4 ms·

Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing

by morsch 4y ago

Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing, there was a lot of infrastructure remaining. Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact. The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered. [1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm

WalterBright 4y ago
> there was a lot of infrastructure remaining Are you sure about that? Everything was destroyed, because the RAF and the USAAF bombed everything day and night for years. They quite literally tried to bomb Germany and Japan back into the stone age. About every city in Japan was firebombed to ashes. And the German men were killed. Millions died of starvation after the war ended. What was different with Germany (and Japan) was - free markets. You can see this starkly in the different fortunes of East and West Germany. The first was under communism, the second under free markets. Free markets pretty much don't exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Laos. Adding money to unfree markets just disappears. History shows us in country after country after country, free markets leads to prosperity, leftism leads to poverty.
- morsch 4y ago
  Yes, I'm sure about that. Let's take a famous example, Dresden[1]: after the bombings, most industry was still standing (though not operating), 50+% of living quarters were left, 70% of retail was still operating; rudimentary civilian rail operations were resumed after two weeks, military rail operation resumed within days. And while some areas were partially destroyed, once you move into the suburbs not to mention the rural areas, everything was left standing. And even where there was rubble, under the rubble were roads and within the rubble were bricks. They may have tried to bomb Germany back to the stone age, but they couldn't; from what was recently posted here, they probably realized this, but they did try to bomb the population into submission[2], which also didn't work, it's just a war crime. Millions of Germans did not die of starvation after the war, though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47, which was the harshest winter of the 20th century. I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing; but like I said, Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died. Edit: Let me hasten to add that I don't want to minimize the impact bombing campaigns have on cities and countries. Tens of thousands of people died in Dresden. We still dig out unexploded ordnance where I live, 80 years after the fact. I'm just saying that a lot of infrastructure remained. Germany after the war probably had more infrastructure left standing than Laos did before the war. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden [2] https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47 "More than nine million Germans died as a result of Allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after the Second World War-a total far in excess of the figures actually reported." -- "Crimes & Mercies" by James Bacque The book is controversial, but you should be aware of it. > I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing The free market thing started around 1950. > Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died The deaths were before 1950. As for libertarian utopia, I never said that. I said it was the free market that enabled Germany to rise from utter devastation to be the dominant economic power in Europe in just 20 years. As for Dresden, it was a civilian target, not an industrial one. The US usually targeted industry. It also did not participate in the German Miracle, because it was in the Soviet sector. Lastly, the German bombing of England was concentrated on London civilian targets, not industrial targets, and it didn't impact infrastructure and industry much. The Luftwaffe also could only reach a small fraction of England, most of the industry was safely out of range. The British went hungry during the war, but they didn't starve. For reference, the series of Impact books gives a good overview of the effect of the bombing campaigns on Germany and Japan. https://www.amazon.com/Impact-Forces-Confidential-Picture-History/dp/B000KKAX98/ https://www.amazon.com/Impact-Forces-Confidential-Picture-Hi... More: "Bomber Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive" by Charles Messenger "Gruesome Harvest" by Ralph Franklin Keeling "Maximum Effort the B-29s against Japan" by Kevin Herbert "Target Germany" US Army Air Force A bit of caution: these are not nice books.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - cmh89 4y ago
    "Leftism" is a really dumb term with no precise meaning. The "free market" has never existed and never will because capitalist inherently push for protectionist regulation. Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide. Left-wing movements brought universal health care, lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety, and improved working conditions for billions throughout the world with regulations. "righests" like the monarchists caused the famine in India that killed 30 million people. Fascists in Europe caused a war that killed 60 million people. Authoritarian populist are always bad, regardless of their stripes. I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving, but right-wing populist are just as bad, and frequently worse than their left-wing populist counterparts.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > The "free market" has never existed and never will The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south. > Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work? > lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then. > I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself.
      - cmh89 4y ago
        >The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south. Not true in the slightest. The US Customs Service was created four months after the constitution was ratified, therefore regulating what goods can be imported and making imported goods more expensive than domestic goods. The US has had a highly regulated economy since inception. >Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work? You just stated your opinion again? The free market doesn't actually exist and governmental organizations brought people out of poverty. >In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then Oh lordy, there is so much that you don't understand. Medicare and Social Security alone keep millions of seniors from dying homeless on the street every year. >Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself. I understand WHY the number was made up. I'm asking for a citation for that number because it sounds like nonsense.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  You keep saying it, but no evidence.

