The Holy Bible of Veeky Forums Brainlets

So you’re telling me that the success of the German economy required them to win an unwinnable war? Wow genius economic policy.

>Hitler already envisioned an agricultural basket in Ukraine
Good job, Dolphi. Just be careful so that Soviets won't cuck you to death.

BTW You are doing a very good job in balancing inbetween "I'm retarded" and "I'm merely pretending to be retarded."

>Hitler already envisioned an agricultural basket in Ukraine, they might pull it off and be successful.
you leave out the part where hitler would accomplish this through a huge war of conquest,
sujugation and/or extermination of slavs in the east. "nazi economics hasn't been tried!" because its based on a horrific premise that involves mass enslavement and extermination.

Can you even read? I gave the rundown in the OP for all your convenience. Tooze never once considered that all the 'overheating' bullshit is part of the bigger plan, he just one-sidedly created some imaginary limitations of the economy using shamelessly retarded external theories, and not the internal logic of the system itself. It's the lowest kind of criticism. Must be easy to just gather some data and then make them fit your own theories instead of actually using your brain, that's history department for you. Perhaps even strawmanning the shit out of his own ass.

Fuck off, subhuman. This shit is just too hard for your low-IQ brain, so of course you didn't get it (not that I expected much from you or Veeky Forums).

>Lebensraum
That would be actually a better explanation than what Tooze says, that they invaded because their economy was about to collapse.

>not the internal logic of the system itself.
the nazis failed by their own internal logic, lmao.

>because its based on a horrific premise that involves mass enslavement and extermination.
>Implying Nazis care about that

What is more important is that it will generate more enemies to the German Reich, than Wermacht can handle.

>I gave the rundown in the OP for all your convenience.
You didn't give any sort of rundown. You did show how big of a tool you are though bringing out all the tired radical tropes which makes you accusing others of strawmanning so much more amusing.

>natsoc
stopped reading there. only stromfags call nazism natsoc

>Being 12 billion dollars in debt to your own bank is good economic policy and won't have any negative long term consequences

I'm responding to your talk that the Nazis had a bigger plan and were trying to create a new kind of economics and society. To that I responded that people don't take that seriously because it is based on a annihilatory premise, which nazis didn't disguise among themselves. An economics based on mass slave and forced labor is anathema to modern liberalism and capitalism so of fucking course that is a valid criticism. Nor is such a system sustainable without further conquest and coercion.

You chose one point from a book, strawmanned that point, and claimed all similar books use the same argument. You then failed to name a single one of those books when other anons asked. Eat shit

Nowhere does he say that. What he does say is that by 1939 their recovery was largely fueled by debt-based military spending, and converting back to a consumer-based economy would take considerable amounts of retooling and economic disruption. Their decision to go to war was influenced in a large way by the path they took with their economy, since the best way to realize your tens of billions of RM invested into the military is to use it.
I don't think you actually read the book.

He literally mentions that they originally planned to invade the Soviets in '42 but they already had to gear up for war by '38 because their economy was about to implode. Have YOU read the book?

Never, ever once you doubt the mindset and the theory behind it, and just keep ganging up on me in order to desperately prove I'm retarded like I'm in a Soviet purge trial or something. Sure, sure. It all useless anyway, no matter if I give counter-factual stuff. I've already read the archive and oh boy so much selective bias.

Give me a single page number where he says the German economy is on the verge of collapse or implosion. He says the closest it came to this was in 1934 due to the foreign exchange crisis.

ok bye dont let the jan tag you on your way out

He hasn’t read it. He’s made that very clear.

>Give me a single page number
Like I'm literally going through the effort of finding you the exact page with the statement. Are you for real?

It’s about time you got the fuck out

Have you considered it might be due to fact you just make empty claims instead of using graphs, numbers and sources to prove your point?

Not him. I'm looking through this thread and I don't see any graphs,numbers,sources, etc at all. Why is it the people always asking never supply?

>Like I'm going to to the effort of proving my assertions, are you for real?
Veeky Forums in a nutshell

Then fuck off to radical circlejerk #233 where they gloat about how all academics are biased agenda pushing liars unlike them who care for the truth.

Where did you do that?

