Total mobilization as Germany.

[frolix42]

"Full war economy" in 1933 is one perspective. Many scholars would disagree with him, I've cited many of them in several threads.

In the past your sources about this subject, when they are at all credible, haven't supported whatever you're trying to say. I've detailed how here.

That's one side of the story. The main reason is of course that Nazi Germany increased military spending massively around 1942/43

A good thing about facts are that there are no two sides of them. There is no evidence that German domestic war investment increased at a greater rate in 1942 or 1943. In fact it's domestic mobilization increased at a steady rate of around 8% annually from 1938 - 1943.

The incorrect but persistent idea that Germany was under-mobilized during the early years of the war is a statistical illusion created by two things. The first is the massive amount of war-investment made during 1939 - 1941, extending to but not for the benefit of the territories conquered by Germany, which made the late-war increase in production numbers possible. The second is the late-war propaganda efforts of Speer's Armaments Ministry, in coordination with Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, to inflate production numbers in an attempt to convince the German population that the war was still winnable.

Germany was the third largest economy in the world after the US and the Soviet Union in 1939 and one of the richest countries in the world measured in GDP per capita (higher than countries like France, Norway and Belgium). This is stuff you are making up.

When you accuse someone of making stuff up, you should bring some sources. Here is a source (technically two sources, Maddison and Clark) which dispels your myth about how "rich" the average German citizen was in the 1930s.

We see that, in comparison to it's neighbors, Germany had a middling, slightly above average GDP per-capita. Less than France, the Netherlands, and by Maddison's estimation less then Belgium. Pre-war Germany was not an impoverished country, but it's average citizen was not affluent compared to Britain, it's dominions or especially the USA. This was also exacerbated by significant income inequality and the high price of civilian consumer goods in 1930s Germany.

Have you got any data on this? I'd have expected the UK's auto industry to still be larger than Germany's prior to the outbreak of WW2, and from random Googling have only found data that supports this, and none to refute it. Random Googling is hardly a great source, and very happy to be corrected, but what I could find didn't point to a particularly large or efficient auto industry in Germany pre-war.

Your skepticism serves you well. You are correct.

There was some impressive growth in the 1930s for the German auto industry, but it was not a country motorized to anywhere near the same degree as the USA or Britain by the end of the decade.

 

[redflag]

The problem with HOI3 was there was no reason to not go to a war footing. The fact that Germany was producing civilian goods such as pianos and civilian cars long after the Allies stopped means there were valid reasons not to go to total economic mobilization in the real world hopefully HOI4 will provide a true cost to mobilizing for war. Maybe something as simple as preventing war exhaustion by still producing civilian goods.

 

[Opanashc]

Memories of WW1 riots due to shortages haunted German leadership. Also, the string of quick victories might have had something to do with it.

 

[Sacer]

In the past your sources about this subject, when they are at all credible, haven't supported whatever you're trying to say. I've detailed how here.

I would like to respond to your posts but when they reach essay lengths, I no longer have time as I have a job. That was the case with the other thread.

As said, what I posted in the other thread was meant as an introduction into the topic for people unaware of it. But here you go.

The debate itself has nothing to do with that the side you disagree with is less credible, and who you consider being not credible is irrelevant anyways. Nonetheless, hopefully, you consider at least one of these authors credible.

Schoenbaum

Milward

Umbreit

Lynch

Hardach

Mackenzie

Hyde

Where Milward argued that Hitler chose to launch a war in 1939 because it fitted the strategic synthesis of Blitzkrieg, Overy denied that the Blitzkrieg as a strategy had ever existed; it had been invented a posteriori by historians.210 Instead of a synthesis between economic and political objectives, Overy argued that there was in fact a disjuncture. The crux of the matter thus lay in the explanation of Alan Milward’s early-1942 turning point. According to Overy, the increase in arms production after 1942 was not due to any specific decision but to the natural maturity of the heavy investment in war-related industry since 1936. But Overy’s views failed to convince many historians. Harrison and Mark Roseman continued to accept the Blitzkrieg thesis.211 So did Marwick and Clive Emsley, while
lamenting that ‘[l]ike most historians challenging an orthodoxy Overy does tend to make his target appear rather less substantial than it was: Alan Milward’s original research in this area was both pioneering and persuasive.’212 Ránki also agreed that the Blitzkrieg strategy ‘corresponded to the economic realities of Germany’s position. I regard this’, he wrote, ‘as the most decisive point in the discussion.’213

https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/19928/1290.pdf?sequence=1

