Why was Germany so successful, and how come so many have forgotten this?

Why was Germany so successful, and how come so many have forgotten this?

Other urls found in this thread:

design.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-make-your-photo-looks-like-a-frame-from-vhs-tape--cms-26562
helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers3/Spoerer85.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933
ipr.northwestern.edu/about/news/2017/king-corporate-boycotts.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Successful at murdering Whites

>2200 deaths
>genocide

Mkay

It wasn't.

Consumption of staple foods was higher in 1933 than it was in 1939.

The German economy was smoke and mirrors. No unemployment, because the state put everyone to work. This means you had doctors digging ditches. Gotta keep those unemployment numbers down. Women were kicked out of the workforce as well and not counted for unemployment purposes. Debt exploded and yet living standards either stayed the same or declined. GDP went up but it was all heavy industry and armaments, not consumables.

Basically it was the same situation as the USSR. Ironic, really.

Calling that a Genocide is like calling a Nigger getting punched a Lynching.

Because of their monetary system. They changed it completely. The value of their currency wasn't based off gold or faith it was based off of production. The more germany worked and produced the more valuable their currency was. They didn't need to take loans, and other countries actively wanted to buy german goods.

...

jesus christ the kikes are fucking desperate.

This.

>Successful
You know the moment the push into the Soviet Union began to stall, Hitler started firing his generals and taking personal command of his armies. From there everything started falling apart because Hitler was literally one of the worst military minds in human history.

wat

What don't you understand?

I can understand asking for citations, but the actual argument itself is pretty clear. Living standards declined under the NSDAP. You can see this when you look at things like food consumption per capita instead of easily manipulable things like unemployment or GDP per capita.

> food consumption is a measure of economic prosperity

wat

I’m talking about Germany’s success in getting out of the depression, we all know that they fucked up royally after Russia

He initially saved the Barbarossa campaign by diverting his armor to Kiev and destroying the forces there instead of making a dash towards Moscow.

Germany was bankrupt and borrowing heavily going into WW1, same in interwar period, WW2 Germany robbed neighbors of workers and produce. This isn't success.
sauces- 'pity of war' and 'third reich at war'

It was 70+ years ago. Less so now, because shitty food is so cheap and available and most of us should probably be eating less of it if anything, but that wasn't the case in the 1930s in Germany. It has never been the case anywhere at any time except for in the West in the last 30 or so years. Even here, there are patterns in food consumption - the more well-off you are, the better kinds of food you eat. One way to measure equity in a modern economy is the proportion of shit junk food consumed against the proportion of things like meats, fruits, and vegetables.

> GDP/capital isn't an effective measurement of economic success

> junkfood/capital is

wat

Damn autocorrect
capita**

GOOD NIGHT ALT RIGHT

You forgot to change flag faggot

Imagine a country that makes 100 units of rifles a year, each worth $50, and that's all that it makes. That's a GDP of $5,000. Imagine it has 100 citizens. That's a GDP per capita of $50.

Imagine a country that makes 100 units of consumables - things like food, cars, comfy chairs, TV programs, etc - each worth $25. That's a GDP of $2,500 per year. Imagine it has 100 citizens. That's a GDP per capita of $25.

Which is the better country to live in? The one with the GDP per capita of $50, or the one with the GDP per capita of $25?

>BUT THIS EXAMPLE IS RIDICULOUS
No it's not you fucking idiot. This is literally the Soviet Union. It's GDP per capita was shit compared to the US, yes, but not THAT shit. The real problem was that all it produced was steel and guns and tanks and missiles because it threw itself into the Cold War. This was Reagan's entire fucking plan. And guess what, the Nazis did the same fucking thing. All their economic growth was due to rearmament. Consumable production fell - and this is shown by the decrease in consumption of staple foods.

Let's do another worked example. Consider the rifle country. Imagine if 1 guy owns the rifle factory and everyone else just works there. He pays them a dollar a day. The GDP per capita is the same, but the median annual salary is one fucking dollar.

Consider the other country, where everyone is self employed and keeps their labour. The GDP is the same, but the median annual salary is way more - more on the order of $25 a day. The country is poorer, but you personally would be richer in it anyway.

GDP per capita is not the be-all and end-all of measuring economies. Its use is actually quite limited. It is good pretty much only for tracking the performance of the SAME ECONOMY over time. GDP per capita of USA in 1990 vs. GDP per capita of USA in 2000? Useful! GDP per capita of USA vs. GDP per capita of China? Less useful.

