Marc33594 | 28 Aug 2016 10:00 a.m. PST |
I apologize if this has been posted before. And bit misleading title as the article speculates more on a delayed invasion. Certainly plenty of room for discussion :) link |
GarrisonMiniatures | 28 Aug 2016 10:33 a.m. PST |
Germany would have taken the Middle East. Japan would have attacked the US, perhaps the US would have considered Japan the number 1 target without Russian pressure… At some stage Russia would have entered the war, but possibly not as well as the article suggests – once consequence of the German invasion was that it cleared Russia of obso;ete equipment. That equipment would probably have fored the main part of the Russian army so… The war would have lasted longer, but eventually I think the end result would have been similar – Except Russia better off, UK worse off… |
Skeptic | 28 Aug 2016 11:16 a.m. PST |
According to a pro-German, perhaps "revisionist" thesis, the German invasion of Russia was pre-emptive. I have my doubts, though… |
Ottoathome | 28 Aug 2016 11:24 a.m. PST |
All rational discussion ceases when you have a madman in it. In this case, you have three of them and one buffoon. The madmen are Hitler, Stalin, and the Junta of Japanese Generals. The buffoon is Mussolini. None of these decision makers pursued a rational policy at any time. All of them pursued a policy of rank opportunism and self delusion. As anything could have happened, make up whatever you want. Speculate away therefore but don't for an instant think it's any more than a game, like deciding who takes over if the Generals every bumped Hitler Off. I think that if it happened it would be Goering, in the Burghoff, with the beer stein. |
piper909 | 28 Aug 2016 11:34 a.m. PST |
Hitler's obsession with seizing Russian oil fields would have been far easier sated by conquering the softer targets of the Near East, which the Germans could almost certainly have done in 1941-42 if they'd left Russia alone and used their muscle in the Med and moved into Turkey (as was once planned) to link up with Vichy Syria and Nazi-leaning Iraq. Egypt would have been caught in a pincer and Germany would stand triumphant from the Persian border to Gibraltar (itself to be isolated and besieged). This would have left the Axis in a far superior strategic position for 1942-43 and India would have been menaced on two fronts as well. Could restive India have been held by the British in the face of German and Japanese threats? Would the USSR have dared attack a Germany in such a strong position? And if it did, would Germany have defeated it with ease, somewhere within the buffer regions of former Poland, with panzer spearheads also pushing north through the Caucasus? Hard to believe some sort of fait accompli peace agreement wouldn't have been negotiated between the Axis and the UK by that point, esp. if the US wasn't yet actively engaged and even if the Soviets hadn't been cowed into subservience (perhaps they are encouraged to pursue their expansion into Persia or India rather than look west). |
Sundance | 28 Aug 2016 11:53 a.m. PST |
I find it hard to believe the invasion was pre-emptive considering it caught Stalin completely with his pants down. To point he was almost paralyzed for days. |
Weasel | 28 Aug 2016 12:41 p.m. PST |
Glantz concluded that the USSR had no ability to invade Germany until much later, though he didn't draw any conclusions as to whether those intentions existed. The idea that the Red Army was moments away from rolling into Germany with a legion of barely functional T26 is popular in fringe groups but any examination of the Red Army's performance in 1941 should make that seem pretty silly. The problem with Germany not attacking the USSR was that the ideas of Lebensraum and of exterminating and relocating the "lesser races" to make room for Aryans was core ideals of the Nazi party. They weren't things they came up with one afternoon on a lark. |
Mako11 | 28 Aug 2016 2:08 p.m. PST |
Yea, they would have probably taken the Middle East and North Africa, and perhaps even held it. The Med. becomes an Axis lake. |
Tgunner | 28 Aug 2016 2:20 p.m. PST |
Hummm… interesting. This fellow on Quora has very different thoughts on Hitler just beating Stalin to the punch that make sense. link Units in an offensive posture are sitting ducks to being attacked themselves and being suckered punched can leave a foe stunned. And the bit about Russia taking down its border defenses certainly leads one to wonder. He might have been planning something but not in '41 for sure. |
