Did the USA actually "win" World War II?

[Power Raid]

You are clearly well-versed in WWII history.

Can you tell me, how was Germany able to first ramp up military industry and then sustain it for the duration of the war?

Where did the money come from?

If I recall documentaries properly, Hitler was able to turn the fortunes in Germany around through:
1) It was already the back of the world recovering from the depression (1932 Germany was in a major recession but in 33 the first year of hitler's rule the nation boasted 8% growth)
2) He continued the nationalising of industry and placing tariffs on imports to protect local industry (this might have had a net overall negative on the nation but put wealth into the hands of his government and key supporters)
3) He then moved to privatising these industries effectively completing a steal and lease back and putting industry in the hands of mates.
4) Then blackmailed industrialists by offering them IOUs in the case Nazi Germany won the war. Thus paid for the war on credit, a credit obtain through carrot (key contracts) and fear (if you don't accept my creditworthiness I will replace you with someone who will and you can think about it whilst I execute your family)
5) The persecution of Jews started by taking their wealth
6) This massive mobilisation of industry (built on a house of cards) reduced unemployment but strangely didn't improve wealth (real wealth of the average punter reduced by some 30%). This mobilisation didn't improve the wealth as production shifted from agriculture to war materials meaning the cost of necessities like food went through the roof. The tariffs, also stopped the import of food which otherwise would have relieved cost pressures.
7) corporate taxes increased to some 99%, workers rights were stripped and massive shortages in key goods started to occur
7) inflation and the cracks in the house of cards started to emerge that Hitler pressed the button on expansion and war before his country revolted. After all it is better to have an enemy outside of your nation than have an enemy within.

 

[telsor]

I see that now your struggling with reality.,thats ok cause I still do. You've buried your head in the stand by saying France owned Vietnam. France slaughtered that country and its people, owned them because it had guns and ships,committed atrocious atrocities to maintain an economy,to be able to wage war in Europe and further exploit other pacific nations. France has never been a peaceful nation. They have always been war mongers, Didn't you contribute to the Napoleon thread?

France was not liberated, neither was Belgium or Holland. In fact the Waffen SS ( volunteer army) had large numbers of soldiers from all 3 nations, In fact the 2nd AIf's silent seventh division, 25th and 21st brigade kicked the french foreign legions arse in Syria circa 1940/41.

The Americans had no problem with the french returning to old behaviors after the guns in Europe fell silent, in fact they preferred the Japanese police Vietnam until the french could get back on her feet.The pillaging of that area was to important for the capitalist nations to ever think about granting independence or freeing the oppressed.

So your argument is that some French people upported the Germans, therefore it wasn't libertion

Some Vietnamense supported the French....

So a nation,with no army, no air force, no food, no petrol, no factories ,no navy, completely surrounded by the 4 biggest armies and navys ever, deserved to be nuked, not once,but twice? This was honourable?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Damn, thats a serious effort.

150,000-250,000 died from the atomic bombs. Going by how Okinawa went, casualty estimates considered that to be a bare minimum for allied casualties (most were far higher), with expected japanese casualties being several times that.

If Japan was in such a bad state (no army????) Why didn't they surrender?

Why didn't they take out the political center of the nation then? If it was to save lives? If you take out the countries ability to administrate, to orginise,take out its epicenter....No they had two types of nukes,had to see how each worked,had a victim they could get away with doing it to. All the commercial interests in the manhattan project needed to see results.

Why didn't they just embargoe and let the japs starve to death. JaPan posed no threat to anyone.

So, killing even more people, by startvation, was the 'honourable' solution?

Its scary to think about reality, how much bullshit people blindly believe..

Indeed. You seem to have left common sense and facts at the door.

 

[John]

Um, do you mean Keynesian?

Um Yes I used my phone to reply. Not sure I will do that again.

And if so, where did the money come from? You still need to sell bonds to finance Keynesian public spending.
So who was financing the Germans as they built up their military? Who financed the Germans for years during the War?

Remember that this is a nation that was ravaged by WWI and compelled to pay exorbitant reparations (which were only paid off in 2010).

