Well, now that we've heard the old fisherman's tale...

Oh yeah... how stupid were the nazies, the most stupids: Speer, Schacht, Dönitz, Göring... Well, how stupids could rule all Europe then?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Where are your facts? This is news and I have never heard of any "committees". Also, Agriculture did not fall under Speer. So while I would agree with some of what you said, it does not count under this topic

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Because they were not being bombed round the clock. Speer did accomplish much more than anyone could under the circumstances. You cannot compare apples with oranges.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

First off, I don't mean to be rude here, but if you don't understand the part resources and material play in war, then you don't understand war. This is really very simple though... every aspect of "making war" requires certain resources. One needs all sorts of things- from people and food to specific things like guns and planes. The resources needed to create such materials of war must be attained from some source. AS much as Friedrich seems to want to ignore such resources, nations that are at war cannot. How would one build a rifle without machined parts and bearings? How would one make a submarine without rubber for valves and copper for wires? A tank cannot be produced without steel alloys and cannot run without fuel and lubrication. All these resources canot be created by magic- they are finite resources in finite amounts. I would love to hear an explanation from someone how a wartime economy could simply ignore such resources!
http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/WarEcon.html
A page providing some pretty good info I found off one of Erich's links.

And back to the matter of Speer's appointment in 1939-
"Until 1942 Hitler had been adamant that the military effort shoulf not depress civilian living standards or curtail the output of consumer goods; between January and May 1942, at the insistence of his Armamanets Minister, Fritz Todt, and then (after Todt's accidental death) Dr Albert Speer, he accepted that military output as a proportion of gross national product wold have to rise."(The Second World War, John Keegan). So that would be early 1942, Hitler's decision. This is backed up by any source on ww2.
So that solves this What If...

And Friedrich, the nazis did conquer most of Europe- and then got completely smashed by the allies. Don't forget that part.

[ 07 August 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Well, what we have said was that the planes, tanks and boats were being produced despite the incessent bombing. Common sense would prevail, hopefully, that these items could not be built. Because they were built, it must mean that the problem was not as major as you attempted to point out. You are preaching to the choir in your attempt to "educate".

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Of course they were stupid. Germany in April 1945 is a testament to their lack of vision.

Hitler fatally underestimated British and French resolve in 1939. His turning to Ribbentrop and asking "What now?" is the most convincing proof of his miscalculation.

Neither Donitz nor Hjalmar Schacht were Nazis. When Schacht got in the way of Gorings slash-and-burn approach to the economy he was fired. Speer wasa failed architect who came to office by accident.

What about Sauckel or Rosenberg, Ribbentrop or Himmler? Two lunatics, a self absorbed Champagne salesman and a failed Chicken Farmer.

Don't hold Goring up as being some form of capable visionary either. His failures are legion and legendary.

No. This bunch were thankfully mentally ill-equipped to win the war, but they were able to start one, and condemn millions to death. How a supposedly civilised country could have handed absolute political power to this bunch beggars belief even today.

Run a war economy? Groener and his office did far better in WW1 that was ever managed in WW2.

Jumbo

__________________
"Capital! We're nearly out of ammunition! Now we can get at them with the bayonet!" General Paddy Gough, 1st Sikh War

Well, PzJgr, I wouldn't even really call it a problem- more of a limitation. We can clearly see that Speer did an impressive job with what he had to work with. Especially, like you mention, looking at Germany's production during 1944, when bombing was nearly constant. My point was that what Speer had to work with was drastically limited.
"Back to the original topic about Albert Speer, I think that would have changed Germany's resource postion a lot."
Obviously I'm not quite preaching to the converted- how would Speer have had any influence on the resoureces available to germany? Could he made ordinary rocks into Iron ore? Could he wave a wand and produce tungsten from a magic hat? No- Speer worked with MANUFACTURING- that uses resources, it dosen't create thaem Geez.

