How to Catch Hitler by the Tongue

69
How to Catch Hitler by the Tongue

As is well known and probably does not need proof, Hitler often lied daringly. For him, lying was one of the most important tools in the implementation of his political and military plans.

Usually, this is the end of it. However, in my opinion, the analysis of lies, that is, finding out what exactly Hitler lied about, how, why and for what purpose, is a very important way of penetrating his plans, which the Fuhrer did not like to trust even with the most secret papers.



The method is, of course, purely analytical. But if we manage to comprehend Hitler's logic and the outline of his real plans, hatched in secret and in secret conversations, then many other events also receive a simple, logical, and often the only possible explanation. If this is so, then we have drawn the right conclusions. That is, this is not idle curiosity, but an important way of deepening knowledge and understanding in stories.

Hitler claimed that Germans did not have enough land


One of the topics on which Hitler lied, and lied systematically, was the lack of land in Germany to feed the population, from which his theory of "living space" flowed.

He addressed this issue many times, both in Mein Kampf and in numerous printed and oral speeches, usually without any specifics and without a more or less detailed analysis of the situation. For example, in the book, Hitler rejects the idea of ​​restoring Germany's 1914 borders and makes a transparent hint that the National Socialists set themselves the goal of a significantly greater expansion of Germany.

Although the land question is always concrete and expressed in hectares or square kilometers, neither in the book nor in his numerous other public speeches did Hitler ever specify how much land he would like and why he considered Germany overpopulated.

Only in the manuscript of his second book, known after the war as the "Second Book" (Zweites Buch), did Hitler dare to approach this question more specifically. The manuscript, as far as can be judged, was attributed as belonging to Hitler, including by the former confidant of the Nazi publishing house Eher-Verlag, Josef Berg, and this conclusion was not disputed. Indeed, the "Second Book" is written in the style characteristic of Hitler. These are notes that this manuscript can be considered a source.

Strictly speaking, Hitler was a Malthusian in his views and said directly that the life of the people depended on the bread obtained from a certain territory. And in this unpublished manuscript he made a specific assessment, determining that 136 people per 1 square kilometer of area is an unhealthy ratio. That is, in essence, the German people with such a population density cannot feed themselves from their land.

When you read such statements, various geographical or statistical data are simultaneously sorted through in your head. A comparison occurs, which forms a certain suspicion that Hitler lied here.

People and bread


We have excellent German statistics at our disposal, for the late 1920s still very good and not spoiled by subsequent secrecy. So we can and should not take Hitler's word for it, but check it out.

In 1925, in Germany, which then had an area of ​​468 square kilometers, a census was conducted, counting 718 million people. The average density was 62,48 people per square kilometer. But the density varied greatly. For example, the largest urban agglomerations (or Ballungsgebiete) had simply monstrous population density. In Berlin – 133,1 people per square kilometer, in Hamburg – 4 people per square kilometer.


Hamburg from a bird's eye view


Hamburg also had such places – densely built-up, multi-story slums

In contrast, in many rural areas, such as the Free State of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (formed in 1918 on the site of the duchy of the same name and abolished on 1 January 1934 by the unification with Mecklenburg-Schwerin into the state of Mecklenburg), the population density was very low – 37,64 people per square kilometre.


Mecklenburg. This is also Germany. But it is difficult to see people among the fields, forests and lakes.

This circumstance alone somewhat undermines Hitler's pathos. In the main agricultural regions of Germany, especially in the east, where grain was mainly grown, population density did not particularly hinder agricultural production.

In addition, there are detailed land and agricultural statistics. In 1928, of the 46,8 million hectares of total land area in Germany, 20,6 million hectares or 44,1% of the country's area were occupied by arable land. In principle, this can be taken as the average ratio of total land to arable land for Germany.

Further, the arable land was divided into certain crops, which is also detailed. 58,2% of arable land or 12 million hectares was sown with grain crops, including 4,7 million hectares of rye and 1,7 million hectares of wheat. 20,3% or 4,2 million hectares were sown with root crops, including 2,8 million hectares of potatoes. The rest was industrial crops.

The yield in Germany was quite high. For rye - 14,5 centners per hectare, for wheat - 18,8 centners per hectare and for potatoes - 134,1 centners per hectare. The harvest in 1927 was: rye - 6,8 million tons, wheat - 3,2 million tons, potatoes - 37,5 million tons.

Per capita, Germany consumed 108 kg of rye and 51 kg of wheat grain (or a total of 143,1 kg of baked bread) and 600 kg of potatoes. At the same time, Germany consumed an average of 113,6 kg of bread and 168,5 kg of potatoes.

If we calculate the average square kilometer of German land, where out of 100 hectares 25,6 hectares were occupied by grain (i.e. including rye, wheat, barley and oats) and 5,9 hectares by potatoes, then the following comes out. With an average grain yield of 15,6 centners per hectare and potatoes of 134,1 centners per hectare, the yield per square kilometer was 399,3 centners of grain and 791,1 centners of potatoes.

This works out to approximately 273 kg of bread and 594,8 kg of potatoes per capita per average German square kilometre.

Hence the conclusion that Germany could feed from its fields approximately twice as many people as lived in the country at that time. This, we note, with the agricultural technology of the 1920s!


German agriculture at the time was dominated by manual labour and the draft horse. Potato harvesting near Arsten, southeast of Bremen

For comparison: in 2020, the wheat yield in Germany was 78,8 centners per hectare. Agricultural technology, fertilizers, and selection have yielded very solid results.