Interestingly, the point of the German economy being under-mobilized is also made in this video recently made by paradox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCeEy1IFyX4&t=6m34s

Anyways, there is no point for us having this debate, it already exits among historians. People can read about it and make up their own mind. However, people ought to keep in mind that the victor writes the history. As Lyck and Guiaro writes in the above link: "many see Nazi Germany as an evil power intent on provoking an irrational world war"

A good thing about facts are that there are no two sides of them. There is no evidence that German domestic war investment increased at a greater rate in 1942 or 1943. In fact it's domestic mobilization increased at a steady rate of around 8% annually from 1938 - 1943.

That graph shows very clearly that net national production for war increased substantially in 1942/43, so I don't understand your point.

The incorrect but persistent idea that Germany was under-mobilized during the early years of the war is a statistical illusion created by two things. The first is the massive amount of war-investment made during 1939 - 1941, extending to but not for the benefit of the territories conquered by Germany, which made the late-war increase in production numbers possible. The second is the late-war propaganda efforts of Speer's Armaments Ministry, in coordination with Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, to inflate production numbers in an attempt to convince the German population that the war was still winnable.

The incorrect but persistent idea that Germany was ultramobilized for war since 1933 and planning a world conquest stems from post-war allied and Soviet propaganda efforts. The victor always has an political interest in portraying the enemy as aggressive as can be done. As for the "statistical illusion" you are referring to, more than enough credible historians don't see it.

When you accuse someone of making stuff up, you should bring some sources. Here is a source (technically two sources, Maddison and Clark) which dispels your myth about how "rich" the average German citizen was in the 1930s.

I didn't claim that the average German citizen was rich in the 1930s. It is more about that your general portrayal of the German economy is rather one-sided.

We see that, in comparison to it's neighbors, Germany had a middling, slightly above average GDP per-capita. Less than France, the Netherlands, and by Maddison's estimation less then Belgium. Pre-war Germany was not an impoverished country, but it's average citizen was not affluent compared to Britain, it's dominions or especially the USA. This was also exacerbated by significant income inequality and the high price of civilian consumer goods in 1930s Germany.

Like I said, a GDP per capita higher than that of France and Belgium in 1939. Again, your portrayal of a relatively rich country, with huge industrial economy, is very one sided.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...utlY4NsZF9qwdu2Hg&sig2=2amxO97DVX2NIJctRLx99A

Your skepticism serves you well. You are correct.

No comparison of the UK and German automobile industry in that picture. Not that it really matters which country produced the most cars at the time, as contrary to what you claim, Germany had a highly advanced industrial base, especially with automobiles.

 

[Meglok]

Can we not go down the path of war exhaustion please? It has little to no bearing in a controlled totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union. Unless you plan to just punish democracies for being at war. Even in Germany, the best efforts of Bomber Harris to break the civilian will through carpet bombing were judged to be a complete waste of effort and manpower.

You could probably rewrite the various consumer and political laws to account for different levels of gearing up and the consequences thereof to civilian happiness. After all, they are only numerical modifiers to a formula, at least in HOI3. Tinkered with them all the time, events are a wonderful mechanism in HOI3. Even wrote one to allow Germany to raise additional manpower at the expense of production capability to reflect their drafting bodies out of factories to fill combat units.

But not war exhaustion. There is a very good reason PD got rid of that concept, please leave it in the grave.

 

[Sacer]

Can we not go down the path of war exhaustion please? It has little to no bearing in a controlled totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union. Unless you plan to just punish democracies for being at war. Even in Germany, the best efforts of Bomber Harris to break the civilian will through carpet bombing were judged to be a complete waste of effort and manpower.

I would not agree with that. The chapter on the Soviet Union in Harrison's book on the economics of WWII is called the defeated victor for a reason. The Soviet economy was permanently damaged because of WWII and it never really recovered. However, one can argue that authoritarian regimes can take more war exhaustion than democracies.

