What makes the Germans so successful?

[fred41]

I love this site...I've learned more about the Middle East from guys like Stavros than anywhere else...now if only Trish would come back from the 4th. dimension and fulfill my science needs...

[broncofan]

Sometimes somethings are in a nations blood literally the Germans were seen as Barbarians by the once almighty Romans yet the might of Rome fell partly by its own hand but partly by the Barbarians hand when the last Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic (barbarian) chieftain.

These weren't really the unthinking savages that the Romans presumed then to be, they were smart and tactical and able to beat the larger better equipped army and guess what one day it took two wars and the might of the rest of the world to beat the Barbarian descendants, then America was straight in their pocketing all of their scientists and thinkers, then through all that adversity and the splitting up of its country its managed to put itself back together and become a powerhouse once again now is that all coincidence or are their certain traits in that societies gene pool that allow its Alphas and compliant Betas to think and follow their way out of adversity????

I do not think that surmising certain advantageous character traits can be bred into societies is far fetched when you consider that is exactly what goes on in selective animal breeding programmes be it dogs or sheep.

Education plays a big part in things but so can an innate ability.

And yes on all counts I was complimenting the modern day German.

This is what I was concerned about. I think that a discussion about the economic situation of a country becomes less cerebral when it turns into a recitation of that country's stereotypes. Besides being somewhat offensive, it is methodologically unsound. Even if you could demonstrate that Germans possessed these characteristics, it would be difficult to show that these traits are responsible for their economic success and not some tangible decision, or fiscal policy.

Germans certainly are not barbarians, and I have nothing but respect for the accomplishments of modern day Germany. However I am a bit turned off by the suggestion they are a superior breed. If they deserve credit for what they've done then perhaps it's because they've made choices to do it and not because it's imbued in their genes or blood.

[broncofan]

Joeninety,
I see that in my previous post I sort of take a two pronged approach. On the one hand, I say that I think it's slightly offensive to imply some groups are more gifted than others and on the other I say it's unprovable. Let me settle and say, if it were provable or potentially insightful, it would not bother me what implications the ideas had.

I read an interesting book about the various tribes that make up the German people quite a while back. It analyzed the ethnic and tribal extraction of the Germans and though I remember few details, the takeaway is that you don't have anything like ethnic or racial purity.

I also read a work by an American scientist named Samuel George Morton a while back. He was famous for measuring the skulls of different ethnic groups and trying to deduce from these calculations the relative intelligence of each group. In a previous work, he laid out, in anecdotal form, the various traits of each group. I would rather not give examples but his use of evidence was appalling for a man dubbed a scientist. It was this work supporting the idea that different nations possessed different traits that convinced me it was unlikely to be true.

Anyhow, since I don't think the Germans make up a genetically cognizable group, and I don't think one can infer traits of tribes of people from anecdotes or single historical events, let me suggest other reasons that have been stated in this thread as an alternative explanation for their economic success.

Germany has learned important lessons from WWI and WWII and moved away from nationalism and towards a more cooperative social structure. Workers are paid better wages and feel a greater sense of investment in the society they are a part of thus increasing productivity. Germans have invested in science education and particularly engineering, which is a driver of technological innovation and as a result have many industries where their products are renowned for their quality. Germans have engaged in a more responsible fiscal policy than many other European countries. Germans have been able to channel a lot of the energy other countries waste on petty attempts to be global police and instead focused on their domestic issues. Some degree of good fortune and circumstance coalesced with any combination of these policies. For instance, if you analyze the investments of even the most successful businessmen you can see that sometimes the most perilous pratfalls are avoided by chance. This would not be a singular explanation of German economic success, but avoiding unmarked hazards is crucial.

Besides, since one of the main benefits of this thread is to evaluate the reasons the Germans have had economic success I figured it would be great if the answers were instructive and not so depressing for us non-Germans.

[hngs]

The belief that the government, your neighbor and your employer are not out to screw you. In Greece, Greeks do not trust any of the aforementioned.

In the USA, we are witnessing a dramatic breakdown in social trust which is likely to have omnious consequences.

Social trust is the result of racial homogeneity. USA had a high social trust rate in the decades past... but then something changed 1965 onwards.

[Stavros]

Social trust is the result of racial homogeneity. USA had a high social trust rate in the decades past... but then something changed 1965 onwards.

