Quote:
Originally Posted by aspqrz
Re WW2aSS, also, the Divisional and Manpower data may be OK for the US and UK, but I am aware that there are considerable problems with its data compared to Australian, New Zealand and, I believe, Canadian and South African manpower and unit data which leads many to believe (including myself) that it may not be as reliable as you suggest for any but the major powers and, possibly, the major western allied powers
(Russian data available at the time of publication was, to be generous, wildly suspect ... I mean, Stalin managed to hide the actual population of the USSR before the war to the extent that everyone believed his figures [which is why the Germans were so surprised that they were still fighting new divisions in late 41 when they 'knew' they'd killed the entire manpower available to the Red Army a couple of times over], which gave it as only 2/3rds [or less] of what it actually was).
Phil
|
The Soviet divisional data is flawed but its still is a good source. I have not found to many problems with the other countries with the accuracy ranging from very good to fair with a few discrepancies. Its generally a good reliable source of information.
Another source I use for military forces and industrial output for 1939/40 and the lead up to WW2 are League of Nations statistics which are extremely detailed. I have the stats for every member of the League of Nations burned on to a CD but its over in America at the moment.