decisive battle debate

Quoted and bolded because this statement is pulled from your posterior.

You have no way of knowing the proportion, as you've not made a serious study, nor referred to any one such, but instead are playing your usual game of making stuff up, and passing it on as fact.

However, were it even so, your comment about distortion makes no sense at all in English in this context.

 

1)The middle class did not use trucks/tractors

2)The average German worker was better of in 1939 than in 1932

3)Saying that Germany was fascist is only making a laughing-stock

4) Wrong : the farmers that improved their lot vastly,could buy a truck (mostly they didn't),those that remained poor could not buy a truck : that's the reason why before the war,there were only 60000 tractors for 3 million farms .why should a farmer with 8 acres of ground (in a lot of cases spreaded over several villages,thus parts of 1/2 acres) need a truck/tractor?

 

Some one who does not know the difference between fascism and nazism should not lecture about the use of "distortion" .

 

The average German farmer wasn't.

Only the larger German farms vastly improved their lot, and they did buy tractors, trucks, farm machinery, etc. However, these larger farms were the lucky few.

Need? That has been explained to you several times over by many posters, do you really need another lesson? The "Need" was their, why else would German farm machinery purchases have risen 156% between 1933/34 & 1937/38.

Regretfully, you have confused "need" with "affordability." Considering that some 65% of the farms did not have running water, and very few farmers owned radios, on top of the fact that most German farmers could not afford new clothes. Most undoubtedly, the "need" was there, the "cash" wasn't.

 

1)He was : in 1932 the situation of the farmers was catastrophic,which explains why proportionally,they voted more for Hitler than the middle classes,etc

2)They used of-topic and wrong arguments ,as : a tractor could do more than a horse,or ,the production would be higher :there was no need for the German farmers to produce more,unless they could sell more

3)And the result was still :2 tractors on 100 farmers :In 1939,only 1 farmer on 6 had a machine to reap potatos.The average German farmer was working as his father,grand father,great grand father,he could not afford new technology,neither did he need it : on the small farms( the majority) ,tractors and trucks were not economical .

I have known a rich farmer who had no trucks/tractors,and a very poor one who worked with a tractor .

Using tractors,you can produce more,but this is irrelevant,unless you can sell more and earn more .What's the use of selling more,if you have to thrown away your extra production

 

That's because the farmer was suckered into believing in the Nazi promises, and when the promises failed to live up to their hype, the farmers began "voting" with the only way they had left...Their feet. The number of farm workers declined steadily in most of Germany from 1933-38...Brandenburg down 8.9%, Rhineland down 10.5%, Lower Saxony down 9.9%, East Prussia down 12.7%, Central German down 13.2%, Pomerania down 15%, Bavaria down 17.6%, Westphalia down 17.7%, Southwest German down 23.8 %, and Hesse 29.9%. Only in Silesia was there a miniscule gain of 2.5%.

Once the German industrial recovery gathered steam, the Nazis found it harder and harder to keep the "peasants" hardscrabble farming.

It's not about doing more or higher production...It's about doing what you have to do faster, thus one has more time to enjoy the fruits of of one's labor...Of course the hardscrabble farmers of Germany had precious few fruits to enjoy and no money to buy a tractor.

And, as I have shown, fewer and fewer "average" German farmers were working the farm that their great grandpappy worked...The grass really was greener in the urban areas.

"A" rich farmer who had no trucks/tractors, and "a" poor one with...Every bell curve has it's outliers. Can't say that my experience has been the same as yours.

Again, it's not about producing more...The horse/cow/oxen team are doing the same amount of work as the tractor...Plowing a field once...It's about doing it faster, and/or with less help. And this is exactly what we see in Germany in the late 30's, and vast jump in mechanization as labor costs increase and the manpower pool decreases.

 

Again ljad you have shown your vast ignorance by trying to insist there was no need for tractors. Why do you keep trying to imply a horse drawn wagon never breaks down, or that a horse is never hurt or sick or too tired to work. I have repeatedly asked if horses were so much better why did American farmers and the military drop horses as the primary means of transport???

 

1)No one has said that horses were better


2) Always referring to American situations is a wrong tactic,because the US agriculture was totally different from the European agriculture.


3)In most European countries,farmers did not need tractors,because tractors are only paying for big farms as in the US

 

You would like to think that, wouldn't you. But, you would be surprised at the answer.

Strike two...One more and "Yer out!"

