Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[michaelmaltby]

"..... One thing point Tooze does assertively dismisses is that the Germans were not in an war economy footing in 1940, 1941 or 1942 and that Hitler was just too afraid to cut into leisure time.."

I didn't take that away, S, the meaning I took away was that - starting in 1933, the German AIRCRAFT industry (along with public works programs like Autobauns, coal syn-fuel projects, etc.) launched the economic recovery ..... that's not a bad start but it is not flat-out war economy that you seem to be suggesting. That didn't come until 1942.

".... They spent enough to win against France and Poland simultaneously....". They called the war in the west (not in Poland) the Phony War for a reason, S, simultaneous --- hardly. And Germany took serious losses in Poland. Arguably, if the UK and France had been ready to seriously prosecute war against Germany from Day One of the Poland invasion, Hitler would have found out earlier in his life that war on two (simultaneous) fronts against determined opponents was problematic .... .

Siggy - dig out your copy of Tooze and refresh your memory on the Volkswagen dream and the Peoples' radio. They are two examples of just how completely out-of-whack the German economy was. (If they were in power today, their brand of economic self-sufficiency-at-any-price mumbo jumbo would look very much like The Greens .... woops ... politics ... my bad .

MM

 

[Tante Ju]

Siggy - dig out your copy of Tooze and refresh your memory on the Volkswagen dream and the Peoples' radio. They are two examples of just how completely out-of-whack the German economy was.

I would say these are just two examples. Its silly to say IMHO that because two programs out of thousends were stupid, the whole economy was poorly led and organised, bound to collapse etc. That's not serious economic analyise for anybody's standards... its more like journalism. you can find such in any country. On the greater scale of things however take a look at for example sythethic fuel programm. Expensive, yes, but it solved Germany stragetic depending on foreign fuel. Almost all air force run on this.. and most of the tanks. But I can see why Tooze needed bombastic conclusion - it makes book a seller. Great revelations sell books better than dry but professional analyze. Bottomline - when an author starts pointing fingers on isolated things and make drama of it, but real analyse is missing, I begin to doubt him.

Siggy, I think you are wasting too much time on this person.. he is already engaged in the underhand commenting of you.. leave him be, my experience, his mind is totally closed. I suggest we open new thread for this subject. I am sure many like to discuss civil.

 

[Njaco]

Siggy, I think you are wasting too much time on this person.. he is already engaged in the underhand commenting of you.. leave him be, my experience, his mind is totally closed. I suggest we open new thread for this subject. I am sure many like to discuss civil.

Tante, you've been warned before. Another personal attack on a member will be your last.

....underhand commenting of you..

Isn't that what you just did???????

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... They are two examples of ...."

Tante Ju .... I read the book ... have you .... ..?

MM aka "this person"

 

[Tante Ju]

"... They are two examples of ...."

Tante Ju .... I read the book ... have you .... ..?

MM aka "this person"

Hi MM

Sorry if my post was misunderstandable. I was referr to the style of post 420, this was not written by you. It is litter with words like "agenda driven" and such. Moderation seems to think this agressive style against another member is OK, but it is not OK to point it out that I find it disturbing if post is directed against other member person, not his thought. Perhaps moderation also understand not point of my criticism.

I am sorry if I mistakenly word my post that it is directed you, I did not mean to point that way. I do not agree with Tooze main line, I see you do agree, but I have no problem, both of us made their comments why. I think this is civil and okay way to express things.

BTW I have read Tooze, but some years ago. I did not find him that convincingin main thrust line, its more of a concept with arguements, rather than analyse as I said before. I like books like that of Milward more. Its more analyse, showing what happened for what reason, rather to pass judgement. IMHO German industry was not organised poorly, but it was definite mistake, shown by Milward to cancel mobilising industry in end 1941. They have seen more stong production is needed for new EF needs, but danced back after crises elapsed in spring 1942 and industrie was going half-steam until 1943, with impressive result but too late.

 

[Njaco]

I guess a lesson is in order..

