it, but the way I recall Tooze's explanation of that is that Speer benefited from earlier investment which came to fruition just as Speer moved into the role of Armaments Minister. Basically he benefited from - and took all the credit for - the foresight and planning of other, more competent, bureaucrats.

That is the simple explanation, but it only provides a small part of the answer. What is left unanswered of course is if there were more competent technocrats involved in 1940-41, why was arms production so low and so poorly run.

Speer took over in January 1942 and tank production only started to really take off in early 43 when he used his political muscle to make sure tank production received priority of resources, even Tooze admits that. The advantage Speer had was direct access to Hitler which was the source of all power in the Third Reich. A technocrat with brilliant ideas is useless if he does not have the authority to implement them.

[niall78]

48 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

That is the simple explanation, but it only provides a small part of the answer. What is left unanswered of course is if there were more competent technocrats involved in 1940-41, why was arms production so low and so poorly run.

I remember reading the many technical specialists volunteered or were called up and sent to general fighting units instead of being retained in their industries. These people - electricians, fitters, engineers, etc were pulled from general service and returned home to work as the war progressed and the need for such specialists grew acute.

Maybe the lack of highly trained technical specialists stymied early German wartime industrial expansion?