I don't believe the concept of race has any real meaning; as an explanation of human behaviour it is worthless. Assuming for a moment that it did have meaning, and that all Rwandans are the same 'race' -how do you explain the complete lack of social trust 'racial homogeneity' ought to have created, when in 1994 one half of the population tried to kill the other half? And if you assume 'white people' in the USA are from the same race, how do you explain the Civil War? Even in the case of Germany as the posts in this thread have explained, the source of success is not specifically German: the capital that nurtured the German economy in the 1950s originated in the USA, but what percentage of that capital was created from the labour of Chinese-African-Irish Americans, or Any-American, if we must tag social groups in such a way? Capitalism doesn't recognise the concept of race, it knows no national boundaries, if you want to understand German success, thinking about what capitalism is and how it works would be a better start than this mystifying race thing.

[trish]

I think we may have the causation backwards here. Times of economic success and equity will tend to engender social trust. Times of economic collapse or economic inequity will tend to engender distrust.

[broncofan]

Social trust is the result of racial homogeneity. USA had a high social trust rate in the decades past... but then something changed 1965 onwards.

LMAO you choose seemingly at random the year after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It's a shame that preventing establishments from systematically excluding black people had to have such harsh economic consequences. Perhaps if we just repeal this overreaching piece of legislation we can go back to those good ole days when we worked together as a homogenous unit. How can we trust one another when we're forced to dine together and use the same public restrooms? It's not that we object to this in principle, it's just the idea of the government forcing us to do it that I find odious.

I think the present lack of jews in Germany also partly explains their success. Fewer immigrants, fewer jews, solid Aryan traits, no hispanics or blacks= a strong economy for all time. Who doesn't want to hop on board this economic juggernaut. As long as the Germans are at the helm, working together as a perfectly honed Teutonic unit, how can they fail? And if they do fail? Well, we'll blame the immigrants who are still in the country just as we selectively ignore their contributions.

And yes, I'm sure the sarcasm is unattractive, but the little light this thread has shed is not on economic matters but people's tendency to falsely attribute success and failure to immutable traits. It couldn't possibly be any top down decision, circumstance, or policy that accounts for a strong economy but rather lack of minority representation and good genetics. And the Japanese are good at electronics because they have tiny hands and us caucasians are too damn clumsy.

Okay, sarcastic rant aside. Can someone at least explain to me how we can reliably trace the economic success in Germany to their gene pool? And what evidence is there that people cease to trust those who come from a different gene pool? Also, is it just racial homogeneity that breeds success or only the racial homogeneity of certain ethnic groups? I've worked with Hispanics and African-Americans for the last five years and I don't have a problem trusting them. I understand the argument that even if race doesn't matter, people's perceptions of race might. But that would presume that the average person is a racist, and not just the average person on this site but in the workforce. My work experience has not been that people can't work together or live harmoniously unless they come from the same background. Has anyone experienced the apartheid utopia we keep hearing about? Is there some sort of synergy that occurs as a result of working with people who look like you?

[hngs]

I don't believe the concept of race has any real meaning; as an explanation of human behaviour it is worthless.

Well, thankfully scientifically measurable things aren't up to your highly valuable opinion. They're kind of... there.

Assuming for a moment that it did have meaning, and that all Rwandans are the same 'race' -how do you explain the complete lack of social trust 'racial homogeneity' ought to have created, when in 1994 one half of the population tried to kill the other half?

The Hutu and Tutsi do diverge genetically. They have some affinity, but are essentially different tribes. Their squabble was a tribal conflict, a type exceedingly usual in Africa and hundreds of years ago in Europe.

And if you assume 'white people' in the USA are from the same race, how do you explain the Civil War?

Well firstly, "White" isn't a proper racial classification. Southern Italians have very little in common with Swedes. Portuguese have very little in common with Bavarians. "White" is an entirely American invention and changes over time. In the beginning it included only people of British/German extraction. Then the Irish and Italians were added. Next it's going to include Mexicans, who are not European at all. The Civil War was about the North wanting a massive federal government while the Southern states wanted to stay more regional instead of being subjected to faceless pencil pushers in D.C. The Northerners later justified their war of aggression with ending slavery, which was entirely a non-issue back then.

Even in the case of Germany as the posts in this thread have explained, the source of success is not specifically German: the capital that nurtured the German economy in the 1950s originated in the USA

So wait, the Germans are supposed to thank Americans who firebombed 20,000 people in Dresden and decimated their economy just to terrorize the population so that a bunch of bloodthirsty communists could enslave half of Europe with the nodding approval of perfidious Albion? You're nuts. What brought Germany up to par again was Germans. Not American "capital," a ridiculous concept to begin with. America was an ass-backwards farmer nation at that point. Americans stole all the German patents and all of the top scientists too who then enabled America to go to the Moon. Subsequently as they retired in the 70's and 80's, NASA went belly up and does nothing useful today. I mean these laughable Mars operations are the same stuff that von Braun was doing.