by morsch 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

> there was a lot of infrastructure remaining Are you sure about that? Everything was destroyed, because the RAF and the USAAF bombed everything day and night for years. They quite literally tried to bomb Germany and Japan back into the stone age. About every city in Japan was firebombed to ashes. And the German men were killed. Millions died of starvation after the war ended. What was different with Germany (and Japan) was - free markets. You can see this starkly in the different fortunes of East and West Germany. The first was under communism, the second under free markets. Free markets pretty much don't exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Laos. Adding money to unfree markets just disappears. History shows us in country after country after country, free markets leads to prosperity, leftism leads to poverty.

morsch 4y ago
Yes, I'm sure about that. Let's take a famous example, Dresden[1]: after the bombings, most industry was still standing (though not operating), 50+% of living quarters were left, 70% of retail was still operating; rudimentary civilian rail operations were resumed after two weeks, military rail operation resumed within days. And while some areas were partially destroyed, once you move into the suburbs not to mention the rural areas, everything was left standing. And even where there was rubble, under the rubble were roads and within the rubble were bricks. They may have tried to bomb Germany back to the stone age, but they couldn't; from what was recently posted here, they probably realized this, but they did try to bomb the population into submission[2], which also didn't work, it's just a war crime. Millions of Germans did not die of starvation after the war, though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47, which was the harshest winter of the 20th century. I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing; but like I said, Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died. Edit: Let me hasten to add that I don't want to minimize the impact bombing campaigns have on cities and countries. Tens of thousands of people died in Dresden. We still dig out unexploded ordnance where I live, 80 years after the fact. I'm just saying that a lot of infrastructure remained. Germany after the war probably had more infrastructure left standing than Laos did before the war. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden [2] https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47 "More than nine million Germans died as a result of Allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after the Second World War-a total far in excess of the figures actually reported." -- "Crimes & Mercies" by James Bacque The book is controversial, but you should be aware of it. > I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing The free market thing started around 1950. > Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died The deaths were before 1950. As for libertarian utopia, I never said that. I said it was the free market that enabled Germany to rise from utter devastation to be the dominant economic power in Europe in just 20 years. As for Dresden, it was a civilian target, not an industrial one. The US usually targeted industry. It also did not participate in the German Miracle, because it was in the Soviet sector. Lastly, the German bombing of England was concentrated on London civilian targets, not industrial targets, and it didn't impact infrastructure and industry much. The Luftwaffe also could only reach a small fraction of England, most of the industry was safely out of range. The British went hungry during the war, but they didn't starve. For reference, the series of Impact books gives a good overview of the effect of the bombing campaigns on Germany and Japan. https://www.amazon.com/Impact-Forces-Confidential-Picture-History/dp/B000KKAX98/ https://www.amazon.com/Impact-Forces-Confidential-Picture-Hi... More: "Bomber Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive" by Charles Messenger "Gruesome Harvest" by Ralph Franklin Keeling "Maximum Effort the B-29s against Japan" by Kevin Herbert "Target Germany" US Army Air Force A bit of caution: these are not nice books.
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
[flagged]
- cmh89 4y ago
  "Leftism" is a really dumb term with no precise meaning. The "free market" has never existed and never will because capitalist inherently push for protectionist regulation. Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide. Left-wing movements brought universal health care, lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety, and improved working conditions for billions throughout the world with regulations. "righests" like the monarchists caused the famine in India that killed 30 million people. Fascists in Europe caused a war that killed 60 million people. Authoritarian populist are always bad, regardless of their stripes. I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving, but right-wing populist are just as bad, and frequently worse than their left-wing populist counterparts.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > The "free market" has never existed and never will The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south. > Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work? > lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then. > I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      >The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south. Not true in the slightest. The US Customs Service was created four months after the constitution was ratified, therefore regulating what goods can be imported and making imported goods more expensive than domestic goods. The US has had a highly regulated economy since inception. >Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work? You just stated your opinion again? The free market doesn't actually exist and governmental organizations brought people out of poverty. >In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then Oh lordy, there is so much that you don't understand. Medicare and Social Security alone keep millions of seniors from dying homeless on the street every year. >Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself. I understand WHY the number was made up. I'm asking for a citation for that number because it sounds like nonsense.
wolverine876 4y ago
You keep saying it, but no evidence.