Brad DeLong says he's not sure "if this is a very good or very bad end-of-lecture sentence":

Next time, I'll talk about Adolf Hitler, whose big problem--besides being a bloodthirsty persuasive paranoid genocidal psychopath, that is--is that he pays to much attention to (a) Malthus, (b) social darwinists, and (c) cowboy novels.



Seems good to me. The answer, I think, is (a). Hitler suffered from, among other things, a Malthus-esque belief that "the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man" for sharply limited and that the acquisition of land -- lebensraum -- was crucial to national prosperity. Thus, he decided to invest a massive proportion of the German economy in a fruitless effort to greatly expand Germany's land area. But instead of a larger land area, Hitler's policies wound up making Germany smaller. And in destroying a huge proportion of Germany's capital infrastructure. And in subjecting a substantial portion of Germany to decades of Communist rule. And at the end of the process, Germany does, indeed, have a higher population density than Italy or France or Spain.

And yet: Germany is a really rich country in the scheme of things, especially the Western part. Because Hitler was wrong. German prosperity doesn't depend on acquiring more land and never did.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.