14Bore | 28 Aug 2016 2:30 p.m. PST |
Uncle Joe thought the German /Soviet war was coming but not for a few years, so never miht be out of the questionn. |
foxweasel | 28 Aug 2016 2:49 p.m. PST |
Otto has got this one right. It's a bit like imagining what would have happened if your Dad never met your Mum. What if Japan never got involved, that would leave the combined British empire and dominion forces to eventually overmatch the axis powers (maybe) it's just another what if, pointless but occasionally amusing. |
Mark 1 | 28 Aug 2016 4:25 p.m. PST |
The notion of Germany pre-empting a Soviet strike was popular several years back. Rezin was one author who wrote this drivel. It is all easily debunked by anyone with more than a public high-school level of knowledge of 1940/41. Hitler's orders to prepare for the invasion were issued LONG before any of the purported Soviet preparatory moves. Weasel has it right. There is no question of Hitler's intention to invade Russia. It is the whole reason he started the war. He attacked France in 1940 to get them OFF of his back door so he could invade Russia. He didn't want war with France, or Britain. He just wanted to neutralize them so he could pursue his war with Russia. He cared nothing for the oil fields in the middle east. He was not interested in industry or economics. He was interested in race and population. He wanted everyone east of Germany gone, so his master race would have room to grow and re-populate the vast tracts of fertile soil. If you want to consider what would have happened if Germany didn't invade Russia, you must first create the scenario where Hitler is not in charge. Because so long as he was in charge, he was going to invade Russia. He even wrote it all in 1923. All that he did was in accordance with what he wrote a decade and a half before, but people still want to suggest that somehow it was the circumstances that pushed him into it. It wasn't. Sure, invading Greece or Norway was kind of spur-of-the-moment. But not Russia. That was the plan all along. Never a question if, only a question of when. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Skeptic | 28 Aug 2016 4:58 p.m. PST |
Ha! I know somebody who wrote an M.A. thesis on the topic. He must have been very persuasive, otherwise I am not sure how it would have been accepted… I am personally quite skeptical of the whole pre-emptive invasion hypothesis. |
Mark 1 | 28 Aug 2016 7:21 p.m. PST |
This fellow on Quora has very different thoughts on Hitler just beating Stalin to the punch that make sense.link Units in an offensive posture are sitting ducks to being attacked themselves and being suckered punched can leave a foe stunned. And the bit about Russia taking down its border defenses certainly leads one to wonder. The linked site is pretty much a straight-up rehash of Rezin's thesis. For those who are interested, the basics go like this: 1) Oh look at all the BT tanks. Tanks that can run on tracks OR wheels? That doesn't make any sense unless you are planning to invade Germany, because Russia didn't have good roads, but Germany did. 2) All those Paratroopers. Look at how many the Soviets had! Everyone knows that paratroopers are an offensive weapon. Must have been planning to attack. 3) Fleet building program. Dozens of battleships in planning. Doesn't make sense for a nation that has very limited ports and no year-round ocean access. Must have been planning to get some ports by conquering European nations. 4) Such a big investment in strategic bombers. Clearly not a defensive weapon. Huge bombers, too. Huge. Must have been planning to attack Germany. 5) All the built-up lines of fortifications were abandoned, and the troop strength focused on mechanized armies. A clear indication they were preparing to attack. 6) All those troops were moved forward within a short time prior to the German attack. They were all positioned for attack, and the Germans caught them by surprise. The thesis was originally written to explain the massive Russian losses. They were caught flat-footed, concentrated in attack formations, with no deployed defenses, they were encircled and digested when the Germans got the jump on them. It was later adopted by the Nazi apologists as a tool for blame-shifting … see all of WW2 wasn't the German's / Nazi's fault. They were just defending themselves. But you know the victors get to write history, so we've all be sold this story about those poor Germans being the bad-guys … Ahem.
