bomb, it may be useful to dwell for a little while on the nature of German war production under Nazi rule, to understand by what means or influence policy decisions were made.
There were four general bodies concerned with production. firstly, Reichsmarshal Herman Goering headed a four-year plan organisation (begun in 1936) that dealt with the orientation of the economy to war. Goering wanted to prepare for a total war, which would be lengthy and for which ‘all energies must be directed’; it would require ‘a complete transformation of the economic structure.’9 Goering also created the ‘Reichswerke Hermann Goering’ from German and European industry, a state owned and run integral part of the Nazi economy. But Goering, was inefficient, vain, corrupt and impatient of self-discipline. ‘His subordinates had no other course than to by-pass him in order to get anything done.’10
A Ministry of Economics existed, under Funk, to allocate raw materials, with a Ministry of Weapons and Ammunition under Fritz Todt (replaced on his death by Albert Speer). finally, there was the economics and armaments branch of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, under General Georg Thomas, which was supposed to sort out the conflicting contracts and raw materials demands of the three services. Thomas had a staff of over 1000, and the Army Ordnance Directorate (the Heereswaffenamt) had 2–3000, all regarded by Speer as inexperienced and inefficient. ‘Development was haphazard, research uncontrolled and lack of coordination between the competing requirements resulted in hopeless confusion.’11 All these bodies had been ill served by those within German industry itself who, expecting a consumer boom, sabotaged the controls imposed on them.12
When Speer was appointed as Minister of Weapons and Ammunition by Hitler in February 1942, he began to transfer responsibility to industrial experts, strengthening the system of industrial rings, each with a responsibility for a particular product, begun by Todt. ‘Best practice’ in the manufacture of a product was imposed on the rest, the differences between best and worst often being quite ludicrously large. Industry was made to produce more efficiently, production being concentrated in fewer and larger centres, and stocks being reduced. Production runs became less subject to stoppage for minor modifications. Equipment was standardised where possible. An economic ‘miracle’ in production resulted, but this was partially reversed by the effects of allied bombing, which forced firms to accumulate stocks again (due to the destruction of the delivery systems) and forced industry to disperse.
All this was not achieved by sweet reasoning or the offer of inducements alone. In Appendix 2 is a report on the methods of Karl-Otto Saur, Speer’s deputy, a party member of long standing, and a rationalisation expert.
The Nazi state was chaotic and divided. All power derived from Adolf Hitler; thus Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuhrer SS, who controlled whole divisions of resolute armed men as well as the Gestapo, would have been deposed at a word from the Fuehrer, as would Bormann, Goering, Goebbels and the rest. Bormann, with no divisions at his command, was Himmler’s equal in power, not because he was Reichsleiter of the Nazi party, but because he had Hitler’s ear. All below Hitler was disunion, with power blocs jockeying for position – the army, Reichsmarschall Goering’s Luftwaffe and the four year plan, Himmler and the SS, Goebbels the head of propaganda, the Nazi party, the Gauleiters or Nazi district governors, and big business. But Hitler himself, the font of all power, whose personality charmed, mesmerised or intimidated all his subordinates, was deliberately secretive.
Perhaps Hitler’s deepest belief in war was the power of the will. Germany, he felt, had given in at five minutes to midnight in 1918; it would not happen again. Analysis was presumed to be weakness, and talk of strategic withdrawal treason, but optimism showed strength. Argument with a Fuehrer order was at best a waste of time, and might lead at worst to being thrown to the other jackals who prowled around him. Yet Hitler, at times, ‘edged along hesitantly, almost fearfully’.13
The paths of glory in Nazi Germany were therefore plain; gain the ear of the Fuehrer, say (as obsequiously as possible) what he wants to hear, be loyal to your own power base and seek to augment its position, and remember the political shibboleths – remember 1918!
Hitler, unlike Stalin, was not a good manager, and did not follow up his own decisions, which, sometimes impossible to obey or contradictory, were quietly and fearfully ignored.14 He seemed unable to delegate responsibility. He nevertheless browbeat and insulted his generals. The following extracts from the notes of field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel (1882-1946), Hitler’s chief military advisor and head of the OKW, will serve as an illustration:
Fuehrer’s general H.Q., 8th October, 1941.
Keitel to Hitler:
“Mein Fuehrer!
I have already submitted, through General Jodl, the results of my investigations concerning the employment of shells based on the ‘hollow charge’ principle. However, in this respect I report personally as follows.
The idea of the ‘hollow charge’ principle came to my attention purely by chance during the spring of this year. I did not, however, expect it to have any practical application during the campaign in the east or for the remainder of this year. When you, my Fuehrer, first drew my attention to the importance of this invention (the work of an SA man) the idea of an early or premature application of this idea never came to my mind. Nor do I recall having received instructions from you, my Fuehrer, to take precautionary steps to prevent the premature use of the invention. I realise, however, that there is no excuse or evasion of responsibility possible for me in this respect and that it was my duty to keep myself informed at all times about future developments in this case. If I had done so, I should have been aware that the use of this invention dates back to May of this year. I am fully aware of the consequences that might arise from the discovery and use of the weapon by the enemy and of their influence on the prosecution of the war.
I believe from your statements and attitude in this matter that your confidence in me has been severely shaken, and I therefore beg you to receive me and to let me know your decision.
Heil mein Fuehrer,
signed Keitel, Generalfeldmarschall”
Pencilled note by Keitel:
“The Fuehrer granted me an audience, immediately, on the 8th October. After a long dissertation about the worst of all mistakes being to employ new weapons before our own defence against these weapons had been developed (this was a criminal neglect of the German high command in the last war), the Fuehrer condemned the present high command in the strongest fashion and claimed that it was guilty of equally criminal actions and even was guilty of stealing the invention itself. He stated that he was personally separated by an abyss from this institution of incompetence, including the high command’s general staff, which has selected the worst of all personnel for the top positions. To my suggestion that he should accept my resignation he answered that obviously he could not replace the general staff because nothing better was available.
As regards myself personally, the Fuehrer insisted that I did not obey his order to prevent the use of the ‘hollow charge’ invention. After several questions about his confidence in me, which the Fuehrer consistently sidestepped, I finally put to him the direct question as to whether he wanted to work with me or not?
Finally the Fuehrer shook my hand and gave an affirmative answer.”15
In September 1940 the rocket had been reduced in