The plausibility of lies


So, Hitler lied.

However, one must at least lie plausibly, so that the statements do not diverge too much from some observed reality. Otherwise, the speaker will be booed.

The question arises: where did the idea that Germany does not have enough land come from?

In my opinion, from the extremely uneven distribution of land between farms.

In Germany there were 5 thousand farms, the majority of which – 096,5 thousand or 3% – owned small and very small plots, from 027,4 hectares (59,4 acres) to 0,05 hectares.

For comparison: there were 20 thousand rich peasants with plots of 100 to 199,9 hectares, and 18,6 thousand large landowners. But these two categories, which make up 4,2% of all farms, owned 46,6% of the land.

Around the large cities, the smallest landownership completely dominated. For example, in Berlin there were 47,9 thousand small farms, which owned 7 hectares of land or an average of 178 acres each, and only 14 rich peasants and 135 large landowners. A similar picture was in almost all large cities in Germany, which was partly due to the fact that industrial firms often helped their workers acquire the smallest plots of land as subsidiary farms.

Then yes, if the average person sees how masses of people are crowded together on an endless sea of ​​small and tiny plots of land, then he will be inclined to take Hitler at his word that the Germans do not have enough land.

Understanding that this was not the case required a certain knowledge of economic geography and agriculture.

How much land would Hitler like?


The most interesting thing is that the Nazi party initially included people who had such knowledge. These were Heinrich Himmler and Richard Darre, both certified agronomists.

It would have been easy for them to take a statistical reference book, make roughly the same calculations as above, and then tell Hitler something like this: “Dear Party Comrade, you are talking nonsense.” But they did not do this, and, moreover, they were among the most ardent supporters of Hitler precisely on the agrarian question.

So what's the matter?

In general, when speaking about the lack of land, Hitler should at least somehow hint at how much land, from his point of view, needs to be seized in order to resolve this issue.

It seems like there is a moment like that in Book Two.

After many digressions and discussions about the First World War, Hitler spoke about the goals of the war that should then be achieved: to conquer 100 thousand square kilometers of territory, which would be given to the front-line soldiers as property or intended for German colonization.

Surprisingly modest plans. In 1914, Germany occupied 540,8 thousand square kilometers of territory, and the increase of 100 thousand square kilometers was only 18,5%. But this was still 1928, when Hitler did not yet have power, and was not yet a citizen of Germany, and was considered a dreamer.
However, since his party grew despite the ban, there is nevertheless a much more concrete plan behind these arguments: 100 thousand square kilometers or 10 million hectares. Of this, approximately 68% or 6,8 million hectares are agricultural land, including 4,5 million hectares of arable land.

If these 6,8 million hectares are divided into allotments of 25 hectares, then we get 272 thousand average peasant farms. If 50 hectares or more, then about 100 thousand rich peasant farms. At that time, the Nazi Party had about 100 thousand members, and it turns out that Hitler could promise them allotments of 50 hectares.

What kind of promise this was can be shown by the following fact of property inequality in Weimar Germany. According to data for 1931, 6,4% of the population of Germany owned 60% of the national property and income. The remaining 40% was divided between 93,6% of Germans. The rich owned property on average worth 378,9 thousand Reichsmarks, and ordinary people – worth 934 Reichsmarks.

When Hitler, in a whisper, privately promised his supporters trophy land in a solid allotment, it fired up many people, especially the poor front-line soldiers. They were not afraid of war, but there were no other ways to get rich at that time.

Thus, Hitler’s statements about the lack of land in Germany, on which the theory of “living space” was based, were, on the one hand, lies, quite easily refuted with a statistical reference book in hand.

But, on the other hand, it was a kind of password, the exact meaning of which was probably explained orally in the party. The Nazis heard something completely different in Hitler's speeches than all the other Germans and foreigners. If we were to identify these passwords and try to reconstruct their meaning, we would be able to understand the real content of Hitler's speeches.

Actually, all this, as already said, is not idle curiosity. This is a methodology and its development.

