Different German Oil Strategy

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23550
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jan 2019 17:11

Let's move on.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4146
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Jan 2019 19:09

ljadw wrote:
21 Jan 2019 11:58
For the theory of a peace economy in war time til the advent of Speer :
see P 2 of the report,where is written the following :
''Study of German war production data as well as interrogation of those who were in charge of rearmament at the time leaves no doubt that until the defeat at Moscow,German industry was incompletely mobilized and that in fact Germany did not foresee the need for full economic mobilisation . ''
Yep, as I suspected, the only thing you have ever read of the USSBS is the Summary Report, so you actually have zero idea of what that assessment was based upon and simply assume that "Wagenführ and Speer" are the puppet-masters running the show. :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: You might want to actually read the pertinent reports from which the assessment was derived, just to see how much "Wagenführ and Speer" were involved in the study. You might also want to investigate just how much influence Speer could have had on directing the course of the USSBS, given that the sum total of his input was 93 interrogation reports, individual and with groups of other prisoners, at Glücksburg over six days from 17 to 22 May 1945, and then in June and July. :lol: :lol: :lol:

...and, as usual, you just can't resist "quoting" out of context.

"Study of German war production data as well as interrogation of those who were in charge of rearmament at the time, leaves no doubt that until the defeat at Moscow German industry was incompletely mobilized and that in fact Germany did not foresee the need for full economic mobilization. German arms production during 1940 and 1941 was generally below that of Britain. When the full meaning of the reverses at Moscow became apparent the German leaders called for all-out production. The conquests of the previous years had greatly strengthened Germany's economy; with the exception of oil and rubber, supplies of virtually all the previously scarce imported materials were or had become accessible. Great reserves of foreign labor only awaited voluntary or forced recruitment. The industrial plant of France, the Low Countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia had been added to that of Germany. After the defeat at Moscow early in 1942, armament production increased rapidly. However, such increase was more the result of improvements in industrial efficiency than of general economic mobilization. Studies of German manpower utilization show that throughout the war a great deal of German industry was on a single shift basis, relatively few German women (less than in the first war) were drawn into industry and the average work week was below British standards."
This is parrotting what Wagenführ and Speer had whispered into the USSBS ears .
Sigh...as I mentioned, Wagenführ is referred to just eleven times in The Effects of Strategic Bombing on the German War Economy...Speer is mentioned 67 times, but most interesting is the first time he appears, on page 7, when the authors discuss his ascendance and the "first spurt" of growth that followed - an increase of about 55 percent by July 1942. It is then cogently remarked "This increase, in which all armament categories participated, must have been largely the result of earlier plans or simply of the changed attitude toward the war, rather than of any positive measures taken by the Speer Ministry."

Rather a remarkable thing to say about the mad genius sekretly pulling the strings of the USSBS... :lol:

It is then later noted, "Within two and a half years Germany's military output in aircraft, weapons and ammunition was raised more than threefold, in tanks nearly six fold—an achievement for which Speer and his associates take most of the credit. One may ask, however, whether this expansion represents the full utilization of the potentialities of the German economy."

It is difficult to miss the note of skepticism expressed by those whose ears Speer was whispering into. :lol:
Later about the other theory = War economy in peace time (= before the war )
Oh dear, I can barely contain my eagerness to hear these further pearls of wisdom... :lol: Or not.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by ljadw » 22 Jan 2019 12:20

The numbers that Speer and Wagenführ are mentioned is irrelevant .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by ljadw » 22 Jan 2019 12:26

In 1964,Alan Milward wrote in the Economic Historic Review: ''The Bombing Survey paid too little attention to the period immediately before Speer became Minister of Armaments and Munition and thus presented a distorted picture of German economic development . ''
A distorted picture !!
If the USSBS was wrong about the period before Speer, how can we be certain that it was right about the Speer period ?
How can we be certain that even during the Speer period a further increase of the economy was possible ,as is claiming the USSBS ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by ljadw » 22 Jan 2019 12:39

Hanny wrote:
21 Jan 2019 12:39
ljadw wrote:
21 Jan 2019 12:03

What post 232 ? Posts are not numbered .
About your question "please : translate your jargon in plain King's English ,and do not ask loaded questions : what is your proof that they indicate a vastly greater expenditure to obtain the same outputs . And who are ''they '' ?
Yes post are numbered.
No, there is no king on the throne, so its Queens English, your only out by 67 years.
Question was very simple, but beyond you.

Apparently moving on, is something else you dont understand.
Posts are NOT numbered: they ceased to be numbered ater the last transformations on the forum .

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Hanny » 22 Jan 2019 12:55

ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 12:39

Posts are NOT numbered: they ceased to be numbered ater the last transformations on the forum .
Incorrect. Try stamping your feet or holding your breath, both are as effective as using Caps. You can quote directly to any numbered post, on the top left of the post in blue, by clicking on it.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4146
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Jan 2019 16:29

ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 12:20
The numbers that Speer and Wagenführ are mentioned is irrelevant .
Seriously? If the reports are permeated by the "lies" of "Speer and Wagenführ", then I would think the number of times and how they are actually referenced should be expected to give an idea of the degree of that influence. However, since it is painfully obvious you have never read anything other than the Summary, it is also painfully obvious you have zero idea of what you are talking about.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4146
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Jan 2019 16:42

ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 12:26
In 1964,Alan Milward wrote in the Economic Historic Review: ''The Bombing Survey paid too little attention to the period immediately before Speer became Minister of Armaments and Munition and thus presented a distorted picture of German economic development . ''
That may be, but you might want to actually read the Economic Survey first, before you accept that judgment as supporting your claims. You might also want to see if Millward actually agrees with your argument before you trot him out as supporting it. :lol: In fact, he agreed with the USSBS, Germany was NOT operating a full-scale wartime economy in 1939 or in the first two years of the war. He states that explicitly in his initial article and monograph on the subject.
A distorted picture !!
It might help if instead of googling randomly, you actually made some effort to read and understand what the backgrounds and arguments that you keep cherry-picking were. That way, you might actually have some idea of what Millward believed the distortion was, instead of assuming, you might not look so foolish then.
If the USSBS was wrong about the period before Speer, how can we be certain that it was right about the Speer period ?
If ljadw was wrong about Millward's assessment, how can we be certain that ljadw was right about anything?
How can we be certain that even during the Speer period a further increase of the economy was possible ,as is claiming the USSBS ?
Um, since the USSBS in no way claims that - rather the opposite in fact, how can we be certain that you have any idea of what you are talking about?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4146
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Jan 2019 16:43

ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 12:39
Posts are NOT numbered: they ceased to be numbered ater the last transformations on the forum .
Yes, they are, in the top left of the post.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by ljadw » 22 Jan 2019 16:50

If Wagenführ was referred to 100 times instead of 50 times, that would not indicate his importance .
Quantity here does not indicate quality .
Nitze ( from USSBS ) said the following : Speer was the only one who could provide to us the vital information we needed .
This quotation is sufficient enough to indicate the importance of Speer for the USSBS .

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Hanny » 22 Jan 2019 17:20

ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 16:50
If Wagenführ was referred to 100 times instead of 50 times, that would not indicate his importance .
Quantity here does not indicate quality .
Nitze ( from USSBS ) said the following : Speer was the only one who could provide to us the vital information we needed .
This quotation is sufficient enough to indicate the importance of Speer for the USSBS .
Its not a quotation, as Nitze does not say that in the USSBS, he writes it years later. Its not even in context, after giving his oral testimony and was about to be arrested and charged, Nitze was told this was the last chance to get whatever they wanted from Speer, Speer had told them where the data was in Munich, the records the USSB wanted were in a safe, Nitze said Speer “gave us the keys to the safe and combination, and we sent somebody down to get these records.”

Speer gave oral testimony for 11 days, he knew, and was the onlyb one who knew, where the documentation was and had the keys, USSBS made its own minds up about what the data meant.
Last edited by Hanny on 22 Jan 2019 17:31, edited 1 time in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by ljadw » 22 Jan 2019 17:29

Richard Anderson wrote:
22 Jan 2019 16:42
ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 12:26
In 1964,Alan Milward wrote in the Economic Historic Review: ''The Bombing Survey paid too little attention to the period immediately before Speer became Minister of Armaments and Munition and thus presented a distorted picture of German economic development . ''
That may be, but you might want to actually read the Economic Survey first, before you accept that judgment as supporting your claims. You might also want to see if Millward actually agrees with your argument before you trot him out as supporting it. :lol: In fact, he agreed with the USSBS, Germany was NOT operating a full-scale wartime economy in 1939 or in the first two years of the war. He states that explicitly in his initial article and monograph on the subject.
A distorted picture !!
It might help if instead of googling randomly, you actually made some effort to read and understand what the backgrounds and arguments that you keep cherry-picking were. That way, you might actually have some idea of what Millward believed the distortion was, instead of assuming, you might not look so foolish then.
If the USSBS was wrong about the period before Speer, how can we be certain that it was right about the Speer period ?
If ljadw was wrong about Millward's assessment, how can we be certain that ljadw was right about anything?
How can we be certain that even during the Speer period a further increase of the economy was possible ,as is claiming the USSBS ?
Um, since the USSBS in no way claims that - rather the opposite in fact, how can we be certain that you have any idea of what you are talking about?
i am not wrong about Milward's assessment : he said that the USSBS gave a distorted picture of German economic development . And the following proves the unreliabilitry of the USSBS claims about both periods :
Source is : A. Milward and a century of European change .
"The mean reason why the USSBS has underestimated the degree of preparation for war of the German economy in 1939 and overestimated the change after 1942 was because they had accepted [and here the author quotes Milward ] '' very uncritically the description of the German war economy given by the most-co-operative ,the most intelligent and most knowledgeable of the Allied POWs = Speer .''
The quotation of Milward comes from ''The End of Blitzkrieg 'P 500, note 20 .
Thus , Milward said that not only the USSBS was giving a distorted picture, but was also believing everything Speer and his henchman Wagenführ were saying .
The USSBS was telling everyone that Speer was a genius who succeeded to increase the aircraft production .
But what the USSBS was not saying was that this increase was caused by pré war decisions:
from Demystifying the German ''armament miracle ''during WWII :''The crucial changes that triggered the upswing in aircraft production already occurred before WWII .''
The increase of aircraft production was caused not by Speer,but by his predecessors, maybe someone could examine if the increase of tank production,of ammunition production, etc... were also not caused not by Speer but by other people .And,if it is so, what remains of the Speer myth ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11696
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by ljadw » 22 Jan 2019 19:45

And Tooze said the following in The Wages of Destruction :

''The simple story spun by Speer that the German war economy up to 1941 was an inefficient sink for labour and raw materials and that it was only after December 1941 ,by means of the Führers decree and Speer's inspired leadership that it was awakened to the need for efficiency,is clearly a myth (and ) the statistics usually invoked to support this description of the pré-Speer era simply do not stand up to detailed scrunity .''
To simplify : Tooze is saying
1) The German war economy before Speer was not a peace economy in wartime,as claimed by the USSBS and Speer
2 ) There was no miracle under Speer and the increases under Speer were not owed to Speer only
3 ) The Wagenführ index is nonsens, wrong,false, invented and a lie .
As the whole story of Speer the man who almost won the war for Germany,is founded on the Wagenführ index, the conclusion is that the Speer story is an invention and a myth . Something that people who still believe it,should know if they remembered that most what was published immediately after WWII ,was worthless .Not only after WWII, but after all wars : WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, etc .
And it is sad that the USSBS,who could have given future historians something objective and reliable,that these historians could use to publish an objective judgement, has instead, for obvious reasons , aided in the falsification of the story of the German war economy .

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Hanny » 22 Jan 2019 20:14

ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 19:45
And Tooze said the following in The Wages of Destruction :
''The simple story spun by Speer that the German war economy up to 1941 was an inefficient sink for labour and raw materials and that it was only after December 1941 ,by means of the Führers decree and Speer's inspired leadership that it was awakened to the need for efficiency,is clearly a myth (and ) the statistics usually invoked to support this description of the pré-Speer era simply do not stand up to detailed scrunity .''
Nope thats not a quote from wages of destrution. Its a quote from website http://marishness56.rssing.com/chan-244 ... l_p16.html the truth is its not in Tooze book, so again your misquoting and flat out being dishonest.

Tooze was a student of Millward, taaught what and how to think, is simply Millward updated.
ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 19:45
To simplify : Tooze is saying
1) The German war economy before Speer was not a peace economy in wartime,as claimed by the USSBS and Speer
Neither claimed it was was, it was Millard who made that claim that it was butter and guns blitzkrieg economy till Feb 42. Try reading the books and authors you misquote from.
ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 19:45
2 ) There was no miracle under Speer and the increases under Speer were not owed to Speer only
Except both Millward and Tooze accept a triple rate of production under Speer.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4146
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Different German Oil Strategy

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Jan 2019 20:33

ljadw wrote:
22 Jan 2019 16:50
If Wagenführ was referred to 100 times instead of 50 times, that would not indicate his importance .
Quantity here does not indicate quality .
Nitze ( from USSBS ) said the following : Speer was the only one who could provide to us the vital information we needed .
This quotation is sufficient enough to indicate the importance of Speer for the USSBS .
Stop making things up. Where does Nitze say that?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”