Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The link to Prof Tooze reinforces what he wrote in his book and what I wrote. The USSR was always a long term target. Tooze even wrote there was a rush to invade the USSR in 1941 to get the resources to tackle the British to engage in the coming air war with Britain. There was no plan to invade the USSR in 1940. None. Hitler was at war with the British empire and naturally they were his prime concern. He knew he was to have a massive air war with the British. And the air war did come.
Hitler knew the lead from order to a flying plane was 18 months. FDR's statement of manufacturing 50,000 planes a year in May 1940 was that these planes would start to come out in approx early 1942. German industry turned over to heavy plane manufacturing in June 1941. Tooze does mention that.
If Hitler had access to the resources all over the world he would not have invaded the USSR in 1941. It would have made no sense whatsoever to do so. Apart from the British and Americans just about everyone else would trade with him. The reason Germany never had access to world resources was because of the RN blockade.
Tooze is one of the few who recognised the importance of the RN blockade. Few historians ever mention it, never mind recognise its vital contribution to WW2.
After the fall of France the British ran amok, so much Franco would not join in with Hitler. Hitler's overwhelming concern was the British who he was at war with.
I would point to a couple of things...
1. Tooze makes the connections, but does not tie them together as tightly as you did. He does not say nor even really imply..."FDR said he was going to make 50,000 planes, Hitler said, oh crap, then I'm going to invade Russia"...He says that the goal was always the Soviet Union and that Hitler basically hit a wall. The Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe were insufficient to continue the war with Britain, so he moved onto the next phase where he could use his army. The war against the Soviet Union wasn't supposed to last more than a couple of months. In the meantime, investments were continually made into the air force and the industries supporting it. The men in charge of those projects ended up having an outsized influence on the war effort in the east.
2. Tooze makes the argument. He is one of very few who do. New historians are looking at the war in different ways. Tooze views everything solely through an economic lens and uses that to decide what was "vital" or why decisions were made. He often ignores contrary evidence if it doesn't work with the story he wants to tell which is often one of the critiques of his work. So, yes, Tooze makes that argument. It doesn't mean he is right or that there aren't other interpretations.
3. David Edgerton, whose book "Britain's War Machine" is often recommended reading alongside Tooze's "Wages of Destruction", would argue that from April 1940 to July 1942 British arms suffered the worst series of losses and performance in the history of the empire. They weren't convincing anyone of anything. Franco did not join the war because the territorial concessions Franco wanted would interfere with the territorial concessions already promised to other members of the Axis, namely Italy. Franco was not scared by British arms, he just saw little gain for Spain given the degree of risk. I have to say though that it would have been fun to see Monty pull a Wellington and re-enact the Peninsular Campaign.
Tooze even gives the month FDR announced the 50,000 planes. May 1940, when it was not certain the Germans would gain control of France and the Low Countries.
Hitler DID NOT have strategic plans to invade the USSR in 1940. NADA! His concern was those who was actually fighting, the British. The USSR was way down the line. Hitler did not wake up one day after he knew the British would mince his troops on their beaches and say "oh I will have a go at the USSR for fun, even though their armed forces dwarfe mine. He wanted the resources of the USSR to build a large air force, as the RN cut Germany off from the rest of the world's resources - again.
When Franco met Hitler the British were running amok. He was fearful of the British taking the Canaries, all the Spanish African possessions and moving inland from Gibraltar. Which the British would have done. Canaris told Franco Germany would lose as the British empire was so big, the resolve of the British and their historical fighting will. Franco said that in a roundabout way to Hitler. Hitler was irritated with Franco because of his views. He said he would rather have his teeth pulled than meet Franco again.
Only one third of the British army was in France, with large reserves of Canadians in the UK. . The French complained of the tepid British contribution. The equipment left behind was outdated. All Matilda mk 1s were left behind. The best place for them. British industry, the same size of Germany's, was on 24/7 operation, making the latest equipment.
Tooze even gives the month FDR announced the 50,000 planes. May 1940, when it was not certain the Germans would gain control of France and the Low Countries.
Hitler DID NOT have strategic plans to invade the USSR in 1940. NADA! His concern was those who was actually fighting, the British. The USSR was way down the line. Hitler did not wake up one day after he knew the British would mince his troops on their beaches and say "oh I will have a go at the USSR for fun, even though their armed forces dwarfe mine. He wanted the resources of the USSR ...
