What if Herr Speer...

It is true that Germany was not on a war time footing because Hitler did not want to deprive the German people of some luxeries and making them not want the war that he wanted. Hitler did not want women in the factories becasue it was against what Nazism preached as the role of women. But what Speer did was squeeze blood out of a lemon. In other words, he performed the impossible. Somebody mentioned that the war production of Germany was in shambles. Not quite. War production was consistent throughtout with the exception of fuel. There was a constant flow of jet fighters but no fuel. There was a good number of V weapons but again no fuel. As a matter fact, the luftwaffe had more planes than men towards the end of the war but even if it had men, there was no fuel to get them up in the air. So, we must agree that Speer could have significantly improved the number of weapons available to Germany even if Hitler did not want to go into a full fledged war time footing. This I agree with.

 

PzJgr

I'm sorry but whenever I read anything about German War production I think "Christ what a shambles". Before the advent of Speer I find it hard to believe the level of near-anarchy that existed. Individual services competed with each other for resources from an equally competetive bunch of Nazi placemen, ideologues and fools all trying to get one up on the other guy. All Hitler would do if faced with a problem is create an agency to deal with it - leaving definition of powers deliberately vague. Coherent design philosophy in vehicles seemed absent leading to a spare parts nightmare at the front. Not only was fuel short, but Rubber, Copper, Chrome, Zinc...all the things you need to run a war economy. Agriculture was worse. In 1933 Germany was self-sufficient in food. By 1939 after a series of hapless ideologically driven policies based on a nazified rural idyll Germany was importing large amounts of grain to make up the shortfall. You cannot run a war economy if you refuse to be pragmatic.

Speer was a pragmatic technocrat capable of filling some of the holes in the war economy, but not all of them. Germany never really fulfilled it's true potential because, ultimately, it's leader was more interested in ideology than victory.

Jumbo

 

You are missing the bloody point, AGAIN.

Forget about the stupid Tiger and stupid jets, etc. Just enough PzKpfw IIIs were enough to win.

Supply problems? Those were because the supplies were carried by horses and because the infantry went by foot. With Speer where he was supossed to be in 1939, there would have been enough lorries and half-tracks to fullfill this need. Therefore, you are solving the main problems of "Barbarossa". More guns, tanks and aeroplanes to achieve the objectives of "Barbarossa", even if Hitler did not want to run the war machine entirely. You are getting into minor details and not considering the whole general situation.

 

Friedrich

I think you are the one missing the point.

War production was a matter of policy. Hitler expected to win in 1941 with his existing assets. War production had even been cut back. It does not matter at this stage whether it is being run by Albert Speer or Donald Duck, this equipment would not have been provided because it was not seen as necessary! The Germans, and it has to be said more or less everyone else, expected the Soviets to last 6 weeks. It is only when there is a realisation that it was turning into a war of attrition that there is a change in policy.

It is not about Tigers and Jet Aircraft. It is about why the German war machine designed a different prime mover for every major piece of artillery with little crossover in spares. It is why the Germans never could match the USA or the USSR in their mass-production methods. It is why they relied on poorly motivated slaves rather than well motivated female workers. It is why they could never come up with a coherent government plan for getting the most out of their economy.

Britain, the USA and the USSR managed to place their economies on a far better war footing than Germany. Why? Why were the "degenerate democracies" of the USA and Britain able to do this and the supposedly centrally directed Germans not manage it?

The answer lies with that Bohemian Corporal and the ramshackle administration run by failures, crooks and fractions of men that were the Nazis.

Jumbo

 

Well, now that we've heard the old fisherman's tale...

Oh yeah... how stupid were the nazies, the most stupids: Speer, Schacht, Dönitz, Göring... Well, how stupids could rule all Europe then?

 

Well, now that we've heard the old fisherman's tale...

Oh yeah... how stupid were the nazies, the most stupids: Speer, Schacht, Dönitz, Göring... Well, how stupids could rule all Europe then?

 

Where are your facts? This is news and I have never heard of any "committees". Also, Agriculture did not fall under Speer. So while I would agree with some of what you said, it does not count under this topic

 

Because they were not being bombed round the clock. Speer did accomplish much more than anyone could under the circumstances. You cannot compare apples with oranges.

 

First off, I don't mean to be rude here, but if you don't understand the part resources and material play in war, then you don't understand war. This is really very simple though... every aspect of "making war" requires certain resources. One needs all sorts of things- from people and food to specific things like guns and planes. The resources needed to create such materials of war must be attained from some source. AS much as Friedrich seems to want to ignore such resources, nations that are at war cannot. How would one build a rifle without machined parts and bearings? How would one make a submarine without rubber for valves and copper for wires? A tank cannot be produced without steel alloys and cannot run without fuel and lubrication. All these resources canot be created by magic- they are finite resources in finite amounts. I would love to hear an explanation from someone how a wartime economy could simply ignore such resources!
http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/WarEcon.html
A page providing some pretty good info I found off one of Erich's links.

