What is the best book to read to understand the economy of Nazi Germany?
Im not really interested in WWII or the wartime economy but rather how Hitler brought Germany out of the depression.
>>670164
Wages of destruction, the writer knew Albert Fucking Speer.
>>670164
>but rather how Hitler brought Germany out of the depression.
So you're interested in lies and falsifications?
>>670164
I'd like to know more about this as well
>>670186
enlighten me then
i am all ears
>>670184
does it spend time discussing the pre-war economy?
>>670234
Next time read the sticky and use Google before coming here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Bibliography
Also read about the MEFO
>>670164
>Hitler brought Germany out of the depression.
Short term boom. Hitler took the part of Keynes theory that mass public works would reduce unemployment, and put this into practice through rearmament, and that worked out as you expected, however the main issue was that both the industries producing the new war machines were still privately owned so their capital never reached the government, and that military production does not produce the supply that Keynes spoke off, military goods is not something the public can purchase after production, so none of the workers wages would be returning to the state to balance the books, hence why Germany adopted food rationing so early, the Reich was always running a defecit and was doomed to economic collapse in its quest for unfeasible economic autarky, but they kept the illusion of a strong economy using measures such as Mefo bills
>>670252
Who owned the military industries? Was it... was it, you know who?
>>670252
so studying the german economy as a success story is both a lie and a huge waste of time?
just huge spending on public works and then the demand for wartime material?
>>670255
THE JEEEEEEEEWNKERS.
>>670302
Worse than that. Most of it was done by massive foreign loans that were never intended to be repaid (for example, trains shipping grain bought on credit from the Soviet Union were still going through hours before the invasion), and looting the gold deposits of occupied states like Austria kept the thing afloat as long as it did.
That was one of the reasons why Hitler made the moves to invade so many countries: he couldn't wait without his economy collapsing.
And even with the massive ammounts of spending, mismanagement and war planning made for shortage of basic goods like fats in the 1930s, and tropical fruits were basically unavailable by the time the war started.
what's that book on this topic that /pol/tards always recommend? i forget what it's caled
>>670164
>Im not really interested in WWII or the wartime economy but rather how Hitler brought Germany out of the depression.
He did it by bringing Germany into WWII. You can't examine one without the other.
His recovery was government spending to boost the military, and if no war had occurred, it would have collapsed. Spending on war is one massive broken window fallacy that nobody seems to acknowledge.
All this bullshit.
>One of the most influential and widely read American economists of the twentieth century was John Kenneth Galbraith. He was an advisor to several presidents, and for a time served as US ambassador to India.
Galbriath drew parallels between FDR's New Deal and Hitler's economic plans.
http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html
>Rejecting the cloudy and impractical economic views of some radical activists in his Party, Hitler turned to men of proven ability and competence. Most notably, he enlisted the help of Hjalmar Schacht, a prominent banker and financier with an impressive record in both private business and public service. Even though Schacht was certainly no National Socialist, Hitler appointed him President of Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank, and then as Minister of Economics.
>After taking power, writes Prof. John Garraty, a prominent American historian, Hitler and his new government “immediately launched an all-out assault on unemployment … They stimulated private industry through subsidies and tax rebates, encouraged consumer spending by such means as marriage loans, and plunged into the massive public-works program that produced the autobahn [highway system], and housing, railroad and navigation projects.” / 6
>The regime’s new leaders also succeeded in persuading formerly skeptical and even hostile Germans of their sincerity, resolve and ability. This fostered trust and confidence, which in turn encouraged businessmen to hire and invest, and consumers to spend with an eye to the future.
>David Lloyd George — who had been Britain’s prime minister during the First World War -- made an extensive tour of Germany in late 1936. In an article published afterwards in a leading London newspaper, the British statesman recounted what he had seen and experienced. / 44
>“Whatever one may think of his [Hitler’s] methods,” wrote Lloyd George, “and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.
>“He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war — broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.
>"The scale of the Nazi economic achievement should not be underestimated," concludes Niall Ferguson, a Harvard University professor of history. "It was real and impressive. No other European economy achieved such a rapid recovery ... To most people in 1930s Germany it seemed there had been an economic miracle. >TheVolksgemeinschaft[national community] was more than mere rhetoric; it meant full employment, higher wages, stable prices, reduced poverty, cheap radios (theVolksempfänger) and budget holidays. It is too easily forgotten that there were more holiday camps than concentration camps in Germany between 1935 and 1939. Workers became better trained, farmers saw their incomes rise. Nor were foreigners unimpressed by what was happening. American corporations including Standard Oil, General Motors and IBM all rushed to invest directly in the German economy." / 47
>Joachim Fest, another prominent German journalist and historian, reviewed Hitler’s life in an acclaimed and comprehensive biography. “If Hitler had succumbed to an assassination or an accident at the end of 1938,” he wrote, “few would hesitate to call him one of the greatest of German statesmen, the consummator of Germany’s history.” / 48 “No objective observer of the German scene could deny Hitler’s considerable exploits,” noted American historian John Toland. “If Hitler had died in 1937 on the fourth anniversary of his coming to power … he undoubtedly would have gone down as one of the greatest figures in German history. Throughout Europe he had millions of admirers.” / 49
>>670164
You're on the wrong board bud.
/his/ is a leftwing circlejerk you should be aware by this point.
>>670164
Overy, R. J. War and Economy in the Third Reich. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
>Examines the role of economic factors in the Nazi drive toward war. Shows how single-mindedly Hitler viewed the economy as a means for military conquest. One result was increasing state intervention and a complex, fluid relationship between the regime and German business. Concludes that Hitler’s policy, based on the false assumption that “living space” was the key to economic well-being, led to an economic dead end.
Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. New York: Viking, 2007.
>Probes the role of economic concerns in shaping Nazi policy, especially in the drive to war and during the war. Argues that grasping the Nazi sense of German economic vulnerability is essential to understand the regime’s political course. Considerable attention to the performance of the war economy, especially under Albert Speer as armaments minister
Mason, Tim. Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
>A work that reflects the author’s overall emphasis on “the primacy of domestic politics” in arguing that a sense of socioeconomic vulnerability on the domestic level ended up driving Hitler’s foreign policy, including the thrust toward war. The author insists that Nazism was part of a wider fascist phenomenon encompassing Mussolini’s Italy, and this volume, though focused primarily on Germany, includes one article on the Italian case.
>>670328
>tropical fruits were basically unavailable by the time the war started.
The horror! Truly a land of misery and desperation.
>>670695
>Niall Ferguson
You may as well be eating from the garbage every day.
>>670795
You do realise that capitalism's chief attack on the DDR was lack of bananas?
>>670252
Hitler did not pursue rearmament because he believed in Keynesian theory. He pursued rearmament because he wanted Germany to grow strong through war.
>>670771
I'm sure he figured that out after seeing all the philosophy threads.
>reading one book
>>670328
>tropical fruits were basically unavailable by the time the war started.
What a time it is to be alive in this fruitful era!
>>670351
Albert Speer clearly stated that Germany was too slow to militarize and that Hitler should have cut domestic production sooner. Adam Tooze's book has been misleading people, I think. All of the German sources show less militarization than any of the Allies. You also have the fact that domestic goods skyrocketed in their availability, which doesn't make much sense if your economy is purely militaristic.
>>670328
>That was one of the reasons why Hitler made the moves to invade so many countries: he couldn't wait without his economy collapsing.
Had more to do with securing natural resources for his inevitable fight against the Soviet Union.
>>671100
The gold of the Austrian national bank financed Germany's rearmament for 6 months. That's a lot of time, because even in late 1938 the German military was a paper tiger, short on materiel, trained officers and most importantly trained manpower.
>>670854
What you got against Ferguson?
>>670771
>/his/ is a leftwing circlejerk you should be aware by this point.
That doesn't explain the mass shilling by adherents of British and Italian fascism
>>672271
Not him but he's not the most academically rigorous, tending to make shit up and extrapolate "what if" scenarios like that germanwank WW1 book he shat out. A lot of his stuff is contrarian for the point of being contrarian, which goes down well on /his/ and Reddit.
Are there any books at all on the Nazi finances? Their government expenditures and income? Tooze glances that in the beginning, but stays superficial and then completely abandons it.
>>670674
>Actually quoting IHR.
adorable.
Vom Klassenkampf zur Volksgemeinschaft: Sozialpolitik im Dritten Reich
Max Klüver
