Eva Schmidt with her glider
Rob Arndt
LIBERATOR
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/03/article-1134832-000EDA71000...
>
> Rhonbussard???
>
> Rob
Amazing picture, has to be from someones personal photos.
Rob Arndt
It is her personal pic and plane.
Eva was a glider pilot for the Fatherland in sailplane competitions in
the 1930s and also, IIRC, a female test pilot... but nowhere near as
capable as women like Hanna Reitsch, Elly Beinhorn, Melitta von
Stauffenberg, etc...
When I see that pic of her with the glider I can imagine her in a LW
uniform and flying a Me-163 Komet (which is really nothing more than
an extremely powerful and armed glider). I always picture Hanna in a
Me-262 (Reichenberg R.IV or Me-328 would have been a waste), Elly in a
Me Bf 109 (she was expert at flying the earlier Me Bf 108 Taifun and
even named it for Messerschmitt). Am not sure what Melitta von
Stauffenberg would have chosen- she ferried and tested many types,
especially dive bombers. Could have been a Stuka pilot!
Rob
LIBERATOR
So much for the rumor the Nazis oppressed their women.
Your givings are a gift..
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Nazis did not oppress their women. Quite the opposite- women
advanced under the Third Reich despite the myth of the birthing for
the Fatherland. Yes, there was the Lebensborn program, but that is an
extreme example limited to women that HAD to fit the perfect Aryan
profile, so it hardly applied to the avg German girl.
German women started with girls in the BDM (female version of HJ)
which then led to being a Helferin for one of the armed services or
factory work. German NSFK women actually taught HJ teen boys how to
fly and later were used by the LW for the same training late in the
war in anticipation of using the Bv-40, He-162S, and Reichenberg R.IV
in combat. German women also worked near on on the fronts as medics
and frequently used firearms, many earning the Iron Cross.
The majority of informers/spies for the Gestapo and SS were female as
well which gave empowerment to German women that was previously unknow
under the old Prussian tradition of women used for children, church,
and cooking (the three Ks).
Hanna had persuaded Hitler to allow female fighter pilots in March
1945, but Hitler in his apocalyptic vision of killing himself and
destroying Germany rescinded that order 7-10 days later. Even if
approved, there was really no time left to train and deploy female
fighter pilots. The German women on the battleground did receive
Volkssturm training with bolt-action rifles (K98k) and Panzerfausts,
but were not allowed to use SMGs and assault rifles which were
reserved for men (no loss as these types were part of the "primitve
weapons" program of 1945 and not as reliable as the ordinary K98k).
Some women assisted with PAKs on the streets of Berlin too. The
fighting was that savage and desperate.
The Nazis did use women, but they failed in percentages devoted to the
war effort. Instead, foreign workers were used as well as slave labor
to allow German women to maintain the family structure and produce
children that would be the next generation of soldiers. Women WERE
allowed to work with the armed forces, but in limited capacity, same
for factory work.
They were not oppressed, just under-utilized compared to the USSR,
Britain, and US. Yet Britain and the US did not allow female combat
while the USSR under Stalin allowed female snipers, tankers, combat
pilots, armed combat medics, armed logistics officers, etc...
Germany could have done better, but Hitler did not even put Germany on
a "total war" footing until 1943!!! German civilians before then could
sit ouside in broad daylight at cafes eating and drinking like there
was no war. They were entertained by the Nazi regime and confident of
victory through the Propaganda Ministry. People were inspired by and
loved Hitler, so there was not even the thought of defeat until the
daylight bombing offensive started to work with US escort fighters.
Still, that reality could not compete with Nazi ideology until Hitler
actually died and no miracle weapon was produced to win at the 11th
hour.
Imagine Germany using women from 1939 forward and in numbers under
"total war" production. It would have made a big difference in
production and opened up several combat roles. I think that the same
dedication that the female combatants of the USSR showed for Stalin
and Communism would have been far greater for Hitler and Nazism.
A recent book that has Eva's photo in it shows that German
ruthlessness was not stronger in the male gender. Females worked the
concentration camps too, and were dedicated to the Nazi cause to
whatever degree they were allowed. In the face of bombing and war
tragedy the females remained stronger in most cases than men and it
was the German women postwar that rebuilt W Germany brick-by-brick as
millions of Germen men were taken back to the USSR as labor and died
there. Out of 10 million taken, only 2 million returned home 10 years
later.
Rob
Dan
<snip>
it
> was the German women postwar that rebuilt W Germany brick-by-brick as
> millions of Germen men were taken back to the USSR as labor and died
> there. Out of 10 million taken, only 2 million returned home 10 years
> later.
>
> Rob
What percentage of people taken by the Nazis for labour ever
returned home alive? One difference between the Soviets and Nazis is
most of the men to which you refer were POW and the majority of people
taken by the Nazis were civilian.
France, Poland, Soviet Union and other occupied nations had to
rebuild after the war also. In all cases they needed women in the
workforce.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Eunometic
> On Jan 4, 3:05 pm, LIBERATOR <nogeek...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 3:59 pm, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 2:01 pm, LIBERATOR <nogeek...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 4, 12:07 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> The Nazis did use women, but they failed in percentages devoted to the
> war effort.
This is an often repeated myth.
Analysis shows that the Nazi regime did mobilise women more fully for
the war economy than even Allied nations.
Firstly German women already had a high participation rate in the
workforce, higher than the UK or USA.
Secondly had higher percentage of German women worked in Agriculture
(25% I believe). Because Germany was more dependant on growing her
own food (unlike Britain which had a more 'modern' trade based economy
and purchased food from the US) Germany had to grow her own as her
trade was tenuous and her neighours scarecelly more productive. The
USA of course had larger more labour efficient farms with longer
growing seasons.
The result was that women took over opperating the agriculture as men
were conscripted.
Of course women were involved with munitions production, making vacuum
tubes as well as working as nurses and auxiliaries.
> Instead, foreign workers were used as well as slave labor
> to allow German women to maintain the family structure and produce
> children that would be the next generation of soldiers. Women WERE
> allowed to work with the armed forces, but in limited capacity, same
> for factory work.
The Nazis were dedicated to preserving the folk and the race and the
traditional family structure. These things were in fact under threat
by the ideological opponents of the Nazis.
(consider the Communist government of Bell Khun of Hungary which in
1922 compelled sex education on 10 years old and promoted extra
marital sex as a way of disrupting the western culture it saw as
holding up formation of communist society)
Later as the casualties began to mount they realised they would have a
serious demographic problem and tried to promote the birth rate.
AFAIKT the use of impressed labour did not begin untill relatively
late in the war. It was opportunist as the war progressed: French POW
who were promised freedom for a few years work, then political
prisoners from concentration camps.
By then women were already fully engaged in the workforce.
It seems the those who want to keep bashing the nazis want to add
another 'sin' to the nazis long list of sins even though the evidence
doesn't support it in this case.
>
> They were not oppressed, just under-utilized compared to the USSR,
> Britain, and US. Yet Britain and the US did not allow female combat
> while the USSR under Stalin allowed female snipers, tankers, combat
> pilots, armed combat medics, armed logistics officers, etc...
Much as female combatants give you a woody I suspect the Nazi policy
of limiting women in combat did no harm to them.
>
> Germany could have done better, but Hitler did not even put Germany on
> a "total war" footing until 1943!!!
Stalingrad was the great shock and that was december 1942.
German civilians before then could
> sit ouside in broad daylight at cafes eating and drinking like there
> was no war.
Nice pleasant propaganda photos.
In reality consumer goods had disappeared long ago, it was almost
impossible to buy a refrigerator.
There does seem to be a delay in building up production, it may have
just been poor efficiency and knowledge of mass production.
Remember if you are relying on Speer's memoirs you are relying on
someone who makes himself the hero of the 'armaments miracle'.
In fact German technocrats had sowed the program of mass production
ilong ago. Speer was their to reap the crop when Todt died.
> They were entertained by the Nazi regime and confident of
> victory through the Propaganda Ministry. People were inspired by and
> loved Hitler, so there was not even the thought of defeat until the
> daylight bombing offensive started to work with US escort fighters.
> Still, that reality could not compete with Nazi ideology until Hitler
> actually died and no miracle weapon was produced to win at the 11th
> hour.
>
> Imagine Germany using women from 1939 forward and in numbers under
> "total war" production.
Then you screw your food production and then you cut the Brith rate
and there simply are a lot less Germans in 1950 and 1960s.
Dan
women being baby making machines to replace combat losses and to
generate the next generation of racially pure Nazis. Think of lebensborn.
Eunometic
It was also counter to the US, UK, Italian, Australian, Candian,
Japanese, philosophy. The only nation that used females assigned to
direct combat roles was the Soviet Union. Hence the philosophy wasn't
specifically nazi. Perhaps the Nazis simply consciously understood a
custome that had common sense and an evolutionary advantage behined
it.
If you want to wipe out your population kill, wound and destroy the
health of young fertile women. Men don't count so much.
You can practice serial monogamy or polygamy but one can not subsitute
for the loss of a fertile woman.
It is interesting to speculate as to whether polygamy or serial
monogamy would have become acceptable practice. In pre christian
times it was obligate for some pagan germans for a brother to marry
the widow of his fallen brother as his second wife.
Pagan and Muslim Arabs of course practised Polygamy widely as did
ancient Hebrews which reflects on the way wealth was maintained.
Traditonal European social structures are not found of the practice
and it was either not practised and limited.
