4 ms·

"A closer examination of history shows that slavery tends to fail when in competition with free labor" "Free labor destroyed Nazi Europe." I cannot even compr

"A closer examination of history shows that slavery tends to fail when in competition with free labor" "Free labor destroyed Nazi Europe." I cannot even comprehend what this means - how were slaves a major part of Nazi war effort or economy? In your mind, did they loose a trade war and the 100+ million dead soldiers were a side show?

WalterBright 5y ago
> how were slaves a major part of Nazi war effort or economy? The Nazis employed slave labor on a massive scale. Their slaves were Jewish prisoners, political prisoners, and POWs. The US free labor produced plenty of war material for two major wars, and enough left over to supply Britain and the Soviet Union. US troops were well fed, with plenty of gas, bullets, airplanes, ships, aircraft carriers, medical supplies, trucks, everything, and also managed to ship it all to the war zones. The Nazis and the Japanese never had a chance once the US got going. They had critical shortages of everything. For example, what did the Nazis do when the battleship Bismarck was sunk? Game over for the Kriegsmarine except for the U-boots. What did the US do when the Japanese wrecked the US aircraft carriers? Built lots more! What did the Japanese do when their carriers were sunk? Game over for naval aviation. Also, the Wehrmacht in WW2 was still very much a horse driven army. The German propaganda newsreels, shown endlessly in WW2 documentaries, avoided showing the horses and loved showing the mechanized troops. I don't think the US used any horses at all. Free labor also sunk the Confederacy. The Confederacy was never able to properly supply their troops with guns, cannons, powder, food, uniforms, or even shoes. They were largely barefoot.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Help me understand your train of thought, so if there Nazis had 'free labor' they would never have shortages of oil and natural rubber? Would it just magically appear? And without the shortages they would have won the war, right? That must be the point you are making, because if they would have lost anyway then your argument makes no sense? And what about USSR, their 'free but not free' labor caused them to win and loose simultaneously?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    If the Nazis had free labor, they would have done better, but they still would have lost because the US was bigger. The USSR likely would not have prevailed against the Nazis if the US didn't supply them. Or at least it would have been far more difficult for them. Synthetic rubber - "Production of synthetic rubber in the United States expanded greatly during World War II since the Axis powers controlled nearly all the world's limited supplies of natural rubber by mid-1942" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_II Synthetic fuel - "During World War II (1939-1945), Germany used synthetic-oil manufacturing (German: Kohleverflüssigung) to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer–Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods (Zeitz used the TTH and MTH processes)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History The V2's were fueled by alcohol from potatoes.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > The US free labor produced plenty of war material for two major wars, and enough left over to supply Britain and the Soviet Union. US troops were well fed, with plenty of gas, bullets, airplanes, ships, aircraft carriers, medical supplies, trucks, everything, and also managed to ship it all to the war zones. A more realistic explanation of course is that the Allied powers had around 3x the population of the Axis, and that America's production infrastructure was never negatively impacted, while German and Japanese infrastructure was routinely bombed. The UK, for example, despite not using slave labor, wouldn't have been able to win the war without US assistance, and you failed to mention the USSR at all, which beat Germany just as much as the US did, but doesn't fit the market based and slave labor free image you're trying to project. The better explanation is that when you are already losing a war you need to eek out more production from what you have, and you're willing to sacrifice long-term things for it. Slave labor, in the short term is more efficient for some things, especially when you need the people who would normally be working in the free market to be elsewhere manning the guns. Employing slave labor didn't cause the nazis to lose WWII, at best it was coincidental, and at worst it was a response to the fact that they were already losing.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    The Soviet Union was heavily supplied by the US. The German and Japanese homelands were not bombed until they were already losing the war. The Nazi prosperity before WW2 was fairly limited, as the Nazis couldn't resist endless meddling with it. The suppression of the Jews surely must have had bad consequences for the economy, though I know of nobody who has attempted an accounting of it. The living standard did not approach that of the US. > manning the guns Don't forget that the US pressed into military service all the fit men 18-36. Didn't resort to slave labor. (Footnote: FDR proposed forced labor in his 1945 State of the Union Address. Don't believe me? Look it up! Fortunately, that went nowhere.)
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      >Don't forget that the US pressed into military service all the fit men 18-36. Didn't resort to slave labor. The irony here being, of course, that while the US courts ultimately disagreed, forcing people to join the military is arguably itself a form of slave labor. It is certainly a form of involuntary servitude. > The German and Japanese homelands were not bombed until they were already losing the war. The Allies had begun bombing Berlin before the US entered the war. So if your contention here was that the Nazis were losing from day one, sure. Otherwise you're not correct. > The Nazi prosperity before WW2 was fairly limited The German prosperity before the Nazis took power was fairly limited. That was in fact one of the primary reasons the Nazis took power in the first place.

