Now, Hitler claimed his logic on attacking the Soviet Union at that stage in the conflict was to knock the last potential major ally England could have had on the continent out of the war, making Britain really isolated. He also stated it was for the vast resources of Russia that could be harnessed for Germany to prepare for a future conflict against the United States if need be. We all also know that Hitler hated Communism, Slav, Jews, and the Soviet Union itself, and attacking it would allow him to fight all of those entities. Now, with the argument of needing the resources and living space of Russia for the German people to survive... Germany already had Belgium, Holland, France, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, most of Poland, was trading partners with Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Soviet Union. Wouldn't all of those accesses to resources in which Hitler had have been enough to wage a war against Britain and the United States without the need to conquer Russia?
So the vast resources that he had already acquired thru conquest and trade with satellite states/allies could have been sufficient?
Sufficient for what? Hitler was not an economist nor did he have any real idea as to how to run an economy. "Have-not" was a slogan, not a policy. His management style included setting men against men in the same mission, like producing weapons-grade steel, and seeing who came out on top. This was very wasteful, obviously, but it kept him in control of men under him.
Sufficient for continuing armed conflict? For a short amount of time, probably. He had resources in these conquered territories that would have allowed for such. However, Hitler's understudies were wasting production at the time. There was no system in place during the Third Reich that would have allowed for continued success in production. They were exhausting their resources at an alarming rate along with wasting those resources on science projects. Invading the East was, at least in the current state of the time, necessary.
It's pretty remarkable, I've been reading the book "Why the Allies Won" by Richard Overy, excellently cited and sourced, and Germany had the capacity and the crude resources that topped Russia and Britain, but they didn't harness them effectively or in the right ways.
I agree The laundry list of retrospective mistakes down the line is quite remarkable when examined. Production alone should have placed more emphasis on successful designs and bulk
IWD Not trying to hijack the thread. However, I have the book in my bookshelf but have not opened it as of yet. Was curious about the book since there are many criticisms that much of Tooze's conclusions are debunked. Was curious as to your take on the matter.
I don't think it would be accurate at least from what I've seen to say "Many of his conclusions" have been debunked. Tooze is an economist and where he concentrates on the economy his data and conclusions are pretty solid. He is not a military historian and the weaknesses of his book come in when he is relating/discussing military events. In particular he seams not to have used the most up to date military histories as references. It's not an easy read IMO but especially for the pre war years there's some very interesting information presented and for me anyway it lead to some significant new insights.
