Did the German Popluation want Lebensraum

You just defined the problem between yourself, and "lwd". Taking his posts and sources at "face value" is less problematic than applying the same to you.

I believe I sort of understand where this discussion went sort of "off the rails", but it is time to get back to the original post query and leave off the blockade of WW1 by the Royal Navy which became a "starvation blockade" as an argument for the need for "lebensraum", since the need for importing food, and fiber pre-dates this time period. Probably it can be traced back the the 1850s when Krupp began major production of centrifugal cast railway wheels, for global export, and the wages he paid drew the farmers and their sons off the land while the population began to increase.

Now the non-existing united Germany (twenty years would pass before that happened) needed to import food and fiber to feed and clothe its people. Couple that with the outbreak of WW1, where they (Germany) didn't count on a long war where blockade would come into play.

They truly figured it would be over by the end of 1914 or mid-1915 at the latest, and they had stores to last that long and even longer. By their own use of submarine and contact mines, the (then) legal act of war (close-in blockade), was negated and the Royal Navy had to employ "long range" blockade to negate the subs and mines and make a naval blockade effective.

The old rules of "legal blockade" from the 19th century had been rendered silly, since they really didn't take into account steam power where a ship can come and go at will. That said, an altered written down "rules of war" pertaining to naval blockades , had yet to be developed. The old law said that a blockade was only legal if it was effective in keeping ships out of a blockaded port. By 1914 the circumstances of warfare and commerce interruption had just altered too fast for the laws to match.

 

Arguably further than that. The Germanic invaders of Britain (Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Frisians, etc) were noted for their "land hunger" as opposed to say the Celts (for instance the King of Scotland during the middle ages was properly called "The King of the Scotts" and not "The King of Scottland"). Some have even made a case for Harold Godwinson's rush to confront William after Stamford as being in part due to his personal obligation to defend the land. I'm not as up on this as I might be so will leave this to more knowledgeable individuals at this point (and if an extensive discussion is desired perhaps a better titled thread in the right place).

 

(and if an extensive discussion is desired perhaps a better titled thread in the right place).

Correct! Please get back to topic and let this thread stay in his high quality! Thank you all.

 

Agreed, but "land hunger" isn't quite the same as feeding a growing population in a confined area. That is what began to develop in the mid-19th Century for central Europe, most especially the industrializing states who were shifting from self supporting food and fiber production to industrial output and wages for workers who no longer produced food or fiber. It was an awkward shift for nations without colonial support outside of Europe proper, and importing and exporting became their source of wealth.

The Spanish, French, and British had long-standing colonial support for their home nations, the central European nations, not so much. Tzarist Russia didn't need to import too much to survive, and at that time neither did the Turks. Only the Austro-Hungarian and German nations were dependent on imports of "resources and goods" they couldn't produce themselves. This is why a "blockade" was so effective against the central European powers, they simply were vulnerable to this extent. They had to win fast, or the war was lost. Germany knew it, Austria knew it, only Turkey was a bit less vulnerable than its partners in the Central Powers, but not so "flush with food and fiber" that they could save their allies.

 

OK, I see your point. I still think the "land hunger" fed into and made the imperial "lebensraum" concept one with considerable popular appeal and support. The need for grain and fiber is also not so clear in the mid 19th century either. For instance:
http://manoa.hawaii.edu/ctahr/aheed/ALex/AHEED mccalla-Protectionism in ag Trade.pdf
states that Prussia exports of Grain to Britain were hit hard in the 1870's by cheaper US (and I suspect Canadian) grain and that it was even competeing domestically (page 332).
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jlbroz/Courses/Lund/handouts/Lecture8_Opposition.pdf
makes much the same point on slides 3 and 8-11
Of course the combination of increase population and a decline in local agriculture would have created the situation you discuss it just looks like it was more likely to occur after say 1870 rather than in the middle of the 19th century.

 

just outof curiosity I did aquick Google and found this: an article from the NY Times, August 27, 1901 comparing Russian and American grain quantities imported by Germany.

GERMAN GRAIN IMPORTS. - View Article - NYTimes.com

In short, total of barley, oats, wheat, corn(maize), rye imported in 1897 from Russia 2,336,688 tons, from USA 1,541,229 tons.
In 1900, from Russia 1,943,063 tons, from USA 1,725,959 tons.
In all probability by the outbreak of WWI the totals were even higher.

 

Last week marked the 75th Anniversary of the Hossbach Conference

Hitler kept the meeting quiet, only inviting the Service Chiefs and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and War. He didn't want to take it to the Reich Cabinet, as it was too important.

This must indicate some doubt as to how well it he thought it would be received by the German people, if he wouldn't even discuss it with their government.

 

In this and the following post I will post two maps with no comment:
1. German historic settlements in the East.
View attachment 18204

 

2. German territory lost in the 20th century.
View attachment 18205