> Think of lebensborn.
Given the combat losses increassing the birth rate was sensible. The
lebensborn was a desperate and ultimately ineffective attempt to this:
it avoided socially unacceptable polygammy or serial monogamy and
substituted adoption, fostering and institutionalisation.
It also presumably served the purpose of saving some of the elite gene
pool. Wars usually destory the healthiest and brightest and the Nazis
were sending their elite young men to their deaths in the thousands.
Emporer Vespasian, the one who as a general was ordered by Nero to put
down the Jewish revolt famously used the taxation system to penalise
patrician famies who had less than 3 children. He understood that a
Roman core neededed to be maintained in order to maintain an empire.
The Romans were not polygamists.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lebensborn did not produce millions of children during the war period-
its impact is therefore negligible as far as the mythical "Aryan race"
was concerned- more akin to an SS brothel using primitive eugenics
based on artificial, pseudo-scientific racial guidlines and blood
purity. The Germans took more Aryan-looking children from the occupied
territories as well as using "Germanization" in the Ukraine and Baltic
to incorporate them into the Reich as well.
As you well know, SS racial purity basically went out the window when
fighting the USSR with a wide diversity of foreign volunteers accepted
that were nowhere near Nazi standards and even ideology. Think Waffen
SS Muslims!!!
Rob
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:83f668d2-3090-417b...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 5, 11:00 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The Nazis did use women, but they failed in percentages devoted to the
>> war effort.
> This is an often repeated myth.
No, rather a combination of fact and how women's work was counted.
> Analysis shows that the Nazi regime did mobilise women more fully for
> the war economy than even Allied nations.
Apparently the Eunometics have declared the USSR a non allied
nation.
> Firstly German women already had a high participation rate in the
> workforce, higher than the UK or USA.
Actually what they did have was the decision to count farmer's
families as workers. Other countries did not. Then add the way
the UK counted 2 part time workers as 1 full time when reporting
the labour market, and did not count women over the age of 59,
nor men over the age of 64. So you find yourself with a problem
when comparing the figures.
Next comes the reality the US and UK had plenty of unemployed
people in 1939, the Nazi programs had returned full employment,
but of course at a cost of needing to invade other countries to
find the money to continue the guns and butter program.
Given the unemployment rate the participation rate of the US and UK
economies, for both men and women was, of course, lower than in
Germany with its near full employment. Female employment grew
by over 1 million in the UK in the June 1939 to June 1941 period.
At the end of May 1939 the Germans considered 24.5 million German
men and 14.6 million women were employed, along with 300,000 Jews
and foreign workers.
German Female workers were, as of 31 May of the year, 1940 14.4
million, 1941 14.2 million, 1942 14.5 million, 1943 14.8 million, 1944
14.6 million.
In the UK in June 1939 it was 5 million women to 14.5 million men either
in work or registered as unemployed (1.7 million of the latter). However
the German figures for females in 1939 include some 5.8 million "helping
family members" in agriculture. Using the UK definition the Germans
had 8.8 million working women.
UK Female civilian workers grew to 6.8 million in mid 1943.
> Secondly had higher percentage of German women worked in Agriculture
> (25% I believe).
Essentially as of May 1939 agriculture officially had 40% of the women
counted as employed in Germany.
> Because Germany was more dependant on growing her
> own food (unlike Britain which had a more 'modern' trade based economy
> and purchased food from the US) Germany had to grow her own as her
> trade was tenuous and her neighours scarecelly more productive.
German trade was tenuous in the second half of the 1930's due to
government policy.
It was also German government policy to move to autarky no matter
how many inefficiencies this created. Food was one such area.
> The
> USA of course had larger more labour efficient farms with longer
> growing seasons.
During the war the western allies increased mechanisation of the
agriculture sector.
> The result was that women took over opperating the agriculture as men
> were conscripted.
In reality between May 1939 and May 1942 the German agriculture sector
went from 5 million German men, 0.1 million foreign men, 6 million German
women and 24,000 non German women to 3.6 million German men, 0.8
million foreign men, 0.8 male PoWs, 5.7 German women and 0.4 non
German women. In other words almost no change in employment, or the
gender mix.
Also agricultural land went from 28.54 million hectares to 28.5 million
between 1938 and 1944. Even Sweden and Switzerland expanded their
agricultural sectors during the war.
> Of course women were involved with munitions production, making vacuum
> tubes as well as working as nurses and auxiliaries.
Strangely enough like in WWI women ended up in almost all occupations.
>> Instead, foreign workers were used as well as slave labor
>> to allow German women to maintain the family structure and produce
>> children that would be the next generation of soldiers. Women WERE
>> allowed to work with the armed forces, but in limited capacity, same
>> for factory work.
> The Nazis were dedicated to preserving the folk and the race and the
> traditional family structure.
The above is really about anything but note the reality of Nazi society
and their use of slave labour. Nor for that matter preserving families
is rather hard when the main agenda is world domination by war.
Note the SS brothels, the SS program for true Aryan men to father
children with as many women as possible. The taking of children
who looked Aryan enough from their families. Real traditional family
structure.
The Aryan program was of course not about preserving genes of the
best and brightest, but of those in the SS who looked correct.
> These things were in fact under threat
> by the ideological opponents of the Nazis.
Apparently the western democracies were pushing this anti family
agenda as well.
> (consider the Communist government of Bell Khun of Hungary which in
> 1922 compelled sex education on 10 years old and promoted extra
> marital sex as a way of disrupting the western culture it saw as
> holding up formation of communist society)
I wonder where this comes from. Or who Bell Kuhn is and what he
was doing in 1922.
In the mean time Bela Kun was a founder of the Hungarian Communist
party, main public agenda, Communism which would lead to Soviet help
to remove Czechs and Romanians from what he considered Hungary.
Went from prison cell to foreign affairs commissar on 20 March 1919,
dominating the government, which managed to defeat the Czechs but
not the Romanians, used terror tactics to consolidate power, the
government fell on 1 August 1919 when the Romanians took Budapest.
Kun then went to Vienna, was used in a prisoner exchange with the USSR
and ended up in Moscow, then to Germany in March 1921. Spent until
1928 on undercover work, but his reputation made that hard. Went back
to Moscow after being arrested in Austria, executed by Stalin in the purges.
> Later as the casualties began to mount they realised they would have a
> serious demographic problem and tried to promote the birth rate.
This rather forgets the pre war program of telling women to go home
and have children. The improvement in the economic conditions
encouraged people to have babies. Also it is not exactly like the
new babies were likely to become soldiers in WWII, but they would
take women out of the work force.
Also maybe the better idea was avoiding the casualties in the first
place?
> AFAIKT the use of impressed labour did not begin untill relatively
> late in the war.
As usual Eunometic remains profoundly ignorant of anything bad the
Nazis did.
How about the Polish prisoners, and also civilians? Auschwitz took
its first Polish prisoners in June 1940. Noted the way concentration
camp prisoners were allocated work?
Foreign workers and Jews made up 2% of the German civilian work
force on 31 May 1940, PoWs made up another 1%. As of May 1941
there were over 3 million foreign workers, Jews and PoWs officially
working, 5.7% of the civilian work force.
> It was opportunist as the war progressed: French POW
> who were promised freedom for a few years work, then political
> prisoners from concentration camps.
Try round ups of young adults who were forced into working in
Germany from mid war onwards. As usual this sort of detail
goes missing with Eunometic. And of course the concentration
camp inmates tended to be worked to death. And of course the
Germans had the right to have enlisted French PoWs do non
war work. So why bribe unless the idea is for them to do war
work?
> By then women were already fully engaged in the workforce.
As noted above German female employment did not officially
change much.
> It seems the those who want to keep bashing the nazis want to add
> another 'sin' to the nazis long list of sins even though the evidence
> doesn't support it in this case.
Translation Eunometic has problems with reality and wants to believe
reality is wrong. It is really hard to "Nazi bash" given how badly they
did when in power.
>> They were not oppressed, just under-utilized compared to the USSR,
>> Britain, and US. Yet Britain and the US did not allow female combat
>> while the USSR under Stalin allowed female snipers, tankers, combat
>> pilots, armed combat medics, armed logistics officers, etc...
> Much as female combatants give you a woody I suspect the Nazi policy
> of limiting women in combat did no harm to them.
The US used a lower percentage of its female workforce than the rest
of the major combat nations.
Females in Germany and the UK ended up in places like ports and
airfields, German females became night fighter controllers, countered
by RAF spoof night fighter controllers. The women did not shoot many
guns, they did end up in combat and some were killed. Amongst other
things they flew combat aircraft on ferry flights.
Pity the Nazis did not limit men in combat instead of promoting it as
the way to do things.
>> Germany could have done better, but Hitler did not even put Germany on
>> a "total war" footing until 1943!!!
> Stalingrad was the great shock and that was december 1942.
Actually the economic shock was at the end of 1941, the system could
not replace the losses in the USSR. The continued failure to expand
production could no longer be tolerated, Speer received support to
make changes. The shock to the general public was a year later.
>>German civilians before then could
>> sit ouside in broad daylight at cafes eating and drinking like there
>> was no war.
> Nice pleasant propaganda photos.
No reality, in particular in the 1940 and 1941 periods, things became
tighter in 1942.
> In reality consumer goods had disappeared long ago, it was almost
> impossible to buy a refrigerator.
