Barbarossa

[rendulic]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You & General R raised the book as' proof' less than twelve hours ago of Nazi benevolence & wartime economic success in Ukraine- which it is not-( by all posted reviews.
)Try gracefully bowing out instead of 'smoke screening'.
Esp. since you haven't read the text yourself...

A statement by prof. Wegner from that book(which was itself also neatly sourced) was offered as proof that the Ukraine did contribute to the german war effort. It is you that is making the allegation that this was due to 'nationsocialist benevolence & wartime economic success'. Making an another unfounded allegation about a book you have not read is again intellectual suicide. I think that the author would be very unamused about some canadian calling the book he contributed to 'pap' and even accusing him of speaking about nazi benevolence in the Ukraine.

[ljadw]

Maybe,we could return to the OP,which was that Hitler attacked the SU for food ,raw mateials and living space ,implying that after the war,the Ukraine would be some German Eldorado (we all know Hitler's visions),the OP being very adroitely hyjacked by the General,I will repeat some of my questions ,specifically on the agriculture section.
1)Tooze writes that following the German experts,Germany needed 8 million ha farmland extra,some 100000 farms .
Where would Germany find al these men and woman for these farms,where already before the war,young people were leaving the countryside?
2)The costs for machines,fertilizers,housing,etc,would be prohibitive for these new farmers,unless,...all would be paid by the state (=the taxpayer)
3)How would these new farmers compete with the farmers of the old Reich ? Only,if their products would be cheaper(which is dubious,considering the transportcosts,of course,one can think that the taxpayer,again,would pay).If the agriculture colonisation of the Ukraine would be a successfull story,it would result in the end of the agriculture in the old Reich,with very dangerous political consequences.
5)If the farmers in the Ukraine would have to produce without subsidies,the result would be the same as happened in the US after 1880:farmer revolts;or,they would leave the farms and the colonisation would stop;
And,IMHO,is is the same for the economical colonisation .
6)Saying that if the Germans were able to obtain during the war food and raw materials from the Ukraine,they could after the war colonize the Ukraine economically and agriculturally,is not proving a basic knowledge of economy .
7)About the manganese ore of Nikopol :I have read in his memoirs,that Speer was supporting the military in the ar gument with Hitler(who was refusing the withdrawal from Nikopol),by saying that Nikopol was not essential for the German war economy .Adolf,of course,was not pleased .

[Urmel]

Just a point on farming, no intent to use this to prove anything.


Prior to the war, and even as early as the late 19th century Germany brought a lot oof marginal land (even reclaimed moors in the 20s/30s) into production (during the 3rd reich often using convict labour I think - think of Die Moorssoldaten). These farms were not just on marginal land, but often also quite small. So really a very wasteful investment. These farms did not survive bbeyond the 1960s. My guess is that the thinking was that the farmers sitting on these farms and struggling with them were thought by the Nazi fantasists to be keen to go off and colonise Ukraine.

The answer to the overall labour problem would presumably have been slavery of the locals and mechanisation. Crazy, but then again, Nationaal Socialism never struck me as a rational school of thought.

[Andy H]

Temp Lock placed on his thread until issues raised have been resolved

Andy H