WWII: Germany starts total war mobilization earlier

[Iosef Cross]

German advances in 1941:


The correlation of forces in 1941:

------------- Germany --------- USSR

June -------- 3,050,000 -------- 2,680,000

September -- 3,315,000 -------- 3,463,000

November --- 2,800,000 -------- 2,200,000

December --- 2,700,000 -------- 4,197,000

source: When Titans Clashed, page 301

By december the tide had turned, as the USSR had nearly twice the number of men, as result, the front started moving in the other direction:



Even with the logistical problems, it is wrong to think that if the USSR didn't increase their manpower strength from November onwards they could have stopped the German advances.

[Zinegata]

I have already PROVED that the US industrial capacity was utilized to a GREATER degree than Germany's (just by comparing employment in the armmament production and the supply of capital goods). If the US didn't mobilize for "total war", neither did Germany.

No, you showed figures for only 1943.

And your own article states the following:

Such was the increase in participation,
production, and productivity that the United States never experienced a “shortage”
economy. Household consumption continued to rise. Investment continued to be
regulated through financial criteria rather than on the British pattern of
administrative controls on labour allocation and a recoupment period governed by
the expected duration of the war.24 Full employment was restored, and manpower
became “the most critical factor in war production today”-the judgement ofWar
Production Board chairman Nelson in 1944; but he also wrote that there was “never
an actual over-all shortage of manpower” only “localized manpower shortages”.25
Alone of the major Allies, the United States never had to resort to direction of
industrial labour or a universal compulsory service law.

If the US was so fully mobilized, then why were industries still expanding, people still getting their consumer goods, and they were still outproducing Germany in all major types of equipment 2:1?

Heck, according to your article:

The attempt to compare each nation’s war effort, as a proportion of its national
economy, has been characterized by many sources of confusion. ... Removal of this
distortion shows that, by national income share, by 1943 Germany was the most
highly mobilized of the powers.

Congratulations on saying "The US spent a greater proportion of its economy on the war!", when the whole point of the article is "That particular measure is actually wrong"

[Iosef Cross]

If the US was so fully mobilized, then why were industries still expanding, people still getting their consumer goods, and they were still outproducing Germany in all major types of equipment 2:1?

If the US didn't mobilize it's total potential, they wouldn't have outproduced Germany 2:1 in all major types of equipment (though they actually made less field artillery ammunition than Germany). The fact is that the US spent a greater proportion of their national income on equipment (though not on total military expenditures).

Heck, according to your article:

The attempt to compare each nation’s war effort, as a proportion of its national
economy, has been characterized by many sources of confusion. ... Removal of this
distortion shows that, by national income share, by 1943 Germany was the most
highly mobilized of the powers.

Congratulations on saying "The US spent a greater proportion of its economy on the war!", when the whole point of the article is "That particular measure is actually wrong"

Proportion of national income to war in 1943:

Germany - 60%
USA - 53%

source: the article cited

Size of armed forces, millions of men in 1943:

Germany - 9.48
USA - 9.02

source: The Economics of World War Two, Mark Harrison, page 14

Size of labor force employed on orders for the armed forces in manufacturing in 1943, millions:

USA - 12.26
Germany - 6.48

Already posted the source in the same tread.

Total manpower mobilized for war (millions):

USA - 21.28
Germany - 15.96 (plus the high number of permanent casualties accumulated by 1943, ca. 2 million)

Ratio of spending in munitions to spending in military pay:

USA (1942) - 3.9 (i.e. the US spend nearly 4 times more money in equipment and ammunition than on pay of their men)
USA (1943) - 3.0
Germany (1942) - 0.9

source: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econo ... tprint.pdf, page 7

In other words: in 1943 the US spent 75% of their military budget in supplies, equipments and ammo for their armed forces, while in 1942, Germany spend 53% of their military budget in payment for the personnel and only 47% on supplies, equipment and ammo.

In proportion of their total resources, Germany mobilized a greater proportion of national resources than the USA, since their armed forces were hungry for manpower, and they provided 17.9 million men during WW2 for the Wehrmacht, while the US only mobilized 16.2 million men for their armed forces. However, in proportion of their total resources, the resources mobilized for war production, or the production of munitions for the armed forces (in the broad definition) were smaller in proportion of their total resources, with can be noted from the simple fact that most German factories worked on single shifts while most American factories worked on 2 or 3 shifts. Hence, their industrial capital was more intensively used for war than Germany's. With is obvious considering that Germany had the same stock stock of machine tools, while the US production of equipment was at least twice as large as Germany's (in 1943 it was estimated that the US produced 37.5 billion dollars in armaments while Germany produced 13.8 billion, while both countries had the same stock of 1.5 million machine tools).

That's not because Germany didn't mobilize for total war, but because Germany's resources were mostly allocated to the army, with is hungry for manpower, while the US specialized in the production of equipment for the air force and the navy, with were hungry for equipment. Hence, a greater proportion of the resources available to the US were directed to the production of military equipment than Germany and it is wrong to say that the US production mobilized a smaller proportion of national resources for the industrial war, or war of the factories, than Germany.

[Zinegata]

If the US didn't mobilize it's total potential, they wouldn't have outproduced Germany 2:1 in all major types of equipment (though they actually made less field artillery ammunition than Germany). The fact is that the US spent a greater proportion of their national income on equipment (though not on total military expenditures).

You have not shown causality.

The United States today produces, like, a million times more military equipment than the Vatican. But that's also because the US military industry is far larger than the Vatican.

Just because they outproduced Germany 2:1 does not mean their mobilization was more intense. It can simply mean the US was just that much richer - in terms of manpower and resources.

This applies to every single statistic you cited - particularly the population figures. US population in 1939 was 130M. German population was 70M.

Yet they had an equal number of men under arms, and the US only barely had twice as many people working on manufacturing for 1943.

That's not because Germany didn't mobilize for total war, but because Germany's resources were mostly allocated to the army, with is hungry for manpower, while the US specialized in the production of equipment for the air force and the navy, with were hungry for equipment. Hence, a greater proportion of the resources available to the US were directed to the production of military equipment than Germany and it is wrong to say that the US production mobilized a smaller proportion of national resources for the industrial war, or war of the factories, than Germany.

First of all, again, the whole point of the article is that simply looking at the proportion of resources spent (based on GDP) is *bullshit*.

The assertion that the US can't produce any more than it did is frankly silly as well, because you're comparing it to the German figures and saying "They already produced 2x as much as Germany! They can't produce more!". The problem is that the US economy was much larger than the German one.

Twice as many people, far larger and far more efficient industrial base, and guess what - no need to ever impose labor or consumer good rationing throughout the war! (some special materials i.e. Rubber exempted)

While every country in the world was scraping the bottom of the barrel to build more tanks and planes, the US had enough leftover to make sure the home front was immune from any need or want. That by itself should demonstrate that the US was far from the desperate measures the Nazis or Soviets had to take, and they could ramp up production even more if they had to (albeit at the cost of sacrificing the cozy home front).