It goes like this, in 1932 German consumer goods production was
down to nearly 20% of the 1928 total, by 1938 it was back up to
80% of the 1928 total. The Nazis wanted more guns, their choice.
German consumer goods consumption did not return to the 1920's
level until post WWII.
> There does seem to be a delay in building up production, it may have
> just been poor efficiency and knowledge of mass production.
Horrendous inefficiency in the pre and early war period, hence the way
Speer could, once he had authority, do significant improvements quickly.
Nothing quite like raw material allocations based on the number of
aircraft being built at a factory, not their structure weight.
> Remember if you are relying on Speer's memoirs you are relying on
> someone who makes himself the hero of the 'armaments miracle'.
> In fact German technocrats had sowed the program of mass production
> ilong ago. Speer was their to reap the crop when Todt died.
Essentially think the above as the opposite of the Speer the miracle
worker line. It is just as wrong.
Speer made a difference, the investment programs of 1940 and 1941
also made a difference. Part of the Speer program success was the
authorities needed results now. As a result the interest groups and
methods that had retarded production began to be over ridden. It
also helped Speer was competent.
German industry had 10.95 million workers in May 1939, it had
9.95 million in May 1942. About 2.2 million German men and 0.1
million German women had and left the sector, replaced by 0.96
million foreigners and 0.46 million PoWs. Big armies taking large
losses tend to result in fewer civilian employees.
>> They were entertained by the Nazi regime and confident of
>> victory through the Propaganda Ministry. People were inspired by and
>> loved Hitler, so there was not even the thought of defeat until the
>> daylight bombing offensive started to work with US escort fighters.
>> Still, that reality could not compete with Nazi ideology until Hitler
>> actually died and no miracle weapon was produced to win at the 11th
>> hour.
>>
>> Imagine Germany using women from 1939 forward and in numbers under
>> "total war" production.
>
> Then you screw your food production and then you cut the Brith rate
> and there simply are a lot less Germans in 1950 and 1960s.
It seems the Eunometic idea is agriculture is not part of total war
production.
Next comes the fun idea. Eunometic wants to claim the Germans had a
higher female participation rate, but now wants to claim it is a bad thing,
since it depresses the birth rate.
Always fun to see the usual contradictions.
In reality the Nazis botched the pre war and early war production
programs, building in considerable inefficiencies. They had to be
removed and that required the war situation to deteriorate to
provide the political support to change things.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Dan
I never said lebensborn was a success. It was just like any other
Nazi programme: a flop.
Kidnapping children was just another form of Nazi rape of occupied
territories.
As for non Aryan people in the SS and elsewhere what else is new? The
Nazis simply used people for their own ends and were to be discarded as
soon as their usefulness ended. I wouldn't be surprised, had the Nazis
won the war, the non Aryans would have been sent to a "rest camp" that
included gas chambers.
As an aside I am looking for a Moslem SS fez for my collection. No
luck so far.
Eunometic
wrote:
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:83f668d2-3090-417b...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Jan 5, 11:00 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> war effort.
> > This is an often repeated myth.
>
> No, rather a combination of fact and howwomen'swork was counted.
Nonsene Geoffrey,
At the start of the war 6% of Britians labour force was dedicated to
argriculture which produced up to 45% of her food. Germany had 26% of
her labour force dedicated to agriculture which provided 83% of her
food requirements. The Germans counted female family members as part
of farm labour the British apparently did not so German agricultural
efficiency may not be as bad as it looks.
After the Gernany came into control of countries such as France, which
had foolishly declared war, and Holland as a preventative invasion
which was quite unfair and tragic as a neutral holland might have
still traded. Both were net importers of food just like Germany and
also became isolated from trade by naval blockade. It could not trade
to buy food nor could their
In addtion most of the worlds phosphate supplies for fertilisers come
from Moroco even today and in those days Europes phosphate came via
Tunis. The Italian merchant marine could not keep up transport of
this fertiliser.
To keep up food production the crops was switched to potatoes:
Potatoes require far less fertiliser, grow in more marginal land
however they are extremely labour intensive.
It is thus insane to move labour of German farms; but that is what
they did: 30% of male workers and 5% of females. The balance being
restored by low risk workers such as PoW.
The UK simply imports its food from the USA or its colonies and empire
from which it has a ready controlled market and supply of cheap
produce, minerals etc.
With only 6% of its workforce in Agriculture whether it counted women
or not is irrelevant.
Bombing destroyed the mills for processing 9 per cent. of the German
rye output and 35 per cent. of the wheat output. Of the sugar
refineries four plants producing 300,000 tons annually, were
destroyed. This represents a 38 per cent. decrease in production of
sugar. Similarly bombing of chemical plants was largely responsible
for the decrease in the supply for fertiliser nitrogen. In 1939,
718,000 tons of fertiliser nitrogen were available, but by 1945 this
had decreased to 140,000 tons. The significance of this destruction of
facilities vital to the feeding of a country already on a border-line
diet is ominous. Reliable estimates indicate that aerial bombings
destroyed 35 per cent. of Germany's total (approximately 460,000
square metres) cold storage capacity. The increased use of cold
storage intensified their dependence on transportation and on the
continuity of the power supply. Aerial attack, as a result, not only
decreased usable cold storage space, but also seriously interfered
with the operation of the remaining space by impeding shipments and
interrupting sources of power. It was the constantly reiterated
opinion of all food officials that the bomb destruction of the
transportation network was the largest single factor contributing to
the disruption of the food supply.
>
> > Analysis shows that theNaziregime did mobilisewomenmore fully for
> > the war economy than even Allied nations.
>
> Apparently the Eunometics have declared the USSR a non allied
> nation.
>
> > Firstly German women already had a high participation rate in the
> > workforce, higher than the UK or USA.
>
> Actually what they did have was the decision to count farmer's
> families as workers. Other countries did not.
Other countries are nuts then.
Women performed vast amount of work on farms
> Then add the way
> the UK counted 2 part time workers as 1 full time when reporting
> the labour market, and did not countwomenover the age of 59,
> nor men over the age of 64. So you find yourself with a problem
> when comparing the figures.
>
> Next comes the reality the US and UK had plenty of unemployed
> people in 1939, theNaziprograms had returned full employment,
> but of course at a cost of needing to invade other countries to
> find the money to continue the guns and butter program.
Not pressure to fight came from other areas.
The critical one being the food situation. Germany itself would face
famine due to inadaquet excess to markets to sell products, earn
income and buy produce.
Germany had inadaquet land to grown its own food.
Food was actually given as a reason to Invade the USSR
>
> Given the unemployment rate the participation rate of the US and UK
> economies, for both men andwomenwas, of course, lower than in
> Germany with its near full employment. Female employment grew
> by over 1 million in the UK in the June 1939 to June 1941 period.
>
> At the end of May 1939 the Germans considered 24.5 million German
> men and 14.6 millionwomenwere employed, along with 300,000 Jews
> and foreign workers.
>
> German Female workers were, as of 31 May of the year, 1940 14.4
> million, 1941 14.2 million, 1942 14.5 million, 1943 14.8 million, 1944
> 14.6 million.
>
> In the UK in June 1939 it was 5 millionwomento 14.5 million men either
> in work or registered as unemployed (1.7 million of the latter). However
> the German figures for females in 1939 include some 5.8 million "helping
> family members" in agriculture. Using the UK definition the Germans
> had 8.8 million workingwomen.
>
> UK Female civilian workers grew to 6.8 million in mid 1943.
By the end of the war 51% of the German industrial workforce was
female.
>
> > Secondly had higher percentage of Germanwomenworked in Agriculture
> > (25% I believe).
>
> Essentially as of May 1939 agriculture officially had 40% of thewomen
> counted as employed in Germany.
>
> > Because Germany was more dependant on growing her
> > own food (unlike Britain which had a more 'modern' trade based economy
> > and purchased food from the US) Germany had to grow her own as her
> > trade was tenuous and her neighours scarecelly more productive.
>
> German trade was tenuous in the second half of the 1930's due to
> government policy.
>
> It was also German government policy to move to autarky no matter
> how many inefficiencies this created. Food was one such area.
>
Britian blockaded German, in contravention of the WW1 armistice and
thereby killed 900,000 Germans by famine. The blockade dictated the
harsh terms of Versailes and caused the loss of her more fertile lands
to Poland and the destruction of her Hanseatic trade.
France was a net food importer and hostile. It occupied the Rhinland
and Saarland which contains most of Germany's coal so that Germans
froze due to fuel shortages. This land has her most warm climate for
growing food (long season).
Hitler had offered Poland a treaty against Russian and a non agression
pact in return for a autobahn and railway to Danzig. Poland rejected
this so Hitler went to Plan-B: treaty with Russia against Poland.
Countries sorounding Germany were net food importers and often
hostile. At any momment she could be blockaded by Britian, France or
even Poland.
> > The
> > USA of course had larger more labour efficient farms with longer
> > growing seasons.
>
> During the war the western allies increased mechanisation of the
> agriculture sector.
The Germans were stressed in fuel, tractors and draught animals. Use
of horses by the German army caused demand for fuel to go up on farms
to provide tillage.
>
> > The result was thatwomentook over opperating the agriculture as men
> > were conscripted.
>
> In reality between May 1939 and May 1942 the German agriculture sector
> went from 5 million German men, 0.1 million foreign men, 6 million Germanwomenand 24,000 non Germanwomento 3.6 million German men, 0.8
> million foreign men, 0.8 male PoWs, 5.7 Germanwomenand 0.4 non
> Germanwomen. In other words almost no change in employment, or the
> gender mix.
