Something mildly amusing

[Louella]

I read a thing on one of the news websites today, a historian is publishing a new book, about the second world war, anyway...

the article started off with the title:

"Germany lost the Second World War because it was “spectacularly inefficient” "

and went on to say that because of inefficiency in production, and a lack of resources, the German war effort failed.

 

[HeartsofMetal]

Even with 100% efficency the war would've lasted a few months longer.

 

[5688]

Even with 100% efficency the war would've lasted a few months longer.

Depends on how you see efficency, right? You might say that efficency is the general ability to use what you have to the best affect, In which case 100% efficency would make a major difference, unless, of course, you don't think wasting boatloads of money on V-2's or letting the airforce train army divisions are signs of inefficency

 

[Khevenhuller]

I read a thing on one of the news websites today, a historian is publishing a new book, about the second world war, anyway...

the article started off with the title:

"Germany lost the Second World War because it was “spectacularly inefficient” "

and went on to say that because of inefficiency in production, and a lack of resources, the German war effort failed.

He is quite right in regard to spectacular inefficiency. Germany was internally pretty shambolic. It was inherent in the regime really. Take agriculture. In 1933 Germany produced an agricultural surplus. By 1939, with 6 years of Walter Darre at the helm and ideologically driven policy Germany was spending foreign exchange on importing food. Whether things like this meant Germany lost, interesting but certainly feasible. By as late as 1941 Germany is still producing consumer goods and it is not until things go wrong in Russia in late '41/early '42 that they really start shifting to a more 'total war' economy. This is hardly a surprise. Hitler had been dismayed by the popular response - or lack of same - to a military parade in 1939. He was conscious that popular support for the war was superficial and dependent on easy victories that strained the population as little as possible, even to the extent of starting to demobilise divisions after the Fall of France.

The tapestry of competing agencies meant a waste of resources. There was no central authority other than Hitler, no equivalent of a War Cabinet where different agencies could settle priorities. People were just 'working towards the Fuhrer' and lots of internal corruption. Read Michael Burleigh's 'The Third Reich' or Lawrence Rees' 'The Nazis: a warning from history' as good general descriptions of the regime.

K

 

[Ancalimé]

I read a thing on one of the news websites today, a historian is publishing a new book, about the second world war, anyway...

the article started off with the title:

"Germany lost the Second World War because it was “spectacularly inefficient” "

and went on to say that because of inefficiency in production, and a lack of resources, the German war effort failed.

It's correct though isn't it.

By the way, is it funny because it's "sie Germans" and they're stereotypically efficient?

My humour sensors are off at the moment, I'm about to sleep.

 

[Louella]

By the way, is it funny because it's "sie Germans" and they're stereotypically efficient?

no, i found it amusing because production inefficiency and lack of resources, is why most countries in HOI4 lose their wars.

 

[Paglia]

no, i found it amusing because production inefficiency and lack of resources, is why most countries in HOI4 lose their wars.

Tought it was because AI was inefficient...

 

[Ancalimé]

no, i found it amusing because production inefficiency and lack of resources, is why most countries in HOI4 lose their wars.

Righto.

 

[Dalwin]

I read a thing on one of the news websites today, a historian is publishing a new book, about the second world war, anyway...

the article started off with the title:

"Germany lost the Second World War because it was “spectacularly inefficient” "

and went on to say that because of inefficiency in production, and a lack of resources, the German war effort failed.

I guess that author must have played v1.3.3

 

[Duke_Dave]

Well I had Stalin loose a war (I just watched as Turkey) because he refused to change recruitment law and so his division started falling apart from 500 (almost 600) to 40 then he finally relented and changed the law .... so humanism and his love for his people resulting in him not sending them off to a horrible war caused him to loose the war....

 

[Daddl]

The Nazis were in many aspects utterly incompetent. Hitlers economic boom was built on debt and shady tricks, without the world war the whole system would have collapsed by itself. The various ministers rather fought against each other to gain more power for themselves instead of focusing on doing the best. Germany had its production peaks in late 1944, at a time where arguably the war was already lost since 3 or at least 2 years. When I first heard that many german military factories only worked a single shift up until 1943/1944 I thought that was a joke, but its not. Add to that a complete lack of automated assembly lines, german arms were largely hand-manufactured and some designs still had major flaws. And lets not start with the complete waste of resources that most "Wunderwaffen" were.

If Germany really had done Total Mobilization since 1939 and not since 1943 when it was already too late things might have gone very differently. Just imagine Barbarossa with 6000 instead of 3000 tanks, that might have been enough to speed things up to get past Moscow in time.

 

[Khevenhuller]

no, i found it amusing because production inefficiency and lack of resources, is why most countries in HOI4 lose their wars.

Most Germans i know complain about how intensely bureaucratic things are. Then again, the Goring quote may work:

Take one German you have a hard worker.
Take two Germans you have a Bund.
Take three Germans you have an invasion.

K

 

[Duke_Dave]

Most Germans i know complain about how intensely bureaucratic things are. Then again, the Goring quote may work:

Take one German you have a hard worker.
Take two Germans you have a Bund.
Take three Germans you have an invasion.

K

well there you have a big reason why Germany lost, a fat corrupt, incompetent and grandiose air marshall....

 

[Khevenhuller]

well there you have a big reason why Germany lost, a fat corrupt, incompetent and grandiose air marshall....

You forgot the morphine addiction.

He seems to have been at his best once he was captured and 'dried out' by the US. But certainly a man who was 'in it for what he could get out of it' as a former lecturer of mine described him.

K

 

[scroggin]

The Nazis had rules against war profiteering. Companies producing military goods were not allowed to make more than a 3% return on investment if I remember rightly. this removed incentives to be more efficient. There were less profits to reinvest, borrowing money to upgrade and modernise production wasnt possible without the profits to sevice debts.

Sometimes the Nazi blend of socialism and capitalism gave the worst of both systems. The USSR had all the resources of the state to invest in military factories. The USA and UK had the profits of industry to ensure efficiency and investment. But the NAZI's had neither.

 

[Capt. Tane]

Another detail is the Nazis refusing to let women work in factories and such...

 

[adski42]

I assume you mean James Holland's War in the West? Just finished it - very interesting indeed. It is revisionism, but a lot of it makes sense. One example he gives is that German soldiers had 7 uniforms in total (I think I'm right in saying 7, it was certainly a lot) and a lot of production-intensive leather was used. If you multiply those 7 uniforms by the total number of German soldiers then that's a hell of a lot of unnecessary production using expensive materials. Even if not everyone had all 7 uniforms you can see the impact. Its by no means the definitive guide to the War, but it's a very interesting way to look at it.