7 ms·

As we know today, Germans never had any manpower to make use of much lebensraum. They were at Peak German at that time, after which their birth rate declined dr

As we know today, Germans never had any manpower to make use of much lebensraum. They were at Peak German at that time, after which their birth rate declined dramatically. They won't have the men to settle any of those lands they were supposed to colonize. Anyway, USSR lost the most lives fighting Germany and gained least benefits out of that. Just check: https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/RU/DE https://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/RU/DE

Aloha 10y ago
Arguably the social policies of Nazi Germany likely would have kept the birthrate high for another 2-3 generations, after that.. its hard to say. Alternative histories of Germany winning the war are many, and interesting (and scary) though experiments.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Nobody got 2-3 generations in their position, I think they could only aim for a half generation of high-ish birthrate. That's what USA got, and it was arguably less urbanized to begin with. They'll still have massive debt and huge costs of security and investments in freshly acquired "lebensraum". Honestly I think they'll crumble anyway.
rangibaby 10y ago
Your first paragraph is "the Nazis didn't have enough coal to burn 6M Jews"-level dishonesty. They would have found a way to populate all that sweet, sweet land, like any colonizer in the past or present. I agree with the second one. The "spoils" claimed weren't much compared to the destruction inflicted on their country and people. That has nothing to do with my original comment though.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Do you see many colonizers in present? I don't. I see rapid decolonization. Japanese leave rural areas and northern territories. Russians fled Central Asia, pushed off Caucasus, large swaths of land become anthropic deserts. French in no position to colonize Africa anymore, if anything they're getting colonized. Chinese flock to Southern coast and no longer push that hard demographically on Uighurs/Tibetans. Germans don't even seem to flock to their Northern, Baltic shore. And it has better climate than absolute most of their supposed "sraum". Arguable, Polish and Balts skip their countries for greener pastures. If anybody in EU will be lacking room they can move there any minute.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    > Do you see many colonizers in present? I don't. The main example of "old school" colonization (other than the Chinese example mentioned below) I can think of in 2016 is the Israeli colonization of the occupied territories. Colonies provided wealth and a logistical advantage to their owners. UK and France both fought hard to hold onto theirs well past the end of WWII. More recently, Russia considered Crimea important enough to accept the economic punishment annexing it entailed. > Chinese flock to Southern coast and no longer push that hard demographically on Uighurs/Tibetans. Do you have a good source or book that I can read about this? I would like to know more. > Germans don't even seem to flock to their Northern, Baltic shore. And it has better climate than absolute most of their supposed "scram". The Nazis are not known for paying careful attention to the climate when drawing up their grand plans. Lebensraum was their official policy, and I doubt they would have left the local population alone, considering what they did to other undesirables.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      I don't have good source on Chinese demography, picking info about it one line at a time. Anyway, there's no reason to think that Germans would easily defeat post-Imperial Russian Republic (given no Bolsheviks and therefore no civil wars, no mass emigration, famines or murders). Soviets basically lost half of pre-WWII years on chaos. Russia without Soviets would look more like 350M strong Norway than like 140M strong Nigeria how it ended up.

Aloha 10y ago

Arguably the social policies of Nazi Germany likely would have kept the birthrate high for another 2-3 generations, after that.. its hard to say. Alternative histories of Germany winning the war are many, and interesting (and scary) though experiments.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
Nobody got 2-3 generations in their position, I think they could only aim for a half generation of high-ish birthrate. That's what USA got, and it was arguably less urbanized to begin with. They'll still have massive debt and huge costs of security and investments in freshly acquired "lebensraum". Honestly I think they'll crumble anyway.

rangibaby 10y ago

Your first paragraph is "the Nazis didn't have enough coal to burn 6M Jews"-level dishonesty. They would have found a way to populate all that sweet, sweet land, like any colonizer in the past or present. I agree with the second one. The "spoils" claimed weren't much compared to the destruction inflicted on their country and people. That has nothing to do with my original comment though.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
Do you see many colonizers in present? I don't. I see rapid decolonization. Japanese leave rural areas and northern territories. Russians fled Central Asia, pushed off Caucasus, large swaths of land become anthropic deserts. French in no position to colonize Africa anymore, if anything they're getting colonized. Chinese flock to Southern coast and no longer push that hard demographically on Uighurs/Tibetans. Germans don't even seem to flock to their Northern, Baltic shore. And it has better climate than absolute most of their supposed "sraum". Arguable, Polish and Balts skip their countries for greener pastures. If anybody in EU will be lacking room they can move there any minute.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  > Do you see many colonizers in present? I don't. The main example of "old school" colonization (other than the Chinese example mentioned below) I can think of in 2016 is the Israeli colonization of the occupied territories. Colonies provided wealth and a logistical advantage to their owners. UK and France both fought hard to hold onto theirs well past the end of WWII. More recently, Russia considered Crimea important enough to accept the economic punishment annexing it entailed. > Chinese flock to Southern coast and no longer push that hard demographically on Uighurs/Tibetans. Do you have a good source or book that I can read about this? I would like to know more. > Germans don't even seem to flock to their Northern, Baltic shore. And it has better climate than absolute most of their supposed "scram". The Nazis are not known for paying careful attention to the climate when drawing up their grand plans. Lebensraum was their official policy, and I doubt they would have left the local population alone, considering what they did to other undesirables.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    I don't have good source on Chinese demography, picking info about it one line at a time. Anyway, there's no reason to think that Germans would easily defeat post-Imperial Russian Republic (given no Bolsheviks and therefore no civil wars, no mass emigration, famines or murders). Soviets basically lost half of pre-WWII years on chaos. Russia without Soviets would look more like 350M strong Norway than like 140M strong Nigeria how it ended up.