>
> Also agricultural land went from 28.54 million hectares to 28.5 million
> between 1938 and 1944. Even Sweden and Switzerland expanded their
> agricultural sectors during the war.
Agricultural requirements for food had increased due to less access to
trade throughout Europe.
Hence Germans keeping women as farm workers was sensible.
>
> > Of coursewomenwere involved with munitions production, making vacuum
> > tubes as well as working as nurses and auxiliaries.
>
> Strangely enough like in WWI women ended up in almost all occupations.
>
> >> Instead, foreign workers were used as well as slave labor
> >> to allow Germanwomento maintain the family structure and produce
> >> children that would be the next generation of soldiers.WomenWERE
> >> allowed to work with the armed forces, but in limited capacity, same
> >> for factory work.
> > The Nazis were dedicated to preserving the folk and the race and the
> > traditional family structure.
>
> The above is really about anything but note the reality ofNazisociety
> and their use of slave labour.
Impressed labour was a response to a situation, labour shortage.
> Nor for that matter preserving families
> is rather hard when the main agenda is world domination by war.
It was seen as a war of survival not domination. Domination was a
means to survival.
>
> Note the SS brothels, the SS program for true Aryan men to father
> children with as manywomenas possible. The taking of children
> who looked Aryan enough from their families. Real traditional family
> structure.
Lurid, exagerated and hyped though salaciously interesting.
>
> The Aryan program was of course not about preserving genes of the
> best and brightest, but of those in the SS who looked correct.
>
> > These things were in fact under threat
> > by the ideological opponents of the Nazis.
>
> Apparently the western democracies were pushing this anti family
> agenda as well.
>
> > (consider the Communist government of Bela Khun of Hungary which in
> > 1922 compelled sex education on 10 years old and promoted extra
> > marital sex as a way of disrupting the western culture it saw as
> > holding up formation of communist society)
>
> I wonder where this comes from. Or who Bell Kuhn is and what he
> was doing in 1922.
>
> In the mean time Bela Kun was a founder of the Hungarian Communist
> party, main public agenda, Communism which would lead to Soviet help
> to remove Czechs and Romanians from what he considered Hungary.
>
> Went from prison cell to foreign affairs commissar on 20 March 1919,
> dominating the government, which managed to defeat the Czechs but
> not the Romanians, used terror tactics to consolidate power, the
> government fell on 1 August 1919 when the Romanians took Budapest.
>
> Kun then went to Vienna, was used in a prisoner exchange with the USSR
> and ended up in Moscow, then to Germany in March 1921. Spent until
> 1928 on undercover work, but his reputation made that hard. Went back
> to Moscow after being arrested in Austria, executed by Stalin in the purges.
>
> > Later as the casualties began to mount they realised they would have a
> > serious demographic problem and tried to promote the birth rate.
>
> This rather forgets the pre war program of telling women to go home
> and have children. The improvement in the economic conditions
> encouraged people to have babies. Also it is not exactly like the
> new babies were likely to become soldiers in WWII, but they would
> take women out of the work force.
This is what most women want, time to raise their family.
It's also sensible. A welfare program and full employment would
ensure two incomes were not required.
>
> Also maybe the better idea was avoiding the casualties in the first
> place?
>
> > AFAIKT the use of impressed labour did not begin untill relatively
> > late in the war.
>
> As usual Eunometic remains profoundly ignorant of anything bad the
> Nazis did.
>
> How about the Polish prisoners, and also civilians? Auschwitz took
> its first Polish prisoners in June 1940. Noted the way concentration
> camp prisoners were allocated work?
The Nazis took Polish prisoners when they had a war with Poland and
occupied it.
Concentration camps are part of dealing with the ineviatable
insurrection and sedition.
Iraq must be full of them
>
> Foreign workers and Jews made up 2% of the German civilian work
> force on 31 May 1940, PoWs made up another 1%. As of May 1941
> there were over 3 million foreign workers, Jews and PoWs officially
> working, 5.7% of the civilian work force.
>
> > It was opportunist as the war progressed: French POW
> > who were promised freedom for a few years work, then political
> > prisoners from concentration camps.
>
> Try round ups of young adults who were forced into working in
> Germany from mid war onwards. As usual this sort of detail
> goes missing with Eunometic. And of course the concentration
> camp inmates tended to be worked to death. And of course the
> Germans had the right to have enlisted French PoWs do non
> war work. So why bribe unless the idea is for them to do war
> work?
>
> > By thenwomenwere already fully engaged in the workforce.
>
> As noted above German female employment did not officially
> change much.
Because it was virtually fully mobilised, moreso than Britian and the
USA.
The German goverment was actively trying to get women out of the
workforce.
>
> > It seems the those who want to keep bashing the nazis want to add
> > another 'sin' to the nazis long list of sins even though the evidence
> > doesn't support it in this case.
>
> Translation Eunometic has problems with reality and wants to believe
> reality is wrong. It is really hard to "Nazibash" given how badly they
> did when in power.
The myth is that the Nazis didn't utilise women fully and that is why
their production failed and why they used impressed labour.
It is clearly incorrect. The nazi regime fully utlilised its women,
it mererly had to keep a high proportion on the farm.
>
> >> They were not oppressed, just under-utilized compared to the USSR,
> >> Britain, and US. Yet Britain and the US did not allow female combat
> >> while the USSR under Stalin allowed female snipers, tankers, combat
> >> pilots, armed combat medics, armed logistics officers, etc...
> > Much as female combatants give you a woody I suspect theNazipolicy
> > of limitingwomenin combat did no harm to them.
>
> The US used a lower percentage of its female workforce than the rest
> of the major combat nations.
Wow, less than the Germans.
>
> Females in Germany and the UK ended up in places like ports and
> airfields, German females became night fighter controllers, countered
> by RAF spoof night fighter controllers. Thewomendid not shoot many
> guns, they did end up in combat and some were killed. Amongst other
> things they flew combat aircraft on ferry flights.
>
> Pity the Nazis did not limit men in combat instead of promoting it as
> the way to do things.
>
> >> Germany could have done better, but Hitler did not even put Germany on
> >> a "total war" footing until 1943!!!
> > Stalingrad was the great shock and that was december 1942.
>
> Actually the economic shock was at the end of 1941, the system could
> not replace the losses in the USSR. The continued failure to expand
> production could no longer be tolerated, Speer received support to
> make changes. The shock to the general public was a year later.
>
The fruits that Speer harvested were long in the making before Speers
ascention, he was no doubt competent given his short time in the job.
> >>German civilians before then could
> >> sit ouside in broad daylight at cafes eating and drinking like there
> >> was no war.
> > Nice pleasant propaganda photos.
>
> No reality, in particular in the 1940 and 1941 periods, things became
> tighter in 1942.
>
> > In reality consumer goods had disappeared long ago, it was almost
> > impossible to buy a refrigerator.
>
> It goes like this, in 1932 German consumer goods production was
> down to nearly 20% of the 1928 total, by 1938 it was back up to
> 80% of the 1928 total. The Nazis wanted more guns, their choice.
Completely different machinary.
>
> German consumer goods consumption did not return to the 1920's
> level until post WWII.
>
> > There does seem to be a delay in building up production, it may have
> > just been poor efficiency and knowledge of mass production.
>
> Horrendous inefficiency in the pre and early war period, hence the way
> Speer could, once he had authority, do significant improvements quickly.
Nonsense.
The inefficiency was due to lack of knowledge of mass production and
lack of amortisation.
>
> Nothing quite like raw material allocations based on the number of
> aircraft being built at a factory, not their structure weight.
>
> > Remember if you are relying on Speer's memoirs you are relying on
> > someone who makes himself the hero of the 'armaments miracle'.
> > In fact German technocrats had sowed the program of mass production
> > ilong ago. Speer was their to reap the crop when Todt died.
>
> Essentially think the above as the opposite of the Speer the miracle
> worker line. It is just as wrong.
>
> Speer made a difference, the investment programs of 1940 and 1941
> also made a difference. Part of the Speer program success was the
> authorities needed results now. As a result the interest groups and
> methods that had retarded production began to be over ridden. It
> also helped Speer was competent.
>
> German industry had 10.95 million workers in May 1939, it had
> 9.95 million in May 1942. About 2.2 million German men and 0.1
> million Germanwomenhad and left the sector, replaced by 0.96
> million foreigners and 0.46 million PoWs. Big armies taking large
> losses tend to result in fewer civilian employees.
>
> >> They were entertained by theNaziregime and confident of
> >> victory through the Propaganda Ministry. People were inspired by and
> >> loved Hitler, so there was not even the thought of defeat until the
> >> daylight bombing offensive started to work with US escort fighters.
> >> Still, that reality could not compete withNaziideology until Hitler
> >> actually died and no miracle weapon was produced to win at the 11th
> >> hour.
>
> >> Imagine Germany usingwomenfrom 1939 forward and in numbers under
> >> "total war" production.
>
> > Then you screw your food production and then you cut the Brith rate
> > and there simply are a lot less Germans in 1950 and 1960s.
>
> It seems the Eunometic idea is agriculture is not part of total war
> production.
Its your claim. The Germans had a severe food and agriculture problem
in German and occupied territories, apart from Norway which produced a
little surplus they responded by leaving women on the farm.