 

[Denkt]

One thing you can say is that Germany reached its proudction peak in 44 while Soviet reached its peak in 1942 and kept around that level for the rest of the war.

I would not agree with that. The chapter on the Soviet Union in Harrison's book on the economics of WWII is called the defeated victor for a reason. The Soviet economy was permanently damaged because of WWII and it never really recovered. However, one can argue that authoritarian regimes can take more war exhaustion than democracies.

You can say the same about Germany and other economies too was permanently damaged because of ww2.

 

[frolix42]

That graph shows very clearly that net national production for war increased substantially in 1942/43, so I don't understand your point.

It shows that during the late war, the greater part of growth in German net resource mobilization came from outside it's borders.

It is more about that your general portrayal of the German economy is rather one-sided.

How so?

...as contrary to what you claim, Germany had a highly advanced industrial base, especially with automobiles.

True to form, you're being very misleading by setting up yet another strawman. Here's what I said before.

In the Germany of the 1930s, on one hand you had internationally competitive companies with very advanced laboratories (IG Farben) and sophisticated machinery (Siemens and BMW) but then on the other hand, you had the majority of Germany's population working on small subsistence farms with a median living standard similar to that of it's central European neighbors.

It seems to me that you are the one ignoring one side of the issue, specifically the gaps in Germany's 1930s industrialization and the meager standard of living for a plurality of it's population. German mechanization of agriculture especially lagged behind it's western neighbors. And it is not hard to see why; German agriculture was dominated by small peasant farms which were labor intensive and inefficient.

A surprise, I guess, for Nebeling Werfers, who have grown up with the Hollywood image of Nazi Germany - a mechanized titan able to crush it's enemies even without fully mobilizing.

Interestingly, the point of the German economy being under-mobilized is also made in this video recently made by paradox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCeEy1IFyX4&t=6m34s

I know, disappointing right? Christer Holm seemed like a good source of information on military vehicles, he does work in a museum of military weapons after all. But once he goes outside of his field of expertise he repeated several economic myths which have been long discredited. According to his statements in the video Germany had a thriving civilian auto industry during the war, women were not mobilized in the German workforce, and of course he repeated the tired line about Germany not being mobilized. All three false, he is obviously a military historian and not an economic historian.

The incorrect but persistent idea that Germany was ultramobilized for war since 1933 and planning a world conquest stems from post-war allied and Soviet propaganda efforts. The victor always has an political interest in portraying the enemy as aggressive as can be done. As for the "statistical illusion" you are referring to, more than enough credible historians don't see it.

Except when an aggressor is the aggressor, unless you believe the Gleiwitz incident was genuinely a Polish plot. If so I feel sad for you. So really what are you trying to sell here? That Hitler and the rest of the German leadership were stupid enough to start a war Britain, France, the Soviet Union, the United State and many others but not to do their utmost to mobilize until after Stalingrad when the war was lost? I find this ridiculous

I didn't claim that the average German citizen was rich in the 1930s.

Yes you did. Here is where you made this claim.

Germany was the third largest economy in the world after the US and the Soviet Union in 1939 and one of the richest countries in the world measured in GDP per capita (higher than countries like France, Norway and Belgium). This is stuff you are making up.

It would be patently false to state (as you do) that Germany had a larger GDP per-capita than France. Belgium and Norway are two other countries that are wealthy today, much less so in the 1930s. This leads me to believe that you are letting your modern conception of which countries are "rich" bias your perception of the past.

Like I said, a GDP per capita higher than that of France and Belgium in 1939.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...utlY4NsZF9qwdu2Hg&sig2=2amxO97DVX2NIJctRLx99A

Dead link. I wish I could give you credit for trying, but this isn't Kindergarten. As the table I provided above shows, Germany certainly did not have a larger GDP per-capita than France. Do you understand the difference between a nation's net GDP and GDP per-Capita?

 

[GermanKaiser]

Germany had it's women mobilized in 1942, long time after the allies, I'm talking about UK mostly.

 

[frolix42]

Germany had it's women mobilized in 1942, long time after the allies, I'm talking about UK mostly.

I'm sorry this is another economic myth, originating from late-war propaganda offensives, which persists today. Germany's women were more mobilized at the start of the war (1939) than British women were at any time during the war.