One of my books, WWII in Facts and Figures, presents an interesting chart- it lists many of the raw materials required for a war economy, and the status of ww2 participants for these materials in 1937. Germany was only listed as Self-Sufficient in one material- potatoes! This is my point- more or less from day one, Germany's economy was very strained simply to produce what it did. Many of the strategic positions followed by germany throughout the war directly related to securing resources (Rumania, Ukraine, etc.). So a hypothetical What If that is based on increased german production is really impossible- as it was they had to stretch greatly for their resources. And some of us seem to want to say the germans could ahve produced more while claiming that resources were not needed for such increased production.
This was really what my response was towards. The germans found out the hard way what the consequences were for ignoring the "minor details" like food, fuel, and resources. Throughout the war, how many german soldiers starved or froze to death? How many german tanks were abandoned due to lack of fuel or lack of repairs? And most of all, why could all the allies replace their losses while gemany could not? Simple- production and resources- the "minor details".

[ 08 August 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

I am not ignoring anything here. I perfectly know about the resources and perfectly know that Germany as Great Britain and Japan did not have own resources. But my point is: all the tanks and aeroplanes built in autumn 1944 under heavy bombardments (they were a lot, produced in much bigger quantities than at any moment in the war) were built with resources from somewhere. All those resources could have been perfectly adquired and used in 1940 and 1941. And there would not have been bombardments... Eh? I only agree in that thing of the fuel. Because Hungarian and Romanian petrol fields were not enough for all the German armed forces. However, this is an important detail, but not a too important one in 1941, by example, when things went fine.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Yes, but Speer was not making policy, Hitler and the rest were.

Pzjgr I am not saying that Agriculture fell under Speer. If you read what I said I pointed out that agriculture had fallen BY 1939. Before the war ideology was making Germany in some sectors less capable of going to war rather than more. Speer never had responsibility for Agriculture anyway, that fell to the clearly bonkers Walter Darre. This was the point I was trying to make: he was one voice among many, not a production supremo with ranging powers. Neither did Speer hold responsibility for Luftwaffe or Navy production at the start, and although Donitz saw reason, Goring did not.

This thread asked the question whether Speer would have made a difference 1939-1942. Again I say that if the policy was to retain a mixed economy because you think you are going to win by Christmas 1941 anyhow why risk upsetting the Civilians?

As for other organisations what about Organisation Todt? Speer never controlled this despite it's control over labour. Neither did he control the labour or industrial output of the SS in the Concentration Camps, only in factories which were given up to his jurisdiction. If you read his memoirs you will quickly appreciate how difficult he found it, especially as there was no Cabinet structure to allow policies to be co-ordinated.

As for being bombed, I was not talking about production, but organisation. Your argument actually supports mine! If you are being bombed flat you damn well make sure that you are eliminating every facet of wasteage, not fighting petty court battles with Goring, Bormann and whoever else Speer fell out with. This is not a critique of Speer, rather the whole system of war production of which he was a part. Left to his own devices he would have started from the bottom up and reorganised everything along rational lines. The fact that he didn't was not his fault, rather he was a logical man surrounded by capricious courtiers all baying to be heard.

Policy until 1942 was geared towards a Blitzkrieg mentality. Why produce tanks when you can produce butter? Only after 1942 when the truth of a war of attrition dawns does the role of Speer become important.

Jumbo

__________________
"Capital! We're nearly out of ammunition! Now we can get at them with the bayonet!" General Paddy Gough, 1st Sikh War

Jumbo's point here is the bottom line- Hitler himself, as I pointed out, did not allow for an increase in military production until 1942. Hence, Speer's appointment in 1939 would have made little if any difference.

And Friedrich, keep in mind that in 1939, Germany did not have full access to Rumania's oil fields, did not have access to the resources of the Ukraine, and did not have access to the resources captured in the rest of Europe. So no, there was not the same amounts available in 39-41 and 44. And even without considering this, Hitler's insistence on a peacetime economic structure meant that military usage of these vital resources from germany itself did not even begin to increase until 1942.
That is the main problem Speer would have faced besides Hitler himself.

[ 08 August 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

By pointing out that Speer was not head of agriculture, I was attempting to get us back to the question at hand. What would have been the impact if Speer was in charge of production in 39. Agriculture and all else you are pointing out has nothing to do with the question. You have already educated us in economics but Speer's role was just a portion of that and that is the area in question.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Speer didn't have to do with the Kriegsmarine production?! Ha! Ha!