>
> Next comes the fun idea. Eunometic wants to claim the Germans had a
> higher female participation rate, but now wants to claim it is a bad thing,
> since it depresses the birth rate.
The Germans tried to keep women out of harms way. No combat roles
like the Russians and yes they also did encourage motherhood to ensure
that there was not demographic issue in years to come.
>
> Always fun to see the usual contradictions.
>
> In reality the Nazis botched the pre war and early war production
> programs, building in considerable inefficiencies. They had to be
> removed and that required the war situation to deteriorate to
> provide the political support to change things.
This is the usualy myth that ignores the very real food security
issues the Nazis had, they could not simply make refriegerators and
export them to the UK or USA for money to buy butter and grain and it
also ignores that they were not planing for a world war in 1939/1940.
Timur
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/8a69ac0547c99ccc/dc8ab06e7daf4fe7?lnk=raot#dc8ab06e7daf4fe7
Geoffrey Sinclair
> On Jan 6, 12:16 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:83f668d2-3090-417b...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >On Jan 5, 11:00 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The Nazis did usewomen, but they failed in percentages devoted to the
>> >> war effort.
>> > This is an often repeated myth.
>>
>> No, rather a combination of fact and howwomen'swork was counted.
>
> Nonsene Geoffrey,
Excellent, then I know I am right.
> At the start of the war 6% of Britians labour force was dedicated to
> argriculture which produced up to 45% of her food.
Actually it goes like this, in June 1938 the UK had 949,000 people
employed in agriculture and fishing. That was 5.4% of the working
population, it drops to 5% of the total civilian work force after you
add the 1.7 million unemployed to available workers.
The sector's work force grew to 1,048,000 in 1944, which was
6.2% of the civilian work force at that time.
I presume the percentages above are based on tonnages, not food value.
The UK food import figures include fodder, and in the 1934 to 1938
period an average of 22,491,000 tons of food were imported. In
the same time period an average 15,341,000 tons of crops were
grown, another 4,609,000 tons of milk were produced along with
around 2,300,000 tons of meat and around another 700,000 tons of
cheeses and eggs. So home production was around 22,950,000 tons.
So in other words around 50% by weight and in fact more than that
given the average of over 1 million tons of imported fodder pre war.
More like 21.3 imported to 23 home grown by weight, or 52% of
human consumption.
In case people are wondering the UK considered food policy so
important it produced a three volume official history on the subject.
Lots of basic facts.
> Germany had 26% of
> her labour force dedicated to agriculture which provided 83% of her
> food requirements.
The 1939 figure is 11.2 million from 39.4 million, or 28.4% of the
working population. So Eunometic once again gives the Germans
a better result and downgrades the non Germans.
It goes something like this, in 1938/39 Germany imported some
1.2 million tons of bread cereals and 1.1 million tons of meats, plus
another 1.7 million tons of animal fodder. German imports went up
to 3.6 million tons of bread cereals in 1942/43. This is in addition
to directly taking food for the troops there, in monetary terms for
every mark of food that made it to Germany from the east just under
another 2 marks was taken by the military stationed there.
Pre war Germany, 1937 borders, could feed around 83% if its population
As of the end of 1939 it was 87%. of the population under Nazi control
that could be supplied from local food production, the population had
risen from 67.5 million to 112.1 million. Note pre war around 44% of
food imports were from "reliable" countries, like Italy, Hungary etc.
Also in 1939,
Holland and Belgium could feed around 59% of their populations,
Scandinavia 80%, the Baltic "economic area" and South East
Europe around 107% of their population of 62.5 million people.
> The Germans counted female family members as part
> of farm labour the British apparently did not so German agricultural
> efficiency may not be as bad as it looks.
It seems pre war for every 1 worker officially employed in the UK they
fed around 26 people.
In essence 11.2 million official German agricultural workers produced
enough food for 83% of the 67.5 million, or 1 worker feeding 5 people.
If you double the UK work force to account for other family
members like in the German figures the UK food sector goes
from around 5 times more efficient to 2.5 times. Note fishing was
important in the UK and the Germans certainly had a fishing fleet as
well. So the gap would be a minimum.
> After the Gernany came into control of countries such as France, which
> had foolishly declared war,
Yes folks, in the Eunometic world, trying to stop the Nazis is foolish.
Of course given the condition of Germany in mid 1945 it is fairly obvious
who were the biggest fools.
> and Holland as a preventative invasion
Ah I see, Holland was about to invade Germany in the Eunometic world.
There Eunometic goes, following the Nazis, trying to justify their
invasions.
Not only that, but also taking over very food short regions, just the
way to stop the claimed food crisis forcing the expansion.
> which was quite unfair and tragic as a neutral holland might have
> still traded.
The Dutch would not have traded much food, far less than the Germans
forced out of the country during the occupation.
> Both were net importers of food just like Germany and
> also became isolated from trade by naval blockade. It could not trade
> to buy food nor could their
In case people are wondering the Germans charged the occupied countries
for the privilege of having an occupied army, the charges tended to be in
kind, including food, the Germans took food from places like Holland.
Denmark had quite a good food situation, the Norwegians less so.
In addition to taking food the rations were restricted, so
"While in January 1943 the caloric value of German food rations was
1980 calories, in General Government (part of German-occupied
Poland) it was only 855, less than a half of the German rate, in
France 1080 calories, in Belgium 1320, and in the Netherlands 1765."
As part of the publication on pre war intercepted Japanese diplomatic
messages there are some from France pleading for a food shipment.
The Nazis exported hunger.
> In addtion most of the worlds phosphate supplies for fertilisers come
> from Moroco even today and in those days Europes phosphate came via
> Tunis.
Apparently only phosphate is a fertilizer, rather ignoring the German
chemical industry efforts for a start.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc6288.html
See also the imports from the USSR in 1940/41.
> The Italian merchant marine could not keep up transport of
> this fertiliser.
Eunometic remains profoundly ignorant of the real WWII.
In 1941 the French Mediterranean ports imported some 3,811,732
metric tons of goods, including 1,155,697 tons of fertilizer, in the
January to August 1942 period it was 3,194,766 tons of which
1,207,755 tons were fertilizer. Most of the rest was food and
drink or animal food. The imports came from Algeria, Tunisia and
Morocco.
You see it was the French merchant marine doing most of this.
Then add imports to Italy.
In addition the Germans imported a million tons of food and
edible oils from the USSR and Japan in 1940.
The British wrote a history, The Economic Blockade, and went
through the German records as well as the relevant countries to
note what sort of trade had been going on during the war.
> To keep up food production the crops was switched to potatoes:
> Potatoes require far less fertiliser, grow in more marginal land
> however they are extremely labour intensive.
Strangely enough Potatoes are amongst the most nutritious foods
in terms of yields per unit area.
If the average crop in the 1935 to 1938 period is considered the
benchmark, so the potato yield is 100, then in 1939 it was 105, in
1940 it was 106, in 1941 it was 88, in 1942 it was 101, in 1943
it was 75, in 1944 it was 80.
In reality the thing to note is how little of Germany's pasture was
put under the plough, the shift in the UK was significant, in Germany
things stayed the same. Pasture is inefficient when it comes to
growing food for humans, it is important for a horse based army
and a high meat diet.
In short the Nazis made no real changes to German agriculture
and replied on exporting food shortages.
> It is thus insane to move labour of German farms; but that is what
> they did: 30% of male workers and 5% of females. The balance being
> restored by low risk workers such as PoW.
The insanity was in 2 places, failure to move to more crops and
failure to improve mechanisation.
> The UK simply imports its food from the USA or its colonies and empire
> from which it has a ready controlled market and supply of cheap
> produce, minerals etc.
As noted Eunometic's understanding of WWII is very low. From a
pre war average total of 22,491,000 tons of food imported into the
UK the numbers had dropped to 10,837,000 tons in 1943. So
in essence the UK was able to feed 75% of its population from
local produce during the war versus 50% pre war. The Germans
went backwards, despite maintaining the work force. All the
Germans had to do was improve things by 20% to cover the food
needs, and like in WWI failed.
Apparently in the Eunometic world the US is an easily controlled
market for the UK.
In reality the UK made it known in 1939 that ease of shipping was
going to outweigh best price for the goods, so Canada was going
to be preferred over more distant sources. The US was presenting
the problem of having enough US dollars to buy things.
> With only 6% of its workforce in Agriculture whether it counted women
> or not is irrelevant.
No it is relevant, because it shows the bias in the statistics, wives of
men in small business, whether farms or other do not seem to be
counted as workers, 2 part time jobs were counted as 1, and people
over retirement age were not counted. So the UK figures are an
understatement of the employment situation. Also the females in the
armed forces grew to 467,000 in 1944.
Below seems to come an article that clearly relate to the period from
mid 1944 onwards for the fertilizer problems and late 1944 onwards
for the transport problems. Since even the Bomber Command half
way point for bombs on Germany was the end of September 1944.
Of course during that period the allies took over populations the
Germans were not feeding properly, so in theory the Germans
had fewer mouths to feed, in reality their food situation became
worse because of the policy of taking food to Germany could
not continue.
Eunometic has basically taken the text from
As usual without attribution.
Note apparently the German fishing fleet could deal with 73% of
the country's needs.
