Some facts about Germany.

[SaintLouisXIII]

With hoi4 coming up ive really been into the history of ww2 and thought this was a good read so ill be sharing some of the book, western civilization vol 2:

"We must develop orgainizations in which an individual's entire life can take place. Then every activity and every need of every individual will be regulated by the collectivity represented by the party. There is no longer any arbitrary will, there are no longer any free realms in which the individual belongs to himself.... The time of personal happiness is over." -Adolf Hitler [quoted in Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History, 6th edition, pg. 83]

Having smashed the parlimamentary state, Hitler now felt that the real task was at hand: to develop the "total state"

Some features of the state apparatus of Hitler's total state seem contradictory. One usally thinks of Nazi Germany as having an all-powerful government that maintained absolute control and order. In truth, Nazi Germany was the scene of almost constant personal and institutional conflict, which resulted in administrative chaos. Incessant struggle charaterized relationships within the party, within the state, and between party and state. By fostering rivalry within the party and between party and state, Hitler became the ultimate descison maker.

In the economic sphere, Hitler and the Nazis also established control, but industry was not nationalized, as the left wing of the Nazi Party wanted. Hitler felt it was irrelevent who owned the means of production so long as the owners recognized their master. Although the regime pursued the use of public works projects and "pump-priming" grants to private construction firms to foster employment and the end of the depression, there is little doubt rearmament did far more to solve the unemployment problem. Unemployment stood at 6 million in 1932, dropped to 2.6 million in 1934 and less then 500,000 in 1937. Expendures on rearmament rose dramastically: in 1933 1 billion Reichsmarks; in 1935, 5 billion; in 1937, 9.5 billion; and in 1939 , 30 billion.

Also if anyone has any historical related questions ill be happy to give feedback. If you guys want to hear more or maybe some insight into the soviet union let me know.

 

[BenGi999]

If you guys want to hear more or maybe some insight into the soviet union let me know.

Oh I would love me some Soviet history facts. I support that idea fully

 

[SaintLouisXIII]

Oh I would love me some Soviet history facts. I support that idea fully

your wish is granted ill go more indepth starting with the rise of bolshiviks! Ill make a new thread for it.

 

[Nicolas I]

Unemployment stood at 6 million in 1932, dropped to 2.6 million in 1934 and less then 500,000 in 1937. Expendures on rearmament rose dramastically: in 1933 1 billion Reichsmarks; in 1935, 5 billion; in 1937, 9.5 billion; and in 1939 , 30 billion.

Don't forget a fair share of these expenses were funded with hidden borrowed money (in surplus of big public deficit), the MEFO bills (12 billions RM) used to conceal the rearmament and, conveniently, the huge debt.

Some think this economic recovery was not sustainable and war avoided the system crumbling, notably with the plundering of Europe.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Some think this economic recovery was not sustainable and war avoided the system crumbling, notably with the plundering of Europe.

Yea Many have gone into great detail about this issue. I've heard toozes wages of destruction covers this issue in great detail. That had Germany not been able to plunder occupied nations as quickly as she did, she would have faced economic ruin when her deficit spending eventually caught up with her.

 

[victimizer]

And if you read Tooze, you'll also learn that the Germans were not well prepared for a long war despite their massive rearmament. For example, they had much smaller ammunition stockpiles than the German empire had going into ww1.

 

[scroggin]

Thanks for the original posting I would like to hear more.

One thing about Germany's economy that is almost always overlooked is the affect of the Nazis limitations on the Profits that companies were able to make from the production of war material. From memory they were limited to 2% return on investment. this placed a handbrake on investment in Germany's critical industries at a time when they desperately needed modernizing and expanding. It also removed the benefits of efficiency.

This contrasts with the west where higher profits meant there was money to reinvest in industry. The good profits also allowed firms to borrow for expansion with the hope of paying their debts back. They were always trying to make their weapon designs more simple and efficient to produce.

