MovieChat Forums > The Man in the High Castle (2015) Discussion > Economic illiteracy: Germany would *not*...

Economic illiteracy: Germany would not be more advanced

posted 8 years ago by reality42
66 replies | jump to latest

I think the series is great as entertainment, but it is unfortunate that the writers seem to have a misguided notion of the likely outcome of Germany's authoritarian economic policies. It shows monorails in Berlin in a city that is implied to be prosperous and modern (monorails seem to be a common trope to indicate that) to a degree greater than US cities were in that year in the real world, more advanced high speed aircraft than we use today, and they talk about achieving goals like turning the Sahara desert green in ways we wouldn't realistically consider today (ignoring the debate over the propriety from an environmental perspective of doing so). The only area where the show suggests the real America developed more advanced technology by that year than the reich was the hydrogen bomb.

Some people who don't understand how economies function expected the former Soviet Union's centralized "command and control" system to be more prosperous and efficient than free markets, but of course reality proved otherwise. Free people have more incentive to create when they are working for their own benefit rather than that of an authoritarian state, whether the sort of attempted communism of the former USSR, or the sort of public-private partnership involved in the economic fascism of the National Socialist German Workers Party of the nazi reich. There is a misguided assumption that although the reich would infringe on personal freedom, that somehow a more command and control focused system would be able to more efficiently achieve goals.

It may be true that the ability to coercively direct resources towards 1 particular goal, e.g. a massive "build rocket planes" effort, might achieve that goal (since they keep throwing resources at it until they do), it would come at the expense of other aspects of the economy since governments aren't efficient. Historically private sector productivity improves over time, while governments tend to accumulate bloat. Economists and those who study organizational behavior see rational reasons for this due to differing incentives of the participants. Unfortunately studies show most of the public isn't economically illiterate, so it isn't surprising that writers might fall for the siren song of the "efficiency" of an authoritarian economic system under government control. Also, progress towards big goals tends to be sped up by progress elsewhere in the economy, which can suffer through centralized focus on particular narrow goals. For instance progress in computer technology sped up the development of advanced aircrafts.

The reich's extermination of its Jewish and other minority populations, and its many anti-intellectual attitudes where ideology was given priority over actual science, would have undermined their progress. There are always people interested in intellectual pursuits, even living within an authoritarian regime (there were intellectual advances in the USSR and China), but that sort of oppressive culture tends overall to inhibit the sort of experimentation and open minded thinking that is more likely to lead to progress (contrary to the portrayal of the more "free spirit" younger generation of Nicole et al that seem to be implying more experimentation even in the realm of personal freedom than seems likely to be tolerated in such a society, even among "elite" children). They might be paying lip service to that issue since they portray them as being behind where the actual US was in the development of a fusion bomb, unless they are merely viewing that as a minor historical accident rather than acknowledging a free society seems more likely to evolve science and technology faster overall.

[–] adamwarlock 8 years ago

The German came up with jet planes and other advances before anyone else but too late in the war to make a difference. With the victory, the Germans would have captured Allied & Soviet scientists to add to their own knowledge like what was done to German scientists after the war. An authoritarian gov't without a war to slow them down could make advances like super sonic planes. One wonders if we'll ever get a glimpse of life in Europe in this series as there may not be any rising middle class like there was post-war. Hitler had big plans for Berlin to be the world's capital and would want it to be impressive. In fact, he would have renamed it Germania.

I don't know how one could make a completely historically accurate what if story, do you?

if man is 5
then the devil is 6
if the devil is 6
then God is 7
and if God is 7...

[–] reality42 8 years ago

Scientists are creative people who are inspired by the work itself, but who still wouldn't necessarily do their best work for an authoritarian regime they don't believe in. There are sharp people that do good work in such regimes so there will be isolated bits of progress, however the assumption should be that just as the Soviet Union's economy collapsed despite such people, that the same would be true of other authoritarian regimes. It might have some rocket planes.. but not monorails and prosperous modern cities and the ability to green the Sahara. That is a an authoritarian delusion of those who think governments are magic and don't stop to think how they actually operate, or how economies work.

Just as the best science fiction stories rely on respecting currently known science (while perhaps trying to leverage loopholes in areas that aren't well understood), it should also respect the basics of things like economics. It is true that societies are complex and hard to predict, however there are certain basic assumptions that can be relied on, such as that human nature doesn't magically change in a way that makes an economy in an authoritarian regime more productive than a free market.

