We all know that Hitler-aside from WW2-pulled Germany out of a terrible Economy. How exactly did he do this?

>Germany wasn't fully mobilized until 44 and the GDP percent didn't exceed 20% until the war was underway.
What the fuck does this have anything to do with the economy recovering from depression?

>In post modern terms that's ridiculous b
Oh you are retarded.

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

Not that much higher user. I'm skeptical of the Soviets. They started the war with far more tanks and a massive air force. There's no way they were undershooting German figures.

The other guy didn't post arguments so whatever there

>borrow a fuckton of money
>use part of it to hire people to build roads and shit so they are employed
>use most of it to militarize
>when cracks begin appearing, conquer neighbors and plunder them to pay off debts

>Literally makes 0% sense.
Think of it like Germany coming over and taking all that potential investment and trade for themselves, its not a difficult concept

Where or how did those cracks appear?

>"Yeah people are so stupid the nazi's told everyone they were going to conquer in Mein Kampf"
>"W-well those Germans were just pulling a revival out of their asses. Ignore the revival that occurred years before the war started using Keynesian spending elsewhere"

So you're in the camp the later conquests were a net permanent positive?

I’m 100% sure neither (or just (you)) understand how national debt work.
Shouldn’t you be getting BTFO’d in the Haiti thread right now?

>GDP percent didn't exceed 20% until the war was underway
It hit 19% by 1938, a peacetime year. Even the Soviets didn't reach that level until 1940.

>Even the Soviets didn't reach that level until 1940

The Soviets had an equal sized air force, larger strategic bombing force, a million more men than Germany when it invaded, over ten times as many tanks when Germany invaded, and you think they weren't spending more than the estimate you're thinking of?

C'mon son.

Roads and shit was a tiny fraction of the budget and it was not a Nazi program, it was already in plans before Hitler came to power.

Not him, but they also had a larger economy; if you're measuring by percentage of GDP you're not necessarily going to get accurate measurements of overall spending; the U.S. spent far less of their GDP than Germany did on arms production during the war, but still spent colossally more in an absolute sense.

...

He kind of looks like Allen Armentrout.

>Germany would've won if it had mobilized for war instead of focusing on consumer goods to make its people happy!

>Where or how did those cracks appear?
Slipping standards of living and slowing growth

>"W-well those Germans were just pulling a revival out of their asses.
They were though

>the revival that occurred years before the war started using Keynesian spending elsewhere"
Yeah a "revival" propped up by MEFO bills and arms spending

It wasn't just that, it was also the expansion of the welfare state. Increased spending to alleviate the effects of the depression.

The point is that it was a false recovery propped up by debt and spending, it wasn't sustainable in any sense without conquest.

>It wasn't just that, it was also the expansion of the welfare state. Increased spending to alleviate the effects of the depression.
There was no expansion of the welfare state in any meaningful sense. Nazi platform had barely anything to do with the economy, as they were focused on rearmament.

I'll assume that margin is true, wouldn't Soviet mobilization still necessitate the Germans building up an equivalent force, seeing as how the USSR had immediately tried to invade the Baltic states and Poland as soon as the communists took power, started the Winter war, and were trying to crack into Poland? Then they have both the French and the British as power rivals. And if the Brits are involved, so are the Americans(wasn't it Hitler that lamented that Germans didn't colonize the Americas, rather it being the English?).

>Slipping standards of living and slowing growth

Based on drinking beer and sugar intake? user.

>They were though

Except the revival occurred before the war.

>Yeah a "revival" propped up by MEFO bills and arms spending

What permanent downside to the German method was wrong? It looks like they were about to resurge in terms of living standards with the new territories they gained, if they had held or won the war.

Great fucking job Italy

Taking away civil rights from specific groups and requisitioning their stuff can be a nice relief.

>How exactly did he do this?

>He didn't (see: )
>Greek-tier borrowing
>Economically fucking over his allies
>Plundering his neighbors
>Removing Jews from public sphere

In the end Germany ended up in situation where 1929 would have looked like a fucking paradise.

>Nazi platform had barely anything to do with the economy

What are the 25 points? user this is day one stuff.

>seeing as how the USSR had immediately tried to invade the Baltic states and Poland as soon as the communists took power
Different generation of commies.

>started the Winter war, and were trying to crack into Poland
That was according to a plan mutually agreed upon.

Given that the Soviets were instrumental in training the Wehrmacht, the USSR and Nazi Germany were each other's largest trade partners, and Soviet expansionism since Stalin rose to power some 17 years prior had completely halted except for what they were dividing up in the territories between them, somehow I don't think the Germans were unduly worried about the Soviet moves.

Also based on the fact that earnings failed to recover to the Weimar level, death rates increased, illnesses like diphtheria made a comeback, height of children stagnating, etc.

I don't know how this meme refuses to die considering how rapidly consumption dropped in the first two years.

take up credits
strengthen military industry
just as your economy is about to collapse from debt you start taking over other countries' gold reserves
hope you win the war so you don't have to pay

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People's_Welfare
???

>Based on drinking beer and sugar intake? user.
And milk, meat, wages, etc.

And also, why else would sugar and beer intake fall? Do you think that Germans, of all people, would suddenly stop liking beer? And why else would pastries and candies and things suddenly become less popular?

>Except the revival occurred before the war.
I'm not disputing that the """revival""" occurred before the war, user. I'm disputing that the Nazi policies

>What permanent downside to the German method was wrong? It looks like they were about to resurge in terms of living standards with the new territories they gained, if they had held or won the war.
From a purely Machiavellian perspective it was a solid strategy; risky but with large payoffs should it work out. Of course, it came with starting the largest war in human history so there's that if you want to look at it from a moral perspective.Mostly I'm arguing against the myth that the Nazis were economic ubermensch, or that the economy was amazing because they purged ze ebul kikes. Because it wasn't, it was a bubble which would have popped without the riches plundered from their neighbors.

You mean Poland was mutually agreed on. As I mentioned, the USSR had been trying to find a way to win it since it lost 20 years earlier. Those two invasions are directly correlated to the same symptom. The Germans were helping the Finns in the Winter War, so I'm not sure why you said that was mutually agreed upon with the soviets.

>Germans were unduly worried about the Soviet moves
>even though they were worried the USSR would cut them off from food and oil exports
>and Hitler said it would've been game over if the Soviets made a move on the Romanian Ploiesti oil fields

youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk&t=121s

Listen and learn.

sauce please

>collapse from debt
Japan has three times it's GDP in debt.

These threads have to be spammed by high schoolers. No way otherwise.

>still using Marks as an indicator of production value

Holy shit user. You've already had your ass corrected on this half a dozen times in the last month. Head out of ass. FFS someone might take you seriously.

>I'm disputing that the Nazi policies
lol what the fuck happened there?

I'm disputing that the Nazi policies led to sustainable economic growth.

>Japan has three times it's GDP in debt.
But it also has a strong economy. Debt with a strong economy is fine, debt with a failing economy turns you into Zimbabwe.

>Do you think that Germans, of all people, would suddenly stop liking beer

A strong indicator of reduced alcoholism, systemic in degenerate Weimar.

youtube.com/watch?v=WgPDh764CK4&t=413s

My favorite part is when the mother and father prostitute their little girl in a brothel. Really makes me wish Germany stayed in Weimar like you guys say. Or the part where Hollywood made no secret about usurping the German film industry. That's pretty cool too.

cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo_wp800.pdf

>As I mentioned, the USSR had been trying to find a way to win it since it lost 20 years earlier.
So did Germany and they even managed to agree upon spheres of influence.

> The Germans were helping the Finns in the Winter War, so I'm not sure why you said that was mutually agreed upon with the soviets.
It was literally written in a treaty between Hitler and Stalin that Russians will get Finnland and no Germans did not "help Finns" in any meaningful way.

>even though they were worried the USSR would cut them off from food and oil exports
That was one of the reasons why did Stalin trusted Hitler, they both had something the other wanted.

>Beer
>Alcoholism

>Le gegenerate Weimanr

>strong indicator of reduced alcoholism
Got a source on alcoholism figures in Germany at the time? Because I'm smelling bullshit. To me, it seems like a strong indicator that the Nazi regime rendered people unable to afford luxuries like alcohol. Care to explain why meat consumption fell 18%, fruit consumption 37%, milk consumption 14%, while cheap staple goods like rye bread, vegetables and potatoes stayed constant or went up slightly?

>muh DUHGUNWUSSY
Please. This is Veeky Forums, not /pol/. Take your buzzwords elsewhere.

>WHATABOUTCHILDBROTHELS?????
We're talking about the economy here. This is a classic stormfag tactic when losing a debate.

>well shit they have a point about Nazi Germany being a totalitarian hellhole, uh what can I do?
>oh I know!
>WHAT ABOUT THE USSR, HUH? THAT WAS SHIT TOO!

>still using Marks as an indicator of production value
We're talking about consumption you idiot. This is what really matters if you claim that the economy is geared towards consumers because if consumption is falling then production is going towards the military. If you want to talk about consumer production though, per capita it decreased 22% between 1939-1941 and much of it went to the military's needs.
>In per capita terms consumer-goods production declined 22 per cent between 1938 and 1941 in line with the falls in per capita spending already discussed. Even these figures disguise the fact, which is clear from all the surviving evidence, that a very large part of consumer-goods output in 1940 and 1941 went to the armed forces, not to civilian consumers. The armed forces had very high standards of dress and equipment, almost certainly the highest in Europe, and the forces had already begun to make significant claims on consumer goods capacity even before the war. After September 1939 these claims multiplied as consumer sectors found themselves inundated with demands for consumer goods designated as military necessities, or with subcontracts for military equipment made out of wood, ceramic, leather, or textiles.

