Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"However, Hitler's interpretations of this idea produced two separate and almost incompatible conclusions: On the one hand, Hitler believed that history was shaped by a violent struggle between nations and races, and that a nation needed to be united under a strong, centralized state led by an heroic leader in order to succeed in this struggle. On the other hand, Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted "superior individuals" to higher positions in society.
 Pre-war economy: 1933-1939"
i dont think those ideologies are incompatible, and infact thats how life has been for a very very long time.. why would someone write that this idea is incompatible?? imagine a family of 5 brothers, they are all united as a family, but always competing with each other for school marks, sports attention. etc etc i insist this be edited to a NPOV or less PC POV please
- 1 intro paragraph
- 2 Trade Unions
- 3 German Labor Front
- 4 Incorrect
- 5 This article should have an infobox
- 6 Lots of repetition
- 7 This is absurdly biased.
- 8 Subheadings, please.
- 9 Hitler and the trade unions
- 10 The nazis and the economy
- 11 The Role of Confiscated Jewish money and property before and after KristallNacht
- 12 This system had also been attempted in America with little success.
- 13 Is deficit figure including MEFO?
- 14 Woolly writing / non-sequiturs
- 15 Citation needed?
- 16 Citation
- 17 Adding Balance
- 18 Citations for Jews
I have removed the following from the first paragraph of the article: "...and when every German knew that he or she had to begin life all over again." It merely contributes no new information and seems way too theatrical and sweeping for an encyclopedic writeup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The article said "including Jews and Women" ... why "Jews and Women"? If a person is available to the labour market and is unable to find unemployement, then that person is unemployed. So I deleted "Jews and Women" because I don't think it's relevant who the unemployed actually were. AadaamS (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's totally irrelevant, but the passage was wrong, misplaced, illogical. Germany (and even more Italy) eased women out of the workforce and into the home. Women's participation in war industries was rather limited until Speer really put Germany on a total-war footing similar to what the UK had done at least 3 years earlier - including round-the clock production where only 1 or 2 shifts were the norm. Use of slave labor was comparatively limited in the early was years. Also, selective unemployment played a big part in the pre-war anti-Jewish campaign. Spamhog (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This texts are contradictory, without entering in polemic either one or other is truth, the first considers them infrahuman the second superhuman: The Nazis considered Jews an inferior race Vs Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal and many members believe that these are Jews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
i see a general agreement on this obsession for the jewish question being irrelevant to the paragraph, which is about employment not the holocaust but the texts remain there, i guess the 'police' would come to place them so we are all aware how much victims these people are (-; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought the trade unions were essentially Nazified not abolished. I read that they became organs of the party and state propaganda machine and lost their independence but not outright abolished. A similar policy employed by Communist dictatorships.Stamos1981 (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
German Labor Front
The Nazis created the German Labor Front that did control workers and prevent strikes but also had some form of heavily beaurocratic collective bargaining (essentially not directly elected representatives) that made the workers dismissal much harder and created various workers benefits. So this article needs to be edited at some point. If you type in German Labor front on wikipedia there is even an article there about that organization.Stamos1981 (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"The proportion of military spending in the German economy began growing rapidly after 1942, as the Nazi government was forced to dedicate more and more of the country's economic resources to fight a losing war. Civilian factories were converted to military use and placed under military administration. By late 1944, almost the entire German economy was dedicated to military production. At the same time, Allied bombings were destroying German factories and cities at a rapid pace, leading to the final collapse of the German war economy in 1945 (Stunde Null)."
This isn't right. Allied air raids did not cause any significant damage on the German industry. It actually grew, not collapse. It's generally agreed that strategic bombing was a failure in pretty much every aspect. So how about some sources to back that statement up, yeah? >_>
- Allied bombing campaign of industry targets didn't hurt production that much, but the "Oil Campaign" (bombing of fuel supply) and "Transportation Campaign" (crippling logistics) did hurt production. AadaamS (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm writing my A2 History coursework on this topic and found some relavent statistics in an article by Richard Overy defending the Allied bombing campaign which I've put in, along with references. This is supported by Adam Tooze, who gives the Allies credit for having "halted Speer's armaments miracle in its tracks" for six months in 1943.--Iain92 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
True! When Albert Speer took over economic management he found a huge production of nonessential consumer goods, and lots of factories running on one shift. The German economy was BIG compared to other European powers and had still slack in the early 40's. Also true that the economy grew as all factor inputs were ratcheted up, incl. women in the factories, slave labor, voluntary or semivoluntary paid immigrants from occupied countries, and improved "procurements" of was materials from abroad through the Todt organization. Efficiency also vastly improved and in the last few years. Spamhog (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This article should have an infobox
Lots of repetition
Just reading through the article you can see many sentences are written twice (perhaps in slightly different forms) and many are directly copied from http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried to fix the bit about the currency crisis of 1936. I think I roughly cut it by half. Clearly someone was copying, editing, and pasting back as additions instead of editing. Spamhog (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This is absurdly biased.
"Hitler did not see the economy as top priority he did see its importance in his consolidation of power and used it to his advantage."