Nonsense. Start-to-finish nonsense. Those who consider themselves military history buffs shouldn't need any help to see just how pathetic the storyline is. But if you do, here's the short form: 1) The Russians didn't design the track-and-wheel feature of the BTs, it came with the design they bought from a US inventor. They found it cumbersome, and they dropped it as they progressed from the BT series to the A-20, the A-32, and finally the T-34. By 1941 (the time when this storyline suggests the Soviets were preparing to invade Germany, with all it's good roads) the BT was out, and the T-34 was in. If wheels-only operation indicates an intention to invade Germany, than the BT suggests they wanted to invade Germany in 1932-39, and gave up the idea by 1940! 2) The Soviets invented the concept of paratroopers. As the largest military on earth, and the inventor of the concept, it is not surprising that they had more paratroopers than other nations. Soviet military theory was most definitely focused on fighting on the other guy's soil. This is well documented. No need to look for some mysterious plan to invade Germany, it's all written and available and analyzed a hundred times over by reputable historians. Soviet doctrine called for an overwhelming offensive reaction against any nation who dared to cross Soviet borders. This had been the doctrine of the Red Army since the early 1930s. It does not reflect any change or focus of intentions in 1941. There was no doctrine or training for defensive fighting in the Red Army, even at the tactical level. It was all about attacking. It was much like the French doctrine of 1914, "Attaque a l'outrance" (attack to excess). In this the Soviets military thinking was not unique, just 20 years behind the times. Quel surprise. If seeing troops types and doctrines focused on offensive action is evidence of intention to invade, why do we not suggest the Soviets were planning to invade China? Or Afghanistan? Or Persia? Or … 3) Russian naval ambitions date back to the Czars. The Russians have always coveted year-round ocean access. The Russians have always had plans to build a powerful navy. This is no more evidence that they were planning to attack Germany in 1941 than it is that they were planning to attack Germany in 1870. Oh, and by the way, it's a much shorter path to good ports for the Russians to go after Turkey, not Germany. So is a plan to build battleships evidence that Germany was defending Turkey??? 4) The US also built up a strategic bomber force. Does this prove American intent to invade Germany in 1940? No. It was a path many air forces explored in the 1930s. The Soviets built huge strategic bombers … IN 1935! Proof, beyond a doubt that they intended to invade Germany in 1936, right? And proof that they gave up this plan by 1940, by which time their bomber force was largely obsolete. The Red Air Force development programs of 1940/41 were overwhelmingly focused on new modern fighter aircraft. These were generally short ranged designs. What's that say about Russian plans to attack Germany? 5 & 6) In 1939 / 1940 the Soviets managed to push their borders about 300-500 Km westward. They seized Bessarabia from Romania, they seized about 1/3 of Poland, and they seized the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Well guess what, by 1941 their frontier fortifications made no sense at all. So they took the troops and moved them forward towards their frontiers. Is that surprising? Does it indicate anything other than that their frontiers had moved? I don't mean to suggest that the Soviets were no threat to Europe in general, or to Germany in particular. The Soviet Union was an aggressive and highly militarized nation. It was most certainly a threat to smaller/weaker nations on its borders. But there is no point of reasoning in the Rezin storyline that stands up to even a moment of examination. If Germany had not invaded in 1941, there would certainly have been points of conflict, and war between the two may have eventually resulted. But tossing this string of observations together as evidence of an imminent Soviet attack on Germany is simply nonsense. Maybe it's good enough to sell a few books and excite a bit of yellow journalism, but it shouldn't carry any weight with folks who have read more than a high-school textbook about European military issues in 1940/41. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Mako11 | 28 Aug 2016 8:21 p.m. PST |