We still have to understand how and why Ukrainians became enemies.
69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    25 September 2024 05: 39
    We still have to understand how and why Ukrainians became enemies.
    But this is more relevant than Hitler's lies 100 years ago...
    1. +7
      25 September 2024 09: 46
      I still don't understand where Hitler lied. He talked about "expanding" the Reich not only in terms of land ownership, but also influence. When he said that he would give every German at least 10 hectares of Latifundia in Oestreich together with slaves, where did he lie? He PROMISED! It didn't work out... And yes, when he talked about "Germans" he didn't exclude other "Aryans" from this list - to which many Europeans were added, it was for latifundia and eastern slaves that all of Europe of those years actually went on a campaign to the East. Got a slap in the face. Hunkered down under the bench. And now it has re-fledged and wants revenge. Only there is a problem - there is no second, such a charismatic "Hitler".
    2. +2
      25 September 2024 21: 22
      Well, it seems like everything is on the surface. The army of a neighboring country comes to your home, claiming that you are living wrong. Wrong. You oppress the Russian language. But then, as a result of military actions, housing is destroyed. How should people behave? It's good that in the same Mariupol they understood, however, not everyone. And those where the war has not reached are under propaganda pressure. They say, we were attacked, we are defending our home and our homeland. It's all simple, in fact.
  2. +5
    25 September 2024 05: 50
    Someone on this site already suggested putting a minus sign under the article. It's a pity that it's not there.
    1. +14
      25 September 2024 08: 55
      I don't have any data, so I can't judge whether the figures in the article are correct. The author writes that in 2020 the yield in Germany was 78 centners per hectare.
      I live here, I talk to farmers, and they tell me that the grain yield is approximately 75-82 centners. Does the author know that in Germany 1 centner (attention) is 50 kg? Yes, yes, I am not mistaken. If you recalculate into centners of 40 kg, you get only ~ XNUMX centners per hectare. And this is a very good harvest. I myself am a rural resident and worked in the fields in the Soviet Union. I do not remember that they collected so much, maybe somewhere in Kuban, but not in Orenburg. My guess is that not only Hitler lied, but the author also got something mixed up.
      1. +6
        25 September 2024 09: 03
        If you don't believe in 50 kg in a centner, ask Wikipedia, Centner. It also describes the centner in Germany.
        1. +4
          25 September 2024 09: 10
          Indeed, they have from a pound, not from a kilogram. Of course, the level of the article illuminates.
      2. +5
        25 September 2024 10: 40
        Quote: smith 55
        Does the author know that in Germany 1 centner (attention) is 50 kg?
        Frankly, you surprised me a lot with this. The word "cent" does have something to do with the decimal system! Thanks to you, I closed another gap in my head. Respect wink
        1. +6
          25 September 2024 11: 29
          Above in the comment strannik 1985 explained why this is so. And a centner, if we are talking about 100 kg, is called Doppelzentner, that is, a double centner.
          To get a harvest of 40 centners, many factors must coincide. This is proper plowing, no weeds, good seed material, and of course weather conditions. In Germany there is practically no black soil, and getting such a harvest is not easy. You need the conditions that I listed and compliance with agricultural technology, or agricultural knowledge. And to the essence of the article. Who can name at least one honest politician?
          1. +3
            25 September 2024 16: 31
            Quote: Blacksmith 55
            Doppelzentner, that is, double centner

            I am more accustomed to operating with definitions Double grain in German gastés... wink wink P.S. I've never heard of a double centner either...
            1. +5
              25 September 2024 16: 52
              I am also familiar with Doppelkorn, :-)))), double distilled, but to be honest I prefer cognac. True, I drink if I have guests, if I am visiting... usually behind the wheel. I always joke, my wife doesn't have a license, she only has responsibilities.
      3. +2
        25 September 2024 21: 31
        I don’t remember that they collected so much, maybe somewhere in Kuban, but not in Orenburg.
        Absolutely right. In Orenburg in the 70s the average harvest was 18-20 c/ha. By the way, Peter, what region are you from, Sol-Iletsk?
        1. +1
          26 September 2024 07: 37
          Krasnogvardeisky. Pleshanovo.
          1. +2
            27 September 2024 15: 46
            Quote: Blacksmith 55
            Krasnogvardeisky. Pleshanovo.

            In the 90s they left? Many people left Russia then and the regional center went into decline. There used to be a picture. Hardworking people lived.
        2. +1
          27 September 2024 15: 43
          Quote: Aviator_
          Absolutely right. In Orenburg in the 70s the average harvest was 18-20 c/ha. By the way, Peter, what region are you from, Sol-Iletsk?

          In our Western zone, 15-20 centners was already good, one "Karl Marx" farm in good years gave 22, sometimes 24 centners per hectare. However, every year on November 7 in Orenburg, a "K-700" tractor would go to a demonstration, on which rested a huge loaf and hung a poster "Accept, Motherland, a million poods of Orenburg bread!" For some reason, under Soviet power, the grain delivered in reports from the rostrum was always measured in poods. Maybe the people were more accustomed to it that way? Wow, the grain was in poods... lol
          1. +1
            27 September 2024 17: 54
            The numbers in poods are bigger )))) So you are also from Krasnogvardeysky? I know Karl Marx, Lugovskoe, Podolsk.
            1. 0
              27 September 2024 20: 19
              Quote: Blacksmith 55
              So you are also from Krasnogvardeysky? I know Karl Marx, Lugovskoe, Podolsk.

              No, I'm from the Western zone of the region, "K. Marksa" in the village of Podkolki, there was a front there
              Luka Chepura - Hero of Socialist Labor for harvests, and in your region he was on duty a couple of times in the 90s, and then in the XNUMXs. Earth and sky with the Soviet power and democrats... lol
          2. 0
            27 September 2024 18: 58
            I was also surprised by this non-systemic unit of weight. But the figure looked grandiose in the newspaper "Southern Ural" - in my opinion, up to 180 million poods in the region in a good harvest year.
      4. MSN
        0
        3 October 2024 15: 21
        Why mislead people? According to FAO UN, Germany produced 22587300 tons of wheat from an area of ​​2980900 hectares. By simple arithmetic we get 7,577 tons of harvest per hectare. Or 75,8 c/ha.
    2. Des
      +5
      25 September 2024 14: 15
      There were downsides (for articles).
      But this is not beneficial for the site owners and the "authors" type.
    3. +5
      25 September 2024 15: 43
      Someone on this site already suggested putting a minus sign under the article. It's a pity that it's not there.