...I would suggest that you are being selective in your use of tooze here....seeing and using what you think is useful and agreeing with your preconceptions and agenda driven points of view, and dismissing as meandering and confusing and unsupoorted arguments for those bits of the book that dont agree with what you are looking for.
...

from post #420 as you suggested. This - to me - is opinion and not demeaning to the other person in any way that I can see. The rest of the post gives facts and opinions in a very civilized way.

Now, your post #422 is littered with "agressive style against another member" .....

Siggy, I think you are wasting too much time on this person..

he is already engaged in the underhand commenting of you.

his mind is totally closed

Do you see the difference? You have nothing but attacks on other members. You will stop.

And any further commenting on the moderation of this forum without being substantiated or in a PM, you will be banned.

 

[Tante Ju]

Thank you for lesson, I take note for future when I see other poster selective use of source for their preconceptions and agenda driven points of view. I see now this right way of communication is expression of opinion, and not insultive in any way. I am sorry if I made errorneous indication of that.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...... Do you see the difference? "

With great respect to all - English as a FIRST language makes a huge difference in english-language forums, especially when we are all nuanced .... . I use , and to telegraph to the reader that I'm friendly and from this carbon-based galaxy ... ... I know we're not all from the SAME PLANET... but GALAXY RULES, eh.

MM

 

[Njaco]

I am allowing for that - thats why no Infraction.

 

[Readie]

Ho hum.
So,seriously... what is the answer to the thread question?
I must admit that I've got a bit lost....
Would the allies have succeeded?
To be clear, I have no axe to grind either way.
John

 

[Vincenzo]

For me it too easy reply no, air power can not win a war alone (w/o nuclear weapons).

 

[michaelmaltby]

In the context of the 20th Century - the world was either going to be speaking English, German or (after 1917) Russian . Take your pick and make your case. We all have 'vested' interests ...

Of course ... there's a whole new set of different 'realities' post-Gorbachev, post September 11 ....

MM

 

[iron man]

Overy makes a similar, if somewhat older analysis, he is a historian and an economist.There are in fact a number of pretty good analyses of the German management 9or more correctly mismanagement) of their war economy.

Overy's work was the "go to" source (in the English language), prior to Adam Tooze's publication.

There are significant upgrades (IMO) to Overy's analysis in the work of Tooze; particularly with respect to the role of one Albert Speer and the whole "total war economy" business.

I've debated this (with many) on various fora, since the 2006 publication of "Wages".

I get it.

You get it.

Some never will...

For me, the most enlightening sections of "Wages" are actually in the details of the pre-war machinations that fed the (otherwise unsustainable) re-armament effort. Proper interpretation requires an understanding of economic theory as it applies to the period under discussion. This is the segment of Tooze that the flippant reader will bypass...in pursuit of the "good stuff"; this (IMO), is why this book receives it's undeserved derisive commentary from the less erudite that populate cyberspace.
Point taken that English is not the primary tongue in many cases; this makes my point. I am rather well educated and function in English at a level that is likely above what one could consider as being "average".
That said?
Understanding what was being laid before me in the first couple of hundred pages of Tooze was a major undertaking on my part.

Whether it's an agenda on the part of those offering up semi-literate criticism, is a topic that falls outside of the discussion at hand; Personally? I choose to "let sleeping dogs lie" in this regard. This business of "lacking" references though? Rolling my eyes at this one...BIG TIME.

Have you read Mierzejewski's stuff? "Most Valuable Asset of the Reich; Vol 2" is also well worth the time...particularly the parts that deal with Reichsbahn Ost. It's a considerable upgrade on VanCrevald's chapter in "Supplying War"...again IMO.

All for now.

 

[parsifal]

People are getting upset with my posts, but if i could offer some advice (even to myself) you are on safe ground if you remain focussed on the issue. My experience is that the mods will allow some deviation from the stated issue, provided their is intelligent debate. The mods will even allow a modicum of "spirited debate" (ne: argument), provided there is relevance to the issue, and things dont get too out of hand. If you are going to get cranky over an issue, make sure its the issue, and not the person. And rember, just because you believe ernestly in your POV or what you believe are the facts, doesnt mean that people will accept them. If you dont like disagreement, dont post, and dont enter the discussion. none of us have the right to control peoples thoughts or writings.

