> 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

> 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.