>confusing campaign speeches with what actually happened
hislets when will they learn

>Japan has three times it's GDP in debt.
>200%
>3 times

You are both equally incorrect.

>not knowing that Japanese debt is folded 1000 times, making it easier to pay off and service

I never quite understood the concept of which reichsmark was built upon.

It was not tied into gold but into "labor"? Can someone explain this shit to me in laymans terms?

arbeit macht frei goym

He started a program of massive government spending, especially on arms and infrastructure.
>mfw redditors will blame le evil nazis for war industry when literally everyone else was doing it too

The (((international banks))) completely fucked over the mark so the nazis got around that by issuing MEFO bills (basically a new currency that could be traded for marks) using shell companies that only existed on paper and banks couldn't monitor.

See: It was not "everyone" and only Hitler ran it at unsustainable pace.

>structure your economy from the get-go in such a way that only conquest can sustain it
>you launch the bloodiest conflict in human history because you've left yourself literally no option other than plunder
>millions of innocent people die and an entire continent is devastated
>not evil

>everyone else was doing it too
Did everybody else have state industries? Capital controls? Five Year Plans? Price controls? Laws against hoarding?
I don't think so.

Nazi Germany post-1938 was becoming commie-tier economics. It would have crashed and burned like every other statist system.

>implying all nations don't have commie tier economics during total war

You haven't answered my question.
Did Roosevelt have Five Year Plans and price controls?

The nazis had four year plans not five year plans and new deal economics was basically the same thing, the first new deal and the second new deal were basically just multi year plans. The USA heavily rationed food and instituted price controls, and yes you fucking idiot Roosevelt did pass laws against hoarding, especially hoarding food, oil, and gold. He literally make it illegal to privately own gold.

>The USA heavily rationed food
Food was never rationed in the US.

>not knowing about ration books
This is literally like middle school level history user, the US did ration food, fuel, metals, and rubber. Just like everyone else

You are either ignorant of or conveniently leaving out the fact that only a select luxury items were rationed. "Food" as such was never rationed in the US. That is night and day compared to Germany where any food of any type was strictly regulated.

Way to move the goal posts

What third world shithole are you from where sugar, meat, oil, fat, and cheese are luxury goods aand not basic food?

>Way to move the goal post
Says the guy who's trying to argue Nazi rationing of foodstuff is same as US rationing of nonessentials.

>What third world shithole are you from where sugar, meat, oil, fat, and cheese are luxury goods aand not basic food?
Are you genuinely retarded? Why are you on a history board if you cannot understand the most basic point of history?

All Im saying is that every nation rationed food
First you disagree that the usa rationed anything. Then you move the goalposts when proven wrong to say they they didn't ration food. Then when proven wrong you move the goalposts to say that they only rationed luxury food. Then when proven wrong you move the goalposts to say that they didn't ration food to the same extent as germany which is true but you are so fucking stupid you won't admit that you needed to move the goalposts 4 times because you keep getting BTFO.

Nothing like this ever happened. Reichsmark was introduced in 1924.

Mefo bills are not Reichsmark. They were just promissory notes. But yes, they worked as a second currency in 1930s.

US did not ration "food" in general, which Nazi Germany did. US rationed some specific nonessential food items but you could buy 99% of food in any quantity as you could find on the market without government control. It is objectively wrong and intellectually dishonest to argue that "every nation rationed food" because there is an unmistakable difference between not getting to eat 1000 g of sugar per week and not getting to eat more than 1000 calorie per day. Do you understand? I am willing to dumb it down for you you just have to ask.

>rationing food is not the same as rationing food
just admit you are an idiot user and try to learn something

>rationing nonessentials is not the same as rationing all food items
Here I made this greentext for you.

Are you retarded?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
And now compare for example Russia with Germany. Russia has almost 100 times more MBTs in service.

>million more men than Germany when it invaded
That's wrong. Germany at some point had almost 2:1 advantage.

The standard of living in the USA was much higher than in Nazi Germany, even during the Depression era.

>being allowed to buy only 1 lb of coffee every 5 weeks is not the same as slowly dying of malnutrition and hunger

>eating only 2.5 pounds of meat per week is not the same as killing and eating your neighbors

>are you witated user
>look at this list of modern expenditures
>it's supposed to prove circumstance a century ago
>Cuck Germans are equivalent to Nazi Germans when it comes to value of defense
>Europe has the exact same geopolitical situation, fifty or so countries instead of less than a dozen major global spanning powers

>That's wrong. Germany at some point had almost 2:1 advantage.