They ran deficits so I presume they were financed by bond issues. I do know that they defaulted on interest payments due from Weimar issues. The Nazis claim was these were illegal. There has been a bit of discussion recently as to German WW2 war debt. This is one example that caught the attention recently.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...wes-billions-in-war-reparations-a-893084.html

The war itself was financed mostly by conquest. They had no qualms at all about plunder, labour camps and so on and so forth. They plundered the French army for example. Considering the size of that army that would have been serious weaponry. That was only about a 1/3 of all that they plundered from France. Locals as an example had to "pay" for the billeting of German troops.
You may have seen a movie out called Monuments Men. I read the book a while back and the amount of goodies thieved in the art world beggars belief. The railway system had according to Evans was "starved of investment" but over night received locos and freight cars that cleared that problem almost overnight.

If you are up for it I do recommend Adam Tooze book. Also Evens trilogy is really as good as it gets IMO for a 3rd Reich History.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Get yourself a copy of Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction. Best work on the subject, shouldn't be too expensive either.

What does the book say? What's the gist?

 

[clogged]

One of the things that fascinates me about the Nazis is their architecture. They abhorred reinforced concrete and other modern materials. Their reasoning was essentially because they left ugly ruins. The intention was that they would leave an architectural legacy that was the equivalent of the Romans.

 

[John]

Think that's a pretty dubious statement. Even low estimates suggest 50-60,000 French soldiers died during the fighting in 1940; maybe 1500 did so during Operation Torch, a figure that's also dwarfed by the casualties French North African units took fighting the Axis in Tunisia, Italy and France.

This was based on examples of US troops comments as to Vichy defence in North Africa and attitudes by various governors who were exhorting Vichy troops to fight to the bitter end against the allies. And with that in mind 25,000 French volunteers fought in the SS Westland Div. Guy Sajer has an autobiography as a French volunteer in the wehrmacht. There is controversy around the book. There was discussion in historical military societies that he was in fact in the SS. Well worth a read.

I am aware though that easily the biggest loss of French life was fighting for the allies. the French lost 3,000 dead fighting for the Axis but 250,000 for the allies. The French also had an awful loss of civilian life. Maybe as high as 470,000. The war was a difficult time for the modern French.

I will also add that I am not a critic. These are from my various readings. I love France and would go back in a heartbeat. Great place.

 

[John]

What does the book say? What's the gist?

Agree with the jester. You may be able to get it as a PDF. I just looked

 

[Tas]

If I recall documentaries properly, Hitler was able to turn the fortunes in Germany around through:
1) It was already the back of the world recovering from the depression (1932 Germany was in a major recession but in 33 the first year of hitler's rule the nation boasted 8% growth)
2) He continued the nationalising of industry and placing tariffs on imports to protect local industry (this might have had a net overall negative on the nation but put wealth into the hands of his government and key supporters)
3) He then moved to privatising these industries effectively completing a steal and lease back and putting industry in the hands of mates.
4) Then blackmailed industrialists by offering them IOUs in the case Nazi Germany won the war. Thus paid for the war on credit, a credit obtain through carrot (key contracts) and fear (if you don't accept my creditworthiness I will replace you with someone who will and you can think about it whilst I execute your family)
5) The persecution of Jews started by taking their wealth
6) This massive mobilisation of industry (built on a house of cards) reduced unemployment but strangely didn't improve wealth (real wealth of the average punter reduced by some 30%). This mobilisation didn't improve the wealth as production shifted from agriculture to war materials meaning the cost of necessities like food went through the roof. The tariffs, also stopped the import of food which otherwise would have relieved cost pressures.
7) corporate taxes increased to some 99%, workers rights were stripped and massive shortages in key goods started to occur
7) inflation and the cracks in the house of cards started to emerge that Hitler pressed the button on expansion and war before his country revolted. After all it is better to have an enemy outside of your nation than have an enemy within.

I think a lot of these issues became problems that came much later, Nazi German economics is still a valuable lesson to those learning economics.

What happened post WWI had a huge shaping on the economic landscape and in turn the political environment which allowed someone like Hitler to come in.

A big problem for Germany was the treaty of Versailles, which was forced on Germany after WWI and signed in June 1919, specifically the war guilt clause (article 231) and was probably the major cause of WWII and in 1921 made claim against Germany for 132 billion gold marks, up until 1931 Germany only paid 21 billion gold marks. Germans referred to the treaty as a slave-treaty.

Germany didn't have the means to repay the debt put on them, this was civilian debt for rebuilding post WWI, there were not charged with military expenses. So they just kept printing money and were paying the reparations commission with paper that was just devaluing their currency and causing rampant inflation to the point it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread. Germany kept defaulting on their reparations so many times that France sent troops to Germany in 1923 to force them to pay and it didn't work, the country didn't have the means to keep up with the payments and they had depleted their gold reserves.