An even more interesting question is what if Hitler and Germany had waited to attack others, until they'd amassed a much more powerful army, navy, and air force, like his generals and admirals wanted? Of course, other countries would have been alarmed, and might have increased their militaries to compete as well, but still, with the U-Boat arm and navy Doenitz wanted and was promised, the Battle for the Atlantic and Britain might have been a lot different. |
basileus66 | 28 Aug 2016 11:02 p.m. PST |
An even more interesting question is what if Hitler and Germany had waited to attack others, until they'd amassed a much more powerful army, navy, and air force, like his generals and admirals wanted?Of course, other countries would have been alarmed, and might have increased their militaries to compete as well, but still, with the U-Boat arm and navy Doenitz wanted and was promised, the Battle for the Atlantic and Britain might have been a lot different. Two problems with that hypothesis: 1) Hitlerite Germany was on the brink of national bankruptcy when the war started and the looting of conquered countries wealth allowed the Nazis to cover up for the unpaid bills of the previous six years. 2) France, and particularly Britain, had started their own programs of weapons modernization. There was nothing more effective to convince the British that their enemies were serious that up the ante in a Naval building program. |
Mobius | 29 Aug 2016 4:05 a.m. PST |
2) France, and particularly Britain, had started their own programs of weapons modernization.Last time I checked France is not in Russia. Per the OP Hitler would have to be satisfied with the rest of Europe. He might not be tempted to invade Russia if he had he realized the potential of Russian production. At one meeting in 1944 Hitler seemed to say that he never could imagine that Russia could produce 2000 tanks a month. A meaning to this might be "What was I thinking?" Maybe if he had better intelligence on Russian tanks, planes and potential production he might of delayed an attack or found another way to deal with Russia. Though he probably couldn't control his aggression at some point. So what would Germany do with the whole of Europe except the UK and Russia? Ask Merkel. |
VVV reply | 29 Aug 2016 4:20 a.m. PST |
Well Hitler did not invade Russia. Lets assume that he would keep what he had. Only possible area to expand to Africa and the Middle East and make a damn good job of it. So Germany captures Iran and Iraqi. 2/3rds of the British Empire oil production and about half of what the USSR was producing. That should keep Germany going. |
Costanzo1 | 29 Aug 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
Russia invade Germany Too big the opportunity to take a dominant position in Europe and in Asia. |
Who asked this joker | 29 Aug 2016 7:02 a.m. PST |
Russia was building up for war. They already had the material advantage at least in tanks. I'd bet by summer of 42 they would have invaded occupied Europe. |
VVV reply | 29 Aug 2016 7:24 a.m. PST |
Well I don't think so. Against the army (German) which had just wiped the floor with the most European armies, sorry no Stalin would not have taken the risk. |
Blutarski | 29 Aug 2016 8:00 a.m. PST |
"Maybe if he had better intelligence on Russian tanks, planes and potential production he might of delayed an attack or found another way to deal with Russia." > The answer to Hitler's question in 1944 was LEND-LEASE, which had not been in existence (or perhaps even realistically conceivable) at the time of German planning for Barbarossa. B |
Skarper | 29 Aug 2016 8:24 a.m. PST |
The only credible rationale I've read for a Soviet Invasion of Poland/Germany is to preempt the Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union. So it's a chicken and egg problem. I think the Soviets might have attacked in 1942 if the Germans had not in 1941. But then – maybe not. All very conjectural. I'm not convinced Stalin ever planned that far ahead. Large armoured forces are often best used in attack though, so maybe the attack is the best form of defense thing applies. Anyway. Hitler's destiny was Lebensraum in the East. |
Weasel | 29 Aug 2016 8:38 a.m. PST |
I'd encourage people to read "Wages of Destruction". Its an excellent breakdown of the economic state of Nazi Germany and exactly how precarious it was. There's not much chance for Hitler to simply wait, their economy would unravel. |
Murvihill | 29 Aug 2016 10:05 a.m. PST |