I'm cool with this part. No argument. I would add, the invasion of the USSR was always the goal, the war with the British was not the war Hitler wanted to fight.
Quote:
...to build a large air force, as the RN cut Germany off from the rest of the world's resources - again.
Not cool with this part. Don't care if it's what you think Tooze says. This is where we disagree. I have not in all of my study of WW2 read anything that would lead me to the conclusion you are drawing here.
Quote:
When Franco met Hitler the British were running amok. He was fearful of the British taking the Canaries, all the Spanish African possessions and moving inland from Gibraltar. Which the British would have done. Canaris told Franco Germany would lose as the British empire was so big, the resolve of the British and their historical fighting will. Franco said that in a roundabout way to Hitler. Hitler was irritated with Franco because of his views. He said he would rather have his teeth pulled than meet Franco again.
Franco did not "fear" the British militarily the way you are implying. What he saw was a lot of risks which you've highlighted for very little reward, which is what I was highlighting. Franco did a cost benefit analysis and he had more to lose than he could possibly gain. He was not scared of British arms as you imply because the British, as I pointed out, had arguably suffered the greatest string of defeats in the history of the empire up to that point.
Quote:
Only one third of the British army was in France, with large reserves of Canadians in the UK. . The French complained of the tepid British contribution. The equipment left behind was outdated. All Matilda mk 1s were left behind. The best place for them. British industry, the same size of Germany's, was on 24/7 operation, making the latest equipment.
I'm not sure what this has to do with any of the three point I laid out above. Sometimes I think you say things just to say them.
I know what Tooze wrote. At times I give the passage and page numbers.
What series of defeats are you on about? Noway? When the RN near eliminated the German surface fleet?
France when they successfully evacuated a large force and inflicted the first defeat on the Lufwaffe?
The air battle over southern England, which the RAF won?
Wiping the Italians from East Africa?
Wiping out the Italian army in North Africa?
Wiping out the French fleet?
Wiping out most of Italy's battleships?
Bombing Germany?
When Franco met Hitler the British were running wild!!
He knew Spanish territory would be occupied by British forces. He was not that stupid.
The British retreat at Dunkirk was not the end of the British army at all as most of it was not in France.
Franco did not "fear" the British militarily the way you are implying. What he saw was a lot of risks which you've highlighted for very little reward, which is what I was highlighting. Franco did a cost benefit analysis and he had more to lose than he could possibly gain.
Not to mention the fact that Spain had just been through a devastating Civil War and wasn't in a position to help anybody.
I know what Tooze wrote. At times I give the passage and page numbers.
What series of defeats are you on about? Noway? When the RN near eliminated the German surface fleet?
France when they successfully evacuated a large force and inflicted the first defeat on the Lufwaffe?
The air battle over southern England, which the RAF won?
Wiping the Italians from East Africa?
Wiping out the Italian army in North Africa?
Wiping out the French fleet?
Wiping out most of Italy's battleships?
Bombing Germany?
When Franco met Hitler the British were running wild!!
He knew Spanish territory would be occupied by British forces. He was not that stupid.
The British retreat at Dunkirk was not the end of the British army at all as most of it was not in France.
How it was is not how you think it was.
Let's not run too wild here. The British stopped the Germans from invading them in 1940, barely. They also defeated the mighty Italian war machinery, the terror of WW2. But that was it. Rommel gave them the runaround in Africa with a minimal force and even more minuscule supplies for two years. They would soon be swept from the Balkans as far as Crete. Until the US entered the war and more likely 6 months later the only thing was to stave of defeat rather than even think or dream of victory.
Let's not run too wild here. The British stopped the Germans from invading them in 1940, barely. They also defeated the mighty Italian war machinery, the terror of WW2. But that was it. Rommel gave them the runaround in Africa with a minimal force and even more minuscule supplies for two years. They would soon be swept from the Balkans as far as Crete. Until the US entered the war and more likely 6 months later the only thing was to stave of defeat rather than even think or dream of victory.
Not more Hollywood history and wise in highdsight history. READ WHAT I WROTE. It is easier thar way. The British defeated the Luftwaffe over southern England and were sitting there with the world's largest navy, while the Germans did not have much of navy at all, army reequipped with the latest heavy armour and saying "come over Fritz", we will make you horse meat. BTW, if the US Army had engaged the Italians in 1940 it would have been wiped out.