Capitalism doesn't recognise the concept of race, it knows no national boundaries, if you want to understand German success, thinking about what capitalism is and how it works would be a better start than this mystifying race thing.

Capitalism doesn't work for the average person. It's terrible. It's more terrible that seemingly for most people Marxist Communism is the only other option, which is of course untrue.

Broncofan, All the studies I've read of African-American communities and their well-being say that according to every social metric we have, they were doing better during segregation. They were happier, had healthier families and there was much less crime in their community. Now, this fact may anger you and does a lot of people, but it doesn't change that it's a fact. People prefer their own kind.

People from different backgrounds aren't meant to be together. One can deny this all they want but it's not going to change. You can't change evolution by wishing.

[Stavros]

Well, thankfully scientifically measurable things aren't up to your highly valuable opinion. They're kind of... there.



The Hutu and Tutsi do diverge genetically. They have some affinity, but are essentially different tribes. Their squabble was a tribal conflict, a type exceedingly usual in Africa and hundreds of years ago in Europe.



Well firstly, "White" isn't a proper racial classification. Southern Italians have very little in common with Swedes. Portuguese have very little in common with Bavarians. "White" is an entirely American invention and changes over time. In the beginning it included only people of British/German extraction. Then the Irish and Italians were added. Next it's going to include Mexicans, who are not European at all. The Civil War was about the North wanting a massive federal government while the Southern states wanted to stay more regional instead of being subjected to faceless pencil pushers in D.C. The Northerners later justified their war of aggression with ending slavery, which was entirely a non-issue back then.



So wait, the Germans are supposed to thank Americans who firebombed 20,000 people in Dresden and decimated their economy just to terrorize the population so that a bunch of bloodthirsty communists could enslave half of Europe with the nodding approval of perfidious Albion? You're nuts. What brought Germany up to par again was Germans. Not American "capital," a ridiculous concept to begin with. America was an ass-backwards farmer nation at that point. Americans stole all the German patents and all of the top scientists too who then enabled America to go to the Moon. Subsequently as they retired in the 70's and 80's, NASA went belly up and does nothing useful today. I mean these laughable Mars operations are the same stuff that von Braun was doing.



Capitalism doesn't work for the average person. It's terrible. It's more terrible that seemingly for most people Marxist Communism is the only other option, which is of course untrue.

Broncofan, All the studies I've read of African-American communities and their well-being say that according to every social metric we have, they were doing better during segregation. They were happier, had healthier families and there was much less crime in their community. Now, this fact may anger you and does a lot of people, but it doesn't change that it's a fact. People prefer their own kind.

People from different backgrounds aren't meant to be together. One can deny this all they want but it's not going to change. You can't change evolution by wishing.

1) "Well, thankfully scientifically measurable things aren't up to your highly valuable opinion. They're kind of... there."
I assume these measurable things are, shall we say, Aryans on the one hand, Jews on the other? It is not a matter of my opinion, but a suggestion that you read more about the concept of race before assuming it is a scientific fact. Try Ivan Hannaford: Race, the History of a Concept in the West (1996).
As we are in Olympic fortnight, recall Jesse Owens demolishing the concept of race in Berlin in 1936 -it was supposed to be scientifically impossible for a Black man to perform better than an Aryan. Then of course, the 'scientists' decided their 'science' explains why Black men run faster than white men, why white men are better at swimming than Black men, and of course the Psychologist/Psychiatrists using their 'science' to prove Jews and White people are more intelligent than Black people.
I think Science has much better things to to with its time and money; and it has proven it so, just today with Curiosity landing on Mars.

2) "The Hutu and Tutsi do diverge genetically. They have some affinity, but are essentially different tribes. Their squabble was a tribal conflict, a type exceedingly usual in Africa and hundreds of years ago in Europe"
What rubbish is this? Genetic difference is globally less diverse than you might think: try Luigi Cavalli-Sforza Genes, Peoples and Languages (2001); and note that it was Imperial rule that invented the difference between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda.

3) "The Civil War was about the North wanting a massive federal government while the Southern states wanted to stay more regional instead of being subjected to faceless pencil pushers in D.C. The Northerners later justified their war of aggression with ending slavery, which was entirely a non-issue back then".
This old chestnut again? If you accept that mid-19th century America was in transition, with a growing industrial economy in the north, a growing homestead/farming/mining economy in the west, the slave economy of the South becomes the obstacle to progress: not slaves as such. The late Gore Vidal argued that Lincoln was an Imperial President who put the preservation of the Union ahead of the Constitution -and argues the South would have given up slavery eventually anyway because it was economically unproductive compared to modern industry. But I will let the experts in American History argue over that one.

