How Germany could've won?

When it comes to production, Germany had three main issues which caused major issues.

Firstly, they produced too much. Yes, I just said that. They were only outproduced about 2.5:1 on average, and no more than 7:1 in any major category. When it came to tanks, they were outproduced 2.5:1, not 12-16:1 like the myth goes. The problem with numbers typically used is that they count tanks produced by Russia in first and last three months of war, and often include 60-80k tanks which were produced post war.
Why was this an issue? Because they only had the manpower and resources to run about 1/3rd of these effectively. The Germans had stellar kill ratios in tanks and planes, but the loss ratio for fuel or maintenance was the total inverse. The Germans had a 6:1 kill ratio in tanks, and a 6:1 ratio of tanks lost to parts or fuel shortages, which completely canceled each other. Planes were very similar.

Secondly, they stretched their supplies too thin and so any given unit was less effective. They should have never fielded units unless they had the spare parts and fuel to keep them running optimally. It doesnt matter if you have twice as many tanks and planes, if they spend 8-10 times longer waiting to be repaired.
For instance, most tank units usually only had 1/4th of their tanks working at a time, and even those had to be used very sparingly. They used them as little as possible, ran them only when completely necessary.

If they had produced fewer complete units and used the savings to keep up on spare parts, it would have worked out much better. One single tank hull makes a lot of engine blocks or rifle barrels, while a single aircraft fuselage can make a considerable amount of small aluminum parts. A single tank or aircraft could provide enough steel and aluminum for an entire division of infantry, or a regiment of motorized infantry.

The last major production issue was using all that alcohol for the V2. Each V2 had over 1000 gallons of alcohol, which would have been able to power the typical force of 1000-1500 running tanks about 5000 miles each.
A trade off could have allowed this to be used to power vehicles in the homeland, while saving much of the crop for its best purpose, feeding the hungry.

Overall, they did quite well, thanks to my friend Albert Speer. We always ask what Germany could have done, but we really should be asking how everyone else was so inept as to be individually matched or even outproduced by Germany, who did not have the luxuries of any of the Allied nations.

 

Well, if the nazi b@$t@rd$ didn't waste so much effort and assets in keeping the death camps going, they might have fared a little better in their prosecution of the war effort, but we are talking about nazi b@$t@rd$ here, led by the devil incarnate Adolph Shitler, aren't we?

 

More eloquent words have never been spoken on the subject. It would have been interesting to see where the bomb would have been dropped if Germany had managed to hang in there a little longer.

 

The only problem with what you wrote is that the extermintion/death camps weren't going until 1944 when the war was pretty much decided militarily. Prior to that the Nazi agenda provided itself with millions of slave laborers freeing German men to be Soldiers. Though your heart is in the right place your logic is off on the death camps.

 

Then why was I just reading a British intelligence document, dated 26/9/42, based on Ultra decrypts which states that in excess of 8,300 individuals were listed as having been victims of "unnatural deaths" (i.e. murdered) that month alone? Doubtless these intercepts provide us with only a snippet of the numbers actually murdered that month, because we know that 60,000 individuals were murdered, by poison gas, between 1941-42 at Auschwitz 1; that the first gas chamber of Auschwitz II-Birkenau began operation in March 1942 and that all four of the crematoria were up and running by summer 1943; and that the labour camp of Auschwitz III-Monowitz opened in May 1942.

The reality is that while numbers may have increased latterly, the Nazis were already exterminating many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in purpose built camps months (to the point that we are discussing years) prior to 1944.

 

On the otherhand this doesn't count the fact that the US started cutting back production in 44.

There are some serious questions as to just how much Speer really did. I beleive Tooze takes issue with at least some of the claims. If one is interested in this topic a very important book to rehad is his Wages of Destruction

 

From a military point,the resources wasted in the Holocaust,were negligible .

 

I suppose that is true in one sense, but the victim's trains having priority over front-line supply and troop trains certainly couldn't have "aided" the war effort.

 

So the motor vehicles, fuel, and railcap used to round up and transport people to the death camps couldn't have been better used in support of the military's logistical needs or to transport materials to and finished products out of production facilities?