The initial post said "What if Germany did not invade Russia." Assuming that I'd guess that 1. Hitler would send two more panzer divisions to North Africa. The Axis shipping situation in the Med couldn't supply much more, maybe not even that. It might have been enough to allow them to cut the Suez Canal. 2. Attempt to drive the UK to the peace table. Between submarine warfare and fortifying Europe it would become impossible for the UK to find somewhere to take effective action against Germany. 3. Continue plans to open up lebensraum in the limited areas Germany had available. After Poland the seized Balkan states would be an option. 4. Negotiate with the Soviets to cut up Romania. Actually all the Germans needed were the Ploesti oilfields, but might as well take the rest as well. Afterwards a peace pause would give Hitler a chance to build up his fleet, separate the Aryan wheat from the chaff and indoctrinate the captured countries in Nazi principles and ideology. |
piper909 | 29 Aug 2016 12:11 p.m. PST |
Another interesting question is, IF Germany left the USSR alone through 1941, and IF the USSR did attack Germany in 1942 or 1943, when it felt it was ready and needed to wage a pre-emptive war, could the Soviets have prevailed? Or would the (also beefed up and still unbloodied) German military have chewed up Russian attackers like in 1914? Would Stalin run that risk for whatever dubious gains he might feel were to be had? Losing a war against Germany might be enough to inspire a coup in Moscow. Stalin's survivor instincts were strong. |
Mobius | 29 Aug 2016 2:29 p.m. PST |
It's hard to say what would happen year to year. The UK might have more equipment to use in the Desert as no Lend Lease. Then again the Germans would too. The Germans not fighting Russia might build up a strategic oil reserve that could last them several years of war with anyone. Iran might fall to Russia. Germany might have right of passage through Turkey to supply Iraq with weapons to defend against UK. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 29 Aug 2016 4:24 p.m. PST |
'The UK might have more equipment to use in the Desert as no Lend Lease.' – wouldn't that be less equipment? |
Weasel | 29 Aug 2016 5:46 p.m. PST |
The UK provided equipment to the USSR that presumably would have remained on the isles otherwise. Though on the flipside, the UK is presumably still receiving lend-lease themselves. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 30 Aug 2016 4:01 a.m. PST |
True, misread it – UK would have more equipment, ignore my above post! |
Weasel | 30 Aug 2016 7:51 a.m. PST |
That's a LOT of valentines and shermans :-) |
GarrisonMiniatures | 30 Aug 2016 9:22 a.m. PST |
Interesting list here of materials sent under Lend-lease. link |
Marc33594 | 30 Aug 2016 10:26 a.m. PST |
Another interesting list of U.S. lend-lease perhaps a little better organized link Works nice with GarrisonMiniatures list of raw materials |
Weasel | 30 Aug 2016 11:33 a.m. PST |
Everyone talks about the tanks and jeeps, nobody talks about cutlery and boat propellers. Fascinating list, thanks for sharing. |
basileus66 | 30 Aug 2016 2:20 p.m. PST |
2) France, and particularly Britain, had started their own programs of weapons modernization.Last time I checked France is not in Russia. Per the OP Hitler would have to be satisfied with the rest of Europe. As I was answering Mako11 and not the OP, I don't follow what do you intent to prove with your statement. Its an excellent breakdown of the economic state of Nazi Germany and exactly how precarious it was.There's not much chance for Hitler to simply wait, their economy would unravel. Exactly. What if Hitler Never Invaded Russia His economy would have had collapsed in late 1941, once the last benefits from sacking the conquered European countries would have been wasted in sustaining the Heer. Stalin would have waited until 1944, and once Nazi Germany would have been in a state of near collapse due to the economic negligence of the imbecilic Nazi state, he would have pounced the Nazis. By April 1945, Soviet IS-2 would have been liberating Paris from the Nazi yoke. A new era of freedom, Communism and planified economy would have shone upon Europe. |
piper909 | 30 Aug 2016 11:16 p.m. PST |
I find it hard to believe that the clumsy and isolated Soviets (without the German invasion to spur advances, reforms, increased industrial production, Allied aid, or meritocracy) could have succeeded in overrunning Europe if the highly skilled and relatively advanced Germans could not do so. |
basileus66 | 31 Aug 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
find it hard to believe that the clumsy and isolated Soviets (without the German invasion to spur advances, reforms, increased industrial production, Allied aid, or meritocracy) could have succeeded in overrunning Europe if the highly skilled and relatively advanced Germans could not do so I don't. At least the Soviets had a functional economy. The Nazis didn't pass the step "Steal everything and waste it like there is no tomorrow" |
