Actions
(13.64 KB, 743x307)
(19.85 KB, 418x351)
(42.95 KB, 921x465)
>>/36863/ Sure. You can replace the Wagenfuehr index with this nicer-looking version; caption it "General performance of the late German war economy: Rolf Wagenführ's Armaments production index, Total Arms, and three-month growth averages". I've got two more figures you can use. The first you can caption "Arming for Barbarossa: % absolute (red) and per capita (blue) increase in equipment numbers, June 1941 over May 1940". It's in Wages of Destruction, appendix, table A4, p. 684-5, with the sources given as: Kroener, in DRZW 5/1. 731, 836, 834, 959; Mueller, in DRZW 5/1. 554-5. The second, "The influx of labor into the German war economy". It's from United States Strategic Bombing Survey, The effects of strategic bombing on the German war economy (Washington, DC, 1945), 202, 204, 206, 210 (appendix tables 1, 3, 5, and 9), found in: Mark Harrison (ed.) , The economics of World War II: Six great powers in international comparison (Cambridge, 1998), p. 161. Neither are particularly important but the first demonstrates how the Heer became not only larger but also better-armed over the France-Barbarossa period. The title is KC but seems to cover this topic broadly, to emphasize it's about underperformance I'd rename it "The Industrial Output of IIIrd Reich in WWII: Too low?"