 

Of course,I never claimed it was aiding the war effoert.
But,on the minime importance :let's assume that 4 million people were murdered in the camps only ,that would make 4000 trains in 3 years :4 trains a day .
A.Tooze in the Wages of Destruction(P 344) gives for the German Railways a transport capacity of 200.000 waggons a day in july 1941,let say 20.000 trains per day .

 

That was not the point f course they could have better been used for military needs ,but the contribution would have been negligible .

 

You are missing the point. I tend to resent neo-nazi's apologists/praising drivel. Regardless of the amounts of lima-two utilized in the stocking and running the death camps and concentration camps, it's the fact that they were running them to start with is what I was getting at.

 

Thats not really the point, as was already mentioned the resources wasted on the Nazi racial agenda woudn't have made a strategic impact in the war's outcome from a military standpoint. Honestly, my knowledge of this stuff (concentration camps, etc.) is superficial as is my interest in it. I know the basics, visited Dachau and thats about as far as it goes...

 

Moving 6 million + people is not a "neligible" alocation of resources regardless of wether or not they were wearing a uniform .

 

Another myth, the slave labor program absolutely helped Germany. Popular myth says that everyone who went to concentration camps died, but in fact for every person killed in the camps, several were used as slave labor outside of the camps and had a decent chance to survive.
In fact, Albert Speer gave express orders to treat prisoners well, orders which were presumed to have been a lie until the actual orders were discovered in the 90s. An interesting point to mention is that the memoirs of Speer, who was directly over the person who ran the slave projects, were actually smuggled out of prison by a Dutch man who has survived the war as a slave and considered Speer the only reason why he was not sent to a death camp.
Slave labor is absolutely wrong, but it can be said to have saved millions from certain death. It absolutely helped Germany far more than it hurt. The relatively small amounts of resources which were needed to gather these slaves was far below the worth of their work in factories. They roughly doubled production, while costing a fraction of resources to gather. I seriously doubt it took more than a percent of total resources to gather the slaves, which would make it one of the most effective programs in all of German industry. I mean, if this was not people, if it was stocks or some factory, doubling your total interest or output by investing an extra 1% would be outstanding.
The overall death rate for slaves was actually pretty low by standards of war. If even half of them survived, they would have been more likely to survive than any German or Russian soldier.
I am not talking about the killing of the Jews, I am not saying the holocaust itself was acceptable. What I am saying is that the related labor programs were effective in both cost and performance.

 

I concur. That's got to take away from the Germans moving troops and supplies around, especially after the Western Allies got a foothold on the continent. The wear and tear on rolling stock alone is a pretty big factor to be considered as well. Who got priority on the trains, troops, supplies, or undesirables?

 

The daily number of trains rolling to the death camps,was,compared to the total daily number of trains ,insignifiant .

 

That may be true if you don't count the "human resources" wasted including the people in the camp. In WWI acording to what I've read both the Austrians and the Germans thought the Jews weren't doing their "fair share" so they initiated studies to see how many were serving in the military. It turned out they were over represented rather than under reprsented in the military of both countries (the reports were quitely shelved when this was revealed). Jews were also one of the most well educated segments of the population and I suspect also showed up in significant numbers in the skilled trades. Indeed I've read that the Jewish comunity in Berlin was relativly safe as they played such a critical roll in munition manufacturing. Then there's the trouble the racial agenda cause in the East. In spite of it Germany was able to raise significant numbers of troops in the Ukraine and eslewhere for that matter.

If you restrict yourself to the direct costs of running the camps they may not have accounted for much but if you look at the full scope of their racial policies it's another matter.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to make that assessement. One would also have to look at the quality of work and frequency of sabotage. There are strong indications that incidents of flawed goods increased with the increase in the use of slave labor and that's without counting outright sabotage. The utility of slave labor can't be fully assessed without taking this and it's ramifications into account.

 

I honestly hadn't looked at it from that perspective, though its more of an alternative type historical view its a very interesting take. I was more or less taking what happend at face value.