[quote name='Devilsadvocate']That's a non-sequiter. In a war-effort situation, labor is a zero-sum game; drain off manpower from the military in order to produce more material, and you reduce the manpower available to utilize that material against your enemies.[/QUOTE]
My point is that without the 10 million soldiers lost or put in the Eastern front, much more resources would be available to Germany.
[quote]No, Germany's increased coal production does not change her war making potential.[/quote]
Yes, It does. Coal is the basic resource from were industrial production came, before the 1960's, when oil became the main energy resource.
[quote]You need to understand that the term "potential" refers to a future state; i.e. what may be possible for an entity to achieve in the future. Since Germany was obviously NOT at peak production of coal in 1937, the future expansion of coal production falls under general term of "potential". [/quote]
That depends on the fact that this increase of more than 2/3 in coal production came from an increase in CAPACITY.
Also, production of MACHINE TOOLS increased from 1936 to 1942 by about 100% in Germany. Machine tools are future state oriented goods.
Source: war and economy in the third reich
[quote]And once again, I must point out, you are taking a single statistic and jumping to a conclusion that is in no way justified by the data you represent.[/quote]Energy represents the single most important statistic in a country capacity to wage war for the time period considered.
And at that period, COAL was the main source of energy. Germany's energy came in 90% from coal.
Today it is quite different.
[quote]Well, it seems you are fabricating numbers again. The initial ratio calculated in Kennedy's book against the Axis is 3.43:1. Assuming that what you say is true, the Allies war-making potential would fall from 70.1% to 63.1%.[/quote]It would fall to 53%, without the USSR and France.
[quote]If the total Axis war-making potential remains at 20.4%, the new ratio will be 3.09:1, not 2.5:1 as you claim. I do NOT consider the actual change in the ratio significant change in favor of the Axis.[/quote]From 67% to 53%? It is indeed. Considering the strategic position.
[quote]Obviously, you have no grasp of the historical situation. The USSR's war-making potential did not decline after Barbarossa, it increased. With the aid the Soviets began to receive, and the ramp-up in their own productive capacity. What you do not seem to understand is that the US, though technically neutral, was already throwing the weight of it's productive capacity behind the Western Allies.[/quote]1- The warmaking capacity of the USSR declined after Barbarossa.
Take a look at that:Soviet Industrial Production 1940-1945
2- Lend-Lease did not influence the war before 1943 (source: The Handbook of the Eastern Front).
[quote]Again, a non-sequiter; occupied Europe's combined GDP is irrelevant as Germany was unable to take immediate advantage of the productive capacity of occupied Europe.[/quote]
No. Germany did tax the occupied Europe's.
[quote]In any case, you are leaving out the GDP of the British Commonwealth.[/quote]
I am only showing that the material superiority of the western allies is not that great.
[quote]The numbers you pick and choose are meaningless unless you are comparing them on a consistent basis, a concept you seem to have trouble with.[/quote]
Maybe it is you that does not understand what I am saying.
[quote]No problem. I refer you to "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers"
by Paul Kennedy. In that book he lists a table showing that the US had 41.7% of the world's war-making potential in 1937. The only significant war-making potential held by any European countries was Germany with 14.4%, France with 4.2%, and Italy with 2.5%. Britain is excluded because it became an ally of the US, and The Soviet Union is also excluded because, in this scenario, it remained neutral. That's a total of 21.1% for Europe and 41.7% for the US, a ratio, in favor of the US, of 2.02:1.[/quote]
1- Considering that Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland, Czech Republic and other countries are not included, and considering that Germany's increased her warmaking potential between 1937 and 1943 (source: war and economy in the third reich, the economics of WW2), that figure you cite is worth nothing.
2- Second to the book, the economics of WW2, the total product of Axis Europe was 1.07 trillion, while the US had 800 billion and UK had 280 billion.
The entire British empire had ~550 billion.
[quote]A larger, but certainly less capable, army and that's about it.[/quote]
In WW2 the Red Army was way more powerful than the combined armies of all western allies. Prof?
1- Read any decent book about the eastern front.
2- Read that:"Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040
[quote]Of course, that varied over the the course of the 72-year life-span of the Soviet Union, as the US de-militarized in the 1930's. In any case, it's pretty much irrelevant as only proxy wars were fought. And your point is?[/quote]
Richer country = militarily more powerful country
Richer country =/= militarily more powerful country
1- The USSR was poorer than the US.
2- The USSR was at least equal to the US in the military sphere (at least equal).
[quote]Yes, that's often the case with asymmetrical warfare which is why it has become so popular. World War II proved that symmetrical warfare gives an enormous advantage to countries with more material and manpower and that country, since WW I, has been the US. That why Germany was so foolish to plan, and engage in symmetrical warfare.[/quote]
Well. Germany was not defeated by the US, but by USSR. And the USSR did not have more material resources than Germany.
Second to Richard Overy:
"Economic size as such does not explain the outcome of wars... If we qualify the explanation to cover only the product of industrial powers then there remains the awkward evidence that Germany had greater industrial capacity than Britain in 1940, and access by 1941 to a good deal more than Britain and the Soviet Union together, and yet was unable to bring either power to defeat."
"The history of war is littered with examples of smaller, materially disadvantaged states defeating a larger, richer enemy."
source: Why the allies won.
Germany was not foolish to plan and engage in symmetrical warfare with the US, since the US inflicted about 4% of the combat casualties suffered by the Wehrmacht
. The main direct contribution of the US to the war was strategic bombing, with did not have a great impact on the outcome.
Source for the 4% number: Feldgrau.com - The German Armed Forces 1919-1945
"German army was a superb fighting organization. In point of morale, elan, unit cohesion, and resilience, it probably had no equal among twentieth century armies." Van Creveld