Any other interesting/relevant (for this topic) points in the book?

I had no idea before visiting the Hearts of Iron forum how many of the myths 'Wages of Destruction' addresses are still around. IMHO a required read for anyone who wants to know about more than just the battles of WW2. As every Paradox gamer knows, battles are only the end result of extensive strategic planning.

 

[Opanashc]

One thing you can say is that Germany reached its proudction peak in 44 while Soviet reached its peak in 1942 and kept around that level for the rest of the war.

Then how would you explain, that in 1944 SU produced more military stuff, than in 1942 and 1941 combined?

 

[Sacer]

It shows that during the late war, the greater part of growth in German net resource mobilization came from outside it's borders.

That's not what I see.

True to form, you're being very misleading by setting up yet another strawman.

This is what you said:

Today it is ingrained in our collective consciousness that Germany is a rich country with a highly advanced industrial base (with especially swanky automobiles), but this was not the Germany at the time of HoI.

It seems to me that you are the one ignoring one side of the issue, specifically the gaps in Germany's 1930s industrialization and the meager standard of living for a plurality of it's population. German mechanization of agriculture especially lagged behind it's western neighbors. And it is not hard to see why; German agriculture was dominated by small peasant farms which were labor intensive and inefficient

I very much doubt that. Maybe it as somewhat traditional in Prussia but in general I doubt that mechanization of agriculture lagged behind in Germany. Provide a source.

What's this supposed to prove?

I know, disappointing right? Christer Holm seemed like a good source of information on military vehicles, he does work in a museum of military weapons after all. But once he goes outside of his field of expertise he repeated several economic myths which have been long discredited. According to his statements in the video Germany had a thriving civilian auto industry during the war, women were not mobilized in the German workforce, and of course he repeated the tired line about Germany not being mobilized. All three false, he is obviously a military historian and not an economic historian.

As I've shown, he's completely in line with military historians. It's all about you refusing to admit that.

Except when an aggressor is the aggressor, unless you believe the Gleiwitz incident was genuinely a Polish plot. If so I feel sad for you. So really what are you trying to sell here? That Hitler and the rest of the German leadership were stupid enough to start a war Britain, France, the Soviet Union, but not to do their utmost to mobilize until the war after Stalingrad when the war was lost? I find this ridiculous

As aggressive as possible is what I said. Sure an aggressor is an aggressor, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is an all military state planning on world conquest. Even an aggressor is usually not as aggressive as portrayed in its enemies' propaganda machinery.

Germany didn't start war with Britain and France. France and Britain started war with Germany because Germany started war with Poland. Get your historical facts straight. Hitler didn't plan on war with Britain, and most certainly not the US. As for the USSR, nothing need be said.

Not stupid, but suffering from victor's disease.

Yes you did. Here is where you made this claim.

Rich, as a country, by relative measures, yes indeed.

It would be patently false to state (as you do) that Germany had a larger GDP per-capita than France. Belgium and Norway are two other countries that are wealthy today, much less so in the 1930s. This leads me to believe that you are letting your modern conception of which countries are "rich" bias your perception of the past.

Dead link. I wish I could give you credit for trying, but this isn't Kindergarten. As the table I provided above shows, Germany certainly did not have a larger GDP per-capita than France. Do you understand the difference between a nation's net GDP and GDP per-Capita?

It's a download link. An excel file should be available for download when you click it. Enjoy the data you'll see in it.

 

[Sacer]

I'm sorry this is another economic myth, originating from late-war propaganda offensives, which persists today. Germany's women were more mobilized at the start of the war (1939) than British women were at any time during the war.

You know, when one refers to the female workforce as mobilized one usually refers to women working in industry. Of course women worked in Nazi Germany, they weren't sitting home looking into the wall. Fact is they were not mobilized in the war industry to the same extent seen in the UK and the US. I'm sorry but no economic myth.

 

[Nasr]

You know, when one refers to the female workforce as mobilized one usually refers to women working in industry. Of course women worked in Nazi Germany, they weren't sitting home looking into the wall. Fact is they were not mobilized in the war industry to the same extent seen in the UK and the US. I'm sorry but no economic myth.

That's because many of them couldn't - they were working on farms. They couldn't be sent off to the factories, otherwise Germany's agricultural sector would collapse for lack of labour.