Well we don’t really need to. OP made a post talking shit about a book full of statistics but he hasn’t refuted or even cited a single statistic from said book.

DUDE SPEND VIRTUALLY OF THE BUDGET PREPARING FOR WAR LMAO

Well, he was the one who started the thread criticizing a publication which uses those.

Relying on this kind of rhetorical tricks might work on /pol/, but here people are too stubborn to give in.

You could read the last chapter, which summarizes the entire book. If Germany collapsing or imploding was so central to his thesis you'd expect to find it there, but it's not; in fact he notes Germany's capability in shifting resources and remaining stable:
>From 1938 onwards, with military spending reaching wartime levels, the trade-off between consumption and armaments became truly severe. That Hitler's regime was able to impose this redistribution of resources betokens not inefficiency and disorganization, but a system that was highly effective in pursuit of its central objectives. Furthermore, it should lead us to question any interpretation of Hitler's regime based on the assumption that it lacked solid internal foundations. To reiterate, the Third Reich shifted more resources in peacetime into military uses than any other capitalist regime in history. And this advantage in terms of domestic resource mobilization continued to hold throughout the ensuing world war.
pg. 659-670
Though you probably don't have the book, so I don't expect you to read the rest of it.

*659-660

>Well we don’t really need to.

Yes you do. If you're both arguing over something from the same sauce, you both have to prove or disprove the sauce or at least cite it. His position is as equally grounded as yours. Both are simply claims at this point.

>criticizing a publication which uses those

So that means you don't have to provide sauce for your claims as well?Because he is Op? That seems to be the only reasoning and it sounds lazy.

>what is Burden of proof

>because its based on a horrific premise that involves mass enslavement and extermination.

Yawn...Nice try OP, but as I said "NO U" rhetorics don't work here. Only two people here making claims are you and Tooze. Tooze has rich sauce, you have shit for arguments. You can't substitute arguments with sophism, but keep trying.

The thing resting equally as heavy on all the shoulders in the discussion. I think what happened here is you heard some atheists say that the burden is always on the claimant, thus entrapping theologists into providing empirical proof(not caring that the entire thing is rationalized, not empiricized) and so now the trend tends away from all parties providing material. The entire thing is lazy. If proof is so simple and easy there is absolutely no reason not to spam every single post with it.

Not OP. Take your (you). I'm not invested in the subject of this thread, I just see people on Veeky Forums shitting it up with lazy debating in efforts to "win" using as little substance as possible. There's no reason for you not to provide evidence or sauce. Or him. But it's hypocritical for you to ask and not bother to give.

I’m asking for proof and statistics because I’m waiting for OP to give something, and I mean ANY indication that he’s actually read the book. As of right now it legitimately looks like he read a summary.

>There's no reason for you not to provide evidence or sauce.
>NO U for the third time
There's this little convention when the man who starts the argument should be the first to provide evidence for his claims, else they can be dismissed.

keep trying, OP

>As of right now it legitimately looks like he read a summary

Which is all that was requested. There's no indication you've even read the summary either. Do you not see how suspect this looks? There's 0 indication you have any business even asking for any. Provide then request. And he already met that request on top.

>The thing resting equally as heavy on all the shoulders in the discussion
It doesn't.

>I think what happened here
What happened here is someone made arguments against a certain work so poor its questionable that they even read the work which is why people aren't taking them all that seriously. Since the OP brought almost nothing to the table there is barely anything to respond to which is one of the reasons people desire a "burden of proof".

>There's this little convention

No there isn't. It's a bunch of autists spamming up his with the very thing you're complaining about. The "no you first" mentality. It's everyone here. So obviously you have no business here since you can't provide anything of substance. Think about it: if OP wanted to debate something rigorously, he'd be in academic circles or on dedicated specific forums. It seems to me his intent was discussion on the thing itself. You took this to mean it has to be deconstructed down to OP's reading of it. If you came here to discuss whether or not someone actually read the very thing they're posting about, it slogs this board up and no one can discuss a god damn thing. You could always go further and say no matter what he quotes that he's just reading a PDF or whatever. There's really no reason for you to be shitting in threads like this. It's dragging this board down.

Tldr argue the points and not the person. You can't prove one way or another he's read it to your satisfaction so there's literally no point. The convention is: if you have a claim back it up. If you don't have a claim, don't bother posting.