Some people who don't grasp economics think they can just command government to "do a great job and create a prosperous economy" and it'll happen, but that isn't true. The reasons it doesn't work are due to things like human nature and the issue of the "knowledge problem", that the collective knowledge of the distributed participants in a decentralized marketplace is greater than that of a central planning staff. Unfortunately such misunderstandings leads people to naively expect governments to "make the economy work" when usually they just get in the way.

Just as its a shame when science fiction is based on junk science (when it could respect real science), its a shame when its based on junk economics since they can't be bothered to actually talk to anyone who grasps the basics, or they ignore them.

[–] alex-mepari 8 years ago

I can't disagree with you more. Why are you trying to argue that the economy is somehow related to human nature ? If you talk about USSR and its economy, don't forget that US spent billion of dollars trying to destroy socialism. You can read Marx and then come back to this thread, and if you still think that pure capitalism is the way to go, look at the condition of US and where it is heading. Check inequality figures and how the chosen few (billionaires) sedate you with the false idea of - working hard and making something (new kind of propaganda).
In this sense, economic illiteracy just implies to you.

[–] gapete 8 years ago

alex, you are apparently so ass deep in the religion of communism it's no wonder your statement is about as stupid as I've ever read on these boards, and that's saying something. You think economy is not related to human nature? How is that possible when it's a human activity?

Pure capitalism? That's just pure *beep* To start with these "isms" were terms invented by the communists to make their weird religion work in their own minds. The real world doesn't work that way. Capitalism as defined by the guy who coined the term, Adam Smith, is the reinvestment of profits for expansion. It's not a system. It is not in competition with some *beep* religion which is all communism is. It is not an economy. The United States has a regulated market economy. There is no such thing as a capitalist economy unless you're dumb enough to put any credence in Marx, who has been repeatedly proven wrong, over and over again.

The US did NOT spend billions of dollars trying to "destroy socialism." LOL it would take someone who is totally indoctrinated in propaganda to come up with that. The cold war was an extension of the larger war that began in 1914 and would never have happened had Stalin not chosen to invade South Korea with his proxies. What the US did spend it's resources on was a policy called "containment" and they did this because they did not want to fight a nuclear war and had very good reasons to think the USSR was trying to expand it's empire. The main reason, the USSR said it was and backed it up with actions. No one, anywhere, ever tried or stated that there was any attempt to "destroy" socialism.

Wake up and join the real world.

[–] Milkyway123 8 years ago

gapete:
You're indoctrinated too, buddy! Sure, little ol' innocent US hasn't been behind countless state coups and creating conflicts all over the world. It's just so imaginable that they could be guilty of trying to "ruin x". Just recently Obama declassified some documents that revealed US' hand in Argentina's past bloody rule.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-most-lethal-cia-interventions-in-latin-america/5550400

All the way from Argentina to Iran. You laugh at these commies, while the rest of the world laughs at the typical brain-dead American that really buys in to his brainwashing government's lies - just as the people under the communist rule.

[–] dbryantvfx 8 years ago

Where did that come from? Take off the tin foiled hat buddy and go out get some sunshine.

[–] Fuzagi 8 years ago

Reality42 says

centralized "command and control" system to be more prosperous and efficient than free markets, but of course reality proved otherwise.

So your saying China's growth spurt & the fact that its the biggest economy in the world is just another film in a film within the High Castle?

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

China is the most most populous country in the world with four times the population of the US. This may have something to do it being the largest economy. Do note that they mostly abandoned central planning and control of the economy a generation ago. Also note that in spite of this, per capita GDP is not very high, China ranking about 80th in GDP (PPP) according to the World Bank.

[–] Fuzagi 8 years ago

I would not call it a success story even despite its current trajectory of breakneck competition but calling its central govt a failure would be an overstatement.

Also, counting PPP would mean the swisss moving towards, & not away from, centralist form would muddy the waters. On the same chart right next to dear old USA is the most authoritarian of all (Singapore) so much so that my boss at 'The Bank' refused to comply with their officials.

[–] Laserseightoclockdayone 8 years ago

Most accurate. avatar. EVER.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

If by "socialism" you mean the Soviet Union, then you might want to note that socialism worked so well that a country that has as much arable land as the United States had to import grain when Communist incompetence could not feed the people. Indeed, the standard of living amongst America's post-war poor has always been higher than all but the Soviet nomenklatura.

[–] AylaMM 8 years ago

Thanks to Lysenkoism. If they hadn't fallen for his scam, then things would've definitely turned out differently for the Soviet Union.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

Lysenko did not affect transport infrastructure or the inherent inefficiencies of collectivization.