      It's a pity. The quality of many articles has long since hit rock bottom. Basing your conclusions on the yield in pre-war Germany and not knowing its weights is the "highest level" of the author's competence. belay
      For the author's information - even in different parts of Germany the centner was different: in Bavaria, for example, 56 kg; in Braunschweig - 46,77 kg; in Saxony - 51,4 kg. Now in Germany the average value of 50 kg is taken.
  3. +3
    25 September 2024 06: 12
    It turns out that the people wanted a revolution, but their rich burgers, through this "leader", were deceived into going to war?
  4. +1
    25 September 2024 06: 26
    I didn't like the article. The lack of living space for Germans was not expressed
    the width of potato fields in Germany and the width and depth of untold riches in Russia, which even before Hitler had caused the Anglo-Saxons a terrible itch of envy for several centuries. Well, then Hitler appeared and tried to implement what the Anglo-Saxons had long dreamed of, but were afraid to do. And Hitler was not afraid. But in the end, he did not succeed either...
    1. 0
      26 September 2024 19: 45
      It was not only the English who felt envious discomfort from the boundless Russian spaces and its untold riches. Even to Alexander II (during some official reception) the French envoy bluntly expressed himself something like this: doesn't Russia have a lot of excess territory, and wouldn't it be nice to share it with Europe? During the "civil war" of 1918-20, Europeans and overseas were not afraid to try to profit from Russian riches, but suffered a fiasco.
    2. 0
      27 September 2024 15: 57
      Quote: north 2
      The lack of living space for the Germans was not expressed
      the width of potato fields in Germany and the width and depth of untold riches in Russia, which even before Hitler had caused the Anglo-Saxons a terrible itch of envy for several centuries. Well, then Hitler appeared and tried to implement what the Anglo-Saxons had long dreamed of, but were afraid to do. And Hitler was not afraid. But in the end, he did not succeed either...

      Absolutely right, the author has muddied something in the article. Why did he add statistics on plowing and potatoes? There is an interesting book by Hermann Rauschning (former Gauleiter or Gebietskommissar, the devil knows what their positions are, of the city of Danzig), he was one of the Nazis close to the Fuhrer, then he changed his ways and published a book of table talks with Hitler: "The Beast from the Abyss. Thus Spoke Hitler". It is difficult to read, tedious, but here, so to speak, is the quintessence of the book: we are Aryans, we are the best, the great, and all the rest must be our slaves, especially the Slavs. There are a lot of them in the East, so we will conquer them, leave as many as necessary for work, so that we - the Aryans can eat sweetly and sleep soundly, and we will simply kill the rest, because they (the Slavs) breed like rabbits, there are many of them and they are not a pity.
  5. +8
    25 September 2024 06: 27
    If only they had caught Adolf himself in an unlit alley and killed him. And... And little would have changed. Germany was pregnant with Nazism as a result of the gang rape of it in Versailles by Western democracies. Well, maybe Nazism would have been more "romantic" and a little less cannibalistic if Goering had taken power. But Himmler, on the contrary, would have created a much more cannibalistic regime. Or Nazism would have become much more perverted if the pederast Röhm had come to power. But the vector would have been the same, to conquer living space, and with the same end.
    1. +3
      25 September 2024 07: 49
      Quote: Nagan
      Germany was pregnant with Nazism as a result of the gang rape at Versailles

      After Versailles, all of Germany was pregnant with revanchism. And Nazism was so-so, something secondary...
    2. 0
      29 September 2024 18: 04
      You can also remember Borman. That would definitely be harsh...
  6. +5
    25 September 2024 07: 38
    It would be difficult to further stain Hitler's karma, but the Author nevertheless tried, although unsuccessfully - black on black is hardly noticeable.

    In fact, Hitler reflected the mood of a large number of Germans, humiliated by the Versailles Peace and suffering from economic problems during the years of economic crisis, which was felt in Germany more strongly than in the victorious countries. Many demanded revenge - and this is what came of it.

    It is difficult to say what would have happened if Hitler had died suddenly - would another dictator have replaced him, and if so, which one. The German people showed amazing will, intelligence and determination, but they certainly could not conquer the whole world. It is also impossible to say what would have happened if Hitler had stopped after Munich and not gone to Poland. It is very possible that his system could not help but expand.

    There is no point in drawing parallels between the mood in Germany after its defeat in the First World War and the mood in Russia after its defeat in the Cold War.
  7. +4
    25 September 2024 07: 38
    Hence the conclusion that Germany could feed from its fields approximately twice as many people as lived in the country at that time. This, we note, with the agricultural technology of the 1920s!

    I think the conclusion is wrong - Germany during WWI, on whose territory the enemy had never set foot, experienced severe hunger already in 1915, survived the terrible turnip winter and lost 800 people from hunger. This was a consequence of the naval blockade of Germany.

    I think it is wrong to reduce the sufficiency of land supply to the sufficiency of grown potatoes and wheat for food: land is a source of income and there is never too much of it, you just have to manage it correctly.

