What if Poland accepts the alliance with Hitler?

[ljadw]

NO :Germany did not need Lebensraum, because there were no additional Germans available for additional territory ,besides Lebensraum was not needed for autarky and autarky does not mean great power status.

[gebhk]

autarky was a precondition for great power status.

Only in Hitler's mind, one assumes, as all the great power nations of the time and since were the opposite of autarchies. There is little economic justification for autarchism as it is counterproductive; it is by and large pursued for doctrinaire political reasons - North Korea being a prime modern example.

[gebhk]

Although Germany didn't lack manpower, seasonal workers from Poland were all the Germans needed and were actually employed.

Even if we accept this, to say the least, debatable statement at face value, then it would make going to war to secure vast numbers of slaves even more irrational rather than less!

[wm]

Even if we accept this, to say the least, debatable statement at face value, then it would make going to war to secure vast numbers of slaves even more irrational rather than less!

It wasn't about slaves but about territory sufficiently large to provide food for all Germans - so another turnip winter would never happen.
The "natives" went with the territory; similarly, the Asian and African natives went with the territory European colonial powers conquered.

[wm]

Only in Hitler's mind, one assumes, as all the great power nations of the time and since were the opposite of autarchies. There is little economic justification for autarchism as it is counterproductive; it is by and large pursued for doctrinaire political reasons - North Korea being a prime modern example.

Let's Hitler do the explaining:

Germany is not at all a World Power to-day. Even though our present military weakness could be overcome, we still would have no claim to be called a World Power.
...
Looked at purely from the territorial point of view, the area comprised in the German Reich is insignificant in comparison with the other States that are called World Powers.
England must not be cited here as an example to contradict this statement; for the English motherland is in reality the great metropolis of the British World Empire, which owns almost a fourth of the earth’s surface.
Next to this we must consider the American Union as one of the foremost among the colossal States, also Russia and China. These are enormous spaces, some of which are more than ten times greater in territorial extent than the present German Reich. France must also be ranked among these colossal States.
...
Our movement must seek to abolish the present disastrous proportion between our population and the area of our national territory, considering national territory as the source of our maintenance or as a basis of political power.
Mein Kampf

[gebhk]

Let's Hitler do the explaining:

All he is explaining is that he is firmly imbedded in a outdated mediaeval notion that land = power and a 19 century notion of colonialism - precisely at a time when virtually all the colonial powers are coming to the conclusion that colonialism is untenable. Bizarrely he even cites the very examples that disprove this theory - China of his day was as vast territorially and in human resources as it is now, yet in terms of power and influence was negligible. In fact it was virtually unable to defend itself against a much smaller Japan. Of Russia, he himself came to believe that 'kicking in the door will bring the whole rotten structure down'. He totally misses the point that the reason Britain was a great power was because of the Industrial Revolution and because it was a hub (if not the hub) of international trade - the very opposite of autarchy. One can cite endlessly the huge countries like Canada and Brazil which had little real international power. In short, he utterly seems to miss the obvious point that territory isn't the basis of power but rather that power can be the basis of attaining large territory. And that a strong economy is the basis of power. Also that a strong economy tends to be achieved in peace and through trade with other countries.

In any event, none of his statement is an argument in support of autarky.

It wasn't about slaves but about territory sufficiently large to provide food for all Germans - so another turnip winter would never happen.

Yep - with just one tiny snag - the primary cause of the starvation in Germany 1916-17 was not lack of territory but war; more specifically the blockade and the lack of manpower in agriculture and all areas of the economy because of drainage to the armed forces; horses, ditto; nitrogen for fertilisers, ditto. So Hitler's solution? Start another war. Brilliant! Very logical and rational.

[ljadw]

Hitler lived in the past and thought that the past was still the present ,the past being :manifest destiny, Karl May ,territorial expansion ,Go West , European immigration to the US .
He did not know /refused to admit ,that the period of territorial expansion was over .To copycat after WW1 what the US had done before WW1 and now had stopped would finish in failure .
And about the famine in Germany in WW1 :if Germany was in 1917 master of European Russia, this would still not prevent the famine ,because it was impossible in war time to produce in European Russia the food that was needed and transport it to Germany and to distribute it .
There was no famine in Germany in WW2 ,even before 22 June 1941 .

[gebhk]

The point is, in the 19th century; the Christians were able to curb the worse of it, civilize international relations, abolish slavery.