Mobius | 31 Aug 2016 6:56 a.m. PST |
His economy would have had collapsed in late 1941. Just nonsense or more likely wishful thinking. What other economy collapsed in that time frame? And that's not even the question. Hitler didn't need to loot the Soviet Union for his economy as he had all of mainland Europe to loot. The Soviet Union needed German currency as much as Hitler needed oil and wheat. They would of made good trading partners if their ideology didn't conflict. Germany wasn't a big tourist attraction neither did it sell many baguettes, candies, shoes and ties. They produced machinery, cars, appliances, chemicals and drugs, much like they do now. Go find an old encyclopedia of pre-war Europe and see what products are produced in what country. A movie about looted artwork didn't tell us how that is translated into panzer divisions. How many divisions did the Louvre have? |
Marc33594 | 31 Aug 2016 7:17 a.m. PST |
Piper; Among other things is it a matter of distance. For example the distance from Warsaw to Moscow is approximately 715 miles. The distance from Warsaw to Berlin approximately 320 miles or less than half. Advancing from the Russian border towards Moscow we already know the condition and availability of roads east-west. Advance the other direction and you are entering a more highly developed transportation infrastructure. There is also strategic depth. The Russians could and did evacuate much of their endangered industry eastwards. The Germans have much less room for that maneuver even with an occupied France. And it is a much harder task evacuating more "advanced" weapons systems then relatively simple ones. |
basileus66 | 31 Aug 2016 7:58 a.m. PST |
Come on, Mobius! Nazis didn't limit themselves to loot the Louvre. That's immaterial. What they did was to loot resources, machine parts, transport slave or semi-slave workforce to Germany, ecc. It was part and parcel of their imbecile ideology of racial superiority. That you find Nazis so fascinating shouldn't blind you to the fact that Nazi economy was about to colapse in 1939. War was the only way that Nazis knew to break the economic cycles of depression that were inherent to their infantile worldview. Without war, Nazi Germany was damned to collapse in an economic depression worst than that of the early 30s. |
Mobius | 31 Aug 2016 9:17 a.m. PST |
I know war saved the UK and US of sinking back into depression but Germany had already recovered from rock bottom. Their economy already collapsed. Thus they were free from debt. They wouldn't of needed slave labor if their workers weren't at war. They were building the autobahn and a lot of infrastructure. As we know from the US recent history 'infrastructure' is the only way out a recession. ;) Even with deficit spending. That you find Soviets so fascinating shouldn't blind you to the fact that Soviet economy was about to collapse. |
basileus66 | 31 Aug 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
You are wrong. Nazi Germany was in the brink of bankruptcy in 1939. Just check actual history instead revisionist crap. And no, I don't find fascinating the Soviets. Just marginally more efficient, economically speaking, than the Nazis. Stalin was a ruthless workaholic, while Hitler was just a demagogue that believed that a modern country could be ruled by chicanery, speeches and racial hate, and lazy to booth. |
Mobius | 31 Aug 2016 11:23 a.m. PST |
Nazi Germany was in the brink of bankruptcy in 1939. You'll have to provide a credible source for this. I find a quote that their economy was over heating. In my book means labor and prices were rising too fast. If by bankruptcy you mean running large deficits then every western country was trying to spend its way out of the Depression and thus facing bankruptcy. British Nigel Farage made a speech awhile back saying the EU was trying to borrow its way out of debt. So it works until it doesn't. |
basileus66 | 31 Aug 2016 1:48 p.m. PST |
You'll have to provide a credible source for this. I find a quote that their economy was over heating. In my book means labor and prices were rising too fast. What about Adam Tooze's tour de force?: The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. Would it be credible enough? Or Richard Evans magisterial study on Nazi Germany, particularly his second volume, where he describes in stunning detail the absolutely chaotic power play inside Nazi Germany and its consequences on German economy. Or anything from Kershaw, or Mazower, particularly Mazower's "Hitler's Empire" where he describes the nature of Nazi explotation of resources and labour from and in occupied countries.