Sauce? A quick google search says that the Germans had about 3 million men for the invasion. The USSR had 2.9 million men in the WEST alone. Altogether with the central and eastern districts they had about 4 million. So before the campaign began, they had a million man lead. You say "at some point" like we're talking about the war period. We're not. We were specifically talking about peacetime economics. Germany had an advantage because they wiped out over 3 million troops in the first year of fighting genius. Fuck, you're so stupid it makes my blood boil typing this.

>2.5 pounds of meat per week
That's about an average number of quarter pounders.

>I can count to potato
This is you.

kek implying that just because something is rationed to a lesser degree it still isn't rationed

It's a joke about burgers user. Quarter pounder burgers. America joke. We're the burgers. We're counting in our national currency.

Fuck it's painful you had to have a joke spelled out to you like this. Get the fuck of this board and off my planet.

kek implying that "food" is just one monolithic thing, not a broad umbrella term encompassing a very wide range of items.

Why do wehrboos always conveniently leave out the 50 divisions from Germany's Axis allies when comparing manpower?

food is anything humans eat user...
its a pretty basic concept

Because it was a comparison of German and Soviet gdp. The allies aren't relevant unless you're saying that Germany's allies paid for the german military. The allies are irrelevant right now.

You sound like a butthurt commiefag

They actually went beyond price controls, with the Reichnaehrstand in particular they had centrally set prices with bureaucrats in every farming community.

Not him but one thing that wheraboos love to harp about is how the Soviets had "endless hordes" of troops. When factoring in Axis allies the Soviets were actually outnumbered initially.

> the mother and father prostitute their little girl in a brothel.
what a convenient appeal to crass sentimentalism to deflect the subject kek

The thing is Hitler wanted Germany to be like a better version of Sparta, so reducing consumptions semi-luxuries such as alcohols, and substituting staple foods with their cheaper alternatives is a small price to pay so long as Germany recover its glory (at very least). This is what Western historians simply want to denounce, including Adam Tooze the Veeky Forums rabbi. They are eager to prove that everything is the Nazi's own fault, without mentioning the very cause itself that Hitler tried to rally against (i.e. the failure of Jewish capitalism). They want to bury the possibility that people voluntarily wanted an alternative order of the world, and were willing yo fight for it. They are like rabbis who warn anyone not to do the same thing again, or else you may 'suffer the consequences' like they did. In politics it's natural to have an antagonistic view towards anything, and economics without politics is just liberal capitalist bullshit. If anything, it ia clear how antagonistic their ideology is, in contrast to the supposed universality and consensus of the 'perpetually peaceful', messianic liberal world; that is, an eternal mercantilic Jewry dictatorship.

>well actually haha shortages and rationing and declining living standards were all part of the plan
>*tugs on collar*
>you see guys, eheheh, Hitler just wanted to force his autistic worldview on everyone so that makes it okay... right?
>*sweat drips from forehead*
>yeah it was... uh shit what's a word that'll appeal to liberals.... voluntary! yeah, people voluntarily wanted a shit economy
>*furiously wipes brow with grease-stained replica SS uniform cumrag*
>ok now for the clincher... the finisher... the final solution...
EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS A JEW!!!!!

So we went from "Hitler saved German economy" to "Hitler impoverished Germany and drove it to war against overwhelming force, which is good because Jews".

Good job, lads.

>Somebody took the time to write this and thought it was funny

So ignore all the strongest arguments. That seems to be the way of his anyways.

>someone took the time to write this and thought it was insightful

Ha,no kidding. I'm not him btw.

>So ignore all the strongest arguments.

It's all shit to me user, I'm not some German excrement connoisseur. If you the most beautiful shit to be shown it to people, you have pick it yourself.

What

There were no "strong arguments"

>STOP USING METAPHORS THEY'RE TOO COMPLICATED FOR ME

Implying that entire post wasn't riddled with mind numbing errors.

That's indicative of your comprehension and reasoning abilities,not the arguments.

user if you can't understand metaphors then you have no right to be talking about what is "mind numbing" and what isn't

>If you the most beautiful shit to be shown it to people, you have pick it yourself.

Self evident. Nothing needs to be said really. Offense is clearly your self defense mechanism.

>That's indicative of your comprehension and reasoning abilities,not the arguments.
That's your opinion, champ. The fact you are evading to name your "strongest arguments" however does speak in favour of the fact there were none.

I accidently omitted "want" from the second sentence, so he's kinda correct there. Stuff happens when you are learning your 4th language.