 

[frolix42]

That's not what I see.

I know. This is because you are purposefully blinding yourself to the fact that German domestic mobilization increased at a steady rate during the war. Or you don't know how to interpret a table of data.

What's this supposed to prove?

The average German farm was small, this would mean the average crop for every farmer was small, so the average farmer was not very wealthy. They would be much less likely be able to afford a tractor. There was agricultural collectivization which happened in the Soviet Union, but in Germany farmers did not as a rule pool their resources together and buy tractors.

You know, when one refers to the female workforce as mobilized one usually refers to women working in industry.

I <3 playing connect the dots for people who refuse to do it themselves.

During wartime farms cannot simply be abandoned en masse while the men become soldiers and women become factory workers. Because farms in Germany were smaller this meant that you had to have more people work to produce the same output as a nation with a larger average farm size. To break it down as if for a child, Germany didn't have women work in factories because Germany couldn't spare women to work in factories.

That's because many of them couldn't - they were working on farms. They couldn't be sent off to the factories, otherwise Germany's agricultural sector would collapse for lack of labour.

He gets it.

As aggressive as possible is what I said. Sure an aggressor is an aggressor, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is an all military state planning on world conquest. Even an aggressor is usually not as aggressive as portrayed in its enemies' propaganda machinery.

For a moment you appear to understand that mobilization during wartime doesn't indicate aggression. You are of course ignoring the fact that Germany was aggressively mobilized at a much greater level than it's neighbors before the war started.

Germany didn't start war with Britain and France. France and Britain started war with Germany because Germany started war with Poland. Get your historical facts straight. Hitler didn't plan on war with Britain, and most certainly not the US. As for the USSR, nothing need be said.

But it also appears you can't resist side-tracking in order to whine about how you think Hitler and Nazi Germany was an innocent victim. This Neo-Nazi nonsense you're trying to push does nothing except reveal your mentality.

It's a download link. An excel file should be available for download when you click it. Enjoy the data you'll see in it.

Yeah...how about no. At best it will contain an excel file, from an unpublished source which is either wrong or that you've misinterpreted. At worst...I don't want to think about it. I've learned from Chamberlain's March '38 mistake at Munich.

 

[Meglok]

I would not agree with that. The chapter on the Soviet Union in Harrison's book on the economics of WWII is called the defeated victor for a reason. The Soviet economy was permanently damaged because of WWII and it never really recovered. However, one can argue that authoritarian regimes can take more war exhaustion than democracies.

The reason the Soviet economy was "permanently damaged" after the war was not because of exhaustion. During the war the Soviets had no difficulty keeping the Russian people motivated and producing war materials. If the pleas to save Mother Russia didn't work the NKVD and Commissars did. Even Harrison confirms that while the Soviet economy was hammered by the losses in 1941-42, by 1943 they had recovered to a parity with the German economy mainly through the effects of switching 44% of GNP from consumer to military production and the massive influx of material aid from the West. The Soviet Union's post war issues were because of their flawed command economic model and the refusal and/or inability to switch back to a consumer goods economy in the face of a perceived/manufactured threat from the West. Don't confuse the Soviet Union's economic issues post war with the concept of exhaustion during the war causing issues for the Soviet economy, or the reaction of the Soviet people in the 1980's to the unpopular Afghan war compared to the Russian people rising up to defend Mother Russia from the Germans in WWII. Different times and different situations.

 

[Sacer]

I know. This is because you are purposefully blinding yourself to the fact that German domestic mobilization increased at a steady rate during the war. Or you don't know how to interpret a table of data.

Most of net national production for war was mobilized domestically rather than externally according to your graph.

The average German farm was small, this would mean the average crop for every farmer was small, so the average farmer was not very wealthy. They would be much less likely be able to afford a tractor. There was agricultural collectivization which happened in the Soviet Union, but in Germany farmers did not as a rule pool their resources together and buy tractors.

That's way too simplistic.

I <3 playing connect the dots for people who refuse to do it themselves.

During wartime farms cannot simply be abandoned en masse while the men become soldiers and women become factory workers. Because farms in Germany were smaller this meant that you had to have more people work to produce the same output as a nation with a larger average farm size. To break it down as if for a child, Germany didn't have women work in factories because Germany couldn't spare women to work in factories.