P.S.
>but the rifle country can trade its rifles and use them to buy twice as much food and comfy chairs
YES! But guess what the Nazis pursued instead? Autarky.

> being literally retarded
> not knowing what GDP is

You aren't from Melbourne are you?

You can lead Sup Forums to knowledge, but you can't make it think.

>All their economic growth was due to rearmament.
Building highways and other construction is rearmament? I didn't know literally any factory or construction job counted as rearmament to you.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the China-tier debt-funded endless infrastructure projects.

>China tier debt
Source?

Oy vey can't show literal nazis in a positive light. Remember the 6 billion, filthy anti-semite.

holy shit do natsocs not understand how GDP works? I think I finally understand them now

He's an exception.
What are you? Libertarian? AnCap? Those systems are very flimsy economically. So flimsy, in fact, that Communists are free gain support from people dissatisfied with your shitty system.

Another example of masterful obfuscation by the Nazis. Not shown there are the MEFO bills, which ran up to 300% of GNI in Nazi Germany in 1939.

What's the matter, bud? Can't find a source for any of the shit your spewing? As expected of an Aussie.

What's the point of posting something you're not going to read? You've clearly already made up your mind.

Anyone with a hint of interest can google MEFO bills. The fact that you don't shows that you have zero interest in anything that doesn't reinforce your preconceived ideas.

The Nazis ran up massive debts funding a massive welfare state and rearmament, and for all their effort they didn't even improve something as basic as staple food consumption. They failed in literally every respect.

>What's the point of posting something you're not going to read?
Get the fuck out of Sup Forums. It's not like you have to write a book, you just have to post a link, or even an image. You dishonest motherfucker. Wouldn't expect less from your kind.
>muh free market will fix everything
>muh natural law

>It's not like you have to write a book
Yeah, but you'd have to read one.

And we all know that's not gonna happen.

Keep it on with the fallacies, Chaim. You're just embarrassing yourself and your shitty ideology.
Yet to meet a Libertarian or AnCap who can prove this image wrong without doging it.

How could they run up "debts" when they were creating their own money free from Rothschild control?

>Successful at murdering Whites
communists.

There was a bunch of inflation due to money printing as well.

Part of the problem was inflation, and part of the problem was debt.

>he saved it by making his worst mistake of the war

what do you call the bright green-red-purple-blue color effect? i wish to apply this to some backgrounds of mine

If you're still here, I'd like citations

A book, really
I always hear about how the they had either a perfect blend of the left wing and the right wing or a ticking time bomb and I'd like to read more about their economy and what ifs

Shitty 80's t.v.
Still no source.

He is here, he just won't post sources because he doesn't have any.

Here's the tutorial. design.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-make-your-photo-looks-like-a-frame-from-vhs-tape--cms-26562

> being a literal retard

Stop burger posting friend

>Living standards declined under the NSDAP.
Wrong, given the weimar collapse knocked on from the great depression era that lead to them they did very well for Germans considering.

>What's the point of posting something you're not going to read?
fuck up you dodging presumptuous clit.

>And we all know that's not gonna happen.
More witty dodging because you don't actually have anything to fucking post, poor show old boy.

The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938 by R. J. Overy is pretty good. It's "a bit" dry, but it's a pretty holistic view and not too long.

>that lead to them they did very well for Germans considering.
If "very well for the Germans" means "worse than every other industrial country in the world" then I agree.

Except France*

You have to put your mind in the era with circumstantial perspective which you aren't thus i said "considering".

I'm sure he does

I've learned a long time ago Sup Forums has some real economists, a thread a long time ago had two people argue about Trump's whole China tariffs thing and how Nixon opened up the doors for Chinese manufacturing, but it was expected to match ours eventually, but the currency manipulation made that impossible.

They both had excellent points, I've never seen a more fair argument on Sup Forums before or since. I'd study more history and economics myself but the tech industry calls

Thank you, is WW1-WW2 era your forte?

>I'm sure he does
He wasn't posting any to prove his points for me. He posted one that gave a general overview for you, but he's still given me nothing to back up his specific claims.
I have to assume he's just making shit up unless he can prove otherwise.

the wages of destruction- adam tooze is another regarded book on the economics of the reich.

>people die during wartime
Tell them to stop subverting enemy control as military groups if they don't want to be treated as military targets.

fpbp

You're wrong.

helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers3/Spoerer85.pdf

A possible objection that we cannot test here is that the regime might have compensated
consumers for their frugal diet with non-food products such as cloths or better housing.
However, the complaints about the deteriorating quality of cloths were ubiquitous, and quality
deterioration was also a problem in residential construction.47 At the eve of World War II , the
diet and the non-food consumption of German consumers was at most at the pre-crisis level of
the late 1920s. Although American-style mass consumption was on the agenda of the regime,48 it
failed to considerably improve the standard of living, partly deliberately, because it prioritized
armaments production, partly unintentionally, because the ideologically motivated institutional
changes in agriculture proved to be counterproductive.
5. Concluding Remarks
The evidence presented here supports the more pessimistic view of the standard of living under
Nazi rule. In passing we note that the antithesis of "butter" vs. "guns" that has occupied the
literature on the Nazi economic systems since at least the 1940s does not make much sense.
"Butter" is not a suitable metaphor for the consumer demand of the 1930s as it was more of a
'recommended' product in the sense of Figure 1b than a 'rationed' product. Butter was a product
that many households would have liked to replace with margarine, which they preferred, and thus
is much more a metaphor for consumption enforced by the regime. The challenge was to supply
more margarine, not more butter.

>Thank you, is WW1-WW2 era your forte?
Not really. I know a lot more about the USSR. I'm just pretty familiar with the Nazi economic """miracle""" because it gets trotted out every fucking time. Sure they embarked on a program of genocide and plunged the world into a war for literally no reason other than naked conquest, but they made the trains run on time!

Nazi Germany and the USSR actually have a lot in common here though, as I've alluded to before. Productivity reforms that turn out to be mistakes, combined with too much focus on heavy industry and not enough on consumer goods, and tricks to hide the deteriorating economy. Same shit, different flags.

>The German economy was smoke and mirrors.
>The economies of every modern Jewish run country isn't

if you try to state this fact you are a racist nazi
>facts have no place in 2017

You can go down to the shop right now and more than enough food of virtually any type you like at dirt cheap prices. That's not smoke and mirrors.

The same couldn't be said in Nazi Germany.

>The same couldn't be said in Nazi Germany.
Source?

helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers3/Spoerer85.pdf

Figures 1a and 1b illustrate these measures in a stylized way. The commodity in figure 1a is
'rationed' in the sense that the German authorities were not willing to have it supplied in the
quantity at which consumers' willingness to pay equals producers' willingness to supply. In
contrast, a number of commodities can be termed 'recommended' in the sense that the
authorities tried to have the households consume them rather than 'rationed' goods. Typical
'rationed' goods were foodstuffs that had to be imported, while 'recommended' goods could be
produced with domestic resources that were of no strategic importance for the armaments
production.

They bounced back because they gave all their golds away to wealthy industralists and banksters who invested in their country. That's why the nazis were backed by (((them))) in the first place after all, the other was to start and fail a massive bloody war and paint whites as evil forever.

they were putting down commies

>Typical
'rationed' goods were foodstuffs that had to be imported, while 'recommended' goods could be
produced with domestic resources that were of no strategic importance for the armaments
production.
No shit that it was hard to import some shit when a bunch of counties and Jews refuse to trade with you and boycott your goods. That wasn't the fault of the German economy, but rather the fault of some of outside kikes interfering with the trade of the county.
If there had been less people trying to actively cripple the German economy, they could have taken a different approach to trade. Unfortunately, that was not possible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933
>The boycott began in March 1933 in both Europe and the US.[6] It continued until the entry of the US into the war.[7]

>when a bunch of counties and Jews refuse to trade with you and boycott your goods.
That's a funny way to say "import controls and tariffs imposed by the Nazis."

Did you just not read the last part of my post or what?
The tariffs and import controls, among other things, were a response.
pic related isn't evidence to help my point, but it is something to think about.

Had ww2 not started, national socialism(or fascism) would've spread in most countries, examples being the nazi party in the US in the 30's or fascist Eastern European countries. The international kikery benefited the most after ww2, and sure as hell they've banned and tarnished national socialism and fascism, since it opposed their Jewish tactics.

Look at why it's not successful now, then you'll have your answer.

And I'm sure you have pages upon pages of citations not of the existence of the boycott, but of its actual, measurable effects. Right? You can demonstrate empirically that the shortages of goods in Nazi Germany were the result of this boycott?