[–] adamwarlock 8 years ago

Many Germans were secretly anti-Nazi and sandbagged projects but this is a world where the Nazis won and had no more opponents. That creates a different psychology. Knowing no one will rise for quite some time or never to defeat the Nazis would make scientists and engineers want to please the regime and accept their fate. I'm sure many professionals in Eastern Europe did so when they realized the Soviets were there to stay & the west would do nothing to save them.

Again, this is drama, not a lesson in science or economics. Doesn't traveling to alternate Earths via thinking make no sense scientifically?

if man is 5
then the devil is 6
if the devil is 6
then God is 7
and if God is 7...

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

Germany may have had a working jet engine a short time before the UK, but not by very much and by the time non-prototype jet-propelled aircraft entered production, British and American jet technology was well advanced over Germany's. The US and Britain had a significant lead in most areas of technology, including electronics and materials engineering. There's a myth of German technological superiority that doesn't survive close examination.

As for Germany doing a reverse Operation PAPERCLIP, the limitation isn't people, it's industrial resources. This is why the Soviet Union, in spite of all the German scientists they grabbed, remained well behind the West in just about every way. Germany couldn't even motorize it's entire armed forces and economy. That they could then equal or surpass the US with the drawbacks of Nazi government, with all its inherent flaws, stretches belief.

You can bet, by the way, that Germany would have neither the resources nor the will to mount an equivalent of the Marshall plan that rebuilt a Europe devastated by war. Rebuilding both Europe and America would have astretched even undamaged American resources.

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

Germany may have had a working jet engine a short time before the UK, but not by very much and by the time non-prototype jet-propelled aircraft entered production, British and American jet technology was well advanced over Germany's.

So what British and American jet technology superior to the Me 262 was in combat service on 19 April 1944, the date on which the first Me262 squadron went operational?

The fact is that the British jets saw very, very limited use during the war and the American ones never saw combat, so your assertion has little relation to reality.

Germany would have had a huge market you know--all of Europe, most of North America, presumably a large part of the Soviet Union. Perhaps they could have grown--they were not Communists you know--they didn't operate a command economy.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

So what British and American jet technology superior to the Me 262 was in combat service on 19 April 1944,

That would be the Rolls Royce Welland engine. It had a bit less thrust than the JUMO 004, but lasted nine times longer (180 hours) between overhauls than the 10-20 hours of the JUMO. That remained the Germans' main jet engine while the Welland was replaced by the Derwent starting in August 1944 which exceeded the German engine's thrust while remaining much more reliable. American engines came a few months later, but were even more powerful than the British. The Germans didn't have the depth of engineering and industrial capacity to compete and the JUMO 004 and less powerful BMW 003 were not replaced by better engines.

The fact is that the British jets saw very, very limited use during the war

Allied jet fighters did not operate over Axis controlled territory in order to keep Allied jet technology out of Nazi hands. As it turned out, they didn't need them to destroy the Luftwaffe in spite of the Me-262.

Note too that Germany rushed new technologies into service because of desperation. A winning Germany wouldn't have bothered with many of the so called Wunderwaffen like jets and rockets if conventionally equipped forces were beating their enemies..

they were not Communists you know--they didn't operate a command economy.

That's not quite correct. At anything above the corner shop level, the government had control.and used it, even to the point of having Soviet-style Five Year Plans. The big difference is that what would be design bureaus in the USSR were privately-owned businesses in the Germany with probably even worse cronyism and corruption as the Communists had.

[–] themacturner 8 years ago

Brits used a captured German scientist to make jets. Watch the new UK series Close To The Enemy. It's the true story of how UK got jets.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

Watch the new UK series Close To The Enemy. It's the true story of how UK got jets.

That appears to be a piece of fiction about post-war Britain - meaning a time well after the UK had developed its own jet engines and aircraft.

[–] themacturner 8 years ago

You maybe be right. I got it in my service as docudrama. Regardless. The English were way behind Germany in regards to jet technology. They even wanted to use STRAIGHT wings. Are you a pilot? My old company's L-39 was modified to cruise at 545 mph. In a dive it would hit trans-sonic. VERY unstable. The ME-262 and the Komet had SWEPT wings. They had already figured out swept wings in the late 30's.
I talked to Chuck Yeager about this very topic. He doesn't have an answer why we didn't have swept wings sooner. He's really cool, and approachable. Amazing he's still alive. Hit him up on Twitter... Yeah, I know. He tweets a lot. Very much a right wing guy.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

In fact, British jet engines were much better than the German's - more powerful and much longer lasting. It's no coincidence that the Soviets copied British designs and not the German ones right after the war. As for swept wings, sweep per se is not especially useful. unless its been properly tested and calculated. The Me-2+62 had them in order to better deploy the undercarriage. Aerodynamically, the sweep on those wings was not very helpful.