> Bombing destroyed the mills for processing 9 per cent. of the German
> rye output and 35 per cent. of the wheat output. Of the sugar
> refineries four plants producing 300,000 tons annually, were
> destroyed. This represents a 38 per cent. decrease in production of
> sugar. Similarly bombing of chemical plants was largely responsible
> for the decrease in the supply for fertiliser nitrogen. In 1939,
> 718,000 tons of fertiliser nitrogen were available, but by 1945 this
> had decreased to 140,000 tons. The significance of this destruction of
> facilities vital to the feeding of a country already on a border-line
> diet is ominous. Reliable estimates indicate that aerial bombings
> destroyed 35 per cent. of Germany's total (approximately 460,000
> square metres) cold storage capacity. The increased use of cold
> storage intensified their dependence on transportation and on the
> continuity of the power supply. Aerial attack, as a result, not only
> decreased usable cold storage space, but also seriously interfered
> with the operation of the remaining space by impeding shipments and
> interrupting sources of power. It was the constantly reiterated
> opinion of all food officials that the bomb destruction of the
> transportation network was the largest single factor contributing to
> the disruption of the food supply.
Yes folks, the problems of the second half of 1944 and then early 1945
are used to explain German behaviour from 1933 to mid 1944.
Usual Eunometic way of blaming the victims.
Oh yes, in 1945 the allies invading Germany found the healthiest population
in Europe, clearly they had been receiving enough food. This was correct,
the problem was the food distribution had just broken down to the larger
cities. The Nazis had produced explosives not fertilizers and had taken
food to turn it into fuel, ensuring the situation was going to become worse,
not better.
>> > Analysis shows that theNaziregime did mobilisewomenmore fully for
>> > the war economy than even Allied nations.
>>
>> Apparently the Eunometics have declared the USSR a non allied
>> nation.
No reply here. Actually there is one further down, the USSR was
bad for allowing a small number of women into combat positions.
>> > Firstly German women already had a high participation rate in the
>> > workforce, higher than the UK or USA.
>>
>> Actually what they did have was the decision to count farmer's
>> families as workers. Other countries did not.
>
> Other countries are nuts then.
The bias in statistics.
> Women performed vast amount of work on farms
Strangely enough women performed large amounts of work even
around the house, particularly in wartime, when it was necessary
to mend things more, rather then buy something new. Add the
problems in sourcing household items and the workload goes up
even more. Add more men away from home for long hours or
many months and another increase in workload.
The economic system is quite clear, unless someone pays you for it
you have not officially worked. Germany made an exception for
women agricultural workers at least, this makes it hard to compare
figures.
>> Then add the way
>> the UK counted 2 part time workers as 1 full time when reporting
>> the labour market, and did not countwomenover the age of 59,
>> nor men over the age of 64. So you find yourself with a problem
>> when comparing the figures.
>>
>> Next comes the reality the US and UK had plenty of unemployed
>> people in 1939, theNaziprograms had returned full employment,
>> but of course at a cost of needing to invade other countries to
>> find the money to continue the guns and butter program.
>
> Not pressure to fight came from other areas.
What a total joke. The Nazis had to expand or run out of money.
That was it, there was no food shortage in Germany in 1939.
> The critical one being the food situation. Germany itself would face
> famine due to inadaquet excess to markets to sell products, earn
> income and buy produce.
Yes folks, this is supposed to be believed. Ignore the Germans
were building weapons, not consumer goods, that the Nazis were
forcing autarky on the economy, plus ensuring local contracts were
lucrative enough to have industry turn inwards rather than become
export orientated.
No folks, the Germans could not fix their food situation, they could
build a massive war machine but they had to invade to solve food
issues, in the Eunometic universe anyway.
Invade, not trade is the Eunometic answer. The Nazis did the same
thing.
> Germany had inadaquet land to grown its own food.
So in other words China can invade the US, or India for that matter,
since they hare having domestic food production problems. And so
on.
In reality Germany had the land, it did not allocate it correctly
nor resource it correctly, it simply took what it wanted from
others.
> Food was actually given as a reason to Invade the USSR
Yes well, rip 1.5 men out of the agriculture sector and create a multi
million man military instead of investing in food production and you are
likely to have food problems.
Be willing to allow people to die of starvation and you can take
quite a lot of food. Just as long as you have control of food
growing regions. Invade, not trade, the Eunometic cry.
>> Given the unemployment rate the participation rate of the US and UK
>> economies, for both men andwomenwas, of course, lower than in
>> Germany with its near full employment. Female employment grew
>> by over 1 million in the UK in the June 1939 to June 1941 period.
>>
>> At the end of May 1939 the Germans considered 24.5 million German
>> men and 14.6 millionwomenwere employed, along with 300,000 Jews
>> and foreign workers.
>>
>> German Female workers were, as of 31 May of the year, 1940 14.4
>> million, 1941 14.2 million, 1942 14.5 million, 1943 14.8 million, 1944
>> 14.6 million.
>>
>> In the UK in June 1939 it was 5 millionwomento 14.5 million men either
>> in work or registered as unemployed (1.7 million of the latter). However
>> the German figures for females in 1939 include some 5.8 million "helping
>> family members" in agriculture. Using the UK definition the Germans
>> had 8.8 million workingwomen.
>>
>> UK Female civilian workers grew to 6.8 million in mid 1943.
>
> By the end of the war 51% of the German industrial workforce was
> female.
In reality it goes something like this, by mid 1944 officially there was
one German male civilian worker to one German female civilian
worker but around 1/3 to 1/2 of the women were those helping family
members on farms.
Next comes the final round up of men who had previously been
in reserved occupations in late 1944, those volksgrenadier
manpower had to come from somewhere, though of course the
call up of the 16 year olds also expanded the official working
population.
Mean time in the UK in 1943 38% of the civilian working population
was female, remembering two part time jobs are counted as one
full time one.
Also of course even in mid 1942 the number of foreign women
employed in Germany was around 700,000 or about 5% of the
female workforce.
So yes, once again Eunometic is simply not understanding reality.
Counting women on the farm as industrial workers and counting the
foreign women as Germans.
>> > Secondly had higher percentage of Germanwomenworked in Agriculture
>> > (25% I believe).
>>
>> Essentially as of May 1939 agriculture officially had 40% of thewomen
>> counted as employed in Germany.
No reply here.
>> > Because Germany was more dependant on growing her
>> > own food (unlike Britain which had a more 'modern' trade based economy
>> > and purchased food from the US) Germany had to grow her own as her
>> > trade was tenuous and her neighours scarecelly more productive.
>>
>> German trade was tenuous in the second half of the 1930's due to
>> government policy.
>>
>> It was also German government policy to move to autarky no matter
>> how many inefficiencies this created. Food was one such area.
>
> Britian blockaded German, in contravention of the WW1 armistice and
> thereby killed 900,000 Germans by famine.
We have been this way before, go read the armistice conditions, the
blockade was to stay until the peace agreement.
Oh yes, using Wiki the total deaths from starvation due to the blockade
during WWI is put at 763,000 plus another 150,000 flu victims. Not
post war, but during the war.
Note by the way the U-boats were attempting a blockade of England
that reduced food supplies to stocks that would only last weeks.
> The blockade dictated the harsh terms of Versailes
This is good, how about Germany's defeat in the field, after that
last win the war push failed resulted in the peace.
How about the way Germany stripped occupied France and
destroyed what it could not move as a contributor to the
terms of the peace?
> and caused the loss of her more fertile lands
> to Poland and the destruction of her Hanseatic trade.
Ah yes, where the Germans go Eunometic proclaims the area theirs.
The Poles look on it as recovering the lands taken by Germany and
fulfilling the promise made by the Kaiser.
In reality the lands taken in Poland in 1939 could feed their population
with a small surplus good for around 700,000 people.
> France was a net food importer and hostile. It occupied the Rhinland
> and Saarland which contains most of Germany's coal so that Germans
> froze due to fuel shortages. This land has her most warm climate for
> growing food (long season).
The occupation was not permanent and was in response to Germany
failing to fulfil treaty requirements. The idea France was hostile is
just a joke. The idea the food production in those areas suffered
long term damage is a bigger joke.
Yes folks, as long as someone does something Eunometic considers
bad to the Germans it will be exaggerated and used as an excuse
to hurt even more people.
> Hitler had offered Poland a treaty against Russian and a non agression
> pact in return for a autobahn and railway to Danzig.
Hitler and Poland signed a non agression pact years before 1939,
Hitler denounced it on 28 April 1939. Another Eunometic failure
to know facts.
And the treaty idea against the USSR was long gone, with its apparent
aim to attack, not defend.
In April the rest of Europe had decided Hitler was not to be trusted,
you know last territorial demands and all that.
So negotiations over access to East Prussia became rather
hard, especially as Hitler decided fighting was the preferred
option.
Negotiations were already hard thanks to the Nazis thinking the
Poles should do what they were told. The backing of France
and the UK meant Hitler would have to really negotiate, so he
tore up the treaty, issued lots of threats and planned for war.
> Poland rejected
> this so Hitler went to Plan-B: treaty with Russia against Poland.
Hitler denounced he non agression pact, Hitler ran the propaganda
campaigns against Poland. Once again Eunometic blames the victims
of the Nazis not the Nazis.
> Countries sorounding Germany were net food importers and often
> hostile. At any momment she could be blockaded by Britian, France or
> even Poland.
Yes folks, this is meant to be believed. A Polish blockade of
Germany, imagine that.
The blockade required a combined decision, not a unilateral one.
That required Germany to upset lots of people, the Nazis were
certainly capable of doing that, invading countries for example.