In the Soviet Union the Communist system allowed the State to invest in nothing else but military industry. So Germany in effect had some of the negative aspects of socialism with out the positive.

 

[Marfach]

And if you read Tooze, you'll also learn that the Germans were not well prepared for a long war despite their massive rearmament. For example, they had much smaller ammunition stockpiles than the German empire had going into ww1.

That is consistent with the general Axis doctrine imo.
The Germans expected they would be able to sue for peace with the British once France fell, especially when Chamberlain was so happy to appease him.
Yamamoto believed in the event of a war with the US he could win for 90 days. After which point if Japan had not secured victory they would likely lose. Although Yamamoto himself did not want war with the US or the European powers.
Even the Blitzkrieg doctrine was built around the idea of gaining a sudden early advantage and using that to leverage a quick win rather than trying to fight a drawn out war.

 

[victimizer]

That is consistent with the general Axis doctrine imo.
The Germans expected they would be able to sue for peace with the British once France fell, especially when Chamberlain was so happy to appease him.
Yamamoto believed in the event of a war with the US he could win for 90 days. After which point if Japan had not secured victory they would likely lose. Although Yamamoto himself did not want war with the US or the European powers.
Even the Blitzkrieg doctrine was built around the idea of gaining a sudden early advantage and using that to leverage a quick win rather than trying to fight a drawn out war.

No it wasn't. Of course they were aiming for wars of rapid advances; but that's was the German doctrine in WW1 as well, but it wasn't successful. The National Socialists were gambling big time. They had absolutely no notion that the war would see such rapid gains made in such short timetables. They just couldn't build up enough of anything before the war began because the NS German war economy just wasn't very well managed.

Any extended conflict with the Allies would have seen the Germans fold quickly under the pressures of British and French industry, just as they were crushed under the pressure of US and Soviet industry later on in the war.

 

[Turboflex]

Thanks for the original posting I would like to hear more.

One thing about Germany's economy that is almost always overlooked is the affect of the Nazis limitations on the Profits that companies were able to make from the production of war material. From memory they were limited to 2% return on investment. this placed a handbrake on investment in Germany's critical industries at a time when they desperately needed modernizing and expanding. It also removed the benefits of efficiency.

This contrasts with the west where higher profits meant there was money to reinvest in industry. The good profits also allowed firms to borrow for expansion with the hope of paying their debts back. They were always trying to make their weapon designs more simple and efficient to produce.

In the Soviet Union the Communist system allowed the State to invest in nothing else but military industry. So Germany in effect had some of the negative aspects of socialism with out the positive.

Well you had a dunce like Hermann Goering directly running huge tracts of the economy so add in a mix or banana republic style caudillismo meddling which didn't help either.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

ny extended conflict with the Allies would have seen the Germans fold quickly under the pressures of British and French industry, just as they were crushed under the pressure of US and Soviet industry later on in the war.

I don't have anything to back this up, but I also think Germany would have folded much quicker in a drawn out western front campaign(WWII) than they did in WWI.

The most glaring weakness would be oil of course, kind of hard to run the Luftwaffe and mech units with no gasoline.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

People who talk about Germany borrowing far too much money should also mention that is what nations are doing in 2016. Here are explanations for why people are doing it and how economy works:

 

[Nicolas I]

People who talk about Germany borrowing far too much money should also mention that is what nations are doing in 2016. Here are explanations for why people are doing it and how economy works:]

Do you realize that the economy and international trade are very different in 2016 than they were in the 1930's ?

Back then, money was still linked to tangible things as gold reserves (gold standard) and credit was not as prevalent at it is today.

 

[mursolini]

IMO, it is irresponsible to just discuss the Germans, as France and Britain had very real problems as well, which, unfortunately, almost never get explored in detail, while all "credit" just goes to "blitzkrieg" and "stupid French Generals". While almost everybody knows that " Germany wasn't ready for war", how ready for war allies were in reality, not on paper, considering Great depression, and, AFAIK, lavish corruption in defence spending in France during 1920s?

 

[Marfach]

IMO, it is irresponsible to just discuss the Germans, as France and Britain had very real problems as well, which, unfortunately, almost never get explored in detail, while all "credit" just goes to "blitzkrieg" and "stupid French Generals". While almost everybody knows that " Germany wasn't ready for war", how ready for war allies were in reality, not on paper, considering Great depression, and, AFAIK, lavish corruption in defence spending in France during 1920s?

Britain could have been more ready for a war than they were, but after WW1 they already knew how to mobilize their enormous industrial base for a war, and many of the ROC's were still running. Not only that but the great Depression didn't hit Britain as hard as it hit countries like Germany and of course the USA because their Industry ran on Credit from London rather than New York. This only insulated them so much of course but it softened the blow slightly.
France had problems with Unions during this period too which drew attention away from the growing threat posed by Germany and generally interfered with industry. The weight of post-war debts and a generally militant population really took its toll on France in the inter-war period.

 

[Secret Master]

MO, it is irresponsible to just discuss the Germans, as France and Britain had very real problems as well, which, unfortunately, almost never get explored in detail, while all "credit" just goes to "blitzkrieg" and "stupid French Generals".

Did you miss the Maginot Line thread we had a two weeks ago? It was a lengthy and embittered discussion of whether or not French resources were used wisely in its construction. It involved a long discussion of things like Category B divisions and French air forces.

 

[Nicolas I]

Britain could have been more ready for a war than they were...

In part because to the Ten Year Rule which enforced cuts in defence spending if no war was forecasted.

This rule was adopted in 1919 and in 1928 Churchill was instrumental in making the rule self-perpetuating unless specifically countermanded, which was made too late before WW2. This long armament spending gap was nearly fatal to UK at the beginning of WW2.

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Year_Rule

 

[Marfach]

In part because to the Ten Year Rule which enforced cuts in defence spending if no war was forecasted.

This rule was adopted in 1919 and in 1928 Churchill was instrumental in making the rule self-perpetuating unless specifically countermanded, which was made too late before WW2. This long armament spending gap was nearly fatal to UK at the beginning of WW2.

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Year_Rule

Thats very interesting and something I had never read. I understand why it was in place though, Britain was economically stagnant after WW1 and having sold many foreign assets to fund the war needed to get government budgets under control. The poor monetary policy didn't help either as it pushed up the price of British exports to the USA and France.
"There were cuts in defence spending as a result of this rule, with defence spending going down from £766 million in 1919–20, to £189 million in 1921–22, to £102 million in 1932"
"owing to the operation of the “ten-year-decision” and the clamant need for economy, our absolute strength also has...been so diminished as to render the [Royal Navy] incapable, in the event of war, of efficiently affording protection to our trade".
These numbers are pretty stark.

 

[mursolini]

Did you miss the Maginot Line thread we had a two weeks ago? It was a lengthy and embittered discussion of whether or not French resources were used wisely in its construction. It involved a long discussion of things like Category B divisions and French air forces.

Probably, please share a link )

I dont think I was notably off-topic though, because every time people start comparing German real life preparations with some sort of hinsight 20/20 ideal, it is kind of important to remind that Germany wasn't fighting perfect fores either.

 

[Secret Master]

Probably, please share a link )

I dont think I was notably off-topic though, because every time people start comparing German real life preparations with some sort of hinsight 20/20 ideal, it is kind of important to remind that Germany wasn't fighting perfect fores either.

Well, I'm not suggesting your are off topic (I have more official ways of expressing displeasure in that case), but I just didn't want you to think no one is discussing the Allied side of the equation.

Maginot Line fun: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/make-maginot-line-great-again.919949/

EDIT: In hindsight, that was a lesser Maginot Line thread. We've had some better ones from months ago. But the funny part is that we have multiple Maginot Line threads in the first place.