And as I said, I am sure the North American Indians or the natives of Congo Free State really benefitted from all these supposedly splendid achievements of the 19 century. The 19th Century saw at least 14 military conflicts claiming more than half a million lives, with half of these involving European powers (albeit most of the bloodshed was in China). The Taiping rebellion may have claimed as many lives as WW2 by itself while the upheavals in China throughout the 19 Century may have cost as many lives as WW1 and WW2 put together. There were no more than 4 years throughout the 19 Century that British Empire forces were not shooting someone, somewhere. You seem to have a very rose-tinted view of the 19 century.

[wm]

The point is in the 19th century, numerous laws intended to mitigate the hardships of war (including funding of The International Red Cross) were enacted, and they made their impact - not that there were no wars.

And it's obvious the new era mostly happened in Europe and America - Asia and Africa remained lawless, and that included slavery.

[wm]

Let's Hitler do the explaining:

All he is explaining is that he is firmly imbedded in a outdated mediaeval notion that land = power and a 19 century notion of colonialism - precisely at a time when virtually all the colonial powers are coming to the conclusion that colonialism is untenable.

Although the blockade and the resulting famine, turnip winter, defeat, debilitating peace conditions happened in the 20th century.
Hitler was trying to solve his own country's problems, not Chinese or Russian.
And the problem was Germany, unlike colossal states, wasn't able to project its power because of a huge geopolitical vulnerability.

China and Russia lost wars with Japan, but Japan wasn't able to conquer them - because they were colossal states with colossal strategic depth.
Strategic depth is irreplaceable.

[ljadw]

The blockade ( not causing the famine ) could not be prevented by Lebensraum .
Besides in both WWs Britain succeeded into feeding its own people without food from Canada or the US .
What Hitler wanted in the short run was to restore German borders from August 1914 or ,at maximum, those of November 1918 .
He had no plans for the long run, only dreams .
Even to restore the borders of 1914 was a to difficult task .
Hitler was not interested in colonies outside Europe and knew that the defeat,exploitation and colonization of European Russia would demand dozens of generations . He said that the never would see it .
Germany could never project its power .

[gebhk]

Hitler was trying to solve his own country's problems, not Chinese or Russian.

It was Hitler that drew these examples up as examples of World Powers, who he claimed owed their power to their large territory and to which he therefore aspired. Your quotation not mine. In reality his immediate real problem was not lack of territory but lack of German citizens - insufficient in number to exploit fully the lands and industrial potential he already had - and with a disappointingly low birthrate. His solution - start a war of territorial conquest that would get an awful lot of Germans killed. Excuse me, if I don't find that a rational solution.

The point is in the 19th century, numerous laws intended to mitigate the hardships of war (including funding of The International Red Cross) were enacted, and they made their impact - not that there were no wars.

The point, surely, is that these laws (which, in the main, formalised what already existed as custom and practice in any event) made a negligible impact on the horrors of war and the numbers of victims. Nor did they stop genocides. At best they mitigated the damage for a small fraction of victims.

[ljadw]

The point is in the 19th century, numerous laws intended to mitigate the hardships of war (including funding of The International Red Cross) were enacted, and they made their impact - not that there were no wars.

And it's obvious the new era mostly happened in Europe and America - Asia and Africa remained lawless, and that included slavery.

'''that included slavery '' is not correct : slavery existed in the US til December 1865 and US were not lawless .
If before December 1865 slavery in the US did not mean that the US were lawless, why would the existence of slavery in Africa in 1890 and later and still today,mean that Africa was lawless ?
Stanley is presented as the defender of poor Africans who were kidnapped by Arabs to become slaves, but he did nothing to help the slaves in the US : when the Civil War started,he volunteered for the South .
And one can question the role of the Red Cross in the attempts to make war less cruel .
Laws do not mitigate the hardships of war .

[RedTelephone]

Hi wm
Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll look it up.

[wm]

It was Hitler that drew these examples up as examples of World Powers, who he claimed owed their power to their large territory and to which he therefore aspired. Your quotation not mine. In reality his immediate real problem was not lack of territory but lack of German citizens - insufficient in number to exploit fully the lands and industrial potential he already had - and with a disappointingly low birthrate.

Considering the existing unemployment in Germany and the fact that up to 38% of the population was engaged in agriculture, efficient exploitation of the land would create tens of millions of additional jobless Germans.
And wouldn't provide any security for Germany, defense against another naval blockade, or strategic depth.

It was just an hour's drive from the Polish border to Berlin. And Czechoslovakia was a dagger, thrust deeply into Germany.

The point, surely, is that these laws (which, in the main, formalised what already existed as custom and practice in any event) made a negligible impact on the horrors of war and the numbers of victims. Nor did they stop genocides. At best they mitigated the damage for a small fraction of victims.

Did they really exist? Do we have examples from the 18th century, for example?