Re: Commerce Raiders
- From: brucegb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bruce Burden)
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 01:30:00 -0500
Bay Man <xyxbaymanxyx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: "Bruce Burden" <brucegb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: Germany had to import food.
Never said that it didn't. It isn't germain to the discussion
even if I had.
: Germany thought it apt to make industry
: state-of-the-art, yet ignore agriculture,
Given the actions Germany (or, perhaps more specifically,
Hitler,) took, is it any surprise that agriculture was ignored?
: which didn't service the country
Again, given the historical actions that Germany (Hitler)
embarked upon, attempting to "modernize" agriculture was a waste
of resources, and would be hard to say did/would serve Hitlers'
And, for the record, what do you mean when you say "a state-
Given a lack of definition by you, I am assuming mechanization,
as I assume German farms were employing some type of fertilizer,
though I suspect it was organic in nature (fairly common at the
:> For the sake of arguement, if he
:> had tried, what would you do with the now idle farm hands? That
:> would not have helped (in the short term), Germany's most pressing
:> problem - chronic underemployment.
: No hands would be idle. They would be working smarter. Agriculture would be
: serving the people of the country instead of importing.
You sound like US Republican politicians. Anyway, you are arguing
that "no hands would be idle". You appear to be ignoring the short term,
which I believe is a fallacy. Long term, you are probably correct, but
long term (say 15+ years) is not important to the discussion.
One of the most pressing problems Germany had to social harmony was
high unemployment. If you modernize agriculture, you put more people
out of work, short term, until those former farm workers could be
retrained. Given the world was in a major depression, it is hard to
fathom that 1 - the typical small farm was going to invest in mechanization
when there were enough hands already on hand to do the job, 2 - risk
what small savings there already was to purchase tractors that weren't
needed to start with, and 3 - could possibly increase yields sufficiently
(remember, we are talking about small farms) to cover the cost of the
investment while 4 - reducing the cost of said cereals/etc. due to the
:> Do bother to include that armaments production was a major income
: Agriculture could have reduced the balance of payments, reducing food
: imports, animal and human. Then Germany would not have a need to steal land
: from others.
If you mean mechanization, how does improved agriculture "lower
the balance of payments"? Germany did not have a source of oil, which
said tractors (or inorganic fertilizers) would require. You seem to
be assuming no other increases in non-local resources, which seems
highly dubious. You also need to show that locally produced cereals
would be cheaper than imported cereals from the US/Canada/etc., and
that the (potentially) increased yields wouldn't have led to subsidies
to support said yields, which lead to problems of their own.
And, there is an extremely dubious assertion that "Germany would
not have a need to steal land".
My contention is that Germany (Hitler) set out to "steal land"
because it was the fastest way to cure two pressing issues - the
unemployeed, and the Krupps of the world who weren't able to (openly)
practice the family business. I will argue that "Mein Kampf" demonstrates
that Hitler had no interest in peaceful relations with his neighbors,
and any arguements that Germany (Hitler) could have avoided "a need to
steal land" is complete and utter wishful thinking.
Hitler choose to embark on conquest - and talk of "needing" to do
something is whitewash to cover and justify his actions to others.
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
- Prev by Date: Re: Why wasn't German fleet more dispersed?
- Next by Date: Re: Commerce Raiders
- Previous by thread: Re: Commerce Raiders
- Next by thread: Re: Commerce Raiders