    P.S. As for the lies, everyone lied...
    1. 0
      26 September 2024 10: 32
      I think the conclusion is wrong - Germany during WWI, on whose territory the enemy had never set foot, experienced severe hunger already in 1915, survived the terrible turnip winter and lost 800 people from hunger. This was a consequence of the naval blockade of Germany.
      - you don't take into account that the bulk in the army - peasants In all armies participating in WWI (it is problematic to pick up urban people from the machine tool) + full workload of railway transportation for the army...
      Therefore, there is nothing surprising about the famine in everyone, including Russia - absolutely without blockades.
      1. +1
        26 September 2024 10: 43
        Quote: your1970
        you don't take into account that the bulk of the army are peasants in all armies participating in WWI (it's problematic to pick up urban soldiers from the machine tool) + the army is fully loaded with railway transportation

        these are not the main reasons: there was no fertilizer, a decrease in crop yields, crop failures of potatoes and wheat, the cessation of grain imports from Russia, mass slaughter of cattle, a naval blockade
        https://topwar.ru/221860-brjukvennaja-zima-v-germanii-ob-odnoj-iz-glavnyh-prichin-goloda.html
        Quote: your1970
        Therefore, there is nothing surprising about the famine in everyone, including Russia - absolutely without blockades

        there was NO famine in Russia the only from the warring powers
        1. 0
          26 September 2024 13: 11
          these are not the main reasons: in any case, this is one of the main reasons and the crop failure for 4 years in a row is also because of this - women can plow, but such plowing will not be of high quality.

          Quote: Olgovich
          there was NO famine in Russia - the only one of the warring powers

          By 1917 it already was - due to a host of reasons, including poor logistics
          1. +1
            26 September 2024 13: 14
            Quote: your1970
            in any case, this is one of the main reasons and the crop failure for 4 years in a row is also because of this - women can plow, but such plowing will not be of high quality.

            read the article - almost everything is written there
            Quote: your1970
            By 1917 it already was - due to a host of reasons, including poor logistics

            there was no VOR
            1. 0
              26 September 2024 13: 34
              read the article - almost everything is written there basis all reasons - withdrawal of peasants' hands. Even if there were fertilizers - and no one to apply. The chain stretches - no hands - crop failure - slaughter of cattle due to lack of feed - lack of organic fertilizers - decrease in harvest. Naturally, this is compounded by a lack of oil from Russia and the blockade.

              Quote: Olgovich
              there was no VOR
              - by February it was already there.
              But that’s not even the point – the discussion was about the period until the end of the war, until 1918...
              1. 0
                26 September 2024 16: 54
                Quote: your1970
                The basis of all the reasons is the seizure of peasant hands.

                No, of course. None. critical There were no seizures of hands.

                Dependence of the food supply of the population on the import of products, as a result of the blockade in the First World War, Germany faced a food catastrophe
                State Secretary Hans-Joachim Riecke
                З
                Quote: your1970
                by February it was already there.

                was not.
                Quote: your1970
                But that’s not even the point – the discussion was about the period until the end of the war, until 1918...

                the discussion was about Russia, after VOR it is no longer Russia.
                1. 0
                  26 September 2024 21: 51
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  the discussion was about Russia belay , after VOR it’s not her anymore.
                  -Was Hitler in Russia?
                  Actually, the conversation was about Germany-
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  I think the conclusion is wrong - Germany WWI,
                  -Not?

                  Quote: Olgovich
                  State Secretary Hans-Joachim Riecke

                  and he also wrote:
                  "During the protracted war, supplies were reduced not only as a result of the blockade, but also at the expense of reduction of production agricultural products within the country. German agriculture needed labor and the means of production. The fertility of the land rapidly declined, and agricultural production came to a standstill."

                  I don't understand one thing - why are you disputing it? obvious - in all countries were confiscated farmers, dressed in uniform and sent to war. A lot of people were killed and wounded - the majority of men from 18 to 45 - the most productive age. The figures are different - but everywhere it is a level of several million (Germany - 7 million, France - 6, Russia - from 7 to 9, Britain - 3)
                  And these are just the losses - and a lot of people simply didn't work for 4 years but fought - consuming EVERYTHING and producing nothing
                  1. 0
                    27 September 2024 08: 50
                    Quote: your1970
                    -Not?

                    not:
                    Quote: your1970
                    including Russia

                    Quote: your1970
                    I don't understand one thing - why are you disputing the obvious?

                    something else is being disputed - your statement about the shortage as the basis of the basics - this did not happen
                    1. 0
                      27 September 2024 10: 09
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      something else is being disputed - your statement about the shortage as the basis of the basics - this did not happen

                      Let's cross out Russia - where, according to your theory, peasants were not confiscated, but soldiers were baked on a conveyor belt...

                      Let's take Germany, population 65 million -
                      at the same time, the share of mobilized men to the total number of men from 15 to 49 years old was 81%. And they still produce nothing - they need to be fed
                      I even gave you a quote from your source G. I. Rike - he repeats the same chain cause

                      In England, it’s the same thing - 50% of those mobilized out of the total number of men aged 15-49.
                      1. 0
                        27 September 2024 11: 15
                        Quote: your1970
                        where, according to your theory, peasants were not confiscated,

                        Where do you see this nonsense?
                        Quote: your1970
                        I even gave you a quote from your source G.I. Rike - he repeats the same chain of reasons

                        where is it?
                        read carefully:
                        During the protracted war, supplies were reduced not only by the blockade, but also by the decline in domestic agricultural production. German agriculture was in need of labor and means of production. Land fertility was rapidly declining, and agricultural production was dying out."
                        ONE of the reasons is from hands, among OTHERS, but not the basis.
                      2. 0
                        27 September 2024 11: 28
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        ONE of the reasons is from hands, among OTHERS, but not the basis.

                        Again
                        Quote: your1970
                        The chain stretches - no hands - crop failure - slaughter of livestock due to lack of feed - lack of organic fertilizers - reduction in yield. Naturally, this is compounded by a blow without oil from Russia and the blockade.