[–] themacturner 8 years ago

If you think swept wings are helpful, fly a jet with straight wings, and dive to hit tran-sonic. Your jet will shake uncontrollably. Swept wings are important, to maintain control at high speeds. The only benefit to straight wings, is they need less speed to maintain lift. German jet engines had their flaws, but most first gen tech does. They were FIRST. Not the lame ass UK. They would of lost without our help, and Hitler invading Russia. If Hitler just stayed to attacking Europe, he would of won. England would be gone.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

If you think swept wings are helpful, fly a jet with straight wings, and dive to hit tran-sonic. Your jet will shake uncontrollably.

I assume you meant to write "not helpful". Read my post carefully. Properly calculated sweep is helpful. Not properly calculated sweep is not, though. The sweep on the Me-262 had not been designed with trans-sonic performance in mind and did not significantly aid the aerodynamics of that aircraft. Note that the top speed of the Schwalbe is about the same as the cruise speed of your L-39. Also note that there are reasons why trainer and lead-in-fighter jets like the L-39 have straight wings.

German jet engines had their flaws, but most first gen tech does.

Yet British engines, just as first generation as the German ones and developed quite independently, didn't have those flaws.

They were FIRST. Not the lame ass UK.

Not that being first by a few months helped much and, as I've noted, British first gen engines were better.

If Hitler just stayed to attacking Europe, he would of won. England would be gone.

All Hitler had to do was get air and naval superiority over the British Empire. Seeing as Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to do that, there's no realistic way for then to beat the British Empire.

What American aid did do was permit the UK and USSR to take the offensive and reduce casualties, particularly non-combat related civilian casualties.

[–] adamwarlock 8 years ago

True but this series has an entirely different war that happened where Germany had things go their way all the time. Post-war there are no competitors. Germany was hardly damaged and now has control of the resources of Europe, Africa and the US and can trade with Japan for Asia/Pacific resources. 15 years of peace and there would be development. The US looks like it's not prosperous, could be that Hitler keeps the defeated nations poor while Germany is now the richest nation.

How would a defeated US or UK or Russia out do Germany economically?

if man is 5
then the devil is 6
if the devil is 6
then God is 7
and if God is 7...

[–] lynxx55 8 years ago

It may be true that the ability to coercively direct resources towards 1 particular goal, e.g. a massive "build rocket planes" effort, might achieve that goal (since they keep throwing resources at it until they do), it would come at the expense of other aspects of the economy...

Not necessarily. Consider the US' space program -- after the moon flights our civilian sector benefited mightily from spin-off applications of telemetry, micro miniaturization, pyroceramics, and integrated circuits.

[–] greyhelm-91337 8 years ago

Keep in mind the great advances in American science like nukes, were made by German scientists who came here.

[–] gapete 8 years ago

The single most important man in the bomb project was Enrico Fermi and he was not German. He was an Italian. The bomb was made possible by mostly American engineers. You're thinking of the rocket program but, even then, Braun's people were not the only ones working on it. There were people like Goddard who were every bit as crucial as he was.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

Keep in mind the great advances in American science like nukes, were made by German scientists who came here.

And most of them left Germany to avoid being murdered in Nazi death camps. They wouldn't be kept alive if the Nazis won.

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

Keep in mind the great advances in American science like nukes, were made by German scientists who came here.

Sorry, but while there were some Germans working on the Manhattan Project the "great advances" came from a lot of hard work by American scientists and technicians.

[–] krypton_son 8 years ago

The Germans increased their production and economy by leaps and bounds once the Nazis were in power. Despite all of the atrocities that Hitler committed, he did improve Germany's standing economically. Production facilities, commerce, infrastructure, health care, all were boosted tremendously under the Nazis. Not to mention that Germany is known for it's engineering accomplishments. Some of the best cars, planes, and technology have been created by Germans. It's really not that hard to imagine Germany being the world leader in almost everything if they had won.

--------------------------------
dies ist meine unterschrift

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

And yet their army was mostly horse-drawn and the Western Allies were ahead in just about every major industrial and technological field. Incidentally, a traditional feature of German technology is the intricacy of German engineering, dependent of skilled craftsmen. American technology of the time was designed for simplicity and mass production by semi-skilled assembly-line workers.