>> > The
>> > USA of course had larger more labour efficient farms with longer
>> > growing seasons.
>>
>> During the war the western allies increased mechanisation of the
>> agriculture sector.
>
> The Germans were stressed in fuel, tractors and draught animals.
Of course, hence agriculture went backwards, even more so in
occupied lands as the Germans were more willing to take horses,
machinery and so forth.
Allied agriculture went forwards. Things like pools of farm
vehicles like harvesters were created.
Pre war the Germans built tanks and avgas facilities. Not
tractors and associated fuel supplies.
> Use
> of horses by the German army caused demand for fuel to go up on farms
> to provide tillage.
I gather this is supposed to mean the Germans were unable to convert
pasture to crops because of the need for horses etc.
So in essence people would risk starvation in the name of a big German
army. The Nazis were at least consistent, starving was less important
than the military.
>> > The result was thatwomentook over opperating the agriculture as men
>> > were conscripted.
>>
>> In reality between May 1939 and May 1942 the German agriculture sector
>> went from 5 million German men, 0.1 million foreign men, 6 million
>> Germanwomenand 24,000 non Germanwomento 3.6 million German men, 0.8
>> million foreign men, 0.8 male PoWs, 5.7 Germanwomenand 0.4 non
>> Germanwomen. In other words almost no change in employment, or the
>> gender mix.
>>
>> Also agricultural land went from 28.54 million hectares to 28.5 million
>> between 1938 and 1944. Even Sweden and Switzerland expanded their
>> agricultural sectors during the war.
>
> Agricultural requirements for food had increased due to less access to
> trade throughout Europe.
Actually it increased as Germany tried to maintain pre war food
levels by simply taking food as required from elsewhere. Grow
your own was a need.
> Hence Germans keeping women as farm workers was sensible.
It goes like this, Eunometic wants to tell us how good it was Germany
employed so many women, while saying how bad it is to birth rates
that women are employed.
The usual clash of wonder German world view and women in their
place world view. Quite funny really.
The UK increased the agricultural work force by around 10%, the
Germans struggled to keep the numbers at pre war levels. The UK
switched to crops, the Germans did not, the UK added more
machinery to the farm sector. Guess who was going to hit a food
crisis first?
>> > Of coursewomenwere involved with munitions production, making vacuum
>> > tubes as well as working as nurses and auxiliaries.
>>
>> Strangely enough like in WWI women ended up in almost all occupations.
No reply here.
>> >> Instead, foreign workers were used as well as slave labor
>> >> to allow Germanwomento maintain the family structure and produce
>> >> children that would be the next generation of soldiers.WomenWERE
>> >> allowed to work with the armed forces, but in limited capacity, same
>> >> for factory work.
>> > The Nazis were dedicated to preserving the folk and the race and the
>> > traditional family structure.
>>
>> The above is really about anything but note the reality ofNazisociety
>> and their use of slave labour.
>
> Impressed labour was a response to a situation, labour shortage.
The above non reply is an effort to avoid the reality of the Nazi state
and the conditions of the work force they controlled.
And impressed labour was part Nazi doctrine, think of the servant
class being reserved for Poles.
>> Nor for that matter preserving families
>> is rather hard when the main agenda is world domination by war.
>
> It was seen as a war of survival not domination. Domination was a
> means to survival.
Apparently this makes it all right in the Eunometic eyes. Of course
you have to believe in the dominate or perish ideology first.
World domination or downfall was the cry. Eunometic apparently
believes this.
And of course war does make it rather hard to keep traditional families.
In June 1939 the UK Male cohort in the 40 to 44 age bracket had
312,000 fewer men than the 35 to 39 age bracket, the female
equivalent had shrunk 135,000.
>> Note the SS brothels, the SS program for true Aryan men to father
>> children with as manywomenas possible. The taking of children
>> who looked Aryan enough from their families. Real traditional family
>> structure.
>
> Lurid, exagerated and hyped though salaciously interesting.
Actually quite accurate, so Eunometic has to ignore it, or imagine
qualifying for the sex side of things The Nazis were big on
appearance, not reality, good looks mattered more.
>> The Aryan program was of course not about preserving genes of the
>> best and brightest, but of those in the SS who looked correct.
No reply here.
>> > These things were in fact under threat
>> > by the ideological opponents of the Nazis.
>>
>> Apparently the western democracies were pushing this anti family
>> agenda as well.
No reply here.
>> > (consider the Communist government of Bela Khun of Hungary which in
>> > 1922 compelled sex education on 10 years old and promoted extra
>> > marital sex as a way of disrupting the western culture it saw as
>> > holding up formation of communist society)
>>
>> I wonder where this comes from. Or who Bell Kuhn is and what he
>> was doing in 1922.
>>
>> In the mean time Bela Kun was a founder of the Hungarian Communist
>> party, main public agenda, Communism which would lead to Soviet help
>> to remove Czechs and Romanians from what he considered Hungary.
>>
>> Went from prison cell to foreign affairs commissar on 20 March 1919,
>> dominating the government, which managed to defeat the Czechs but
>> not the Romanians, used terror tactics to consolidate power, the
>> government fell on 1 August 1919 when the Romanians took Budapest.
>>
>> Kun then went to Vienna, was used in a prisoner exchange with the USSR
>> and ended up in Moscow, then to Germany in March 1921. Spent until
>> 1928 on undercover work, but his reputation made that hard. Went back
>> to Moscow after being arrested in Austria, executed by Stalin in the
>> purges.
No reply here.
Of course when the Nazis go with extra marital sex Eunometic thinks
it is sensible and preserving the best DNA, that is Aryan looking
members of the SS.
Someone else does it and out comes threat to the family claims. Noted
the way WWI created a shortage of eligible men?
>> > Later as the casualties began to mount they realised they would have a
>> > serious demographic problem and tried to promote the birth rate.
>>
>> This rather forgets the pre war program of telling women to go home
>> and have children. The improvement in the economic conditions
>> encouraged people to have babies. Also it is not exactly like the
>> new babies were likely to become soldiers in WWII, but they would
>> take women out of the work force.
>
> This is what most women want, time to raise their family.
> It's also sensible. A welfare program and full employment would
> ensure two incomes were not required.
I am always amused when males try and announce what women want.
The research shows a minority definitely want children no matter what,
another minority no children and the majority responding to conditions,
what society wants and their personal circumstances. Similar for males.
In the UK in June 1939 the age cohort of 10 to 14 had 3.576 million,
the 5 to 9 group was 3.34 million, the 0 to 4 group 3.376 million, the
depression's effect on birth rates.
>> Also maybe the better idea was avoiding the casualties in the first
>> place?
No reply here.
>> > AFAIKT the use of impressed labour did not begin untill relatively
>> > late in the war.
>>
>> As usual Eunometic remains profoundly ignorant of anything bad the
>> Nazis did.
>>
>> How about the Polish prisoners, and also civilians? Auschwitz took
>> its first Polish prisoners in June 1940. Noted the way concentration
>> camp prisoners were allocated work?
>
> The Nazis took Polish prisoners when they had a war with Poland and
> occupied it.
And then made many work in rather bad circumstances.
> Concentration camps are part of dealing with the ineviatable
> insurrection and sedition.
Yes folks, in Eunometic's eyes concentration camps along the Nazi
lines are normal.
> Iraq must be full of them
Next throw in an attempt to create a diversion.
>> Foreign workers and Jews made up 2% of the German civilian work
>> force on 31 May 1940, PoWs made up another 1%. As of May 1941
>> there were over 3 million foreign workers, Jews and PoWs officially
>> working, 5.7% of the civilian work force.
No reply here.
>> > It was opportunist as the war progressed: French POW
>> > who were promised freedom for a few years work, then political
>> > prisoners from concentration camps.
>>
>> Try round ups of young adults who were forced into working in
>> Germany from mid war onwards. As usual this sort of detail
>> goes missing with Eunometic. And of course the concentration
>> camp inmates tended to be worked to death. And of course the
>> Germans had the right to have enlisted French PoWs do non
>> war work. So why bribe unless the idea is for them to do war
>> work?
No reply here.
>> > By thenwomenwere already fully engaged in the workforce.
>>
>> As noted above German female employment did not officially
>> change much.
>
> Because it was virtually fully mobilised, moreso than Britian and the
> USA.
No, it was at full peacetime employment pre war, including the results
of a go home and have children policy towards women.
Full mobilisation is something else, try conscription. Like a jump
in Female employment.
> The German goverment was actively trying to get women out of the
> workforce.
Yes folks pre war the German government is trying to get the women
out of the workforce. This fits Eunometic's ideas for women, the
trouble is the need to find good things to say about the Nazis requires
Germany to do better at everything, so they have to employ more
women in the work force than anyone else. It is fun to see this played out.
Again, the reality is the Germans did not increase their female work
force during WWII, despite the number of women who left the
work force pre war under Nazi programs. Full employment is
that much easier to obtain if females are not trying for jobs.
So calling the German female population fully mobilised is a joke,
foreign workers were brought in, more and more by force as the
answer. Remember the Nazis required lots of German children
to populate the new empire.
>> > It seems the those who want to keep bashing the nazis want to add
>> > another 'sin' to the nazis long list of sins even though the evidence
>> > doesn't support it in this case.
>>
>> Translation Eunometic has problems with reality and wants to believe
>> reality is wrong. It is really hard to "Nazibash" given how badly they
>> did when in power.
