Childress Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 8 hours ago, niall78 said: 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. 4 Niall78/Niall Ferguson... Separated at birth? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 9 hours ago, Sgt Joch said: What is left unanswered of course is if there were more competent technocrats involved in 1940-41, why was arms production so low because the earlier investment hadn't yet come to fruition. This shouldn't be particularly controversial - take Willow Run, for example. It took a really long time to get going (including, yes, some mismanagement) to the point where it earned the nickname 'Will It Run.' But the plant went on to produce over half the B-24s produced. The Same thing happened in Germany - in the very late 30s and very early 40s a lot of plant was being set up, but wasn't ready to start producing till 1942/43, when coincidentally Speer came on the scene. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 This phenomenal thread from 2005 goes deep into the economic-bureaucratic foundations of both Nazi and Soviet war machines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said: This phenomenal thread from 2005 goes deep into the economic-bureaucratic foundations of both Nazi and Soviet war machines Interesting read which I have only begun due to time constraints, but I hope to return to. Jason's opening post immediately reminded me of Robert J. Kershaw's War Without Garlands, which I read in early 2001. That was a real eye-opening experience. I recommend the book. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattori Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Thanks for posting the link to that thread, that was a really interesting take. The only things I would add to it are that I believe most of the Russian tank divisions were missing something like 50% of their logistical support vehicles when the fighting broke out in 1941, which does support his theory. I also remember reading somewhere that in a russian tank division of 300 tanks (in 1941), only 7 were equipped with radios. That has to be absolutely disastrous for command and control. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) It wasn't that the German recovery was so robust but the US was lackluster in comparison. Conservatives in the US congress were pushing austerity measures over recovery efforts which set back our recover from the Great Depression more than it would have otherwise. Plus we had the dust bowl ecological disaster to contend with. Hitler built the autobahn and Germany prospered. Ten years later Eisenhower build the interstate highway system and the US prospered. The obscenity that is ultra-right Nazi social theory is beside the point. Edited July 31, 2016 by MikeyD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.