Keep in mind that US gdp grew from 38-45 almost as much as the combined peak gdp of the axis. It nearly doubled in size in seven years.
- 1
Industrial potential.
- Thread starter Heruure
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
To justify the ability of regions like East Asia in the '30's/'40's experiencing a rapid period of industrial expansion, you'd have to create a virtual fantasy scenario that role-plays a sudden seismic shift to political stability.
Say, for example:
Remember, the key word here is FANTASY - it doesn't have to be perfectly realistic, just something plausible enough to justify a sudden shift so that China can begin to immediately start building their infrastructure.
Can they get to the point where they can be competitive with any other major power? Hardly - but they could be a very powerful component to a new or existing faction. It would be interesting to play.
Say, for example:
Remember, the key word here is FANTASY - it doesn't have to be perfectly realistic, just something plausible enough to justify a sudden shift so that China can begin to immediately start building their infrastructure.
Can they get to the point where they can be competitive with any other major power? Hardly - but they could be a very powerful component to a new or existing faction. It would be interesting to play.
- 2
Didn't pretty much everyone ditched gold standard during the Great Depression? Even the US differentiated their "cash" and "gold certificates".
- 1
- 1
YES and NO. Some went out of it, but almost all of them returned to it. Again, during GOLD standard era, "common people" had faith in the Gold Certificates than the Cash ones.
It was far more complicated. This thread will devolve into an economics debate if i continue now, since the explanation will have to supported with past - Historical Data.
- 1
This only means that any scenario that explains an opportunity for China's rapid growth include some explanation why a few major powers decide to support this goal.
It doesn't change the fact that it can be included if the players want it.
You guys continually ignore the fact that the real point in ANY computer game is FANTASY. The historical component is only an element to the game to give it plot and setting. Suspension of disbelief requires that there be multiple components that tie the game to historical reality, but the limit is not the 'history' itself.
There is no reason why a mod or expansion or even the game itself can't include a scenario that allows for a China that breaks-free of the horrific conditions that existed in the '30's. Its no more implausible than the raving fascist nut-bars winning the war (~grain of salt~).
- 2
- 1
We need to be careful about using GDP as a universal measurement for industrial output.
One US dollar in the USSR goes much further than it did in the USA. GDP doesn't take into account purchasing power parity. It's why a lot of people think that Germany had a larger economy than the USSR. On paper, all things being equal, it did. However in reality it didn't. The USSR achieved much more per dollar than Germany could, and this put the USSR miles ahead in industrial output.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Consider that a substantial portion of the SU's industrial buildup up to and during the early stages of the war was due to trade with Germany; an exchange of raw materials for production machinery and tooling. A lot of those raw materials later came back to haunt the Soviets in the form of tanks, planes, and guns, while the machinery and tooling allowed the Soviets to produce a lot more of their own tanks, planes, and guns to stop them. The Soviet buildup would have been far slower and more difficult without those German imports, along with a heavy American investment even before Lend-Lease.
Barring the same kind of massive foreign investment or extensive trade deals, any prospective Asian world power would have a long, difficult road ahead of it in order to industrialize. Japan was well on its way down that road by 1936, but China and India had a lot more developing to do in order to catch up. I don't see it as a reasonable possibility in the timeframe of 1936-48, "sandbox" or not.
Barring the same kind of massive foreign investment or extensive trade deals, any prospective Asian world power would have a long, difficult road ahead of it in order to industrialize. Japan was well on its way down that road by 1936, but China and India had a lot more developing to do in order to catch up. I don't see it as a reasonable possibility in the timeframe of 1936-48, "sandbox" or not.
- 6
- 1
There were some studies done using - "War Making Potential", in those too, Germany (including Austria and Bohemia) was ahead of the USSR by about 5-10%. The Germans had their own issues which are not modelled in the game- "Nazi Internal Politics with buffoons like Goering and Ribbentrop occupying key posts", if this is modelled in the game, it will become a political game from a war game.
- 1
- 1
shri, perhaps I'm borrowing from what I've heard and the actual production figures. When you're losing you will try new things. When the war started they tried a new tactic of warfare, Lightning War. It worked and see that Germany mobilized as she did out of desperation rather than out of a hope to actually win. So wonder weapons are not bad if they work, but fortunately for Germany all of them were duds. So were all of her other ideas pretty much and we the Western Allies came up with things like Nukes.