Also too simplistic and only one side of the story.

For a moment you appear to understand that mobilization during wartime doesn't indicate aggression. You are of course ignoring the fact that Germany was aggressively mobilized at a much greater level than it's neighbors before the war started.

Aggressively mobilized? Now what does that new term of yours mean?

Not really. Depends which year you are talking about and which neighbor.

I guess Germany was aggressively mobilized while all other countries were just mobilized

But it also appears you can't resist side-tracking in order to whine about how you think Hitler and Nazi Germany was an innocent victim. This Neo-Nazi nonsense you're trying to push does nothing except reveal your mentality.

You were the one who started side-tracking.

That's rather pathetic. Do you think saying that France and Britain declared war on Germany is neo-nazi or is that you ran out of arguments? Aka: "Everyone who disagree with me are evil nazis!"

Yeah...how about no. At best it will contain an excel file, from an unpublished source which is either wrong or that you've misinterpreted. At worst...I don't want to think about it. I've learned from Chamberlain's March '38 mistake at Munich.

The University of Groningen actually. Seems to be collected by Maddison as well. Probably all neo-nazi statistics anyways so don't bother.

 

[Daelyn75]

But it also appears you can't resist side-tracking in order to whine about how you think Hitler and Nazi Germany was an innocent victim. This Neo-Nazi nonsense you're trying to push does nothing except reveal your mentality.



Yeah...how about no. At best it will contain an excel file, from an unpublished source which is either wrong or that you've misinterpreted. At worst...I don't want to think about it. I've learned from Chamberlain's March '38 mistake at Munich.

Wow, and based upon what you were presenting you were doing well before these two statements. Seems to me that you've lost the battle when you start name calling, and yes saying "This Neo-Nazi nonsense you're trying to push does nothing except reveal your mentality." - just because he corrected you on a small technicality, is pretty demeaning.

I am interested in learning more about the economy and mobilization, but when you refuse to even look at what he is trying to present to you then you really aren't taking this debate seriously enough. Look through it first at least!

Oh and Sacer, I find that when debating someone, it helps to post excerpts from your sources in order to throw it in their face, and force the issue. There is a lot of data in your link, and it will not always be catchy for someone who is disinterested in the points that you are arguing. A lot of people like to present their side with sources, and stand back and laugh at you until you can one up them. If not, and they won't even look at your sources. So you need to be more crafty in getting it into the argument.

I debate and argue with people on the internet all the time, and If I am wrong I will admit it, if not and I am on to something I don't let go.

 

[Zinegata]

Wow, and based upon what you were presenting you were doing well before these two statements. Seems to me that you've lost the battle when you start name calling, and yes saying "This Neo-Nazi nonsense you're trying to push does nothing except reveal your mentality." - just because he corrected you on a small technicality, is pretty demeaning.

Sacer has in fact posted very little that isn't "Neo-Nazi nonsense" (which isn't even an insult, as Frolix is accurately describing the ridiculousness of Sacer's sourcing and blatant butchering of the facts; and Sacer's persistence in using such discreditable narratives like "Germany didn't start the war" is a good indicator of Sacer's blatant biases regarding the issue). And no amount of false offense at simply calling a spade a spade will change that.

Frolix has in fact done a very good job of outlining the facts presented in Tooze's book, which again is now pretty much the undisputed reference on the economic aspect of the Nazi war machine because he's the only author to actually look at the hard, economic numbers. Everyone else - including every single source Sacer quotes - is just making assumptions not backed up by real numbers. Really, this is how you get idiotic myths like "German women weren't mobilized" when the actual numbers show Germany had a higher number of women mobilized than the Brits.

Moreover, contrary to popular belief there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying flat-out that someone's opinion is wrong so long as they have the facts to prove it. Sacer has been nothing but wrong in this thread. There is no "other side to consider", because this is not "opinion vs opinion", this is "opinion vs fact"; and it would really help if people dropped this childish notion that opinions are sacred and should be immune to being "wrong".