[–] krypton_son 8 years ago

And yet their army was mostly horse-drawn

Lol, what?? I'm sorry, what history books have you been reading. They were pretty state of the art for the day. German tanks and airforce technologically were superior to most armies. A horse-drawn army didn't almost take over the world.

--------------------------------
dies ist meine unterschrift

[–] rachaelov 8 years ago

I'm afraid you're wrong. The Germans had amazing tanks and such, but most of the army in Europe was horse drawn - upto 80%.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/germanhorse/index.html

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

Lol, what?? I'm sorry, what history books have you been reading. They were pretty state of the art for the day. German tanks and airforce technologically were superior to most armies. A horse-drawn army didn't almost take over the world.

Tanks don't pull things or transport stuff. The Germans used horses for that. Yeah, they had trucks and half-tracks but they didn't have nearly enough production to meet operational requirements, so they used horses to make up the extra.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

Books describing the equipment and orders of battle of the German Army and Waffen SS. The only fully motorized formations in those forces were the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier ones. They were quite outnumbered by regular infantry units that included a great deal of horse transport. The Red Army was much the same.

http://mapswar2.x10host.com/German_infantry_division.html#_and_vehicles

In 1939, the ONLY fully motorized army in the world was the British Army. This was because it was relatively small compared to the continental armies, from a nation with the world's second largest automotive industry at the time, and had lost their main supplier of horses, Ireland.

[–] FateTheMagnificent 8 years ago

...or the sort of public-private partnership involved in the economic fascism of the National Socialist German Workers Party of the nazi reich.

You do realize that most of the greatest economic growth in the US was due almost exclusively to joint public-private "partnership", right? Direct government funding of projects such as the transcontinental RR, interstate highways and airports, the Homestead Act that opened up the West, government appropriation of lands for mining and logging, virtually unrestricted water rights for manufacturing, massive government spending on wars that led to the hyper growth seen after WW II, government “loans” to create businesses like Tesla, and never ending bailouts and tax abatements are essential to the American success story.

There has never been any country that could be considered an example of free enterprise, least of all the US.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

That's not the type of public-private partnerships the Nazis had. What they had a a dirigiste economy where the government gave orders and allocated resources to ostensibly private industry - companies that were required to have Party representatives on their boards to ensure compliance.

[–] reality42 8 years ago

Someone already noted that these examples are vastly different than the entangled public-private approach of economic fascism (which is a variant of socialism where the government controls the economy even if it technically doesn't own things as in the usual socialist approach).

Anyone who thinks massive spending on wars led to "hyper growth seen after WWII" needs to learn the basics of economics. Wars inhibited private economic growth and steered resources to production facilities for weapons rather than private goods. The private economy was derailed by the war effort to produce products for war, and afterwards it was freed up to grow when funds and resources like labor weren't being soaked up by the war effort and there was pent up demand to get back on track after sacrifices during war time. The economy would have likely been larger had the war not happened.

There is no need for the airports to be publicly operated, that is crony capitalism. Other countries with privatized air traffic control do a better job than our government. Private railroads existed and did better than most which were crony capitalist enterprises taking government handouts. Merely because people were able to scam the government for money doesn't mean it was necessary.

Government loans to create businesses like Tesla are a needless scam, governments make poor venture capitalists and steer resources to the most politically connected enterprises rather than those most likely to succeed.

Government appropriation of land for mining and logging is also a crony capitalist cam where those who were politically connected were artificially helped for no good reason compared to their competitors. Contrary to those who don't know much about business&economics, businesses an figure out how to create things without governments help, and the interference tends to harm the process. Rather than sustainable logging by companies that will profit from keeping up land value, logging on government land leads to less concern for sustainability.

The interstate highways were arguably appropriate infrastructure, the minimal framework the government is viewed as being appropriate to provide and in part viewed as necessary for the defense department's use. However even those are questionably more driven by pork and political games than rational decision making.

The vast majority of the US economy has always been the free market, despite growing political involvement (which has correlated with lower rates of growth) with the poorest performance in parts of it with the most government involvement (vs. the best in those areas with the least government interference like computers, consumer electronics and the internet).

[–] FateTheMagnificent 8 years ago

Anyone who thinks massive spending on wars led to "hyper growth seen after WWII" needs to learn the basics of economics. Wars inhibited private economic growth and steered resources to production facilities for weapons rather than private goods.