 

Belgium :

1950: 215000 farms (average area:6 ha) 8000 tractors,187000 horsesne tractor for 23 horses ,one tractor for 25 farms


1980; 113000 farms (average area 13 ha) 114000 tractors,one tractor for one farm


Conclusion : there is a correlation between the size of the farms and the number of tractors .

Before the war,there were few or no tractors,because,most farmers could not afford one,because it was cheaper to hire a servant than to use a tractor,because most farmers did not need a tractor,and because a tractor was a big investment,the performance of which was less than uncertain:horses and manpower were sufficient .

And the situation in the other countries was not much different .

 

Correct conclusion: Some farms had tractors & horses. Some farms had neither. Some farmers were pretty poor.

Additional conclusion: Some farmers really sucked at farming, and got better money in the city, so they sold their farms, to those that were successful (and had tractors).

 

LJAD you keep insisting trucks never work or don't have fuel so thus you imply that horses are in fact better. You did state the German army and farmer would not be better off with trucks. So which is it, is the truck better or not. The problem with German transportation was the motor industry was stuck in building hand crafted vehicles for rich folk and did not pay any attention to mass production.

 

You are still falling in the trap that,because trucks were better than horses,the German farmers and the Ostheer would be better of with trucks;this is the same argument as saying that because smartphones are better than ordinary mobile phones,the inhabitants of Congo would be better of with smartphones .

From "Die technische Entwicklung und verbreitung des Traktors"


The reason for the enormous development of the tractor can be found in the specificity of the American landscape:the enormous country was sparsely populated and there was a shortage of workers .Machines were needed

This was not the case in Europe : in the European agriculture it was cheaper to let the work be done by workersthan by trucks/tractors

It is not because trucks were useful in the US and in Europe AFTER the war,that they were useful in Europe before and during the war .

there is NO proof that with more trucks,the German agriculture would have done better before the war ?

there is NO proof that with more trucks than it had in june 1941,the Ostheer would have done better than it did.

The conclusion is that the OP (the Ostheer needed more trucks) is wrong ..

 

There was no need for mass production : in 1939 there were in Germany 1.5 million passenger cars. Why so few? Because there was no demand for more cars.Why would people buy a car ? Did they need a car ?

 

No need? No demand?

We are talking about the same Germany, with the same Adolf Hitler, and the same Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, and the ever famous Volkswagen(people's car) that was designed to be mass produced cheaply...

Or am I thinking of another Nazi Germany?

Apparently there was a need...Apparently there was a demand...Apparently LJAd is talking about some other Nazi Germany.

 

i feel quite similarly Takao regarding mass production.
If you want to keep a large army supplied there is always going to be a demand for more and more weapons, and the only way you can get those weapons fast enough for your army quickly enough is by mass production. There was definitely a need and demand for mass production not just for vehicles, but weapons as well.

 

Given LJAd's tenacious ability to confuse cause with effect, as well as an astounding ability to reliably misread and misintrepret, is it any wonder?

 

The Volkswagen was something for the future.

We are talking about a Nazi Germany where there were 2 cars for 100 inhabitants,were there were 6 trucks for 1000 inhabitants :whichis a US with1.8 trucks and 6 millioncars :would anyone say that in such a US there was a demand for cars and that such a US was motorised ?

We are talking about a Germany where in 73% of the farms sowing was done manually,where in 85 % of the farms the potatos were reaped manually.where in 1938 87000 trucks were produced and 289000 passenger cars .We are talking about a Germany with 1.4 million horses and 60000 tractors .

If there was a demand for a lot of trucks,a lot of trucks would be produced,and there was no production of a lot of trucks .

 

Do you know why there was demand in America, because Ford made the car affordable for the average person. The average German could not afford a car. The same with trucks, trucks were not made affordable so there was not the demand.

 

Demand comes first and creates production : mass production implies mass demand.And there was no mass demand ,even for the Volkswagen : only 330000 persons had signed up for a Volkswagen (which was not cheap).There was no way before WWII to produce a car in Germany which would be that cheap that he would be affordable for the average German .This situation lated (not only in Germany but in the whole of Europe) til 1970.

Besides,why would the average German need a car before WWII? (even he could afford it)


It's the same for the average farmer,working on a small farm where the use of MT was not economical,in a lot of cases,he even did not own the land,a lot of farmers had even no horses.

The exemple of Ford is not a good one: there was an explosion of the production of cars in the US because times were good,while in Germany the memory on the crisis was still present and dominating eople were thinking twice before spending a pfennig,and they would think more than twice before spending 1000 RM for a car,the weekly income was 35 RM.