Your casual dismissal of Frolix's exhaustive efforts to reveal the reality of the German war economy - which to be blunt is something that takes actual effort and knowledge (and is an imposition on Frolix as he is spending time and energy to share his knowledge) as compared to Sacer's disjointed and unsourced posturing - over a perceived insult frankly reflects badly not on Frolix, but on you because it reflects how you are effectively championing anti-intellectualism for a completely frivolous reason.

Tl;DR: You are seriously saying Frolix "lost" the debate even though he's the one who actually posted multiple charts and quotations? And you think that Sacer is in any way correct with his utterly insane notion that "Germany didn't start war with Britain and France"? That's not just revisionism or a different point of view. This is just blatant dishonesty at every level except to Neo Nazi idiots.

 

[Daelyn75]

Alright, Zinegata, you are incorrect on every account that you are chastising me for. First off, I want an actual debate between frolix42 and Sacer, and no where did I champion one side or the other. I've also read everything that Sacer had to say and I would not be calling him a neo-nazi for it. He stated that Germany did not start the war with Britain and France, and despite the fact that he has been arguing his points with little to back it up with doesn't mean he's secretly some neo-nazi. That's taking it too far, even if the man won't relent on the argument.

""Germany didn't start the war" is a good indicator of Sacer's blatant biases regarding the issue"

He didn't say that, he corrected Frolix42 on a small technicality that Germany started the war with Poland, and England and France then declared war on Germany, and that means he's a neo-nazi? Does that mean in your mind that I'm a neo-nazi for saying the man isn't one, and the fact that you have little basis to judge him on the issue? Unless he's been ranting neo-nazi like arguments in other threads than this, then you don't have much to stand on with your assertion. So where is the spade?

"Frolix has in fact done a very good job of outlining the facts presented in Tooze's book, which again is now pretty much the undisputed reference on the economic aspect of the Nazi war machine because he's the only author to actually look at the hard, economic numbers."

Perhaps you are correct, however I am getting quite used to doing a little digging in the face of the so called undisputed message that floats around in our everyday lives and more often than not I find out that the so called truth isn't exactly solid, or correct. And that is why I wanted a healthy debate on the subject. Sacer wasn't being very convincing, so that was why I wanted him to get sources for his argument. It doesn't mean I supported his side.

"Moreover, contrary to popular belief there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying flat-out that someone's opinion is wrong so long as they have the facts to prove it. Sacer has been nothing but wrong in this thread. There is no "other side to consider", because this is not "opinion vs opinion", this is "opinion vs fact"; and it would really help if people dropped this childish notion that opinions are sacred and should be immune to being "wrong"."

Based upon what I am saying here to you, and what I said in my previous post, this is irrelevant because I want a healthy debate, not for someone to shut their mouth. You are not getting what I was trying to convey.

"Your casual dismissal of Frolix's exhaustive efforts to reveal the reality of the German war economy - which to be blunt is something that takes actual effort and knowledge (and is an imposition on Frolix as he is spending time and energy to share his knowledge) as compared to Sacer's disjointed and unsourced posturing - over a perceived insult frankly reflects badly not on Frolix, but on you because it reflects how you are effectively championing anti-intellectualism for a completely frivolous reason."

I didn't dismiss anything but name calling, and a pretty nasty instance of it too. I even said he was doing well until that point. When you start namecalling then yeah, you have lost your cool and you have lost the debate, regardless if you were 100% correct. This is an etiquette thing you see, especially on the PI boards. You are required to act more civilly here.

"Tl;DR: You are seriously saying Frolix "lost" the debate even though he's the one who actually posted multiple charts and quotations? And you think that Sacer is in any way correct with his utterly insane notion that "Germany didn't start war with Britain and France"? That's not just revisionism or a different point of view. This is just blatant dishonesty at every level except to Neo Nazi idiots."

I'm not sure where you get neo-nazi from arguing a different point of view about the economic aspects of Nazi German mobilization. Is one pro neo nazi because they debate on the side that Germany mobilized in this certain way compared to that certain way? Where did Sacer implicitly say that he's pro nazi? What you are saying here is pretty ignorant based upon your own view which pretty quickly collapses when its quite obvious that you are also name calling simply because you don't support Sacer's side. I don't care if you believe wholeheartedly that Sacer is incorrect, you don't start flinging around neo-nazi at people because you disagree with them.