You're lecturing on economics and you don’t even understand what constitutes an economy. Who do you think built all of the armaments in the US during WWII? Almost every dime spent on armaments was sent to private industry which led to a massive growth in the nations GDP and employment. And all of those private industries ended up with massive war chests of cash that enabled them to address the massive consumer spending that followed as GIs could now spend the money they earned overseas, and also used the GI bill to finance their own consumer spending. US corporations also flourished as they were enlisted to rebuild the rest of the world.

Obviously, you’re the one that doesn’t understand economics. Any money added to an economy leads to economic growth as the money travels through different layers of the economy. And WWII allowed the government to spend money with little, if any restraint. To a lesser degree, Reagan used the same methods during his 8 years as he put money into the economy by cutting taxes and increasing federal spending while adding massive amounts to the national debt.

[–] michaelfreed924 8 years ago

Was the fictional Reich shown in this series advanced because the Nazis were inherently more advanced than the Allies? No. The version of Nazi Germany shown is advanced because a) it's set 20 years after the start of World War II, b) conquering the Allied powers and the Soviet Union would have given them access to all the technology in the world, and c) many of the "advancements" you see were far were technologies that were definitely "around" in the early 1960's.

Monorails? Check. That's not much of a leap forward.
Supersonic airplanes? Yep. The sound barrier was broken in 1947, and by the 1950's, supersonic aircraft were common. Development of supersonic airliners was well underway by the early 1960's as well (the Concorde first flew in 1969).

Nazi Germany's "advantage," if you will, would have been in sinking sizable government resources into new technologies without regard to whether they were commercially viable or not. And they'd have to - they'd need "showcase" technologies to keep people convinced that the regime was effective. The illusion of progress was essential.

So, yeah, I buy that they'd have *looked* advanced. Now, the question is how the people living under the rule would have seen that, and we frankly haven't seen much of how the average folks live.

[–] reality42 8 years ago

re: "it's set 20 years after the start of World War II"

I was comparing them to the US in the early 60s. In 1950 for instance only 9% of American households had TVs, but by 1960 it was 90%. TVs were portrayed as ubiquitous in this culture also, despite the extended war that demolished DC and presumably had an impact on the US economy. The dorm for single women wasn't implied to be anything out of the ordinary, even if she did atypically get a room to herself. It seemed to be at a fairly American level of development, with TV and vacuum cleaner, etc. The apartment Joe Blake was in also seemed to be implied to be an ordinary working class level of accommodation, with TV, etc. This wasn't portrayed as the way an authoritarian culture likely would leave folks by the early 60s, more akin to where the USSR and East Germany actually were in the real world. East Germany in the 60s would have been a more appropriate example to give.

The point about monorails wasn't that the technology was necessarily advanced for those from the perspective of those who grasp technology. I didn't state monorails were a big leap forward, I cited them as a typical "trope" commonly used in TV and movies to imply a modern prosperous city. They were portrayed as a society already ready and able to take on greening the Sahara. The implication seemed to be all through this that the German economic system worked well, when that isn't likely to be the reality of an authoritarian culture, especially one that would have needed to expend resources subduing and occupying hostile territory over a large chunk of the globe where resistance wouldn't have died out quickly and easily.

Supersonic aircraft may have existed (though your reference to them being common in the 1950s is in our world where we weren't taken over), but rocket planes going coast to coast are *still* not prevalent in the US, whereas the implication was it was the standard form of air travel in their society. It seemed clear the obvious implication being made was that this was a society more advanced in certain ways than the real US was in that year, or at a minimum at a comparable level of development, with the 1 exception being the hydrogen bomb.