>
> The myth is that the Nazis didn't utilise women fully and that is why
> their production failed and why they used impressed labour.
1) The Nazis did not use women in the work force fully, they had
this go home and have babies approach instead. They substituted
non Germans instead.
2) Production failed because the system was so inefficient.
3) Using forced and slave labour was in accord with the Nazi
ideology, and freed German men for war and German women
for reproduction. Of course that claimed demographic problem
now shifts, by forcing and keeping other country's female
population in the work force, again consistent with Nazi doctrine.
> It is clearly incorrect. The nazi regime fully utlilised its women,
> it mererly had to keep a high proportion on the farm.
No it is not clearly incorrect, the usage was there, is was also
not increased during the war despite the pre war programs
pushing women out of the work force. So fully utilised is
simply a joke.
>> >> They were not oppressed, just under-utilized compared to the USSR,
>> >> Britain, and US. Yet Britain and the US did not allow female combat
>> >> while the USSR under Stalin allowed female snipers, tankers, combat
>> >> pilots, armed combat medics, armed logistics officers, etc...
>> > Much as female combatants give you a woody I suspect theNazipolicy
>> > of limitingwomenin combat did no harm to them.
>>
>> The US used a lower percentage of its female workforce than the rest
>> of the major combat nations.
>
> Wow, less than the Germans.
The US economy could have continued WWII in 1946, no one
else could.
>> Females in Germany and the UK ended up in places like ports and
>> airfields, German females became night fighter controllers, countered
>> by RAF spoof night fighter controllers. Thewomendid not shoot many
>> guns, they did end up in combat and some were killed. Amongst other
>> things they flew combat aircraft on ferry flights.
>>
>> Pity the Nazis did not limit men in combat instead of promoting it as
>> the way to do things.
No reply here.
>> >> Germany could have done better, but Hitler did not even put Germany on
>> >> a "total war" footing until 1943!!!
>> > Stalingrad was the great shock and that was december 1942.
>>
>> Actually the economic shock was at the end of 1941, the system could
>> not replace the losses in the USSR. The continued failure to expand
>> production could no longer be tolerated, Speer received support to
>> make changes. The shock to the general public was a year later.
>
> The fruits that Speer harvested were long in the making before Speers
> ascention, he was no doubt competent given his short time in the job.
Ah yes, you can always tell when Eunometic does not like someone.
Let us start with a short time was 3 and a half years. Or over half the
war, and it oversaw well over half German war production. Time for
this to be declared a short time. Anything to downplay Speer.
Ignore also the various reports that Speer knew what he was doing.
It is agreed after his memoirs and thanks to the USSBS investigation
his impact was over estimated. Eunometic prefers it erased.
>> >>German civilians before then could
>> >> sit ouside in broad daylight at cafes eating and drinking like there
>> >> was no war.
>> > Nice pleasant propaganda photos.
>>
>> No reality, in particular in the 1940 and 1941 periods, things became
>> tighter in 1942.
No reply here.
>> > In reality consumer goods had disappeared long ago, it was almost
>> > impossible to buy a refrigerator.
>>
>> It goes like this, in 1932 German consumer goods production was
>> down to nearly 20% of the 1928 total, by 1938 it was back up to
>> 80% of the 1928 total. The Nazis wanted more guns, their choice.
>
> Completely different machinary.
Yes folks, Eunometic is sure German industry had to produce weapons,
not consumer goods. Think of it as an excuse for the Nazis, the idea
they had no choice, you know Germany could not possibly exist today
under these rules, but reality has to be ignored.
Not for Eunometic to note the collapse of consumer goods production
during the depression, as if that should be a surprise. Just announce
the Germans could not return to the level of manufacture of consumer
goods they managed in 1928, let alone expand it. Export war, not
products, the Nazi way.
I really like the idea Germany could not possibly bring its farms up
to UK standard, when even a partial closing of the gap would have
erased any food short falls. Eunometic really hates Germans, the
way they are continually portrayed as so stupid.
>> German consumer goods consumption did not return to the 1920's
>> level until post WWII.
>>
>> > There does seem to be a delay in building up production, it may have
>> > just been poor efficiency and knowledge of mass production.
>>
>> Horrendous inefficiency in the pre and early war period, hence the way
>> Speer could, once he had authority, do significant improvements quickly.
>
> Nonsense.
Oh good I know I am right again.
Cost plus contracts, no attempt to deal with manufacturers that were
high cost. Any improvements taken by the state, not shared with
the company or work force.
Plenty of things to start with, backed by real power to force changes.
Speer had a good platform. Goering even gave Milch real power
again to sort of the mess in aircraft production.
> The inefficiency was due to lack of knowledge of mass production and
> lack of amortisation.
Amortisation is an accounting term, is the idea the Germans did not
know accountancy?
As for lack of knowledge of mass production consider the way
component supplies could vary so dramatically in price from
different suppliers. The idea of sharing knowledge of best practice,
not done under the relentless me first ideology of the Nazis. The
usual things, not this idea the problem was setting up production lines.
The military of course contributed to the problem by continually
asking for changes. One of the things that had to be reduced.
>> Nothing quite like raw material allocations based on the number of
>> aircraft being built at a factory, not their structure weight.
No reply here.
>> > Remember if you are relying on Speer's memoirs you are relying on
>> > someone who makes himself the hero of the 'armaments miracle'.
>> > In fact German technocrats had sowed the program of mass production
>> > ilong ago. Speer was their to reap the crop when Todt died.
>>
>> Essentially think the above as the opposite of the Speer the miracle
>> worker line. It is just as wrong.
>>
>> Speer made a difference, the investment programs of 1940 and 1941
>> also made a difference. Part of the Speer program success was the
>> authorities needed results now. As a result the interest groups and
>> methods that had retarded production began to be over ridden. It
>> also helped Speer was competent.
>>
>> German industry had 10.95 million workers in May 1939, it had
>> 9.95 million in May 1942. About 2.2 million German men and 0.1
>> million Germanwomenhad and left the sector, replaced by 0.96
>> million foreigners and 0.46 million PoWs. Big armies taking large
>> losses tend to result in fewer civilian employees.
No reply here.
>> >> They were entertained by theNaziregime and confident of
>> >> victory through the Propaganda Ministry. People were inspired by and
>> >> loved Hitler, so there was not even the thought of defeat until the
>> >> daylight bombing offensive started to work with US escort fighters.
>> >> Still, that reality could not compete withNaziideology until Hitler
>> >> actually died and no miracle weapon was produced to win at the 11th
>> >> hour.
>>
>> >> Imagine Germany usingwomenfrom 1939 forward and in numbers under
>> >> "total war" production.
>>
>> > Then you screw your food production and then you cut the Brith rate
>> > and there simply are a lot less Germans in 1950 and 1960s.
>>
>> It seems the Eunometic idea is agriculture is not part of total war
>> production.
>
> Its your claim.
No it is the Eunometic claim.
> The Germans had a severe food and agriculture problem
> in German and occupied territories, apart from Norway which produced a
> little surplus they responded by leaving women on the farm.
If Germany is severe what does England end up as?
Holland?
As noted women did leave the farms, replaced by non Germans.
And the use of severe as an adjective once again shows Eunometic
trying to fit facts to answers. The food problem was solvable, the
Nazis were not interested in solving it, people starving to death in
Europe made it easier for the new Empire to claim the area,
>> Next comes the fun idea. Eunometic wants to claim the Germans had a
>> higher female participation rate, but now wants to claim it is a bad
>> thing, since it depresses the birth rate.
>
> The Germans tried to keep women out of harms way.
Like starting a major war for example. Pity the men were also not
as well protected.
I note the non reply.
> No combat roles
> like the Russians and yes they also did encourage motherhood to ensure
> that there was not demographic issue in years to come.
Which meant they did not mobilise the females as much, given
motherhood interferes with being able to do paid employment.
Instead the result was to force other women to lose or reduce the chance
to have children, like hunger, export fewer chances to have children, Nazi
doctrine again.
>> Always fun to see the usual contradictions.
>>
>> In reality the Nazis botched the pre war and early war production
>> programs, building in considerable inefficiencies. They had to be
>> removed and that required the war situation to deteriorate to
>> provide the political support to change things.
>
> This is the usualy myth
Actually it is quite accurate. You only need to look at the stagnation
of production in the 1939 to 1941 period. Even after the losses taken
in 1940. See the various histories on German production.
Like the relevant sections of the multi volume Germany and the Second
World War set, where a lot of my figures have come from.
> that ignores the very real food security
> issues the Nazis had, they could not simply make refriegerators and
> export them to the UK or USA for money to buy butter and grain
Amazing, apparently the Germans could make thousands of aircraft
and tanks, and artillery pieces and so on, with fuel and ammunition,
but could not make consumer goods like refrigerators that would
reduce food spoilage, nor mechanise the farm sector to improve
productivity. Apparently no one was buying German.
Yes folks, in the world of Eunometic the victims of the Nazis are
to blame.
You sort of wonder how Germany is around today.
> and it
> also ignores that they were not planing for a world war in 1939/1940.
The reason the Nazis were not planning for a world war in 1939
was their belief they could attack countries one at a time and
no one would help the attacked country.
That sort of stupidity lead to Germany in May 1945. When Hitler
realised the one at a time idea was probably over he simply
decided it was not and attacked Poland, while letting Stalin out
of the USSR and into eastern Europe.