And these are just a few, the most readily available. There are literally dozens of studies that demostrate the shaky economic foundations of Nazi Germany. |
deephorse | 01 Sep 2016 6:24 a.m. PST |
Mr Tooze's book should be required reading. Changed my view on certain aspects of Nazi Germany, and would teach a few here a thing or two. |
guineapigfury | 02 Sep 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
The Germans could barely supply the troops they did have in North Africa. Had they sent more men, the most likely outcome is they'd have abandoned their equipment at some point for lack of fuel, then be captured along with the rest at Tunisia once the Brits and Americans get there. |
Mobius | 02 Sep 2016 9:55 a.m. PST |
What about Adam Tooze's tour de force? British of course. Re: what I said about wishful thinking. But your contention the German economy was going to collapse in 1939. Code White was in October so since it didn't collapse by then it had only 3 months left to do so. A reichmark was worth 23 cents up to 1934 and from 1934 to 1941 it was worth 40 US cents. No sign of it going to zero. In 1938 the German treasury had 28 million in gold. The same amount in 1941. Austria had 45 million in gold until 1938 Czechoslovakia had 82 thousand fine oz of gold until 1938. So Germany had some walking around money to last them through the end of 1939. But Germany did have a crony-capitalist command economy with wage and price controls. So it wasn't going anywhere but could eek its way for quite awhile. |
GreenLeader | 02 Sep 2016 12:51 p.m. PST |
I am by no means an economist (take a look at the state of my finances if you need confirmation) but read Tooze's work with interest. I cannot, however, agree with the theory that Germany was 'about to collapse' and its only chance of survival was by invading the USSR. How many times have we heard that similarly insane / chaotically-run regimes are on the verge of collapse and yet they seem to stagger on endlessly: take North Korea, Zimbabwe or the DRC, for example. Was the economy of Nazi Germany of 1939 really more badly run than the economies of those three modern-day basket cases? Indeed, if anything, I would have thought that invading the USSR would have been likely to hasten any such collapse? Surely – and however successful it might have been – it would still have been a costly exercise in the short run and the newly captured lands could only have been expected to bear fruit many years later? As it was, Nazi Germany (and I am certainly no admirer of them, before anyone plays that card) continued to produce the most technologically advanced weapons of the war right up until the bitter end – despite never really bothering to go onto a full war economy footing. So I struggle to agree that, with it's world-class engineering and industry and its vast network of allies and trading partners, it was about to collapse like a house of cards in 1940/41 (or whenever)… 'Not sustainable in the long run' is very different from 'about to collapse'. As I have said, however I am certainly no expert, and it certainly depends on one's definition of 'collapse'. Has the modern-day Greek economy 'collapsed', for example? I keep hearing it has on the news, but my friends who live there seem to still be living a good life. Re. Hitler's driving ambition to wipe out Slavs etc – I recently read 'Hitler's Empire' which gave a rather different take on things – if that book is to believed (and I have no real reason to doubt it) it seemed almost as though they were making it up as they went along – alas, I am in the desert now and do not have it to hand to provide examples of what I mean. But if Hitler could come to understandings with the Japanese and various Muslim groups (not to mention the Soviets themselves for several years), I see no real reason why – had his insane attentions been drawn elsewhere at the critical moment – Hitler would not have stuck with his alliance with the USSR. He was – along with many, many much more unpleasant / reprehensible things – a gambler and an opportunist. While I do not for a moment buy into the revisionist idea that Stalin was about to break the pact and strike westwards in the summer of 1941, equally I do not find it implausible that he could have done it the following year or else at some stage in the not-too-distant future: his was every bit as expansionist, unpleasant and insane a regime as Hitler's afterall. I only offer these thoughts as my take on things – I have no dog in the fight and do not for a moment pretend to know more than the next man. |
basileus66 | 02 Sep 2016 2:01 p.m. PST |