He was bloody in charge of all the new submarines programmes. Beside, he kept the U-boats being mass produced as in 1941, 31 U-boats a month.

That is rather significant, that arguement about Hitler and his low weaponry production in 1941. But Speer as Keitel did, often disobeyed the Führer... It would have had indeed, a significant importance in our war effort. But however, in 1939 until mid 1941 we were getting petrol from Romania (even if we had not occupied it), Hungary, Norway and even the bloody Soviet Union! We did not have any lack of fuel in those years...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Friedrich

Please read and absorb:

"The supply departments of the Army (of which Minister Speer was head) and the Air Force fought in the battle for the allocation of industrial capacity solely in the interests of their own service, and as both the Minister and the Commander-in Chief of the Air Force pulled the strings between them, it was the Navy that went short" Donit' Memoirs Chapter 19 p347

" I asked Speer whether he was prepared to accept the responsibility for the greatly increased naval programme. Having examined my requirements, he replied that he was prepared to do so, provided Hitler was willing to sanction a partial cancellation of industrial production for civilian needs. This, he said, was necessary because the implementation of the Navy's expansion programme could not be allowed to restrict fulfillment of the requirements of the army and the air force"

Ibid p348

"On March 31 1943, Hitler gave his approval..."

Ibid p349

The administrative details were not agreed until July 22.

As I said, Donitz saw sense but Luftwaffe production remained under Milch. I did not say that Speer had no responsibility for the Kriegsmarine, rather that he gained it by negotiation and according to Donitz the approach came from the Navy.

I find it interesting that Hitler still had to be approached to free up Civilian Industrial Production to allow the Navy to have it's new toys.

__________________
"Capital! We're nearly out of ammunition! Now we can get at them with the bayonet!" General Paddy Gough, 1st Sikh War

I think the general consensus here is that simply putting Speer in charge of production in 1939 would not have a great effect.

On the other hand, Speer as a Production Supremo with a total war policy in hand in 1939 could indeed have made a difference.

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

Right on the money, Andreas. In this case, it was not the armaments minister who dictated military production- it was Hitler. Speer would have also been subject to Hitler's "civilians equal" production policies.
You bring up the point that would make this interesting- what if Hitler had moved to a war economy earlier? That could have had a major influence.
Of course, the only problem there comes from german attitudes- it was not until AFTER experience in russia that the wehrmacht realized their equipment needed upgrades. Hence, even if total war had been implemented in 1939, I still wonder what kinds of equipment we would have seen. An increase in numbers of PzIII, for example, would have made very little difference. The PzIII was outclassed by the T-34, and Russia was already producing more than germany possibly could. More PzIIIs would have made a difference in N.Africa, but then again we run into the problem of maintinaing and fueling a larger number of tanks.

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Hello!

The army´s old saying isn´t too wrong: the army marches with its stomach. And by reading about the wars it has been usually the supply department that has changed the war..in the end.

I just have some stuff which I would like to bring up on this matter. Germany could have lifted its production higher early on, and thinking that even in autumn 1942 there was no need to do so, is an act of madness.February 1943 is really too late.But also several other factors influenced, so even with higher production levels the effect might have been low at the front level!

First of all, the width of the train line was narrower than in Germany so they had to change that. What a work that is! Secondly the partisans in Russia. Quite often the mid-part between the front and germany was unmanned so the partisans had time to do their tricks. Third: Not enough trains to take the goods. Russian vehicles were old and useless. The troops received 1/3-3/4 of the needed supply daily. Thanx to the last one there was loads of winter clothing in Warsaw but none in the front...( a book i just read of a Me 110 pilot who noticed this while picking a new plane from Germany ). 4. The roads in Russia. Not only during spring and autumn are they muddy but in such a shape that you cannot call them roads. Even today! 5. local policy. In Russia the organisation of local governments was poor, chaotic. Probably this was done by Hitler´s order, but the possibility of making the local factories produce should have been taken advantage of.

As Wehrmacht didn´t want waffen SS to be part of them, ss had to make their own supply route and that probably saved quite a lot as the "firemen" of the troops were in better shape. I think that Waffen SS had to buy tanks for their own use all the way to 1941, maybe 1942. If someone has information on this, I´d be glad to hear.