Of course not, because these same 5 newspaper articles that get trotted out every time are nothing more than that: a news story. It was never relevant and is a footnote in history except for the same 5 nazis who push this myth that a worldwide Jewish conspiracy moved heaven and Earth to cut off all imports of margarine to Germany rather than Nazi Germany's economy just being garbage.

>national socialism (or fascism) would've spread in most countries
Over my dead body.

>And I'm sure you have pages upon pages of citations not of the existence of the boycott, but of its actual, measurable effects. Right? You can demonstrate empirically that the shortages of goods in Nazi Germany were the result of this boycott?
What the fuck do you think the citations at the bottom of the page are for? Eye candy?
Look at a relevant point on the article and find the citation for it, retard.
Capitalists copied a lot of NatSoc ideas so the economy wouldn't just crash as hard when they sucked the life out of it.

War and Economy in the Third Reich by the same author is another good one. Here's a footnote from it about the food situation in Germany:
>Consumption of rye bread in working-class families increased 20% between 1927 and 1937, potatoes by 4%, while consumption of meat was 18% lower, of fats 37% lower, wheat bread 44% lower.
Here's the body of it about the economy in general:
>This factor is of critical importance. Germany was not a 'rich' country in the 1930s in the sense of Britain, France, or the United States. The impact of war, inflation, and recession left large areas of poverty and deprivation. Recovery policies encouraged re-employment or substitute-employment at low wages. Wage controls kept wage rates at depression levels. Real wage growth between the wars was substantial in most other industrial countries, but was much less in Germany. By 1938 real wages had grown 9 per cent since 1913 in Germany, but 53 per cent in the United States, 33 per cent in Britain, and 28 per cent in France. In 1939 average per capita incomes in Germany were two-thirds of average British incomes and only 46 per cent of American, while in Germany prices for many products were higher, or the quality considerably lower than in the west. Consumer durables sold less well in Germany, while food consumption patterns showed a tendency for coarse foods (rye-bread, potatoes) to increase and higher-quality foods to decline. Per capita consumption of meat was 75 per cent of levels in Britain. A British businessman visiting Germany in 1937 noted: 'In the country itself, the standard of living seems low compared with ourselves ... The difficulty of the poorer classes obtaining what may be called "lesser luxuries" i.e. the things just above the limit of necessities is very marked.'
pages 264 and 265

Socialism in any form was just one big mistake waiting to happen. Blaming Jews and being butthurt Germoney devastated itself after getting btfo in a war added to the big fuck up that was Hitler's national socialist Germany. At a time when every party was trying to cater to pissed off poor people, it was obvious it was impossible to win an election if you weren't some kind of socialist. Fucking Marx managed to turn nearly every fucking European into an economically illiterate pseudo commie during that era. And still to this day people rant and rave their versions of socialism/communism and blame the Jew or the capitalist bourgeoisie and name the victim as the proletariat people or a race of people/volk. Its pretty sad when you think about it.

meant for

Murdering Communist whites is more helpful to saving the White race than it would be to try to make them change their ways.

Once a traitor always a traitor.

Nowhere in the entire article is there a single claim made about the empirical impact of the boycott on the German economy.

Yeah I recognise that quote. Shame I didn't have it on hand earlier, it's a great one.

I need to start making up folders for all this material because I get into this argument so often.

Thanks user.

Fuck off kike

>socialist meme
>Hitler
>Marxist philosophy
>at all similar
How do you become this fucking stupid?
>The Haavara Agreement, together with lessened dependence on trade with the West, had by 1937 largely negated the effects of the Jewish boycott on Germany.[19]
>the effects of the Jewish boycott on Germany
Really made me think.
That means it took fucking years to even begin to balance out the fuckery that the Jews tried.

That is not a quantification you fucking illiterate.

>[19]
>What the fuck do you think the citations at the bottom of the page are for? Eye candy?
>Look at a relevant point on the article and find the citation for it, retard.

Better yet, seeing as you obviously have read this book and wouldn't dream of suggesting I spend my time reading something at my own expense something that you haven't even bothered to read yourself, why don't you just quote me the relevant passage from that page?

No, seeing as how you refused to do that for me until I pestered you for it. I don't want to read it either, I'm playing DS2 right now.
But at least I sent you a link so you can look at it, you only sent me one as well. As far as I'm concerned, that's 1:1.