And back to the matter of Speer's appointment in 1939-
"Until 1942 Hitler had been adamant that the military effort shoulf not depress civilian living standards or curtail the output of consumer goods; between January and May 1942, at the insistence of his Armamanets Minister, Fritz Todt, and then (after Todt's accidental death) Dr Albert Speer, he accepted that military output as a proportion of gross national product wold have to rise."(The Second World War, John Keegan). So that would be early 1942, Hitler's decision. This is backed up by any source on ww2.
So that solves this What If...

And Friedrich, the nazis did conquer most of Europe- and then got completely smashed by the allies. Don't forget that part.

[ 07 August 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

 

Well, what we have said was that the planes, tanks and boats were being produced despite the incessent bombing. Common sense would prevail, hopefully, that these items could not be built. Because they were built, it must mean that the problem was not as major as you attempted to point out. You are preaching to the choir in your attempt to "educate".

 

Of course they were stupid. Germany in April 1945 is a testament to their lack of vision.

Hitler fatally underestimated British and French resolve in 1939. His turning to Ribbentrop and asking "What now?" is the most convincing proof of his miscalculation.

Neither Donitz nor Hjalmar Schacht were Nazis. When Schacht got in the way of Gorings slash-and-burn approach to the economy he was fired. Speer wasa failed architect who came to office by accident.

What about Sauckel or Rosenberg, Ribbentrop or Himmler? Two lunatics, a self absorbed Champagne salesman and a failed Chicken Farmer.

Don't hold Goring up as being some form of capable visionary either. His failures are legion and legendary.

No. This bunch were thankfully mentally ill-equipped to win the war, but they were able to start one, and condemn millions to death. How a supposedly civilised country could have handed absolute political power to this bunch beggars belief even today.

Run a war economy? Groener and his office did far better in WW1 that was ever managed in WW2.

Jumbo

 

Well, PzJgr, I wouldn't even really call it a problem- more of a limitation. We can clearly see that Speer did an impressive job with what he had to work with. Especially, like you mention, looking at Germany's production during 1944, when bombing was nearly constant. My point was that what Speer had to work with was drastically limited.
"Back to the original topic about Albert Speer, I think that would have changed Germany's resource postion a lot."
Obviously I'm not quite preaching to the converted- how would Speer have had any influence on the resoureces available to germany? Could he made ordinary rocks into Iron ore? Could he wave a wand and produce tungsten from a magic hat? No- Speer worked with MANUFACTURING- that uses resources, it dosen't create thaem Geez.

One of my books, WWII in Facts and Figures, presents an interesting chart- it lists many of the raw materials required for a war economy, and the status of ww2 participants for these materials in 1937. Germany was only listed as Self-Sufficient in one material- potatoes! This is my point- more or less from day one, Germany's economy was very strained simply to produce what it did. Many of the strategic positions followed by germany throughout the war directly related to securing resources (Rumania, Ukraine, etc.). So a hypothetical What If that is based on increased german production is really impossible- as it was they had to stretch greatly for their resources. And some of us seem to want to say the germans could ahve produced more while claiming that resources were not needed for such increased production.

This was really what my response was towards. The germans found out the hard way what the consequences were for ignoring the "minor details" like food, fuel, and resources. Throughout the war, how many german soldiers starved or froze to death? How many german tanks were abandoned due to lack of fuel or lack of repairs? And most of all, why could all the allies replace their losses while gemany could not? Simple- production and resources- the "minor details".

[ 08 August 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

 

I am not ignoring anything here. I perfectly know about the resources and perfectly know that Germany as Great Britain and Japan did not have own resources. But my point is: all the tanks and aeroplanes built in autumn 1944 under heavy bombardments (they were a lot, produced in much bigger quantities than at any moment in the war) were built with resources from somewhere. All those resources could have been perfectly adquired and used in 1940 and 1941. And there would not have been bombardments... Eh? I only agree in that thing of the fuel. Because Hungarian and Romanian petrol fields were not enough for all the German armed forces. However, this is an important detail, but not a too important one in 1941, by example, when things went fine.

 

Yes, but Speer was not making policy, Hitler and the rest were.

Pzjgr I am not saying that Agriculture fell under Speer. If you read what I said I pointed out that agriculture had fallen BY 1939. Before the war ideology was making Germany in some sectors less capable of going to war rather than more. Speer never had responsibility for Agriculture anyway, that fell to the clearly bonkers Walter Darre. This was the point I was trying to make: he was one voice among many, not a production supremo with ranging powers. Neither did Speer hold responsibility for Luftwaffe or Navy production at the start, and although Donitz saw reason, Goring did not.