>Since the OP brought almost nothing to the table

Neither did you. I think your buddy left by the way.

>discuss whether or not someone actually read the very thing they're posting about
That discussion came up because of the points they were making.

>Tldr argue the points and not the person.
Has to be points to argue first.

>Neither did you
Nothing to bring when there is nothing to talk about.

>Has to be points to argue first.
He left a list ffs leaving his train of logic. You just skipped over that and decided to ask for proof for something you already decided wasn't true(that is, you decided he didn't read it and that's impossible to prove or disprove given that you won't accept excerpts from the writing).

>You just skipped over that
Did you miss these posts?
Only the first one was replied to, which barely addressed anything and put words into the mouth of the author. He was refuted by a citation of the book that showed what he actually believed and now the discussion has devolved into this.

fuck off with this 'im an arbiter of board quality' bullshit youre spewing
if anyone is shitting up the board its you with your high horse whinging

>He left a list ffs leaving his train of logic.
And people already talked about how stupid that train of logic was.

>decided to ask for proof
Yes people did ask for proof so they have something to make counterargument against.

>poster forgot the treaty of Versailles forced Germany to downsize it's army to 100k, essentially resetting it using it's core of top tier veterans, user thought that meant the entire army was scrapped for some reason
>user jumped straight to 1941 GDP numbers given during the increasing tempo of the war

historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-germany-military-expenditure/

>assumption that Germany was safe disregarding the geopolitical jumble that was happening all around it(Poland actually seized and annexed a piece of territory meant for Germany and guaranteed by Britain to Germany). There's a wikipedia article on both the Polish act and the Munich Agreement.
>disregarding the external factors hampering German growth entirely

I'm embarrassed for whoever crafted those posts.Where was this refutation? I must've missed it. It was properly sauced wasn't it? I haven't read OP's book at all.

I'm getting us back on track you trout.

>And people already talked about how stupid that train of logic was.
Like?

>Yes people did ask for proof so they have something to make counterargument against.

They only need a claim to make a counterclaim. Both sides should sauce.

>I'm getting us back on track you trout.
You're not getting us back on on track because the discussion was about a work you admit you haven't read.

>Both sides should sauce.
One side already did considering the sauce was the in question book. That is why its the OP's burden to proof it wrong.

>work you admit you haven't read

That doesn't mean I haven't read or know related material. Nice job staying on track of the subject material. It seems to me you don't want to actually discuss the subject material. You just want to assume what other people know or don't know. If I have sauce and a claim, it doesn't matter.

>That is why its the OP's burden to proof it wrong.
>proof it wrong

Christ. Why did I waste time on here

>That doesn't mean I haven't read or know related material.
And? We aren't talking about the entirety of WW2 historiography we are talking about this specific work.

>It seems to me you don't want to actually discuss the subject material.
Its pretty hard to when we have people like you who haven't read it all and people like the OP who makes assertions so vague they are extremely difficult to reply to without more specific info like "what page did he say this".

Did external factors (e.g. embargo) hamper the economy significantly? Do the Germans really have no choice other than going to war with Poland if it weren't pressured after the rearmament? Not him, but let's start from somewhere.

>through the lens of another theory
What "other theory"? The Nazi economy very explicitly failed to be efficient at any mode of operation.

>Germany has to re-build entire armed forces from scratch
>every western country embargoes them
>economy suffers
>therefore the nazis were planning to conquer
And who the fuck made this retarded ass summary? It certainly isn't reflective of TOoze's work; before the war broke out, Germany had the highest percentage of foreign importing and exporting relative to their GDP of any country in Europe except for Great Britain (and GB is only that on a technicality; most of their trade was with their own empire)

OP, have you just not read Wages of Destruction, or are you being a dishonest stormshit?

No reason to even attempt to talk with these indoctrinated brainlets.

>Not him, but let's start from somewhere.
I'm not trying to shit on you but the book (you can find it here for free b-ok.org/book/814833/b3ab2c) is a great place to start since that is what this thread is about.

>Do the Germans really have no choice
Questions like this are extremely difficult to answer because there was very little Germany was required to do and plenty of things they could have done though some of which may require a change in ideology. Its kinda like asking if Stalin absolutely had to industrialize Russia in the way he did.

