I assume you’re looking for online cites. Here’s a good summation on the 1941 Victory Plan. Here’s a collection of some of the original primary sources. Here’s a more general history of pre-war planning. Here’s an interesting work on wartime logistics which also mentions some pre-war planning.
If you’re looking for offline sources, you could try The Road to Rainbow: Army Planning for Global War, 1934-1940 by Henry Gole - it’s a good work on pre-war military planning. War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945 by Edward Miller covers the same subject but it sticks mainly with naval planning. After the Trenches: The Transformation of U.S. Army Doctrine, 1918-1939 by William Odom covers this subject of mobilization planning but, as its title shows, it focuses more on doctrine rather than mobilization.
Not one less,at that time every country in W.Europe had surrenderd to the Germans,the Soviet Union would have quite happily have carried on in a state of peace with Nazi Germany,they had a non aggression pact with Hitler and were supplying Germany with war materials.
I would say that Nazi Germany lost the war when they invaded the Soviet Union,but, and its a big but, Stalins Russia was as evil as Hitlers Germany.
Nazi Germany only truly lost the war when Hitler decided to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbour when he thought that by doing so the Japanese would declare war on Russia,but they didn’t.
The British were at crisis point for military man power,they had and were still taking incredible losses by trying to fight in every theatre that they could against the Germans,but from the base point of a comparitively small population.
Military units were being disbanded and their personell being used to bring other outfits up to date.
Middle aged men considered by the British to be too old to fight were posted to front line infantry units and were greeted with derision by American army units co located with them,but they still fought and died just as good as those of military age alongside them.
With 400,000 males leaving British schools every year a shortage of “manpower” was never a problem, yet I keep seeing this piece of nonsense trotted out repeatedly. It doesn’t appear to be based on anything more than the fact that perhaps 100% of historians are economic illiterates.
The main restriction and increasing difficulty of maintaining a large land army was due primarily on the enormous increase in cost of supplying and equipping every branch of the armed services with equipment that was increasingly more technologically advanced, more costly and therefore more difficult to finance.
This does not just apply to the obvious increase in costs that applied to the air forces and navies, both in terms of quality and quantity, both of which strained every country’s resources, but also to something as apparently simple and basic as an army division which had to fight for its share of resources.
Unfortunately I’ve lost a link to an interesting article I read some time ago. It was a study that compared the costs of maintaining an army division in 1939 and in 1945 in constant monetary units. Going on my somewhat shaky memory, a basic infantry division (fully mechanised at war’s end) cost 3 times as much to equip and maintain, an armoured division 7 times as much and a specialised engineering division with road laying, bridge building capacity etc. cost 15 times as much. This does not take into account all the use once and discard items of equipment such as landing craft and artificial harbours.
I can’t find the link to the study I mentioned, but if anyone can help out I’d appreciate it.
I thought they killed off the best of their ruling class, meaning not just wealthy, but those educated and qualified to run the government as officers leading charges with swords against machine guns in 1914 and again as air force officers in WWII.
Unfortunately, far too many historians tend to produce speculative nonsense based on their own unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated opinions or, equally as badly, outright fabrications (and I’m not talking about Harry Turtledove).
That was Victoria’s advice to a niece, but her response to a Doctor when told that she must limit intercourse was, “I cannot have fun anymore?”
England is cold and rainy, the food sucks and you must have a license for your TV. Maybe I’m missing something here. Perhaps there is nothing else to do…
I feel its a little sad to dismiss the hundreds of thousands of British military war dead,let alone the civilians killed in the blitz,let alone those too badly maimed to continue with military service as a" piece of nonsense" and then go on to price the cost of Britains fight in financial terms.
Britain was fighting to the death for reasons other then financial.
Maybe you’ll remember that the next time you’re drawing up one of your estimates on how much more an engineering unit costs then an infantry unit and so on.
Wars are fought by people made of flesh and blood not by accountants,no matter how much conflicts throw up up some interesting little economic puzzles for you.
I’ve heard that there are little Middle Eastern and Indian take-out restaurants all over the place in England, plus fish and chip shops. That sounds pretty good to me.
To be honest food in Britain used to be pretty appalling but in the last thirty years or so the “Foodie” culture has become mega fashionable and you’ll probably get some of the finest food in the world here.
That said the French still have the edge over us on that score.