Am I guilty of breaking these recommendations. you bet. Do I try and stick to them? all the time.

What turns thread after thread south is that the discussions get heated, off topic, and usually abusive towards the person. Mods dont have much patience for that.

And if you have a death wish for your forum membership, pick a fight with a mod, or try and ignore their direction. Over the years ive gotten to know these guys pretty well. They put up with a lot, they are doing this job for niks, and have to troll through a lot of rubbish for long hours. Show them the respect they deserve guys.

I am not going to respond to any replies to this post. its completely off topic. i offer it as friendly advice, from someone that has had a fair bit of experience in this place

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... If you are going to get cranky over an issue, make sure its the issue, and not the person."

I am sure that there is a perception that "some" posters gang up on some "other" posters. Over time I have observed that that is not the case .... Commonwealth posters, for example, seem ready to drop the gloves in defense of the Commonwealth's role in WW1 and WW2. But on other issues we feel free to get "cranky" with each other (pbfoot and MM on the Monarchy, for example, altho no crankiness there ).

Argue for what you believe in, be honest about what you don't know, and DON"T MAKE IT TOO ACADEMIC (verifiable experience is often far more telling in an argument than a "footnote".

There is a big difference between stating bald, well recognized truths that are unpleasant for some but true nonetheless and vilifying a group, country or nationality. I was raised in a very pro British, pro Canada, pro Commonwealth environment by a great Mum who watched her Dad and 2 older brothers leave for war in 1914 -- and the brothers again in 1939. So when books from the "other side" started surfacing in the '50s (Cross of Iron, Road to Stalingrad, Stuka Pilot) they were eye-openers, and I read them with the same enthusiasm as I read Bader, Tuck, Yeo Thomas, Glostermann, Fitzroy MacLean and more ). I feel the same about material coming out of the former USSR today.

Parsifal, I never get upset with your posts .... .. I do get cranky about the high value you place on international courts and tribunals ... .... yet suspect we that both agree on the sanctity of Rule of Law.

Great forum ... may it go on forever

MM

 

[Njaco]

To get back on track....

My feeing has always been that air power is just a singular component of a military force - you still need feet on the ground. If I can use a recent example, Desert Storm had total air power and destructive force but it still took the grunts to complete the operation.

So to the question: Could they defeat Germany? No, but air power could have created a situation where Germany would sue for peace. I guess it boils down to the definition of 'defeat' and what you would consider success.

 

[parsifal]

youve hit the nail on the head NJ. Airpoower, even today is a force multiplier, but it isnt usually a war winner of itself. I can think of just one exception, the assault on Serbia in the last decade (when was that....2002???). But in the context of WWII airpower could not , in itself win wars.

The reverse, however is not trues. without airpower, wars could definately be lost, and without airpower, wars could not be won. If you didnt have airpower, you could lose, and, if you didnt have airpower, you could not win. Applies to land and sea, incidentally

 

[Readie]

youve hit the nail on the head NJ. Airpoower, even today is a force multiplier, but it isnt usually a war winner of itself. I can think of just one exception, the assault on Serbia in the last decade (when was that....2002???). But in the context of WWII airpower could not , in itself win wars.

Michael,
I agree with your 'muliplier' point. Airpower has delivered the 'knock out blow' in the Pacific war where a judgement was made either to use atomic weapons or expend 100's of thousands of US lives on the final assault on the Japanese homeland. Whether that was the right thing to do I'll leave to others to argue about.
Back to the ETO we have a similar situation, D Day, The Italian campaign and the Russian assault cost untold 1000's of lives and the question that vexes me is whether it would have been better to have used nuclear weapons on Germany to secure the unconditional surrender and then gone in with land forces to secure the peace.
I wonder if we had WW2 now what the High Command would choose to do?
John

 

[Siegfried]

Hi MM

.

Thanks for the moral encouragement. Some folks are more rhetorical than serious.

 

[Njaco]

What is that supposed to mean and how does it apply to the topic?