It seems that your current procedure is,michael mills wrote:I have now had a chance to consult again the book by Milward "The New Order and the French Economy" […]
- (a) make claim,
(b) argue about it,
(c) consult reference.
- (a) consult reference,
(b) make claim,
(c) argue about it.
Very impressive… Er, wait a minute…michael mills wrote:[…] In 1943 at least 277,046,200 Reichsmarks were sent back to France. […]
How many French workers were there in the Reich? According to Spoerer and Fleischhaker (see above), > 660,000 were reported at end 1943 (table 4). To this we should add French POWs who "voluntarily" changed their status from POW to Fremdarbeiter, ie, >220,000 in 1943/44 (p188), so let's say 100,000. (There were, of course, far more French POWs forced into working for the Reich, but, presumably, those would not have had remittances to send back home.)
So, conservatively, in 1943, we've got RM 300 mil worth of remittances for 0.7 mil French workers; which comes to RM430 per worker -- for a whole year of work! (The German industrial wage at the time was around RM2,000/year -- cf Bry's "Wages in Germany…".) Somewhat underwhelming, wouldn't you say?!
And yet, this is to a considerable degree academic. Because, if I understand correctly, no funds were actually transfered. It was all a bit of hocus-pocus -- it was credited to occupation costs, so the payments were made by the French in FF (and we know about the exchange rate, right?). Paraphrasing one author, the French were paying their own people to work in Germany (Aly, p157). (And more than just remittances, for Vichy also had to introduce welfare schemes for their dependents.)
Btw, if that's all Milward has, then my recollection is correct, and he does not adequately cover the remittance issue. For, naturally, what you quoted does not even begin to address basic questions, such as what was the nominal wage of French Fremdarbeiter vs a German worker, what kind and how much of it was deducted by the employer, how much by the Reich in taxes, room and board, etc, what financial agencies handled the transfer, how did the transfers work, how long it took, and so on.
Very likely. (I've never even heard of a "politocal occupation", but I bow to your superior knowledge.)michael mills wrote:[…] On another matter, it is apparent from the quibbling by Patzinak that the meaining of "politocal occupation" is not entirely clear. […]
"'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'."michael mills wrote:A political occupation is […]
In contradistinction to "military occupation", I can find no definition such as yours in the OED on-line, or in the unabridged Webster's Third Int'l, or in Merriam-Webster. Neither can I find it in the Concise Oxford Dict of Politics, in the Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, or in the Blackwell Dict of Political Science. If you propose to create a new concept, apparently hitherto unknown to the English language or to political science, then please say so and do it elsewhere. Otherwise, let's stick to the topic at hand and its much more modest remit.
I have provided you with a number of instances showing German interference in matters which could not possibly be described as military. You yourself have provided a quote showing Sauckel dictating wage levels to the French -- again, hardly a military matter. You have declined to discuss any of those; and you have declined to back up your opinion on the character of the German occupation with any references.
--Patzinak[…] If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.