And you never should. PPP is based around free labour and consumer goods with a few curious assumptions about how workers should subsist.
While the United States closely resembled the model for PPP 1932-1946, Germany didn’t.
After 1942 US and German commodities (Marxist sense) entered a period of incommensurability anyway, so comparing Rm or grammes of Auschwitz 1 bread to USD is perverse in a purely scholarly sense.
%GDP/capita measures aren’t any better as GDP is closely aligned with assumptions that didn’t exist in the Soviet Union or Germany, even though they were states where wage labour existed as the determinate labour form (especially in camps) and small groups of people controlled investment of social worth for profit.
Even then these expenditures aren’t convertible. You can’t take a capacity to make atomic weapons and turn it into a universal health care system.
So the problem is not PPP, but (neo)classic economics: tell that to the CIA, they use PPP for
North Korea.
Also, I prefer not to use Marxist analysis in macroeconomic analysis.
Anyway, that is exactly what I mean. Saying "
Aggregate costed X RM, so Y $" means nothing, probably
Aggregate in the USA would cost a tiny fraction of the estimated German "price".
What would you use to compare Germany, USSR and the USA in IIWW? Input-output model?
Many of the core assumptions of marginalist economics are those of a model whose known deficiencies compared to historical human societies make its measures and claims ridiculous for certain historical analyses. Political economists fare a bit better.
BTW, it is macro- and micro-economics: 'cause it is a measure contest
Magnetrons had a brief popularity for Military Radar use, before other more efficient(and capable of higher frequencies, and being easily tunable) tubes replaced them, leading to where the most common use of Magnetrons is making water molecules shake in microwave ovens.
Want to know more?
https://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex19.en.html
A better question is: why Germany never switched to tubes? Was it a technical problem as with magnetron or an operative one? EDIT: of cours it was
brain-drain...
2-stage superchargers were a known quantity by 1930s in UK and Germany. A fighter with 1-stage supercharged engine will have hard time to intercept a recon that has engine with two stages of superchaging (= mostly mid- and late war Spitfires, Mosquitoes etc, plus any turboed aircraft of the time).
Japanese were in the same position.
Again: why?
It always shock me how wide the gap is between the myth of Uber-teknological-Nazi-Cermany and the reality.