1407
It's always been true. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well, Germany was in an all-out war that was fought partially on their soil. It was very obvious to the Nazi leadership that there was a very real risk of losing that war.

That's not comparable at all to the wars the USA or Russia have fought in this century. Even in WW2 there was never any serious risk of anyone invading the USA.

The last time the USA has had a war on their territory that actually threatened the existance of the USA was, I guess, the civil war.

If it was about the existance of the USA, they'd also be spending a little more on the war effort.

(Just to make sure that nobody misunderstands me: Nazis are scum and as an Austrian I am really happy they lost the war. I was just talking about defence spending strategy.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Because there hasn't been any credible threat for decades.

    But now that Russia is back as an evil "superpower", defence spending is sharply rising in Europe.

    And so far there is no real indication that Russia will ever take the Ukraine let alone attack the EU/NATO. If Russia or China were to directly attack NATO, you'd see defense spending going up pretty sharply.

    But even now, nobody believes that Russia or China will dare to attack NATO in the near future. It probably will be limited to a proxy war (proxy for the NATO side) in the Ukraine and/or Taiwan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you don't plot defence spending against GDP but use absolute values it's higher now than ever: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

    Most of the fluctuations you can see in the GDP based graph are caused by GDP fluctuations, not by defence spending fluctuations.

    And since the US GDP rose much more than inflation, the military also got more actual value from that defence budget. From 1960 to 2021, the cumulative inflation in the USA is 815% (+100%, since the inflation only measures increase not the value that was originally there). In the same time the GDP rose to 4564%, so 5 times faster. So if you have the same % of GDP defence spending in 1960 as you have now, the military has 5x the budget, adjusted to inflation.

    China is in a similar boat, but much more extreme. China's defence spending vs GDP stayed pretty much on the same level since 1990. But in the same time their GDP rose from $361 billions to $17.7 trillions. Their GDP multiplied by a factor of 49 and so did their defence spending. Inflation over the same time was just 107% (again +100% to make our calculation correct). So adjusted for inflation, their military spending went up by a factor of 23.6.

    TLDR: Your measurement measures the wrong thing, so you get the illusion that spending goes down while it actually increases quite a lot.

    Still, the assertion that war expenditure trumps everything else in today's West is provably false.

    I never argued that. Though it's not hard to argue that government funds are precious and could be used elsewhere to better effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Of course, that is how satire works. If satire wouldn't use hyperbole, it would be called News (though some news also use a lot of hyperbole).

    One important difference between defence spending and all the other categories (social services, health, education and even GDP itself) is that defence spending is not a per-capita thing while the others are.

    A 2x increase of the population doesn't mean you need twice as many aircraft carriers.

    But a 2x increase of the population means you have twice as many workers who are increasing the GDP accordingly. You will also need twice as many doctors, hospitals and medicine. You will need social services and education for twice as many people too.

    Add to that the demographic shift which means you have much more old people who aproportionally more medical treatment and social services, which mean if you have the same spending you will have a far downgraded result.

    And the US private-first health system is famously inefficient, with costs of medication and treatments easily being 10x as expensive as in similarly developed countries. This ratio, btw, has been increasing over the last 100 years too.

    So what people see is sinking quality in all these sectors while the military is getting more and more money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's a good distinction. Even most anti-war people would probably do everything in their power to repel an existential threat on their soil, to say nothing of the cost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wonder what Ukraine's GDP spending percent is?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    For 2024 their draft budget allocates "over half" of the whole budget towardds defence spending (Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-plans-big-rise-defence-spending-2024-draft-budget-2023-09-15/), which corresponds to roughly 30% GDP.

    I am not sure whether military aid that they get for free is counted in that budget. If not, the total amount of money spent for Ukraine's defence will be a lot higher than the >50% from the budget or ~30% of the GDP.

    Also, take note that the GDP is usually (as also in the specific case of the Ukraine) reduced by a lot in case of a war on home soil. Major parts of the Ukrainian industry have been destroyed or occupied and plundered by Russia.

    So even if they wouldn't change their defence budget, lowering the GDP would increase defence spending as percentage of GDP.

    But obviously they did increase the defence spending, so both effects come together to push the percentage of GDP quite high.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Self-inflicted existential threat, but existential threat none the less.

    When the war went south for the Nazis, their leadership (driven by Hitler) became convinced that they were loosing because "the German people have become degenerated and weak" (not a direct quote, can't be bothered to dig through Nazi quotes). So they wanted to punish the people for that by going all-out in their war efforts. They sent children and ols people to die even though (or maybe even because) they knew they would lose regardless. They did use scorched earth tactics on their own land, leaving nothing behind, purpously so that their people would suffer.

    Even in the days before capitulation, when everyone knew that the Nazis where done, they sent even more people in to fight and die in that lost war.

    Tbh, I'm surprised they didn't spend more than 25% GDP on the war. Probably because nobody would lend them money at that stage and they have used up all their reserves by then.

    But lucky us Central Europeans that they mismanaged so much and where so bad at basic strategy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent