Industrial potential.

[Secret Master]

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?

Yeah, I used to think Speer was worth reading, too. Then I read the breakdown of the Germany economy in Wages of Destruction, and I changed my mind.

However, I'm not going to rehash Tooze's arguments here for several reasons.

1) It's 800 pages long. I'd have to spend 20 posts just getting us all up to speed on mefo bills and pre-war German industrial efforts. And that discussion is necessary, because without understanding the allocation of steel and capital in 1935-1938, you cannot understand why Speer's reorganization of German industry amounted to little more than "Give more steel to projects X, Y, and Z and accept the lack of steel for projects A, B, and C. We'll also call tank parts whole tanks and ignore the coal deficit we are facing."

2) Discussing how Speer was manipulating the numbers takes us into forbidden topics. You can't really understand how labor was being allocated without those discussions (Tooze really takes the time to outline some of this ugly stuff), but since we cannot and should not talk about those things, the argument would be incomplete.

3) We don't have time, and in some cases we cannot even talk about, the systematic plundering of other countries that fueled some of this industrial production. From Austria to the Czechs to Poland to France, the capture of economic resources and more or less outright theft of investment capital is crucial to telling this story, with long lasting effects that affect Speer's numbers without being attributable to Speer's actions. But since we can't really talk about some of that stuff, we can't discuss where Speer's arguments are problematic.

4) I'm not really qualified to summarize some of the arguments Tooze makes, as I do not have the relevant credentials. It's a good read, but I'd be screwing it up if I tried to summarize some of the complex comparisons Tooze makes throughout the book.

Suffice to say, if this topic interests you, it's worth picking up and reading. I just hope you love looking at comparisons of bank reserves, coal allocations, and foreign exchange credits.

 

[Cardus]

Yeah, I used to think Speer was worth reading, too. Then I read the breakdown of the Germany economy in Wages of Destruction, and I changed my mind.

However, I'm not going to rehash Tooze's arguments here for several reasons.

1) It's 800 pages long. I'd have to spend 20 posts just getting us all up to speed on mefo bills and pre-war German industrial efforts. And that discussion is necessary, because without understanding the allocation of steel and capital in 1935-1938, you cannot understand why Speer's reorganization of German industry amounted to little more than "Give more steel to projects X, Y, and Z and accept the lack of steel for projects A, B, and C. We'll also call tank parts whole tanks and ignore the coal deficit we are facing."

2) Discussing how Speer was manipulating the numbers takes us into forbidden topics. You can't really understand how labor was being allocated without those discussions (Tooze really takes the time to outline some of this ugly stuff), but since we cannot and should not talk about those things, the argument would be incomplete.

3) We don't have time, and in some cases we cannot even talk about, the systematic plundering of other countries that fueled some of this industrial production. From Austria to the Czechs to Poland to France, the capture of economic resources and more or less outright theft of investment capital is crucial to telling this story, with long lasting effects that affect Speer's numbers without being attributable to Speer's actions. But since we can't really talk about some of that stuff, we can't discuss where Speer's arguments are problematic.

4) I'm not really qualified to summarize some of the arguments Tooze makes, as I do not have the relevant credentials. It's a good read, but I'd be screwing it up if I tried to summarize some of the complex comparisons Tooze makes throughout the book.

Suffice to say, if this topic interests you, it's worth picking up and reading. I just hope you love looking at comparisons of bank reserves, coal allocations, and foreign exchange credits.

I have read both books and, whilst I agree on many things, I disagree from Tooze with regards to the supposed claims of Speer. That's all.

 

[shri]

What is the distance between ABADAN and London?

It is totally irrelevant.
The distance is pedantically speaking- 5800km but the distance from Abadan to Karachi is only - 2600km and Abadan to Bombay is only 2700km.
British India was probably the second most important piece of territory in the empire after the Home Counties themselves.

The merchant marine at the start of the second world war -
Countries with over a million tons of merchant shipping on the outbreak of war.

UK - 6722 ships, 17,891,134 tons
USA - 2345 ships, 8,909,892 tons
Japan - 1609 ships, 5,996,607 tons
Norway - 1987 ships, 4,833,813 tons
Germany - 2459 ships, 4,482,662 tons
Italy - 1227 ships, 3,424,804 tons
British Commonwealth* - 2255 ships, 3,110,791 tons
Netherlands - 1523 ships, 2,969,578 tons
France - 1231 ships, 2,933,933 tons
Greece - 607 ships, 1,780,666 tons
Denmark - 705 ships, 1,174,944 tons

The UK + Commonwealth have nearly 21 Million Tons of Shipping, roughly 40% of the World.
Further, bulk of the Dutch, Danish and Norwegian shipping totaling over 8 million tons was added in mid 1940.
This meant, UK had direct/indirect control of 60% of World's Shipping by mid 1940. Some of the French and Greek Fleets also joined the UK, which i have not counted.
Nearly half of the German Merchant Marine was sunk or captured in 1939 itself (or interred in neutral countries).
The Total AXIS shipping is less than 15 million tons which is less than the UK alone, in addition the UK had the advantage of the USA's shipyards from mid 1940 onward.
Again from 1940 onward, the Germans and the other AXIS have to focus on Land and Air forces before merchant marine, the British had the advantage of existing shipyards and the ships built by the Commonwealth esp. Canada. In addition LL from USA was present.

Despite sinking some 15 million tons during the war, the UK was not totally cut-off at any point of time away from its RM sources and its empire. Therein, lies the fallacy of your argument.

 

[Cardus]

It is totally irrelevant.
The distance is pedantically speaking- 5800km but the distance from Abadan to Karachi is only - 2600km and Abadan to Bombay is only 2700km.
British India was probably the second most important piece of territory in the empire after the Home Counties themselves.

The merchant marine at the start of the second world war -
Countries with over a million tons of merchant shipping on the outbreak of war.

UK - 6722 ships, 17,891,134 tons
USA - 2345 ships, 8,909,892 tons
Japan - 1609 ships, 5,996,607 tons
Norway - 1987 ships, 4,833,813 tons
Germany - 2459 ships, 4,482,662 tons
Italy - 1227 ships, 3,424,804 tons
British Commonwealth* - 2255 ships, 3,110,791 tons
Netherlands - 1523 ships, 2,969,578 tons
France - 1231 ships, 2,933,933 tons
Greece - 607 ships, 1,780,666 tons
Denmark - 705 ships, 1,174,944 tons

The UK + Commonwealth have nearly 21 Million Tons of Shipping, roughly 40% of the World.
Further, bulk of the Dutch, Danish and Norwegian shipping totaling over 8 million tons was added in mid 1940.
This meant, UK had direct/indirect control of 60% of World's Shipping by mid 1940. Some of the French and Greek Fleets also joined the UK, which i have not counted.
Nearly half of the German Merchant Marine was sunk or captured in 1939 itself (or interred in neutral countries).
The Total AXIS shipping is less than 15 million tons which is less than the UK alone, in addition the UK had the advantage of the USA's shipyards from mid 1940 onward.
Again from 1940 onward, the Germans and the other AXIS have to focus on Land and Air forces before merchant marine, the British had the advantage of existing shipyards and the ships built by the Commonwealth esp. Canada. In addition LL from USA was present.

Despite sinking some 15 million tons during the war, the UK was not totally cut-off at any point of time away from its RM sources and its empire. Therein, lies the fallacy of your argument.

As usual you miss the main point: do you realize that if the Axis could have open access to Tunisia the ports constraints was not anymore a problem for a couple of divisions in north Africa necessary to get Egypt? Do you realize that the control of middle east implied Turkey in the Axis? Do you realize that the control of Egypt meant the control of Mediterranean and east Africa? Do you realize that once in Alexandria the Axis could have got the control over the whole middle east (including Persia)? Do you realize that the once in Persia the Axis could fire the gunpowder in India? Is all of that so difficult to understand?

 

[shri]

As usual you miss the main point: do you realize that if the Axis could have open access to Tunisia the ports constraints was not anymore a problem for a couple of divisions in north Africa necessary to get Egypt? Do you realize that the control of middle east implied Turkey in the Axis? Do you realize that the control of Egypt meant the control of Mediterranean and east Africa? Do you realize that once in Alexandria the Axis could have got the control over the whole middle east (including Persia)? Do you realize that the once in Persia the Axis could fire the gunpowder in India? Is all of that so difficult to understand?

As usual you are off parroting your Goebbellsian dream theory- Persia, India, La La Land, Jupiter, Astra Zeneca, Aliens.

 

[Cardus]

As usual you are off parroting your Goebbellsian dream theory- Persia, India, La La Land, Jupiter, Astra Zeneca, Aliens.

You prove once more that you can't read. That was Raeder's strategy.

 

[shri]

You prove once more that you can't read. That was Raeder's strategy.

Worse than HOMER SIMPSON's strategy and which you so fondly parrot.
If Germany with "no ships, no trucks and no oil" can march straight to India a la WWW HOI4, then Pigs can fly and aliens in flying saucers can appear.

Your whole point is - I am Homer Simpson and LOGISTICS be damned, Port Capacity be damned, Truck Production be damned, i will tell my super infantry to march to India and they will march.

 

[Cardus]

Worse than HOMER SIMPSON's strategy and which you so fondly parrot.
If Germany with "no ships, no trucks and no oil" can march straight to India a la WWW HOI4, then Pigs can fly and aliens in flying saucers can appear.
View attachment 162762
Your whole point is - I am Homer Simpson and LOGISTICS be damned, Port Capacity be damned, Truck Production be damned, i will tell my super infantry to march to India and they will march.

How many divisions were formed for the war against Soviet Union? How many guns were built? How many tanks? etc. etc. All of that was not necessary. Germany could have changed the focus from the Army to the Airforce and Navy: more fighters to defend the continent, more bombers to attack Britain, more ships to transport goods or to attack the enemy. Is all of that too difficult to realize?

 

[Secret Master]

I have read both books and, whilst I agree on many things, I disagree from Tooze with regards to the supposed claims of Speer. That's all.

I can understand that position even if I disagree with it.

 

[Cardus]

I can understand that position even if I disagree with it.

It is ok. I try to distinguish facts from opinions and, unless, we can discuss about all topics the difference between us about this topic it is just a matter of opinions.