4) "So wait, the Germans are supposed to thank Americans who firebombed 20,000 people in Dresden and decimated their economy just to terrorize the population so that a bunch of bloodthirsty communists could enslave half of Europe with the nodding approval of perfidious Albion? You're nuts. What brought Germany up to par again was Germans. Not American "capital," a ridiculous concept to begin with. America was an ass-backwards farmer nation at that point".

The RAF firebombed German cities; and yes, it was 'ass-backwards' America that poured money into the same country it had helped to destroy -oddly enough in the same way that it helped to re-develop Japan. Perfidious Albion ruled a third of West Germany and to this day continues to station troops in the North, and the Federal structure of post-war Germany which has been credited with being one ingredient of its success was promoted by Britain, France and the USA, ah the villains of history! Most Germans preferred it to Ulbricht's options.

And if you really do think the USA was an 'ass-backwards farmer nation at that point', ie in 1945, you probably eat more nuts than I do.

[hngs]

It is not a matter of my opinion, but a suggestion that you read more about the concept of race before assuming it is a scientific fact. Try Ivan Hannaford: Race, the History of a Concept in the West (1996).

Race isn't a "concept," which implies that it's up to the subject. It's visible to everyone. Everyone can see a black man. Everyone can see a European man. I don't need to read a book telling me that my eyes lie. I trust my own eyes more than some Marxist agitator.

As we are in Olympic fortnight, recall Jesse Owens demolishing the concept of race in Berlin in 1936 -it was supposed to be scientifically impossible for a Black man to perform better than an Aryan.

I've never heard anybody claim this before or after 1936. I've read a lot about this particular subject. The reason I've never heard of it is because you just made it up as a red herring. It's easy to argue against yourself...

I think Science has much better things to to with its time and money; and it has proven it so, just today with Curiosity landing on Mars.

What's better about it? You do understand that it's the type of fiddling that von Braun was doing in the 60's and that the act of space exploration has not gone forward at all since that time? Nazis, for being so retrogressive, still managed to develop all of the structural technology required to go to the Moon. In 12 years. During wartime. Crazy.

What rubbish is this? Genetic difference is globally less diverse than you might think: try Luigi Cavalli-Sforza Genes, Peoples and Languages (2001); and note that it was Imperial rule that invented the difference between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda.

Imperial rule doesn't invent genetic differences. For your information, the raw number of genetic differences is irrelevant. Different races have different concentrations of certain genes. There was a study released about this just recently. I'm trying to dig it up but I can't recall where I read it. And in any case, racial differences are so obvious as to make anybody who questions the existence of race a complete clown.

This old chestnut again? If you accept that mid-19th century America was in transition, with a growing industrial economy in the north, a growing homestead/farming/mining economy in the west, the slave economy of the South becomes the obstacle to progress: not slaves as such. The late Gore Vidal argued that Lincoln was an Imperial President who put the preservation of the Union ahead of the Constitution -and argues the South would have given up slavery eventually anyway because it was economically unproductive compared to modern industry. But I will let the experts in American History argue over that one.

The U.S. went from a free country of sovereign states in a confederacy to a consolidated, Washington-directed dictatorship. The centralized teamed up with magnates to set up "internal improvements" that further entrenched their power. So the country came to be run by financial elite combined with whichever politicians they were backing. Then certain others showed up, and soon they dominated the financial elite, and through that the party system. The original idea of America was long lost at that point.

The RAF firebombed German cities;

Americans.

and yes, it was 'ass-backwards' America that poured money into the same country it had helped to destroy -oddly enough in the same way that it helped to re-develop Japan.

Yeah, thanks America for bombing everything to rubble. Couldn't have made it without you!

Perfidious Albion ruled a third of West Germany and to this day continues to station troops in the North, and the Federal structure of post-war Germany which has been credited with being one ingredient of its success was promoted by Britain, France and the USA, ah the villains of history! Most Germans preferred it to Ulbricht's options.

Yes, because Germans had free choice in the matter. Germany is an occupied government and the whole BRD is basically illegitimate because it's forced on Germans with threat of force.

And if you really do think the USA was an 'ass-backwards farmer nation at that point', ie in 1945, you probably eat more nuts than I do.

America is still the most backwards nation in the so-called "West," only rivalled by "Great" Britain. You'd know this if you ever went to Germany, Sweden or say, Northern Italy.