[–] marcvangilst-71677 8 years ago

I would be careful with the term illiteracy, as you have failed to appreciate a few things. First of all, Hitler and Germany invested heavily in basic research and this allowed Germany to become far more advanced than any nation at the time, in fact, this is why this small little country almost took over all of Europe. Germans were responsible for rockets, jet engines, new tank technologies, early computer technologies, and more. The US developed the atomic bomb, but all of the basic research demonstrating that it was possible and suggesting how to do it was done in Germany. The US benefited tremendously from the German's scientific expertise. We imported over 1300 Nazi scientists, excused them of their links to Hitler, and used them to start our own rocket program and jet program. Much of this technology came with these scientists, and a good chunk of our technology came from England in the deal in which we supported them (in fact the atomic bomb designs were originally conceived in England). I think it is safe to say, that if Hitler were peaceful, that Germany would have been technologically superior to everyone else in many ways. In response to Germany's demonstrated scientific progress, the US and Britain also started heavy government investment in science and this enabled us to catch up and overtake Germany. We continued this heavy government investment in science after the war in the development of a space program and other scientific endeavors and this made us the most powerful country in the world. Government support of science moves it forward much faster than the free market. The reason for this is that scientific discoveries often come unexpectedly from unexpected places. If all research were only profit motivated, the types of scientific advances would be limited and there would not be nearly as much room for creativity. No one would have expected the original experiments that split the atom to uncover what they did, no one would have invested in it. But Germany recognized the importance of government support of basic research and this is why they made the discoveries. It took 300 years to go from the discovery of electricity to the light bulb. There was no obvious economic profit to be made from electricity at first, so people just experimented on their own dime, this resulted in a 300 year gap. Additionally, some advances take too much investement and too long to pay off to be market driven. The deployment of the first profit based satellites just started a couple years ago, that was after trillions of dollars and 70 years of government funded research into rocket and satellite technology. No private corporation has that kind of time or money. The manhattan project is another example, no private corporation would have been able to supports such an investment. Today, with our government research programs intact, it would take no time to go from discovery of electricity to the light bulb. That is because everybody would realize that, even if there weren't obvious economic applications, that it was an INTERESTING scientific question. This works because our government recognizes that scientific discoveries cannot all be profit motivated and there is value in knowledge, even if it is immediately profitable. So, in summary, the notion that government supported research is somehow inferior to market based scientific research is somewhat inaccurate. What capitalism is best at, is taking basic research and bringing it to marketable applications. The system the US has in place right now is optimal and has been since WW2.

[–] vpatania 8 years ago

The US developed the atomic bomb, but all of the basic research demonstrating that it was possible and suggesting how to do it was done in Germany.

That's a bit of an over-statement. German Otto Hahn may have discovered fission in 1938. But, all the other work - scientific research and engineering research and development was done in the States. Hahn's discovery of fission didn't "prove" that a bomb - a practical, deliverable weapon - based on that process was possible. German expatriate scientists like Bethe and Periels did participate in the Manhattan Project and contributed in important ways - as did Italians (eg Fermi)- and Hungarians (eg Wigner). And, native borne citizens too (eg Lawrence). The German contingent (vetted by the UK) also provided the biggest security penetration of the project in the form of Klaus Fuchs (a Soviet spy).

On a larger point...

Ironically, Germany's early success on the battlefield had nothing to do with the technologies that would be deployed later - like jets and rockets and more fearsome tanks like the Tiger and Panther. That early success was such that for a critical year some projects were starved for technicians and engineers as they were called up for Operation Barbarossa. The Reich would later reverse that decision as the UK and USSR stubbornly hung on and the spectre of a two front war including the US loomed. The surviving engineers and technicians were recalled but a critical year had been lost. And , the newly staffed up projects were now competing with a huge field of competing interests and official support.

Indeed, by the time that many of the groundbreaking technologies were being deployed, Germany's fate was already sealed. And, ironically, as the Reich sought a silver bullet in balky jet fighters, bigger but fewer and less reliable tanks, impressive rockets that really only succeeded in killing civilians in London and Brussels, and an atomic program that was never in danger of building a self sustaining chain reaction much less deploy a practical nuclear weapon - that fruitless search starved other efforts and programs that might've bought Germany some time and space to end the war in a less catastrophic manner.

[–] reality42 8 years ago

As I posted above, East Germany and the USSR in the early 60s would have been far more likely models for the state of a nazi reich in the 60s. There were many sharp people in the USSR.. that didn't stop their economy from being a mess. Authoritarian central planning doesn't work as well as those with fantasies of its viability think. Read economists like nobel laureates Milton Friedman and Frederic Hayek to learn more about the "knowledge problem" inherent in central planning, and learn more about the difference in incentives even in private research.

re: 'Today, with our government research programs intact, it would take no time to go from"

I've worked for a NASA (and DARPA and AF Space Division) aerospace contractor on leading edge AI technology (many years ago). I've worked for Apple and other private companies. Your faith in government&and its contractors is seriously misplaced, private efforts are far more productive. Competition works, monopolies don't work well despite wishful thinking. Yes, people in the technology world tend to be motivated by the research, but they still are humans who also do their best work for projects they believe in or profit form, vs. authoritarian regimes they are sharp enough to be skeptical of.

Politically driven research funding tends to not be driven by merit as much as private sector funding, despite fantasies of all knowing bureaucrats who know what to invest in and never make mistakes. Research involves dead end paths and experimentation, which works best when driven by multiple competing entities who tend to explore different paths than a centralized planner.

Many people are fooled by the simplistic siren song of government research, and misleading images of its efficiency and utility. For an economic perspective, I don't have time to delve into it now but see e.g. the work of Terence Kealy's work on private vs. government funding of science.

