Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Any book on Allied and Axis mobilization of manpower in the war?

Discussion in 'Military Training, Doctrine, and Planning' started by JWM72, Apr 16, 2021.

  1. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,563
    Likes Received:
    5,782
    Very dense. Klein really digs in.
     
  2. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Towards the end the Germans had more and more Volkssturm units. Not any elite units, I think. Perhaps Boys and more older men.
     
  3. DarkLord

    DarkLord Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2021
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    51
    But is that because we were unable to achieve more, or we didn't feel the need for more (for whatever reason)?
     
  4. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,563
    Likes Received:
    5,782
  5. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,047
    You tell me. However, consider, the working population of the US in 1940 was 53,299,000. Conservatively, that nearly 10 percent difference from the UK was over 5 million persons not mobilized for war work. And it was close to 20 million compared to the USSR. A 5 to 7 percent increase of those in the military is an additional 2.5 to 3.75 million personnel in the armed forces...easily enough to probably double the number of divisions fielded.

    So why not? Why were they deferred? Were they all John Waynes? Why instead was the War Department forced to scrimp and save personnel throughout the war? Could it possibly be that the US was never fully engaged in the war? Consider also, what was the only major world civilian economy that grew rather than shrank during World War II? Two guesses and the first one isn't Great Britain.
     
  6. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,047
    You tell me. However, consider, the working population of the US in 1940 was 53,299,000. Conservatively, that nearly 10 percent difference from the UK was over 5 million persons not mobilized for war work. And it was close to 20 million compared to the USSR. A 5 to 7 percent increase of those in the military is an additional 2.5 to 3.75 million personnel in the armed forces...easily enough to probably double the number of divisions fielded.

    So why not? Why were they deferred? Were they all John Waynes? Why instead was the War Department forced to scrimp and save personnel throughout the war? Could it possibly be that the US was never fully engaged in the war? Consider also, what was the only major world civilian economy that grew rather than shrank during World War II? Two guesses and the first one isn't Great Britain.
     
  7. DarkLord

    DarkLord Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2021
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    51
    The US had a high rejection rate for recruits due to health issues. A large number of potential recruits were rejected for bad teeth, malnutrition, underweight etc. Then there were a large number with normal medical maladies that were rejected. If the US got desperate they certainly could have been less picky.

    I'm not saying that's THE reason, but it's one piece of the puzzle.
     
  8. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,047
    Very true. So then, why, when the War Department from early 1943 onward was perpetually desperate, were there still personnel shortages and fewer mobilized than other countries, even though the criteria for rejection due to various medical conditions were revised? Why was much of Hollywood deferred (I suspect for every Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable there were probably two John Wayne's)? A difference of five to twenty million is difficult to reconcile to just a greater rejection rate of potential recruits, since it implies something on the order of half or more getting rejected, but in truth the reason is many fewer were ever called up for examination in the first place. The U.S. was less mobilized because the government decided not to mobilize more, under the assumption it would be better economically and politically for the country. Of 45 million registered for Selective Service, just 10,110,104 were inducted, comprising two-thirds of the total serving in the armed forces. Of those inducted, 6,357,133 were in 1942-1943, early wartime, and 942,475 prewar in 1940-1941. In 1944, just 1,591,942 were inducted and 945,862 in 1945.
     
  9. DarkLord

    DarkLord Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2021
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    51
    Like I said, the US didn't feel the need...

    The US was in a position that we just didn't need to fully mobilize, and we could make such decisions. I think that comes down to the size of our industry, and the fact that we were never in danger of being attacked directly. As for all the deferments of actors and public figures. That's just politics... It would be a nightmare to have one of them caught and used as a propaganda ploy. Or maybe there was some cronyism...or both.
     
  10. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    It did hurt though...

    The neutral countries were also useful in getting certain minerals and items.

    For instance:

    from the book by Allders and Wiebes on covering financial actions:

    After the Schweinfurt bombings the SKF ( Swedish ball bearings factory ) tripled its deal with Germany ( 1943 ).

    General Arnold was mad with the US foreign politics not able to stop the Swedish trade with nazi Germany:

    " If you guys had even one tenth of the guts of the guys who were shot over Schweinfurt you would tell the Swedes that we will boycott them now and after the war if they send even one piece of ball bearings to Germany!"
     
  11. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,047
    So then we've come full circle and now you agree with me that "Both industrial and personnel mobilization in the U.S. were impressive in terms of speed and industrial output, but not so much so in terms of completeness or thoroughness. Compared to Britain, Germany, the USSR, and Japan, the American mobilization was unimpressive."? :D
     
  12. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,563
    Likes Received:
    5,782
    John Wayne was refused induction. He was needed more for the morale front.

    The US stopped taking volunteers because too many skilled trades were being lost. The draft boards chose who would be called up. Never an actual shortage of men.
     
  13. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,047
    He was never refused induction. He filed for and was initially granted a 3-A deferment, which meant he was "sole provider" for a family of four. However, hen his status was changed to 1-A, the studios intervened and got him a 2-A status. The closest he got to serving was a rather lame offer to Bill Donovan to serve in the OSS.

    That was a factor, but there was a very real shortage of manpower in the military because the decision was made to not draft more. Yes, it was not an "actual" shortage, because the men were there to be drafted, but the government did not see fit to do so.
     
  14. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,563
    Likes Received:
    5,782
    Did I or anybody post a link to "The 90-division Gamble"?
     

Share This Page