British of course. First a strawman, now an ad hominem. You are a study on logical fallacies! I cannot, however, agree with the theory that Germany was 'about to collapse' and its only chance of survival was by invading the USSR. I think that you are somewhat mixed the ideas. It is not Tooze who proposed that Germany needed to attack the USSR in order to survive. Actually, that is what the Nazi hierarchy believed at the moment. What is proposed is that the near state of bankruptcy of Nazi Germany was what drove Hitler to attack Poland in 1939. Probably, Hitler was caught by surprise by the sudden hard stance from France and Britain regarding his agression against Poland. At that point, the USSR was still regarded by Hitler as a future land of colonization and conquest; it was, in Hitler's mind, necessary to the survival of the German Volk. It was a constant in Hitler's weltschauung since 1923, at least. For him, Western Europe wasn't for German colonization, nor economical explotation -that was a consequence of decissions taken during the war itself-; in Hitler's mind the war against France and Britain was an unwanted distraction in his plan to control Central Europe as a German Empire and Eastern Europe as a short of German India (his words, not mine). In his racial fantasy, Russia, Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic countries would play the role of the Far West in American history, and that of India in Britain Empire: a place to be colonized, exploited and ruled by Germans, who would cull the Slav population (Jews were, of course, marked for extinction, though until 1942 wouldn't be defined as physical extinction) and rule over them as lords did over serfs in the Middle Ages. Economy was behind his decisions, especially behind his attack on the USSR, but it wasn't rational economics, but a mishmash of half-baked monstruous fantasies of Medieval explotation over a subjugated population -natives, in Nazi parlance-. And that was at the core of all Hitlerite vision. He could parley with the Japanese because: a) they were in the other extreme of the world and didn't cross paths with Germany; and b) they were even more racists than the Nazis themselves (In some areas, Japanese racial theories were even more radical than those of the Nazis… Chinese weren't even subhumans; they were non-persons, period; Chinese women could be used as sex-slaves, though, which would have been considered as anathema in Nazi racial theory, in the other hand). The same with Muslims, which he only saw as useful tools in his projected destruction of all Jewish… if in the meantime they could cause trouble to the British, that was the cherry on top. But don't mistake the spite that Hitler felt against Japanese and Muslims; he simply hoped to "deal" with them once his projected conquest of the USSR would have reached a satisfactory conclusion. Yes, he was a gambler, but one with a distorted vision of what making a bid meant. For Hitler they weren't bids, actually. He believed with complete conviction that all his decisions were rational, logical and the best decision possible. When they led to catastrophe it was because those charged with implementing his ideas were traitors, incompetents and/or cowards unworthy of his "vision". Lee was a gambler because he knew that everytime he fought the Army of Potomac he could be defeated, and badly. Napoleon was a gambler. Churchill was a gambler. Hitler never thought he was gambling. He believed in the perfect logic of his proposals. Yeah, he was delusional, and that worsened as he spent years on power, surrounded by sycophants that couldn't -or wouldn't- challenge Hitler's lunacy. |
Durrati | 02 Sep 2016 2:20 p.m. PST |
The Wages of Destruction is wishful thinking? There is me thinking that it was generally accepted as a standard modern academic text on the Nazi economy, with footnotes to sources and everything. I am intrigued. Can you point me to any credible debunking of its factual claims? Yes, Austria and Czechoslovakia did have gold reserves as you say in 1938. They where then however stolen and spent by the Nazi's. The German economy had already reached the point where it could only continue to function through looting countries it had conquered. Working from memory but in rough figures the German government income in 39 was about 15 Billion RM. Its debt was over 40 billion. When a country has a debt to income ratio of almost 300% and no way of continuing to function but by borrowing more this is a fairly textbook definition of a basket case economy. If my memory of the figures for income and debt are inaccurate I am sure someone will correct me. I would however not agree that the Nazi economic policy was incoherent. It kind of makes perfect sense. If your aim is to launch a war to conquer and enslave or kill the populations of countries around you, then spending everything you have got, can steal or borrow on arms is a logical thing to do. Because if you win the war you don't have to care about paying debts – just steal and loot what you need from your victims. If you lose the war it really doesn't matter – a high debt to income ratio was probably the last thing Hitler and the Nazi elite was worrying about in May 45. |