From mid 1943 on, Germany switched to a full war economy overseen by Albert Speer. By late 1944, almost the entire German economy was dedicated to military production. The result was a dramatic rise in military production, with an increase by 2 to 3 times of vital goods like tanks and aircraft, despite the intensifying Allied air campaign and the loss of territory and factories. Restaurants and other services were closed to focus the German economy on military needs.
~wiki
Desperation that by that point wasn't going to change anything. Why not switch to full war economy in 1939?
From mid 1943 on, Germany switched to a full war economy overseen by Albert Speer. By late 1944, almost the entire German economy was dedicated to military production. The result was a dramatic rise in military production, with an increase by 2 to 3 times of vital goods like tanks and aircraft, despite the intensifying Allied air campaign and the loss of territory and factories. Restaurants and other services were closed to focus the German economy on military needs.
~wiki
Desperation that by that point wasn't going to change anything. Why not switch to full war economy in 1939?
I agree with you.
If Germany in game 1939 can go full wartime economy like they did historically in 1944 - the war in the west will be easier for Germany and Russia will be alot easier to defeat.
Last edited:
@ both of you,
I suggest humbly that you ditch Speer and grab hold of "TOOZE" with both hands and then come back to this topic, once you have digested Tooze.
Tooze writes in the - http://www.amazon.in/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208, i have read the 2006 edition in 2014, this is fairly recent, about a decade old and in light of the information that came out from the USSR by Glantz (though Glantz is unreliable in some cases), changes the outlook on the Eastern Front and on the entire German War effort.
Some of the "Battle Scenarios" and other such matters are somewhat incorrect, also Tooze is not really an authority on - Strategy, Tactics or even Operations but what he excels is in "ECONOMICS", he has a very strong command on his core subject and hammers his point home very well.
His analysis of Pan-European economic interdependence and also its dependence on raw materials from South America etc as the reason why the Nazis couldn't make much out of their 1939-1941 conquests.
Overall, he shows that the German War economy was engaged at the levels that were possible, how bad was the inefficiency of Nazi Internal Politics, how poorly thought-out or irrational were the goals of the 3rd Reich and how much the Nazis owed to "Luck", though i would characterise that luck part as - Superior Tactical and Operational Skills of Senior Wehrmacht Commanders.
- 2
- 1
- 1
I researched Tooze book, not an audible and I rarely have time to get into them these days. The Deluge is available :C but not this particular title. Does look enlightening. FDR Said himself said that the Third Reich had taken a lot of land, not quoting..that had no real resources..
On the note of German Generals:
When your own Leaders and Army is plotting against you in the campaigns early on. Scared out of their wits, they are not unaware of their lack of ability. Poland and France were not forgone conclusions at the time. If you think after France Germany never beat a true Major Power. UK/USSR and then finally the USA. WW2 was a forgone conclusion. Germany's hope was peace with The USSR for it's survival and existence. Unless you could wipe them off the map which didn't work(they did get to their Capitol) they tried
On the note of German Generals:
When your own Leaders and Army is plotting against you in the campaigns early on. Scared out of their wits, they are not unaware of their lack of ability. Poland and France were not forgone conclusions at the time. If you think after France Germany never beat a true Major Power. UK/USSR and then finally the USA. WW2 was a forgone conclusion. Germany's hope was peace with The USSR for it's survival and existence. Unless you could wipe them off the map which didn't work(they did get to their Capitol) they tried
I think you can try AMAZON, you may get it. It is not that these lands did not have resources, it was more complicated. it is like you have IC but you lack some key resources to produce the items you need. Something like that happened to the Third Reich.
In our WWWs, Daniel is facing these problems, gargantuan amount of Factories but most are operating at 50% or so efficiency due to lack of Rubber/Oil and some even lower due to "Partisans" esp. in USSR.
Poland was a foregone conclusion before the war started and as for France, they had lost the battle when they hesitated in late September 1939 to invade the Germans (French Mobilisation was nearly complete by September 17th or so, though some reserve divisions were still poring in).