That was when the central banks moved in and forced a central bank debt system on Germany where the large central banks would issue bonds on behalf of Germany and make reparation payments, they actually gave Charles Dawes a nobel peace prize for his work on the plan, which ironically wasn't very good peace initiative. Once the first bonds became due in 1928, Germany again defaulted. The master plan in 1929 was to float more US backed bonds and reducing Germany's payments. When Hitler came into power in 1933, he cancelled all reparations.

By the time Hitler came into power the great depression had already kicked in for a few years, the Wall Street crash was in 1929 and Hitler came into power in 1933. He wanted Germany to be self-sufficient and formed an autarky by placing tariffs on imports.

Hitler had appointed Schacht as his minister for economics and president of their Reichsbank when he came into power and he continued with Keynesian economic policies that were implemented by the previous government, which relies on large public works by deficit spending. Germany's unemployment rate was around 30% before Hitler came to power, and unemployment was non-existent throughout the great depression, unlike most other nations. They also implemented price control so inflation wasn't problematic.

Problem with artificial manipulation of the economic system meant that the system bulged where it wasn't adequately controlled. Availability of food and clothing was problematic and they had to severely restrict the use of motor vehicles to preserve what little oil and rubber they had.

Germany used massive government spending deficit to create public works and to accelerate their industrialisation and they privatised a lot these companies that were formed by the government, a large part of their steel industry was created by the government and later privatised.

Germany created the mefo bill, it was a promissory note used for a system of deferred payment to finance the German rearmament which was also devised by Schacht in 1934, this allowed for Germany to re-arm themselves without leaving a paper trail, given rearming was against the treaty of Versailles. These off the books bills concealed about 60% of the government borrowing from the private sector, had the government been issuing bonds to that extent it would have attracted the attention of foreign powers.

Probably the biggest turning point for Nazi Germany, economically speaking, was the falling out between Schacht and Hitler. Schacht wasn't a supporter of re-armament and even publicly declared his repugnance for what was done to the jews in Germany which led Hitler to boot him out before WW2 and later imprison him after he became involved with the German resistance.

Goering succeeded Sachact and he was a drooling idiot compared to Schacht. As Hitler surround himself with sycophants Germany plummeted out of control.

 

[The_Reaper]

Wasn't Versaille based on the reparations France had to pay after the Franco-Prussian war which was in terms based on the reparations Napoleon forced on the Prussians?

 

[telsor]

Wasn't Versaille based on the reparations France had to pay after the Franco-Prussian war which was in terms based on the reparations Napoleon forced on the Prussians?

Only in a very general sense.

 

[John]

Germany's unemployment rate was around 30% before Hitler came to power, and unemployment was non-existent throughout the great depression, unlike most other nations. They also implemented price control so inflation wasn't problematic.

Have you got that right? I read a figure of 6 million from various sources I have read.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Germany created the mefo bill, it was a promissory note used for a system of deferred payment to finance the German rearmament which was also devised by Schacht in 1934, this allowed for Germany to re-arm themselves without leaving a paper trail, given rearming was against the treaty of Versailles. These off the books bills concealed about 60% of the government borrowing from the private sector, had the government been issuing bonds to that extent it would have attracted the attention of foreign powers.

And who were these private interests buying up these bills?

 

[Tas]

Have you got that right? I read a figure of 6 million from various sources I have read.

That was in 1932, Hitler came into power 1933.

 

[Jakko]

What amazes me about ww2 was the evolution of tactics and hardware in such a short span of time. Some countries grasped certain new aspects early (ie german blitzkrieg, japanese air/navy ability), some learnt the hard way. From wide open north african tactics and needs, to island hopping, hard to supply thick jungle like in new guinea tactics and needs.

The war went from biplanes sinking battleships, to the jet/rocket era. Some of the early war planes that were sent into action are almost laughable.

 

[skilts]

You have far more patience than me.

Subsequent posts have proven your sentiments to be correct.

 

[Tas]

And who were these private interests buying up these bills?

Those who 'bought' them were all the armament contractors who made armaments for the government but they were largely funded by private banks. It just removed the Government from the paper trail in terms of borrowing to buy weapons. Eventually the central bank would repay the private banks by converting the bills into cash using their money-issuing powers.

Underlying this is that Schacht was a brilliant economist, the mefo bills were used up to 1938 after that time Germany didn't really need to keep secrets about their re-armament.

 

[John]

That was in 1932, Hitler came into power 1933.