WalterBright 5y ago

> how were slaves a major part of Nazi war effort or economy? The Nazis employed slave labor on a massive scale. Their slaves were Jewish prisoners, political prisoners, and POWs. The US free labor produced plenty of war material for two major wars, and enough left over to supply Britain and the Soviet Union. US troops were well fed, with plenty of gas, bullets, airplanes, ships, aircraft carriers, medical supplies, trucks, everything, and also managed to ship it all to the war zones. The Nazis and the Japanese never had a chance once the US got going. They had critical shortages of everything. For example, what did the Nazis do when the battleship Bismarck was sunk? Game over for the Kriegsmarine except for the U-boots. What did the US do when the Japanese wrecked the US aircraft carriers? Built lots more! What did the Japanese do when their carriers were sunk? Game over for naval aviation. Also, the Wehrmacht in WW2 was still very much a horse driven army. The German propaganda newsreels, shown endlessly in WW2 documentaries, avoided showing the horses and loved showing the mechanized troops. I don't think the US used any horses at all. Free labor also sunk the Confederacy. The Confederacy was never able to properly supply their troops with guns, cannons, powder, food, uniforms, or even shoes. They were largely barefoot.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Help me understand your train of thought, so if there Nazis had 'free labor' they would never have shortages of oil and natural rubber? Would it just magically appear? And without the shortages they would have won the war, right? That must be the point you are making, because if they would have lost anyway then your argument makes no sense? And what about USSR, their 'free but not free' labor caused them to win and loose simultaneously?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  If the Nazis had free labor, they would have done better, but they still would have lost because the US was bigger. The USSR likely would not have prevailed against the Nazis if the US didn't supply them. Or at least it would have been far more difficult for them. Synthetic rubber - "Production of synthetic rubber in the United States expanded greatly during World War II since the Axis powers controlled nearly all the world's limited supplies of natural rubber by mid-1942" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber#World_War_II Synthetic fuel - "During World War II (1939-1945), Germany used synthetic-oil manufacturing (German: Kohleverflüssigung) to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer–Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods (Zeitz used the TTH and MTH processes)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History The V2's were fueled by alcohol from potatoes.
joshuamorton 5y ago
> The US free labor produced plenty of war material for two major wars, and enough left over to supply Britain and the Soviet Union. US troops were well fed, with plenty of gas, bullets, airplanes, ships, aircraft carriers, medical supplies, trucks, everything, and also managed to ship it all to the war zones. A more realistic explanation of course is that the Allied powers had around 3x the population of the Axis, and that America's production infrastructure was never negatively impacted, while German and Japanese infrastructure was routinely bombed. The UK, for example, despite not using slave labor, wouldn't have been able to win the war without US assistance, and you failed to mention the USSR at all, which beat Germany just as much as the US did, but doesn't fit the market based and slave labor free image you're trying to project. The better explanation is that when you are already losing a war you need to eek out more production from what you have, and you're willing to sacrifice long-term things for it. Slave labor, in the short term is more efficient for some things, especially when you need the people who would normally be working in the free market to be elsewhere manning the guns. Employing slave labor didn't cause the nazis to lose WWII, at best it was coincidental, and at worst it was a response to the fact that they were already losing.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  The Soviet Union was heavily supplied by the US. The German and Japanese homelands were not bombed until they were already losing the war. The Nazi prosperity before WW2 was fairly limited, as the Nazis couldn't resist endless meddling with it. The suppression of the Jews surely must have had bad consequences for the economy, though I know of nobody who has attempted an accounting of it. The living standard did not approach that of the US. > manning the guns Don't forget that the US pressed into military service all the fit men 18-36. Didn't resort to slave labor. (Footnote: FDR proposed forced labor in his 1945 State of the Union Address. Don't believe me? Look it up! Fortunately, that went nowhere.)
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    >Don't forget that the US pressed into military service all the fit men 18-36. Didn't resort to slave labor. The irony here being, of course, that while the US courts ultimately disagreed, forcing people to join the military is arguably itself a form of slave labor. It is certainly a form of involuntary servitude. > The German and Japanese homelands were not bombed until they were already losing the war. The Allies had begun bombing Berlin before the US entered the war. So if your contention here was that the Nazis were losing from day one, sure. Otherwise you're not correct. > The Nazi prosperity before WW2 was fairly limited The German prosperity before the Nazis took power was fairly limited. That was in fact one of the primary reasons the Nazis took power in the first place.