Germany not being able to beat the USSR has something to do with a "Two Front War" being fought and bad decisions politically by Hitler from late 1941 or so.
Don't get me wrong- if Hitler had died in June 1939, for the Bloodless conquests (nearly Bloodless) he had pulled off he would have ended up being celebrated as the Greatest German and probably one of the Greatest Politicians ever. There were a lot of Admirers of his politics even in the UK, France and even in the USA and other European Countries.
DOW against the USA in December 1941 was another major blunder, FDR without that DOW would have found it difficult to convince his people of the "Germany First Strategy" and the USA may have concentrated on Air/Naval priorities and restricting themselves to some LL for UK and USSR.
There are a lot of Points of Divergence (POD) which can happen, sometimes these PODs can end up in totally different territory than the Historical ones, doesn't mean they were not plausible.
Stalin's Govt was a very bad Govt (perhaps as bad as the Nazis themselves) and its people certainly did not like it much, in-fact several "minority citizens" from the Baltics, Cossacks, Ukrainians etc actually welcomed the Nazis before learning their true intentions, not utilising these people in their favour for the War Effort was a Political Failure.
In some mods of HOI3 you get alternate plans- Rosenberg Plan (basically creating Puppet Govts) and another one called- Count Schulenberg Plan (promising these countries Independence on the completion of War), now these countries wouldn't have ended up being totally independent instead they would have become quasi-puppets of Germany a la Brest-Litovsk. This is the Political Failure/Lack of conception that i speak about.
- 2
- 1
I'm pretty sure you can get Tooze on Kindle if that helps. I get headaches from too much reading, so am painfully slow at reading stuff, but it's on my 'when I get to it list'. Just had a look - here we go: http://www.amazon.com.au/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/376-5390571-1302035?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=tooze wages of destruction
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Italy opened up a strategic opportunity for Germany to win the war against the British empire. That was the only opportunity to win. Raeder understood it, Hitler could not.
Rommel could see it and explicitly said that a minimal German effort in North Africa in 1940-41 could have changed completely the course of the war.
Italian leadership was bad but German leaderships was a nightmare.
Last edited:
- 1
Also delayed Barbarossa...which may or may not have taken the only possibility to avoid Rasputitsa. Also cost men, machines and air power in another Theater of Operations. Perhaps in conjunction with Unrestricted U-boat Warfare and cutting the Suez and not upsetting the fragility of Stalin's Paranoid delusions... and then performing a Sea Lion it would have been a great strategy. That would have locked the Americans out of Europe awhile.
I have Tooze on my book shelf, the summary of the argument is that in fact the Germans were running as close to a fully mobilised war economy as they could from when the war started through to the end. The large productivity increases in 1943/44 were mostly not influenced by the appointment of Speer, but rather, the result of large scale industrial investments made in the early war finally coming online in 1943/44. Speer blows his own trumpet a lot in autobiographical works and interviews, and many historians have taken his claims at more or less face value in the past, but the productivity increases had begin prior to him assuming his position.
- 2
- 1
You have wrong information. Please read about Barbarossa more carefully.
Sea Lion was out of question. Italy costed a lot of men and resources because the opportunity that it opened was wasted.
I read Speer's book and for what I can tell you he did not blow any trumpet. If you still claim what you mentioned do you mind please to quote Speer?
- 2
- 1
Tooze has very extensive and detailed criticism of Speers claims.
Yeah, Rommel thought that. Rommel was very much wrong.
Keep in mind that while Rommel had an excellent idea about the German situation, he didn't have the ability to view both sides like a distance like we do. He doesn't have the benefit of decades of additional military and academic inquiry into logistics. He didn't even have complete information about Axis logistics in his own theater. He certainly didn't know what additional resources the British might have diverted to North Africa in response to a greater Axis commitment.
- 4
- 1
As I said I read Speer's book. I fail to see there what Tooze is saying. Do you mind please to quote Speer directly?
I think that you missed what I said: Raeder had the strategic view. Rommel, as commander on the spot, could see that with 2/3 additional mobile divisions in 1940-41 the Axis could get not only north Africa but also east Africa and the whole middle east (Persia included). Bear in mind that the strength of the British empire was the empire. Once more that was the only strategic opportunity to win the war.
Last edited:
- 1