                        How would the fields be cultivated, in your opinion, if there was simply no one to plow them and simply no one to bring and apply fertilizers/manure? If there was no feed, the cattle were slaughtered; if there were no cattle, there was no manure in the fields; if there was no manure, the harvest was lower.

                        If Germany had mobilized all peasants - she would capitulate in 2-3 months, as soon as she ate the last horseradish.

                        And even in the source the sequence is:
                        First
                        Quote: your1970
                        German agriculture needed labor
                        hence
                        Quote: your1970
                        The fertility of the land was rapidly declining,
                        and from this already
                        Quote: your1970
                        agricultural production was dying out."
                      3. 0
                        27 September 2024 11: 42
                        Quote: your1970
                        The chain goes on - no hands - crop failure - slaughter of livestock due to lack of feed - lack of organic fertilizers - decline in yield.

                        no "chain: fertilizer-saltpeter", and further:
                        There were many prerequisites for such a plight in Kaiser's Germany. One of them is a decrease in yield due to the inability to purchase fertilizers. The warring country used its own saltpeter for the production of gunpowder.

                        In addition, the situation was aggravated by the policy of the authorities, who began to give the fields where sugar beets were grown to wheat, which led to an acute shortage of sugar. In addition, in order to curb hunger, most of the livestock was slaughtered in a short time, which in the future also led to an acute shortage of meat.

                        Finally, in 1916 there was a crop failure. Wheat was harvested only 11,2 million tons - that's 132 kg per year per German. Potatoes were harvested 25 million tons, which is half the norm.

                        However, the main reason that led Kaiser Germany to starvation was the declaration of war on the Russian Empire on August 1, 1914.

                        The thing is that before these events, Germany was the largest buyer of Russian grain on the European market. In 1913 alone, the country purchased 2 million 775 thousand tons of wheat. In general, Russian imports accounted for 20,4% of wheat and 86% of rye on the German market
                        topvar.



                        WHAT is not clear is not clear

                        for this hi
                      4. 0
                        27 September 2024 12: 05
                        Small farms - NOT Latifundists cannot buy imported fertilizers when there is manure. Free manure vs. expensive saltpeter - and in the Russian Empire it's the same.

                        No one denies the blockade and the lack of supplies to the Russian Empire - but if the German peasants had ALL been at home and not mobilized - there would not have been a severe famine.
                        81% of able-bodied men just ate and died - but in your theory it's just
                        Quote: Olgovich
                        ONE of the reasons is from hands, among OTHERS, but not the basis.

                        If you remove 81% of men from Moldova now, then even with open borders, you will have famine in a month.
                        As with us, by the way...
  8. +5
    25 September 2024 07: 45
    Germany's agriculture, compared to that of neighboring France or Britain, was backward, with many small and inefficient farms, and provided the country with only 80% of its basic food supplies. And in 1918, by the end of World War I, more than 700 people died of malnutrition in Germany. Incidentally, Germany is still not fully self-sufficient in food. I wonder where the Author got such data on abundance?
  9. +1
    25 September 2024 07: 51
    You are distorting things yourself. Hitler did not lie (though it is a subjective concept and everyone has their own) when speaking about the lack of land, he, how to say it more gently, proceeded from other scales. Everything depends on what a person needs. If only bread, then he lied, but if every day meat, fruit and caviar with lobsters, then he did not lie, well, the German land will not give this to everyone. He simply did not say that slaves are also needed in addition to the land. You say 36 in a village per sq. km? Is that a lot? That is 100 hectares, that is, what a pitiful 3 hectares per person.
  10. +3
    25 September 2024 08: 15
    We still have to understand how and why Ukrainians became enemies.

    American ears were sticking out behind all the Maidans.

    When the USSR collapsed, Ukraine became a separate state. But industrial and social ties tightly connected our countries with thousands of threads. The West needed a real break. And we can state that they achieved their goal.
  11. 0
    25 September 2024 08: 24
    The yield in Germany was quite high. For rye - 14,5 centners per hectare, for wheat - 18,8 centners per hectare and for potatoes - 134,1 centners per hectare. The harvest in 1927 was: rye - 6,8 million tons, wheat - 3,2 million tons, potatoes - 37,5 million tons.

    In 1982, in the Aktobe region, the yield was 7 centners per hectare. These are the records...
    One can only say one thing: it was Hitler's lies that raised the German people and made Germany the leading country in Europe...
    By the way, the USSR and Germany had common interests and Hitler’s lies did not bother Comrade Stalin...
  12. +1
    25 September 2024 08: 51
    As a result of the "defeat" in the Cold War, according to historian and researcher A.I. Fursov, up to 70% of market-valuable property in megalopolises and up to 80% in the regions belong to the former "Soviet" nomenklatura and their offspring. Do we, the ordinary, simple Russian working population, need to expand and deepen the processes of decommunization from the territory of Ukraine to the territory of Russia? And do we need a new "Russian" Hitler for this, who will "open" the eyes of this population to the fact that, along with their property, mineral resources and infrastructure, in the 90s and 2000s, their country and the future of their children were stolen? And will the ongoing Cold War and all future wars for the redistribution of market-valuable property, assets and capital, waged in favor of the existing, in our country, financial and commercial oligarchy, large owners and large shareholders, make this population richer? As one of the commentators on this article said: "Everyone is lying."
  13. BAI
    0
    25 September 2024 08: 55
    1.
    there was a land shortage in Germany

    There is never enough land. For everyone. Even for the cemetery.
    2.
    But it is difficult to see people among the fields, forests and lakes.