[–] Fuzagi 8 years ago

East Germany and the USSR in the early 60s would have been far more likely models for the state of a nazi reich in the 60s. There were many sharp people in the USSR.. that didn't stop their economy from being a mess. Authoritarian central planning doesn't work as well as those with fantasies of its viability think. Read economists like nobel laureates Milton Friedman and Frederic Hayek to learn more about the "knowledge problem" inherent in central planning

So basically China's growth over the last thirty years is what not authoritarian. The World Bank predicts it to be the biggest economy in the world by 2030s.

Many people are fooled by the simplistic siren song of government research, and misleading images of its efficiency and utility. For an economic perspective, I don't have time to delve into it now but see e.g. the work of Terence Kealy's work on private vs. government funding of science.

Yes, Kealy wrote a *beep* book because he works for the only non-public higher education facility in England. Its still a irrelevant book with a two-star rating.

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

First of all, Hitler and Germany invested heavily in basic research and this allowed Germany to become far more advanced than any nation at the time, in fact, this is why this small little country almost took over all of Europe. Germans were responsible for rockets, jet engines,

While they developed jet engines, so did the British.

new tank technologies

The Germans never had a tank that was a match for the T-34. They had some that were bigger and some that were faster but none that worked nearly as well all-round. Sorry but if you're looking for new tank technologies, that would be Russia.

early computer technologies

If the Germans had actually had decent computers they might have been reading the US and British codes instead of the other way around. While the Germans were encoding using gears and wheels, the Brits were throwing CPU cycles at them and knocking them right down.

Yes, a German did make a start on computer development but it never really went anywhere and wasn't particularly influential.

and more. The US developed the atomic bomb, but all of the basic research demonstrating that it was possible and suggesting how to do it was done in Germany.

Yeah, the Germans discovered Plutonium--that would be news to Seaborg. The Germans discovered the chain reaction. That would be news to Szilard. Fission was the only piece the Germans got and they got it mostly due to Lise Meitner, who had moved to Sweden by then.

But making the bomb took a tremendous lot more than that, and all of that tremendous lot was done at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos and a few other places in the US.

[–] A-Pioneer-Without-A-Frontier 8 years ago

marcvangilst-71677: Very informative and spot on!

[–] tawnyleona 8 years ago

In the original novel, things were sacrificed for the advances in other areas. For example, television is almost non-existent and a television station isn't projected for New York until 1970, while Germany broadcasts 4 hours a day.

[–] themacturner 8 years ago

TV existed before the war though. That makes no sense. Philo Farnsworth (inventor of tv) was working on a flat 2K tv back in the 60's. No idea how far he got with it, but that was his idea. It may of been way too expensive and impractical. But he talked about it on tv shows.

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

TV existed before the war though. That makes no sense.

Something "existing" and something being in widespread use as a consumer product are two different things.

[–] themacturner 8 years ago

No. The reason that TV wasn't widespread was because of WWII. When WWII hit, England made it illegal to produce tvs for some reason. I think it was the war effort. BUT, RCA was RTG as soon as the war ended. The tech was already cheap. That's what Philo Farnsworth was going for. He was just a 14 year old farmer, not a real scientist. TV already existed, but was mechanical. Too expensive and impractical. He thought of his rows of corn. How that created a type of picture. Then decided to apply that idea to electronic tv. So, there you have it. His story is quite interesting. TV would of been everywhere in the 40's, had it not been for the war.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

The creators of this work need to handwave the historical economic and industrial realities in order to tell the story and explore the themes that they want to tell and explore.

This requires that the audience can willingly suspend disbelief in order to appreciate The critical success and ratings of this show seem to indicate that most viewers can do this. It's a bit like accepting the premise of the 1980's version of Red Dawn.

[–] johntatem62 8 years ago

Its been years since I read the novel so my recollection may be off-
When the novel was published in 1962 the Japanese economic and technological miracle that reached its peak ( relative to the rest of the world) around 1990 was in its early stages while the economic inefficiencies of Third Reich was not widely understood and the overall weaknesses of planned economies was not yet accepted dogma. Again my memory may be off but in the novel I think the Japanese were even further behind the Germans in technology and were presented in a somewhat condescending exotic Oriental way. I think the series did a nice job of balancing the difference between the novels extrapolation of the present (1962) and our vision of the same period from the vantage point of over 50 years.

Economic illiteracy: Germany would *not* be more advanced

Economic illiteracy: Germany would not be more advanced