5 ms·
Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives (same thing basically) was invented. Shortly after the war i
by ajuc 3y ago
Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives (same thing basically) was invented. Shortly after the war it was widespread, and since then there was no starvation in any developed or even semi-developed country.
Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil. Basically he wanted colonies without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea. Like soviets and Americans had.
Shortly after WW2 it ceased to make sense to invade for farming land.
It's not the only factor (nukes are another), but it is a very significant factor.
- ponector 3y agoWhat? Hitler started a war with UK, France and other countries to annex Ukraine a few years later?
- ChoHag 3y ago[dead]
- KineticLensman 3y ago> Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then. There were many many factors involved [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II
- devnullbrain 3y ago>Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then. That has no relevance.
- FpUser 3y agoWell it does. USSR was much bigger than standalone Ukraine, hence different consequences.
- selimthegrim 3y agoAfter WWII Ukraine and Belarus were given separate UN seats from USSR. So in 1991 they just kept those seats.
- FpUser 3y agoFor fuck's sake. The point was that at the time Ukraine was part of USSR and by attacking Ukraine Hitler has attacked USSR with all the consequences. It seems that you are trying to do something different here but I'll leave you to it.
- ajuc 3y agoI didn't think I'd it necessary to mention that Ukraine was a part of USSR and Poland at the time. It's common knowledge. What isn't common knowledge is that Hitler had plans for Ukraine in particular (inspired by Hlodomor).
- Metacelsus 3y agoHaber-Bosch was just before WWI, not WWII
- hinkley 3y agoWWII started just before WWI. Some people call the Second World War part 2 of the first. At the time people were worried that the settlement with Germany was just an armistice. Those people turned out to be right. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that we should be very very careful treating the wars like they were unrelated incidents. They absolutely were not.
- scythe 3y agoMore descriptively, there was a cascade of revolutions and coups across Europe and Asia in the wake of WWI: Russia (1917), Germany (1918), Turkey (1919), Hungary (1918, 1919), Afghanistan (1919, independence), Egypt (1919, independence 1922), Morocco (1920, French conquest resumed), Mongolia (1921, independence), Italy (1922), Iran (1921, 1925), Portugal (1926), Poland (1926), Lithuania (1926), Arabia (1925, Saudi conquest), China (1928, KMT-CPC split), Iraq (1932, independence), Thailand (1932), Germany (1933, Nazis) Latvia (1934), Austria (1934), Estonia (1934, reversed 1938), Spain (1936), Romania (1938), probably some others I left out.
- TimTheTinker 3y agoIt's interesting to note how many of these revolutions and coups involved a fall to either communism or fascism. For the most part, these were not positive developments. Perhaps the declining role monarchs across the world was a causal factor there -- countries of citizens trained to live with a highly authoritarian structure, who because of prior experience gravitated towards fascism/communism (also highly authoritarian)
- ranger207 3y agoWWII was definitely caused by WWI but that wasn't necessarily always going to be the case. If a more Marshal Plan-like armistice had been settled rather than the punitive treaty that actually happened then there's a decent chance that fascism wouldn't've found such a disaffected populace to breed in.
- pasabagi 3y agoAll the statements in your comment, except one, are straightforwardly false. You should probably fact-check things you think.
- CRConrad 3y agoHelp a guy out here, wouldya — which one isn't?
- pasabagi 3y agoWell, the Haber process does fix atmospheric nitrogen to make fertilizer. So that description was correct. They could have said it fixed atmospheric oxygen, or something.Or it was invented by Kim Jong Il.
- CRConrad 3y agoThat felt more like just a specification or attribute of what they were talking about, not an actual specific statement about it. A bit like if they'd said “The motor car was invented in 1645 by Gustave II Adolphe of Sweden”, and getting credit for “Yes, cars have motors”. Naah, that's just saying what you're talking about; everything that it actually says is wrong.
- pasabagi 3y agoI guess one way to go about it would be to try and decompose the entire paragraph into testable fragments: 1. Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process ... was invented 2. for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives 3. (same thing basically). 4. Shortly after the war it was widespread, 5. and since then there was no starvation in any developed or even semi-developed country. 6. Hitler started WW2 7. to annex Ukraine 8. because of its fertile soil. 9. Basically he wanted colonies 10. without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea. 11. Like soviets and Americans had. 12. Shortly after WW2 13. it ceased to make sense to invade for farming land. 14. It's not the only factor (nukes are another), but it is a very significant factor. You could probably decompose it further (so like, 'farming land' could be a fact, because you can farm on land). My feeling is it's quite hard to make a rigorous distinction between factual statements and statements in general - there's just an awful lot of factual content in language as commonly used, and some of it seems to have crept into this comment.