Still not sure I understand Tas.

Instead of digging out my books I have found this
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...t-germany-1924-1932+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Just for my own edification I need to know in what context you have written that statement viz a viz the info below. Thanks.

The figures below are those of annual ravage unemployment, except for 1932, where some precise end-of-the-month figures are available, and the two dates that coincide with the Reichstag elections are given.1

Unemployment in Germany, 1924-1932
1924-978,000
1928-1,368,000
1930- 3,076,000
July 31, 1932 - 5,392,000
October 31, 1932 - 5,109,000

1. The statistics are from Saitzow, Die Arbeitslosigkeit, 148-149, and Statisches Jahrbuch (1933): 19.

 

[Tas]

Still not sure I understand Tas.

Instead of digging out my books I have found this
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aKz2WAJ2fe0J:weimar.facinghistory.org/content/unemployment-germany-1924-1932 &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Just for my own edification I need to know in what context you have written that statement viz a viz the info below. Thanks.

The figures below are those of annual ravage unemployment, except for 1932, where some precise end-of-the-month figures are available, and the two dates that coincide with the Reichstag elections are given.1

Unemployment in Germany, 1924-1932
1924-978,000
1928-1,368,000
1930- 3,076,000
July 31, 1932 - 5,392,000
October 31, 1932 - 5,109,000

1. The statistics are from Saitzow, Die Arbeitslosigkeit, 148-149, and Statisches Jahrbuch (1933): 19.

I am not sure what you are in disagreement with or what you do not understand. I said unemployment became non-existent after Hitler came to power, he came into power January 1933. Figures before then do not mean anything.

I think unemployment peaked at 6 million in 1932 but by 1939 there were only 300,000 unemployed people in Germany, which was almost non-existent, you are never going to employ everyone. The rest of the world was struggling with brutal unemployment, the great depression didn't end until the mid 40s, US unemployment rate was 17% in 1939.

If I haven't answered what you were not sure about please state specifically what it is you are not sure about.

 

[John]

All good. I took it to mean that you said that there was no unemployment during the early 30's. That to me was the height of the Depression. I obviously misunderstood.

 

[Power Raid]

All good. I took it to mean that you said that there was no unemployment during the early 30's. That to me was the height of the Depression. I obviously misunderstood.

I read it the same as you

 

[Tas]

All good. I took it to mean that you said that there was no unemployment during the early 30's. That to me was the height of the Depression. I obviously misunderstood.

No worries mate, I wasn't sure what exactly you weren't sure about.

It is really a remarkable achievement when you think about it, especially because they poured so much into military production which doesn't really generate any economic investment, had they continued to build up their industry and further their scientific development they would have magnified their economic development significantly.

The Economic Consequences Of The Peace by JM Keynes is a good book to read, he was vocal about the consequences of heavily penalising the German people post WWI and accurately predicted the consequences of seeking vengeance at the Versailles Conference.

Can find it here: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/303/0550_Bk.pdf

 

[little graham]

What amazes me about ww2 was the evolution of tactics and hardware in such a short span of time. Some countries grasped certain new aspects early (ie german blitzkrieg, japanese air/navy ability), some learnt the hard way. From wide open north african tactics and needs, to island hopping, hard to supply thick jungle like in new guinea tactics and needs.

The war went from biplanes sinking battleships, to the jet/rocket era. Some of the early war planes that were sent into action are almost laughable.

Blitzkrieg was an allied tactic first developed in ww1. germans thought ,phuq if they got thier timing right we'd be fried fritz. One of those was young erwin Rommel.

Which brings me to another point of yours,the nth african campaign. Don't get me wrong the africa core was good, all german units at that point were. But it was how bad the eighth army was that had more to do with what the africa core achieved. The eight army was split up by Churchil, all his generals warned him, half went to greece , a campaign they were never going to win. The most experienced divisions tended to be sent there. The british press talked up Rommel,to hide the british incompetence. Fact is the british were no better than the italians in fighting wars.

Tactics in new gunea were interesting.The americans never took heed. They got smashed by those very tacticts (devloped by australian units in ww2 )in Vietnam. There soldiers in nam were scared shitless, turned to drugs ect. Couldn't handle something they arrogantly ignored when their allies developed it.

Nothing knew about gurila warfare,but what the australians did pushing east from the owen stanleys, the units behind enemy lines, even in Bouganville a few years later when we would venture out every day from the compound the yanks built and stayed in.

The Russians though, developed a science of war unlike any one has. Probably saved the cold war going hot on us. War was a science to them, they could simplfy it to a simple case of mathamatics.They knew noone could beat them if it stayed that way. The russian way of thinking was,Your sentry has 10 shells in his clip, I'll attack him with 11 men,in broad daylight.

 

[Power Raid]

Blitzkrieg was an allied tactic first developed in ww1. germans thought ,phuq if they got thier timing right we'd be fried fritz. One of those was young erwin Rommel.

Which brings me to another point of yours,the nth african campaign. Don't get me wrong the africa core was good, all german units at that point were. But it was how bad the eighth army was that had more to do with what the africa core achieved. The eight army was split up by Churchil, all his generals warned him, half went to greece , a campaign they were never going to win. The most experienced divisions tended to be sent there. The british press talked up Rommel,to hide the british incompetence. Fact is the british were no better than the italians in fighting wars.

Tactics in new gunea were interesting.The americans never took heed. They got smashed by those very tacticts (devloped by australian units in ww2 )in Vietnam. There soldiers in nam were scared shitless, turned to drugs ect. Couldn't handle something they arrogantly ignored when their allies developed it.

Nothing knew about gurila warfare,but what the australians did pushing east from the owen stanleys, the units behind enemy lines, even in Bouganville a few years later when we would venture out every day from the compound the yanks built and stayed in.

The Russians though, developed a science of war unlike any one has. Probably saved the cold war going hot on us. War was a science to them, they could simplfy it to a simple case of mathamatics.They knew noone could beat them if it stayed that way. The russian way of thinking was,Your sentry has 10 shells in his clip, I'll attack him with 11 men,in broad daylight.

It is claimed to be an Australian invention (invented by Monash)

 

[John]

No worries mate, I wasn't sure what exactly you weren't sure about.

It is really a remarkable achievement when you think about it, especially because they poured so much into military production which doesn't really generate any economic investment, had they continued to build up their industry and further their scientific development they would have magnified their economic development significantly.

The Economic Consequences Of The Peace by JM Keynes is a good book to read, he was vocal about the consequences of heavily penalising the German people post WWI and accurately predicted the consequences of seeking vengeance at the Versailles Conference.

Can find it here: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/303/0550_Bk.pdf

Bookmarked for an eventual read. Joins the 130 odd on the list!

 

[stormee]

Blitzkrieg was an allied tactic first developed in ww1. germans thought ,phuq if they got thier timing right we'd be fried fritz. One of those was young erwin Rommel.

The Russians though, developed a science of war unlike any one has. Probably saved the cold war going hot on us. War was a science to them, they could simplfy it to a simple case of mathamatics.They knew noone could beat them if it stayed that way. The russian way of thinking was,Your sentry has 10 shells in his clip, I'll attack him with 11 men,in broad daylight.

Blitzkrieg at its simplest is combined arms warfare - German units using combinations of armour, mechanised infantry, engineers, artillery and air support to achieve effects on a battlespace. All of the powers involved in WW1 learnt about combined arms warfare by the end, its just everyone except the Germans forgot the lessons.

A bit tangential from combined arms but as an example of lessons learnt, take for instance the Maginot line - by the end of WW1 it was accepted that for defensive lines to be effective, you needed depth and a strong reserve - punch through the first line and you still have to face the depth, and the reserve can counterattack you when you're at your weakest. In the Maginot these principles were forgotten, allowing the Germans to identify gaps, and once penetrated, swarm mechanised forces into the rear echelon.

On the other hand, thinkers such as Liddell Hart were expounding the ability of tanks and mechanised warfare to pretty much replace the infantryman on the battlefield (and we've seen this again and again, think Arab Israel 1973 and Iraq in 1991 where combined arms thinking was replaced by a belief tanks could work unsupported by infantry), so by the time WW2 came around, while the other armies were relearning the lessons of WW1, the Germans were pretty much conquering Europe.

The speed and operational tempo of Blitzkreig wasn't magic - it was well trained combined arms warfare. By 1944, the Americans, British and Soviets had relearnt the lessons and could apply them against the Germans.

The Cold War Soviet army took this a step further with the concept of the 'deep battle'. They were true maneuverists, have a read of their planning for concepts such as the 'Operational Maneuver Group' - their intent was to use Warsaw Pact armies to engage and initially blunt NATO forces, hopefully in the process identifying gaps that could be exploited by maneuver, and then through those gaps send 2nd ech units to exploit and engage the rear echelon.

Interesting stuff really.