This thread asked the question whether Speer would have made a difference 1939-1942. Again I say that if the policy was to retain a mixed economy because you think you are going to win by Christmas 1941 anyhow why risk upsetting the Civilians?

As for other organisations what about Organisation Todt? Speer never controlled this despite it's control over labour. Neither did he control the labour or industrial output of the SS in the Concentration Camps, only in factories which were given up to his jurisdiction. If you read his memoirs you will quickly appreciate how difficult he found it, especially as there was no Cabinet structure to allow policies to be co-ordinated.

As for being bombed, I was not talking about production, but organisation. Your argument actually supports mine! If you are being bombed flat you damn well make sure that you are eliminating every facet of wasteage, not fighting petty court battles with Goring, Bormann and whoever else Speer fell out with. This is not a critique of Speer, rather the whole system of war production of which he was a part. Left to his own devices he would have started from the bottom up and reorganised everything along rational lines. The fact that he didn't was not his fault, rather he was a logical man surrounded by capricious courtiers all baying to be heard.

Policy until 1942 was geared towards a Blitzkrieg mentality. Why produce tanks when you can produce butter? Only after 1942 when the truth of a war of attrition dawns does the role of Speer become important.

Jumbo

 

Jumbo's point here is the bottom line- Hitler himself, as I pointed out, did not allow for an increase in military production until 1942. Hence, Speer's appointment in 1939 would have made little if any difference.

And Friedrich, keep in mind that in 1939, Germany did not have full access to Rumania's oil fields, did not have access to the resources of the Ukraine, and did not have access to the resources captured in the rest of Europe. So no, there was not the same amounts available in 39-41 and 44. And even without considering this, Hitler's insistence on a peacetime economic structure meant that military usage of these vital resources from germany itself did not even begin to increase until 1942.
That is the main problem Speer would have faced besides Hitler himself.

[ 08 August 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

 

By pointing out that Speer was not head of agriculture, I was attempting to get us back to the question at hand. What would have been the impact if Speer was in charge of production in 39. Agriculture and all else you are pointing out has nothing to do with the question. You have already educated us in economics but Speer's role was just a portion of that and that is the area in question.

 

Speer didn't have to do with the Kriegsmarine production?! Ha! Ha!

He was bloody in charge of all the new submarines programmes. Beside, he kept the U-boats being mass produced as in 1941, 31 U-boats a month.

That is rather significant, that arguement about Hitler and his low weaponry production in 1941. But Speer as Keitel did, often disobeyed the Führer... It would have had indeed, a significant importance in our war effort. But however, in 1939 until mid 1941 we were getting petrol from Romania (even if we had not occupied it), Hungary, Norway and even the bloody Soviet Union! We did not have any lack of fuel in those years...

 

Friedrich

Please read and absorb:

"The supply departments of the Army (of which Minister Speer was head) and the Air Force fought in the battle for the allocation of industrial capacity solely in the interests of their own service, and as both the Minister and the Commander-in Chief of the Air Force pulled the strings between them, it was the Navy that went short" Donit' Memoirs Chapter 19 p347

" I asked Speer whether he was prepared to accept the responsibility for the greatly increased naval programme. Having examined my requirements, he replied that he was prepared to do so, provided Hitler was willing to sanction a partial cancellation of industrial production for civilian needs. This, he said, was necessary because the implementation of the Navy's expansion programme could not be allowed to restrict fulfillment of the requirements of the army and the air force"

Ibid p348

"On March 31 1943, Hitler gave his approval..."

Ibid p349

The administrative details were not agreed until July 22.

As I said, Donitz saw sense but Luftwaffe production remained under Milch. I did not say that Speer had no responsibility for the Kriegsmarine, rather that he gained it by negotiation and according to Donitz the approach came from the Navy.

I find it interesting that Hitler still had to be approached to free up Civilian Industrial Production to allow the Navy to have it's new toys.

 

I think the general consensus here is that simply putting Speer in charge of production in 1939 would not have a great effect.

On the other hand, Speer as a Production Supremo with a total war policy in hand in 1939 could indeed have made a difference.

 

Right on the money, Andreas. In this case, it was not the armaments minister who dictated military production- it was Hitler. Speer would have also been subject to Hitler's "civilians equal" production policies.
You bring up the point that would make this interesting- what if Hitler had moved to a war economy earlier? That could have had a major influence.
Of course, the only problem there comes from german attitudes- it was not until AFTER experience in russia that the wehrmacht realized their equipment needed upgrades. Hence, even if total war had been implemented in 1939, I still wonder what kinds of equipment we would have seen. An increase in numbers of PzIII, for example, would have made very little difference. The PzIII was outclassed by the T-34, and Russia was already producing more than germany possibly could. More PzIIIs would have made a difference in N.Africa, but then again we run into the problem of maintinaing and fueling a larger number of tanks.