So even with huge amounts of supply you still face the question how to get it here?! Goering´s luftwaffe?? ( am I being nasty here? ) Jawohl, mein fuhrer!

__________________

No war has been won through good supply.
But many wars have been lost through bad supply.

I believe you are wrong about the Panzer IIIs. You seem to be - please excuse the expression - hypnotised by the T-34 and the idea of a tank-vs-tank duel. This was not what the tank's main role was in WW2, or the most likely thing to happen to it during the war.

A larger number of medium tanks (Pz III and IV) would have made a significant difference in Barbarassa for example. The number of T-34s and KVs was small, and in any case, tanks are not (in Blitzkrieg) meant to go and seek out other tanks. They are used for breakthrough attacks and sweeping movements where their main advantage is their speed. Ways to deal with the heavy and medium Soviet tanks were found, and if we merely increase the number of German PzDivs and the stock of replacement equipment of all types, I think the point is not quite so strong as would appear at first.

Naturally with all this upping-production the supply organisation and fuel production would also have to be increased. But if we are looking at an across-the-board increase of production, then I can see no particular problems developing with supply. More trucks, more railway gangs, more trains, more fuel => more tanks in action.

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

Very, very well, Andreas!!!

Of course, that was my point: more mobile troops, better supply lines and stronger armoured swords to cut the enemy!!!

Kai, exactly. You must remember that in the early stages of the war, there was almost any tank-to-tank combat. Except with the T-34s and KV-1s ALL the other tanks were unable to pierce each other. Beside, the German Blitzkrieg, as Andreas very well pointed out was to crush the enemy with an armoured hit, not with tank-to-tank combats. Again, that is a minor tactical detail. And you are missing the general situation, again.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Well, Andreas, you do have some good points there. But- first off, the russiansd had over 2,000 T-34s in service when the germans invavded, so there definetley were a reasonable amount available. And could you give some sources on tank vs. tanks combat? Anything with numbers or accounts? I think you are clearly UNDER- estimating the significance of tanks and AFVs. The PzIII example I used was just that- an EXAMPLE. And you clearly missed the point of the example- simply having extra equipment does not address the other requirements for USING said equipment.

But more to the point-
Huh? That makes no sense- an across the board increase in production REQUIRES an across the board increase in resources. So the germans are going to find all this additional fuel where? And the additional steel and iron for these vehicles- magic?
So now in addition to tanks, you would have germany also producing thousands more trucks. Plus, more trains does not address Kai's point- the railroad systems were of a different guage, so what kinds of trains would you produce? And more men for the railway gangs mean less men for the front.

Friedrich, don't you understand that your "general situation" does not exist without the minor details? You can ignore that stuff if you want, but reading of sources clearly shows that these were hugely important factors.

Not to mention that no-one has even addressed germany's manpower shortage. Even if your theory holds, and germany could somehow produce all this stuff without the necessary resources, where would the soldiers come from? The Factory workers?

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

NO, crazy!

The minor details which do not matter are those 2.000 T-34s you mention. Those tanks, until December 1941 were completely useless. They were easily knocked out by ATs or simply, the always mighty (then) Luftwaffe took care. Or the minor details about a Mark III against a T-34. It doesn't matter.

Perhaps you are right in that about the resources needed. It is true that we did not have as many materials as the US or the USSR had, but we could achieve getting them. We are very good improvising. And about the man power. I have always pointed out in my posts about the men. Read the topic "Kursk, Stalingrad or..." and you will see that I point out Moscow and Stalingrad as the turning points of the war, because the losses in men. In the other hand, you point out Kursk as the turning point of the war because of the losses on materials... Do you get what I mean here?

In 1941 we could put enough men, pilots and staff at the front. We did not have that hard situation of 1945, when we started recruiting old men, kids and prisoners from the concentration camps... Certainly we would have had a lack of German workers, but we had free workers. No problem. It is right that women would have been better, and the quality of weaponry would have been improved. But anyway. At least in 1941 we had everything in our favour.

And here, let's change the topic a bit. Speer as minister of weaponry in August 1939, Hitler declares total war, to smash all its enemies, including the Soviet Union by the end of 1941.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun