Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9477
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Sid Guttridge » 04 Apr 2021 20:02

Hi ljadw,

Stauffenberg was a colonel.

He was not second-in-command to Fromm, who had numerous generals as his subordinates, Olbricht among them.

Stauffenberg was Fromm's chef of staff. He was a staff officer, as KDF33 stated earlier.

You yourself describe him as, "chief of staff", which should make it clear what his status was.

Cheers,

Sid.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 943
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by KDF33 » 04 Apr 2021 20:10

Sid Guttridge wrote:
04 Apr 2021 10:29
P.S. thanks for digging up Qvist. He was undoubtedly one of the best contributors ever on AHF. Sorely missed. Sad to see it is nine years since he last posted!
If I may add to this, I have found his contributions incredibly significant. I completely agree with you.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11989
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 05 Apr 2021 07:01

KDF33 wrote:
04 Apr 2021 19:33
ljadw wrote:
04 Apr 2021 18:01
About the manpower pool : this was the number of able, available and adult German men .
At least now we have a definition.
ljadw wrote:
04 Apr 2021 18:01
The
result of this was that the civilian sector had to produce more with less men .
A shocking revelation. Let us take a look at what was happening in the United Kingdom during the war.

Total males ages 14 - 64, Armed Forces / Civilian Economy / Outside of employment:

June 1939: 477,000 / 13,166,000 / 2,367,000
June 1940: (No entry in the dataset)
June 1941: 3,271,000 / 11,844,000 / 862,000
June 1942: 3,785,000 / 11,296,000 / 853,000
June 1943: 4,284,000 / 10,691,000 / 946,000
June 1944: 4,502,000 / 10,394,000 / 1,014,000

Source: Statistics relating to the war effort of the United Kingdom - Appendix A

Clearly by ljadw's standard the British manpower pool was empty.
ljadw wrote:
04 Apr 2021 18:01
But this did not suffice,because the WM always needed more men .
By what criteria did it "not suffice"? Here's a comparison between the total size of the German and Anglo-American armed forces for mid-1943:

1. Germany: 10,450,000 personnel
2. United States: 9,195,912 personnel
3. United Kingdom: 4,300,000 personnel

Germany alone had 77% of the combined total of Anglo-American military personnel in mid-1943. The Wehrmacht inducted a further 1,765,000 men over the following 16 months.

But according to you, we are to believe the following:
ljadw wrote:
01 Apr 2021 21:06
If Germany defeated the USSR in 1943 ,it could not intervene in the Mediterranean , even not with 300000 men . It had not the force to do this .
One wonders how the Anglo-Americans could fight in the Mediterranean, given they had merely 29% more men than the "totally exhausted" Germans, all the while also fighting in the Pacific.
ljadw wrote:
04 Apr 2021 18:01
Britain did not have to go out of the manpower pool for its armed forces .The German manpower pool was empty and the WM had to use women and POWs .
British Women's Auxiliary Services personnel:

June 1941: 103,000
June 1942: 307,000
June 1943: 461,000
June 1944: 467,000

Right. No women.

P.S.: I again note you still haven't acknowledged being shot down over your dissembling pertaining to the Göring-Programm.
The WM had to use women in combat functions, Britain not .How many of the Women's Auxiliary Service's personnel were manning the anti aircraft guns ?
And about the Goering program : you mean of course that you were wrong when you said that its aim was to quadruple the production of aircraft, something that could not be done and if done,would not help Germany .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9477
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 Apr 2021 07:20

Hi ljadw,

Tens of thousands of women must have been involved in anti-aircraft defence in the UK, as there were hundreds of mixed gun batteries and women could form up to 85% of personnel in searchlight batteries.

Some 20 years ago I did some archive research for a friend into the death of his aunt at New Year 1944/45 in Belgium. He wondered why she was there. She and nine other women gunners were killed on a truck accident after a New Years party. It turned out that a lot of mixed AA batteries had been sent to Belgium to protect Antwerp against V1 attacks.

Cheers,

Sid

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11989
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 05 Apr 2021 07:22

Sid Guttridge wrote:
04 Apr 2021 20:02
Hi ljadw,

Stauffenberg was a colonel.

He was not second-in-command to Fromm, who had numerous generals as his subordinates, Olbricht among them.

Stauffenberg was Fromm's chef of staff. He was a staff officer, as KDF33 stated earlier.

You yourself describe him as, "chief of staff", which should make it clear what his status was.

Cheers,

Sid.
His power and influence were much bigger than those of Olbricht .There were a lot of colonels in the WM who had more influence than generals : Schmundt was only a lieutenant colonel when he became Hitler's chief adjudant and it was Schmundt (a lieutenant general ) who appointed Stauffenberg as chief of staff of Fromm who was a colonel general .
Ranks do not confer power . It is the opposite .The influence of Manstein as CoS of AGA in 1939 was much bigger than his rank .
It is the same in civilian life .
Stauffenberg was going several times to Hitler's HQ,deputizing for Fromm . Not Olbricht .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 943
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by KDF33 » 05 Apr 2021 07:23

ljadw wrote:
05 Apr 2021 07:01
The WM had to use women in combat functions, Britain not .How many of the Women's Auxiliary Service's personnel were manning the anti aircraft guns ?
You tell me. How many can you count on this picture?
ljadw wrote:
05 Apr 2021 07:01
And about the Goering program : you mean of course that you were wrong when you said that its aim was to quadruple the production of aircraft
There's just one problem with this retort: I never said that.

You're not just losing this argument. You're also "losing it", more generally.

P.S.: I also note you have yet to acknowledge the vacuity of your argument regarding Stauffenberg and Carton de Wiart.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9477
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 Apr 2021 07:36

Hi ljadw,

Certainly junior officers can have more influence than more senior officers, but that is not what you wrote originally.

Why not just write what you mean in the first place, instead of wasting other peoples' time getting you to tidy up after your own sloppiness?

And no, it is not true that "Stauffenberg was going several times to Hitler's HQ,deputizing for Fromm." He was representing him, not deputising for him. Stauffenberg had no decision making powers at these meetings. He was essentially a bag carrier for Fromm, which came in handy for the Bomb Plot!

Cheers,

Sid

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11989
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 05 Apr 2021 12:30

Sid Guttridge wrote:
04 Apr 2021 20:02
Hi ljadw,

Stauffenberg was a colonel.

He was not second-in-command to Fromm, who had numerous generals as his subordinates, Olbricht among them.

Stauffenberg was Fromm's chef of staff. He was a staff officer, as KDF33 stated earlier.

You yourself describe him as, "chief of staff", which should make it clear what his status was.

Cheers,

Sid.
In Germany the chief of staff was de facto second-in-command :the average German division had no deputy commander (opposite to the US divisions ) ,the chief-of-staff WAS the deputy commander .
It was Stauffenberg wwho started he Walkyrie plan, not Olbricht .
That Olbricht was a general did not make him the superior of Stauffenberg .
Von Reichenau became in 1933 chief of the Ministeramt of von Blomberg, while he was still colonel, but he was not subordinate to the generals who commanded the Wehrkreisen .He was even more powerful than people as Rundstedt who commanded as a full general Gruppenkommando I.
Stauffenberg had only one superior = Fromm. Not Olbricht .
In the absence of Fromm, Stauffenberg replaced him, not Olbricht or some one else .The fact that Olbricht was higher in rang was irrelevant .
It was Stauffenberg who represented Fromm at Rastenburg, not one of the multiple generals of the Ersatzheer .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11989
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 05 Apr 2021 12:43

KDF33 wrote:
05 Apr 2021 07:23
ljadw wrote:
05 Apr 2021 07:01
The WM had to use women in combat functions, Britain not .How many of the Women's Auxiliary Service's personnel were manning the anti aircraft guns ?
You tell me. How many can you count on this picture?
ljadw wrote:
05 Apr 2021 07:01
And about the Goering program : you mean of course that you were wrong when you said that its aim was to quadruple the production of aircraft
There's just one problem with this retort: I never said that.

You're not just losing this argument. You're also "losing it", more generally.
Answer :
You said on post 153 that the aim of the Goering Program was far more specific and you gave 3 points ,one of which was an aircraft production of 3000 in May 1942 .
Dietrich Eichholtz OTOH said the following in his authoritative Geschichte der Deutschen Kriegswirtschaft im Zweiten Weltkrieg (sadly marred by Marxist propaganda ) :
1 Der Goering Programm war keinerwegs ein bloßes Flugzeugbauprogramm .
2 Der Kern dieses Programs bildete eine Vervierfachung der Stärke der Luftwaffe in Zwei bis Zweieinhalb Jahren .
Thus : a quadrupling of the strength of the LW : how could an aircraft production of 3000 aircraft result in a quadrupling of the strength of the LW ? Or even in an increase of the strength of the LW ? It could even result in a weakening of the LW .
But an increase of the Flak strength would have more chance to increase the strength of the LW .
Last edited by ljadw on 05 Apr 2021 14:36, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9477
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 Apr 2021 13:14

Hi ljadw,

No, Stauffenberg did not issue the orders for Valkyrie. Olbricht did. Olbricht delayed because it was unclear if Hitler had been killed. Only when Stauffenberg arrived back did he have an apparently reliable witness that Hitler had died. Olbricht then ordered Valkyrie. Stauffenberg was actually furious that nothing had happened in his absence, so he was clearly not expecting to order Valkyrie himself.