You have the ability not to grasp the points in question at the point in time in question. And no the USA never won WW2 as for large parts of it they were not there.
I know what Tooze wrote. At times I give the passage and page numbers.
What series of defeats are you on about? Noway? When the RN near eliminated the German surface fleet?
France when they successfully evacuated a large force and inflicted the first defeat on the Lufwaffe?
The air battle over southern England, which the RAF won?
Wiping the Italians from East Africa?
Wiping out the Italian army in North Africa?
Wiping out the French fleet?
Wiping out most of Italy's battleships?
Bombing Germany?
When Franco met Hitler the British were running wild!!
He knew Spanish territory would be occupied by British forces. He was not that stupid.
The British retreat at Dunkirk was not the end of the British army at all as most of it was not in France.
How it was is not how you think it was.
"From the Norway campaign of April 1940 through to the battle of El Alamein in July 1942, British arms suffered the worst series of disasters in the nation's history: not only in France, but in Hong Kong and Singapore as well. In 1940 its air defenses at night didn't work, and its ability to destroy Germany from the air proved to be non-existent. The Empire suffered at the hands of inferior German (and Italian) forces in North Africa. Much more importantly in 1941-2 much of the Empire was overrun by a Japanese army much inferior in numbers and most equipment." ~ David Edgerton, "Britain's War Machine" page 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouldy Old Schmo
Not to mention the fact that Spain had just been through a devastating Civil War and wasn't in a position to help anybody.
Well, yeah, there was that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
You have the ability not to grasp the points in question at the point in time in question. And no the USA never won WW2 as for large parts of it they were not there.
Haven't you been preaching to us that FDR's "50,000 planes" was the catalyst for the German invasion of the Soviet Union?...and since the Soviet Union was the power that militarily defeated Germany...would it not be logical to therefore conclude that the United States, through mere threat of its industrial capacity, made the most significant contribution to the war.
Or...we could just go with Tooze..."The vast materiel aid supplied by lend-lease meant that Germany was in a proxy war against the United States long before war was declared."
Which, I would like to point out something here, since you are so slavish to Tooze. You do realize that Tooze's ideas are not "new" and that a significant amount of his work is based on the work of others. He takes things in some new directions in terms of the conduct of the war, but his economic theories are nothing new nor are his examinations of the Nazi economy. I would direct you to the following:
John Ellis' "Brute Force"
Mark Harrison's "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison"
Werner Abelshauser's "Germany: Guns, Butter, and Economic Miracles"
Barkai's "Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy"
Overy's "War Economy in the Third Reich"
Tooze essentially sets up what he states as an existing belief among people to shoot at and then takes it down. He does this to sell his book (which is infinitely more accessible than those listed above) because many people have not necessarily delved that deeply into the dark recesses of WW2 literature. Tooze basically took an old strawman out of the closet and shot it.
The biggest criticism of his work is that he ignores anything that doesn't fit his narrative. The biggest critique being his bumbling of the Nazi aircraft industry data and the ingnoring of all other influences on the events he describes, except for those that support the economic model that he built. He is an economist and explains everything that way and given your predication to viewing things economically and in particular focused on the role of land, I completely understand why you are so enamored with Tooze. However, I think an old saying fits quite well..."the problem with accountants (aka economists) is that they think their numbers and figures have something to do with reality".
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Hitler had be other than a military fool. If he had not diverted his attack on the RAF's airfields and industries at the last minute the RAF would have been destroyed. Without RAF sea patrols the u-boats could have sunk British shipping in the British harbors. Britain would have literally eaten itself out of house and home as they had depended on the empire, and Ireland, for food for a century or more. Without sea travel there is not food for at least a year. We would probably not have interfered as we would have spent more effort destroying Japan and taking over the British Empire east of Suez.
Hitler's attack on Stalin was his supreme mistake. Russia and Germany had a huge trade established and from my rudimentary studies would have been more then willing to supply war materials, if not actual weapons, to Germany possibly in exchange for the industrial areas of Eastern Europe.
This could have crated a European Union in 1945 instead of waiting until the 1990's.
GregW, at no time was Fighter Command in danger of being wiped out. Another myth dispelled by facts.
They were also making fighter planes faster than they could fly them. Fighter command could not be wiped out. British industry was making the planes at a rapid rate.
The RAF had thousands of coastal and bomber planes. Corvettes mainly dealt with U boats.
Last edited by John-UK; 07-29-2015 at 01:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
