4 ms·

>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

>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
> forcing people to join the military is arguably itself a form of slave labor Indeed it is. But the soldiers were taken out of production in the economy, which is the point I was responding to. > The Allies had begun bombing Berlin before the US entered the war. Yes, the British bombed Berlin early in the war as a propaganda stunt. The US Doolittle raid on Japan was also for propaganda. They were ineffectual from a military perspective. It doesn't alter my point at all. > 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. We both know that. The Nazis were in power from 1933-1939. There wasn't much prosperity.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > Indeed it is. But the soldiers were taken out of production in the economy, which is the point I was responding to. Right, but the allies had more people, so there's nothing relevant about slave labor. Like I said: slave labor is a tool of last resort, when the market fails. The US had to use that tool to get enough labor in the fighting force, but still had enough humans that market systems (and propaganda) worked in the economy. > We both know that. The Nazis were in power from 1933-1939. There wasn't much prosperity. Then I have no clue what your point is. My point was, and continues to be, that Nazi use of slave labor was a consequence of the already relatively weaker economy. You seem to be arguing that slave labor caused the weak economy. My point is that it started weaker and remained weaker, and to try and keep up, they had to force more people to do things.

WalterBright 5y ago

> forcing people to join the military is arguably itself a form of slave labor Indeed it is. But the soldiers were taken out of production in the economy, which is the point I was responding to. > The Allies had begun bombing Berlin before the US entered the war. Yes, the British bombed Berlin early in the war as a propaganda stunt. The US Doolittle raid on Japan was also for propaganda. They were ineffectual from a military perspective. It doesn't alter my point at all. > 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. We both know that. The Nazis were in power from 1933-1939. There wasn't much prosperity.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> Indeed it is. But the soldiers were taken out of production in the economy, which is the point I was responding to. Right, but the allies had more people, so there's nothing relevant about slave labor. Like I said: slave labor is a tool of last resort, when the market fails. The US had to use that tool to get enough labor in the fighting force, but still had enough humans that market systems (and propaganda) worked in the economy. > We both know that. The Nazis were in power from 1933-1939. There wasn't much prosperity. Then I have no clue what your point is. My point was, and continues to be, that Nazi use of slave labor was a consequence of the already relatively weaker economy. You seem to be arguing that slave labor caused the weak economy. My point is that it started weaker and remained weaker, and to try and keep up, they had to force more people to do things.