Nor did he become Fromm's replacement as head of the Ersatzheer. That was Generaloberst Erich Hoepner.

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 05 Apr 2021 13:48, edited 1 time in total.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2655
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Boby » 05 Apr 2021 13:43

Chef Heeresrüstung/AHA was separated in 1940. Each post have a "Chef des Stabes"

In July 1944 Stauffenberg was CdS to Fromm and Quirnheim CdS to Olbricht.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11989
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 05 Apr 2021 14:44

Sid Guttridge wrote:
05 Apr 2021 13:14
Hi ljadw,

No, Stauffenberg did not issue the orders for Valkyrie. Olbricht did. Olbricht delayed because it was unclear if Hitler had been killed. Only when Stauffenberg arrived back did he have an apparently reliable witness that Hitler had died. Olbricht then ordered Valkyrie. Stauffenberg was actually furious that nothing had happened in his absence, so he was clearly not expecting to order Valkyrie himself.

Nor did he become Fromm's replacement as head of the Ersatzheer. That was Generaloberst Erich Hoepner.

Cheers,

Sid.
Hoeppner was scheduled to become head of the Ersatzheer if when the coup succeeded, Fromm yet would support the regime .
Before 20 July, Stauffenberg was in charge when Fromm was absent ,Hoeppner had been fired in January 1942 .
When Rommel was not at his HQ in Africa or in Normandy, his chief of staff (in France :Speidel ) replaced him .And , I did not say that Stauffenberg issued the orders for Walkyrie, but that he started Walkyrie.When Stauffenberg was in Rastenburg, Olbricht did nothing because he had no guts and because he had not the authority to do something .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11989
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 05 Apr 2021 14:57

Sid Guttridge wrote:
05 Apr 2021 07:36
Hi ljadw,

Certainly junior officers can have more influence than more senior officers, but that is not what you wrote originally.

Why not just write what you mean in the first place, instead of wasting other peoples' time getting you to tidy up after your own sloppiness?

And no, it is not true that "Stauffenberg was going several times to Hitler's HQ,deputizing for Fromm." He was representing him, not deputising for him. Stauffenberg had no decision making powers at these meetings. He was essentially a bag carrier for Fromm, which came in handy for the Bomb Plot!

Cheers,

Sid
When Fromm went to Rastenburg, he also had no decision making powers .In the short time Stauffenberg was chief of staff of Fromm ,he went 3 times to the Wolfschanze to give Hitler informations about the reinforcements the Ersatzheer could send to the front .Fromm went also to Rastenburg, for the same reasons .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 943
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by KDF33 » 05 Apr 2021 15:50

ljadw wrote:
05 Apr 2021 12:43
You said on post 153 that the aim of the Goering Program was far more specific and you gave 3 points ,one of which was an aircraft production of 3000 in May 1942 .
Dietrich Eichholtz OTOH said the following in his authoritative Geschichte der Deutschen Kriegswirtschaft im Zweiten Weltkrieg (sadly marred by Marxist propaganda ) :
1 Der Goering Programm war keinerwegs ein bloßes Flugzeugbauprogramm .
2 Der Kern dieses Programs bildete eine Vervierfachung der Stärke der Luftwaffe in Zwei bis Zweieinhalb Jahren .
Dietrich Eichholtz didn't say anything "OTOH". My source is that very book by Dietrich Eichholtz.

Go read pages 13-14 for aircraft production targets, page 14 for light metals production targets, and page 16 for avgas production targets.

Again: you're losing it, trying to cling to your absurd notions, not even understanding the sources you cite.

It is a sad spectacle.
ljadw wrote:
05 Apr 2021 12:43
But an increase of the Flak strength would have more chance to increase the strength of the LW .
Citation needed.

P.S.: I note you still haven't acknowledged being proven wrong about the Women's Auxiliary Services, or yet acknowledged the silliness of your argument about Stauffenberg.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9477
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Sid Guttridge » 05 Apr 2021 15:51

Hi ljadw,

Stauffenberg was Fromm's messenger and assistant. Fromm himself, who was a Colonel General, had been in office since 1933 and had the necessary authority and experience to debate points of policy at Fuhrer headquarters and influence outcomes. (Read Speer's description of him). To a great degree, the recreation of the German Army was a tribute to his organizational abilities. The idea that Stauffenberg, who was only a recently promoted colonel and had been in post just a few months, had any authority to fill Fromm's shoes is laughable. He was Fromm's bag carrier if Fromm went, and his messenger and ears if he did not.

Cheers,

Sid.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”