I've already read the conclusion of the book a few months ago but I have shit memory. It seems that Tooze whole thesis might give the impression that the German economy is all according to keikaku. He seems to criticize against the 'chaotic' view (that the German economy at the time were a mess and with a little bit of desperate struggle for recovery and so on). My impression of him is that he has a quite deterministic view of the historiography. That's why I'm asking whether a lot of the stuff was really intentional from the flexible party leadership, as it does sound suspicious as to why Tooze could view them as mostly stable, despite the reliance with foreign goods and/or currencies. Why wouldn't the public or the party leadership panic over their political isolation (and thus getting desperate, for example)?

Or even in general, is the structuralist interpretation really the correct method to analyze the German political economy at the time, or was it just ideological on his part? I felt like reading a Marxist-Keynesian analysis to be honest sometimes, if we abstract the structure of his theoretical framework. Sure, I know that 'muh six million feels' books are even worse, but come on they are not even worth mentioning.

He says the regime was at its most unstable period in the early years, particularly 1934. This was when the foreign exchange problem came to a head, and there were two paths for the economy: a "liberal" one where the Reichsmark would be devalued in line with other countries to make exports more competitive on the world market, but it would result in economic contraction and losing an advantage over creditors, and an "autarchic" one where the currency would not be devalued, and exports would be maintained by a subsidy to keep them competitive and bureaucratic controls over who could export and who received foreign currency for imports. The latter path was chosen, and this decision not to devalue the Reichsmark is the biggest thing hampering German exports according to him - western countries like the U.S. and Britain were still willing to trade with Germany, but they didn't particularly like subsidized German goods in their markets, so trade declined heavily between them. Germany turned more towards bilateral agreements with Eastern/Southern European and Latin American countries to make up for this, but the prices were pretty heavily out of line with the rest of the world. In this new system, bureaucratic presence was large, and industry had to cough up hundreds of millions of Reichsmarks to keep export subsidies going, but Tooze notes that it was effective at keeping the foreign currency problem under control:
>The elaborate apparatus of Schacht's New Plan allowed the Reichsbank to sustain the international trade of one of the world's largest and most sophisticated economies with foreign currency reserves amounting in the mid-1930s to little more than one week's cover. To say the least, this was a remarkable organizational achievement.

OP, it's a bit hard for me to understand what you're actually claiming about the Nazi economy because you're mixing some claims about the Nazi economy together with claims about Veeky Forumstoriography. What do you contend the nature of the Nazi economy was like and how, in your view, are people getting it wrong, other than regarding the Mefo bills?
To me it seems that the Nazi drive for autarky was misguided because if you're not envisioning a war, autarky hurts your economy - and in the geopolitical situation of the 1930s, it was very unlikely that a war would benefit Germany, so it should have been the chief goal of German foreign policy to avoid one. Also, the idea of gaining land on which to settle one's famers was going to become outdated within a couple of decades anyway - economical modernization concentrates people in the cities, and a heavily agricultural German economy wouldn't have been able to compete with the West.

Its your own bank so you can just forgive your own debts. The wonders of not being beholden to international banking cabals

Wait, so if historical examples of communism are criticized for lower standards of living, complete government control, military aggressiveness, etc. it isn't valid because they're being viewed through a different lens?

>I felt like reading a Marxist-Keynesian analysis to be honest sometimes
That is the first time I've heard someone say that before. I didn't get those vibes at all and he is pretty steeped in mainstream econ.

I think you are putting too much weight on Tooze in some ways. His analysis has its limits. Is he the best out there if you want to know about the political economy? I don't think so. He provides some interesting info on the subject but states that he is an economist giving an economic centered view.

>Hitler's plan to stabilize the German economy is to invade a country, exterminate its inhabitance and fill it up with German farmers
wow what a great plan, fuck you proved us wrong

If only reality didn't get in the way
Darn

I say natsoc just because i can't fucking stand hearing the way americans say "NAHTZEE"

They had no other way unless they give up their revanchist promises. They could just take Sudetenland and Danzig then be done with it was right. However, obviously the threat from the Allies had to be considered too. Mein Kampf was just book anyway, not the official guide for NSDAP's policiee.