"therefore Germany were not gaining money while Hitler was in power but in fact losing money"
I feel this article would benefit a lot from having subheadings and a more reader-friendly layout. It's tough to read and stay focused on such large amounts of text on a computer screen. If someone knowledgeable about the subject could reorganize it a little, and divide it into more practical chunks, that would be great. Perhaps it would also be easier to read with a few images, tables and diagrams, eg. comparing Nazi Germany to other countries at the time, showing the various sectors of production, finance ministers, etc. Unfortunately, I'm not good enough at these things to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hitler and the trade unions
I waded through a morass of redundancy to discover the following gem:
“…the Nazis replaced the corrupt Weimar trade unions with what many Germans saw as the new and improved unions called the German Labour Front and banned strikes.”
Is this a cited passage? Probably not – there’s no reference provided. If it had been, we’d know the neo-Nazi screed it was lifted from. Looks like anti-Wikipedia is at work, or perhaps just the wiki-tyrant presiding over this site.
The entry asserts that “many Germans” regarded the German Labour Front as an improvement on the old “corrupt” unions. This is equivalent to the advertising claims that “many doctors recommend…” or “many satisfied customers agree…” Joseph Goebbels had much to do with what Germans “regarded” as truth through his massive propoganda campaigns.
Hitler did not “replace” the Weimar trade unions, however corrupt they might – or might not – have been. In fact, he unleased the Gestapo in a systematic campaign of intimidation and terror to “liquidate” union membership (declaring non-Nazi unions illegal), and incarcerting thousands of members at the notorious Dachau concentration camp – the work/death camp designed to hold political prisoners. Franz Ludwig Carsten (1911 – 1998), German surgeon and historian, reported that “It has been reliably estimated that the KPD (the German Communist Party) between 1933 and 1935, lost 75,000 of its members through imprisonment and several thousands of them were killed.”. In other words, about 25% of its membership was lost to attacks by Hitler in the process of “replacing” the union organizations with a phony Nazi “labor union”.
Is this a typical Wiki dumping ground for POV with the old formula, "please provide citations and references to support our opinion if you want to participate in the collaboration".
The nazis and the economy
"Hitler did not see the economy as top priority he did see its importance in his consolidation of power and used it to his advantage."
I have deleted this sentence as it's (a.) extremely misleading and (b.) completely wrong. The nazis viewed the dreadful "post-crash" German economy as an extremely important facet of their political platform and it was for the majority of their voters the prime mandate for which they sought to elect. In a huge number of Hitler's pre-election (and post-election) speeches, employment was the turning point within the speech. The importance of the economy in Germany, to Hitler and the nazis, is born out by the fact that extremely high unemployment rates of 1932 were completely quashed by 1938. Hitler's "early view" that an economy was of secondary concern (if ebtirely true), is only because he believed that the "Volk" and the "State" should come before material matters. It's doubtful that this "early view" was held into the 1930's.
I also deleted this "This was part of Hitler's war preparations: Germany needed a state-of-the-art highway system for the mobility of its motorized land forces..." as it's quite contentious. There is little to suggest that Hitler's continuation of an already existing autobahn program had anything to do with a possible future war. This opinion coincides largely with the myth that the Wehrmacht was, generally, a motorised force. It wasn't. Even in 1941, a major percentage of the land forces were horse drawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The Role of Confiscated Jewish money and property before and after KristallNacht
one needs a chapter or a few paragraphs on "confiscated" jewish money and property; i read somewhere that the nazi "state" "confiscated" ~10 billion RM from jewish people; the bulk must have come from jews in germany and mainly after the Kristallnacht; this was big time money and property for the nazis to "re-inject" into the economy in 1939, e.g., to pay for ongoing state work (the total tax revenue in 1928 was about 12 billion RM...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This system had also been attempted in America with little success.
Referring to autarky, this is an unsupported declaration. My first impulse was to dispute it outright. But, with no reference to support this claim, either directly or through a link, I can't even do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Is deficit figure including MEFO?
The article currently says the following: "Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60% by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the break-out of the war."
Does the expenditures of 101 billion include the obligations created by the MEFO bills of which there were 12 billion outstanding at 4.5% interest at the end of this period? If not, the MEFO figure significantly adds to the German government's obligations and should be included. TMLutas (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Woolly writing / non-sequiturs
What does this even mean? -
- 'the spending rate of Hitler was far greater than the growth of the economy.'
Apart from the inaccuracy of attributing the whole of government expenditure to Hitler personally, it seems to be comparing two things of different types.
Furthermore, remarks connecting the national debt with Kristallnacht and the Holocaust are unsupported and make little sense. Many states have contracted large national debts without it leading to massive racial persecution. --Tdent (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of the citation needed in the first paragraph of the article, concerning unemployment etc, can be found here however I'm not sure if this site is widely considered to be a valid one.-- Alien ? 12:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This article overall portrays a rosy view of the Nazi Economy. But Professor Richard J. Evans, who wrote "The Third Reich In Power", argues at length that the Third Reich suffered from rationing and fuel shortages. I made several small changes to reflect his work. I maintained the wording of the original article, but added some sentences explaining this rationing and the hardships that German citizens suffered under the Nazi regime. The end result aims to be more balanced and to take into account Professor Evans' seminal work. Any changes I made have a citation to X or Y page of Evans' book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Citations for Jews
- Carsten, Ludwig Franz. 1995. The German Workers and the Nazis. Aldershot:Scolar Press. P. 180-182.