    What do lakes have to do with arable land?
    1. +2
      25 September 2024 16: 35
      Quote: BAI
      What do lakes have to do with arable land?

      Moisture accumulators for further irrigation of fields...
  14. +2
    25 September 2024 09: 00
    We still have to understand how and why Ukrainians became enemies.

    Is it still not clear? Although, if we take into account that Kashpirovsky is trending again, then this is quite understandable.
  15. +1
    25 September 2024 09: 11
    Quote: Luminman
    After Versailles, all of Germany was pregnant with revanchism. And Nazism was so-so, something secondary...


    No, it is unlikely to be just a side issue. Especially since Nazism has deep and earlier roots, and not only in Germany. It is characteristic that Nazi movements were also popular in countries that did not feel disadvantaged by the war. Be it Italy, the USA, or England...
    1. +2
      25 September 2024 15: 42
      Quote: Illanatol
      Nazi movements were also popular in countries that did not feel disadvantaged by the war. Even in Italy

      It was Italy that felt slighted.
    2. +2
      25 September 2024 16: 41
      Quote: Illanatol
      Moreover, Nazism has deep and earlier roots, and not only in Germany.

      You are confusing Nazism with ordinary nationalism. The phenomenon that is called Nazism, applicable only to Hitler's Germany...

      Quote: Illanatol
      It is characteristic that Nazi movements were popular in countries that did not feel disadvantaged by the war. Be it Italy, the USA, or England.

      In the countries you listed, Nazism as such did not exist, but fascism, or rather, a serious aspiration for it. And this movement in the 20-30s, against the background of the successful economic policy pursued by Mussolini in Italy, was very, very popular in many countries...
  16. +7
    25 September 2024 09: 19
    Once again the author is pulling an owl onto a globe and breaking into history through the back door.
    Let's start with the fact that the "theory of living space" - Lebensraum, was not created by Hitler at all. This concept was formulated at the end of the 1897th century by the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel in his books Politische Geographie (1901) and Der Lebensraum (XNUMX). From that moment on, the concept of Lebensraum (living space) was present in German politics regardless of who led this very Germany - the Kaiser, the President or the Fuhrer, and the war for "living space" was considered a necessary means of protecting Germany from cultural stagnation and racial degeneration.
    without war the inferior or decaying races would easily suppress the growth of the healthy, nascent elements of the German race

    Germany and the Next War. (1911) Friedrich Adam Julius von Bernhardi (Germany in the Next War, Friedrich von Bernhardi - Prussian general and historian).
    Therefore, when Hitler wrote about the disproportion between the population and the size of living space, including in the unpublished Zweites Buch, he did not intend to deceive anyone, and agriculture, figuratively speaking, was of no concern to him at all. According to Hitler, if there is a disproportion, the degeneration and decline of the people will occur. He elevates the struggle for sufficient living space to the central fundamental principle of human history. Moreover, for Hitler, this battle can only be waged by military means. Any non-military alternatives - birth control, emigration to reduce the population, increasing the production and export of food products - are rejected by Hitler.
  17. +2
    25 September 2024 11: 03
    In fact, Aloizych spent the "Swede Winter" in the trenches of WWI, so from his point of view he had every right to talk about how purely on internal resources in an unlucky year Germany would face a wild food shortage. Can you imagine if they introduced a tax on cats because they eat a lot of meat, and for some unknown reason banned the production of sausages and frankfurters, and this in Germany? He couldn't get his head around it either.
    (he might not have known that the production of sausages was banned because there weren't enough intestines to produce Zeppelins, which are based on intestines inflated with hydrogen).
  18. +2
    25 September 2024 13: 02
    One more populist point should be taken into account - Germany in WW1 was sitting on turnips and potatoes, and in the minds of many it was firmly imprinted that Germany could hardly cover its own needs in the event of a trade blockade or some sanctions, or could not cover them at all. One should also take into account the crop failure as such, which was quite possible in those years. As now, in general, a bad summer can undermine the whole year.
    But in general, I somehow roughly estimated - if Aloizych had used all the concrete and steel for hydroponics and greenhouses, all the coal and fuel for energy for them, and all the chemicals from which they cooked explosives for fertilizers - I mean everything that they spent on explosives 2, then the Germans would still be eating from those greenhouses like a king and there would still be some left over for beef cattle breeding.
    1. 0
      25 September 2024 18: 04
      all the coal and fuel for energy for them
      - then there wouldn’t be enough for fuel for agricultural machinery.
  19. 0
    25 September 2024 17: 56
    I don’t know about his speeches, but in his writings he addressed mainly not food, but living space as security.
    They say that the larger the country, the more resistant it is to wars, invasions and external enemies.
    Which directly resonates with modern times
    Also echoing the modern times is his and Goebbels' assertion that the "Zhi__komissars" are to blame for everything, that they allegedly killed the entire culture and nation, and he is saving Russia and the world from them, from communism, from the Reds, Stalinism, etc.
  20. 0
    26 September 2024 08: 03
    Quote: Luminman
    You are confusing Nazism with ordinary nationalism. The phenomenon called Nazism is applicable only to Hitler's Germany...


    No. It was precisely about Nazism as an ideology of racial superiority and the right to oppress and even exterminate "inferior races."
    Nazism is deeply rooted in European political culture. It is simply usually covered with fig leaves, but at critical moments it is exposed, showing the true essence of the West.

    Quote: Luminman
    In the countries you listed, there was no Nazism as such, there was fascism, or rather, a serious desire for it.


    A play on words. There is no fundamental difference between fascism and Nazism at all, at least in theory, and practice differed only due to the difference in the possibilities of implementation.
    Nazism as an ideology existed and continues to exist in all these countries, even if on the margins of political life. It is always ready to become the main trend if such a thing becomes desirable for the local real elite.
  21. 0
    26 September 2024 08: 14
    Quote: Knell Wardenheart
    But in general, I somehow roughly estimated - if Aloizych had used all the concrete and steel for hydroponics and greenhouses, all the coal and fuel for energy for them, and all the chemicals from which they cooked explosives for fertilizers - I mean everything that they spent on explosives 2, then the Germans would still be eating from those greenhouses like a king and there would still be some left over for beef cattle breeding.


    As if the diet of the common burghers was Hitler's top priority! Are you so naive as to take such demagogy seriously?
    Nazism is the highest stage of imperialism, so to speak, imperialism squared. And the imperialists are not only interested in sausage. They are interested in a wider range of resources: labor, raw materials, markets. And power, of course. And food... well, yes, workers and soldiers need to be supplied with provisions, but this is not the goal, but the means to an end.
  22. 0
    26 September 2024 08: 23
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    It was Italy that felt slighted.


    These are Mussolini's inventions. Like they didn't give Italy enough, considering its "grandiose" contribution to the victory of the Entente. laughing
    In fact, Italy had no objective reasons to feel slighted, given its real merits, especially military ones. The worst army, which was beaten by anyone who felt like it.
    Well, propaganda of resentment can be transmitted to anyone and at any time.
    In short, the macaroni makers did not and do not deserve anything better.
  23. 0
    26 September 2024 13: 05
    he is not the only leader who lies...to be careful, let's say)
  24. 0
    26 September 2024 17: 13
    Life is full of contradictions, we have excellent harvests, but bread is becoming more expensive, Hitler did not have enough land, we do not have enough people, migrants are coming, but the State Duma nevertheless passes a law on the adoption of Russian children by citizens of other countries. I don’t know, maybe inviting adults is more profitable than raising and raising children? I hope for the State Duma.
  25. 0
    26 September 2024 20: 09
    How to catch Hitler himself by the tongue? Those who want to catch Aloisych by the tongue, it is best to carefully read his "Mein Kampf". Of course, this is not so easy to do, since the book is actually banned in the Russian Federation, existing mainly in counterfeit electronic versions or in Russian-language Kharkov good book editions of the early 600s. And it is not so easy to master almost XNUMX pages of very contradictory and not entirely consistent material. But I managed to do this in my time (which I do not regret, although I spent a lot of time), which I advise everyone who wants to repeatedly "catch by the tongue" this great historical figure (certainly great, albeit with an emphatically negative sign). Yes
  26. +1
    26 September 2024 22: 32
    There is no secret about what the Ukrainians were caught in: the fierce envy and greed that have accompanied them for centuries. It is enough to correctly read their repeatedly voiced aspirations: Ukraine is Europe, visa-free and a sign to the West that their own are coming: hang the Muscovite. They, like the Balts, really wanted European living conditions, and the only way to pay, living off the wealth of the USSR as drones, was with Russophobia. And they didn’t have to do anything, it was enough to realize their homespun Ukrainian essence, which is different from the Russian one, and for clarity, grimacing, they also dressed up in embroidered shirts.
  27. +1
    27 September 2024 05: 22
    Quote: Illanatol
    There is no fundamental difference between fascism and Nazism at all, at least in terms of theory, and practice differed only due to differences in the possibilities of implementation.

    There is a difference. It's like a view of an elephant: from the front and from below. Nazism is about who "we" will live better at. Fascism is about who will be the main one "we" have. The words are different and they mean different things.
  28. 0
    27 September 2024 09: 26
    Quote: big_fun
    There is a difference. It's like a view of an elephant: from the front and from below. Nazism is about who "we" will live better at. Fascism is about who will be the main one "we" have. The words are different and they mean different things.


    There is no difference. One does not interfere with the other. And Nazism is about who is "the boss". "One Reich, one nation, one Fuhrer". And fascism is about whose life we ​​will live better at. Mussolini first opened his mitten to some African lands, then he began to dream about Greek ones, and then he sent his soldiers to the USSR, clearly laying claim to a piece of Soviet territory. Crimea is unlikely, but he would have definitely begged part of the Black Sea coast from Hitler in the event of ultimate success.

    The words are different - but the essence is the same. To provide the necessary motivation for the "biomass" to earn goodies for the elite with sweat and blood using high-sounding slogans.
  29. 0
    Today, 09: 10
    На счет украинцев, поподробнее!
    Мое неквалифицированное мнение, что со стороны украинцев/Украины основным мотивом была - ЗАВИСТЬ. И желание что-то поиметь от Запада, прикидываясь его друзьями и врагами России.
    При этом понятие Украины/украинцев - скорее географическое, а не этническое.
    Подавляющее большинство бывших украинцев, проживающее в РФ, являются ее гражданами и вполне патриотично.
    Да и отношение к украинским "корням" у нас очень толерантно/позитивное.