>admits he hasn't read a fucking thing on the entire subject, and yet is absolutely convinced that he is correct
This is the quality of Nazi argumentation.

>Socialist meme
If by that you mean socialism an idea that spread and was propagated by retards then yest socialism actually is a meme and national socialism is too since people still try to spread it. Technically politically ideologies are memes.
Also I never said Hitler's philosophy and how he handled socialism was in any way like Marx's. I'm just saying centrally planned economies are a ticking time bomb and assigning a blame to a certain party or class of people is common and comes with the territory when it comes to National socialism or socialism in general.

>What's the point of posting something you're not going to read? You've clearly already made up your mind.
Sound familiar? I proved that a boycott existed, I can't tell you how much potential income went down the fucking drain because of it. It must have been on a big scale of 1,500 representitives showed up to meetings, and they apparently at least 20,00 ready to march, and so on. They had the certainly had the support to effect the economy.
>Also I never said Hitler's philosophy and how he handled socialism was in any way like Marx's. I'm just saying centrally planned economies are a ticking time bomb and assigning a blame to a certain party or class of people is common and comes with the territory when it comes to National socialism or socialism in general.
National Socialism isn't "Socialism" my friend, and his economy was less planned then you think.

Still planned tho, which is shit. An ethnostate wouldn't be worth living under if you couldn't have such basic freedoms as free market.

A completely (((free market))) lets big companies price fix and overall make life shit for smaller businesses. It also provides an incentive to use overseas shit a lot more since it's cheaper. It's an excuse to let a few private companies control the entire economy. At least they have to go through a middle man with the gov there.

But I did read what you posted - a Wikipedia article. I'll read anything you post. But here's the thing: you didn't post the book. You just said "go buy this book and maybe it has what you want in it, I don't know, I've never read it, I've never even seen it."

If I wanted a list of books that maybe might have some relevant information I'd just fucking punch "nazi germany economy" into Google Scholar. I didn't do that. I came here, to argue with you, under the impression that you had done some research and had relevant material to present. But you don't. You've done zero research. All you can do is post clippings from a newspaper with no idea of context or impact or ANYTHING. All you can say is "WELL IT EXISTED." Do you see the difference between my specific claim, backed up by empirical evidence that is freely available, presented for you to read, and your "well maybe this happened this way, and maybe it had these effects, and maybe this book shows that, but I don't fucking know anything."

I can tell you this: boycotts rarely ever work.
ipr.northwestern.edu/about/news/2017/king-corporate-boycotts.html

On the balance of probabilities I think a few Jews making some noise probably had literally zero impact on the German economy. The """evidence""" you have presented here (a single fucking Wikipedia article) does nothing to change this belief. So fuck off, cunt. Ideologues like you are a plague on this website. You do nothing but spout the same infographics and screencaps and myths every fucking thread, and you get blown out every fucking thread, but come the next one there you are again. You are LITERALLY the exemplar of that "arguing with Jews" quote from Hitler. You will forget your utter abject failure here come this time tomorrow and be spewing the same shit as always.

Ten years I've been on this website.

Let me die.

"Germany and the Second World War", volume 1, part 2 by various authors is another good source. I would like Tooze's book more if it had more wide-ranging figures like this that span over multiple years and decades, but many times his are only in a specific year, or sometimes the date isn't given at all.

where are the 6 gorillion, that were masturbated to death
don't you ever forget stupid goy

This. It is profoundly stupid to think the 3rd Reich was an economic success. It was all debt. If given more time Germany would have looked like East Germany or North Korea.

>Consumption of staple foods was higher in 1933 than it was in 1939.

German population increased by 25% and they were already under a pseudo embargo. So your argument is already smoke and mirrors.

False.

You've got it backwards. The more regulated an industry is, the stronger the position of the biggest corporations, since their compliance costs are cheaper. Regulations erect barriers to entry in the industry so as to eventually cripple entrepreneurship. Price fixing is only possible when those barriers to entry are steep, otherwise anybody could undercut the fixed price by starting a business.

>go buy this book
No, get a pdf or something. There's always one floating around.
>All you can do is post clippings from a newspaper with no idea of context or impact or ANYTHING
The context is literally: Kikes mad at Nazis being elected. That's it. The sources are right plain there on the page, you just refuse to look at them. I, however, am looking at your sources. I've given you the people involved (both the kind and numbers), the consequences, everything you need to make a pretty clear conclusion. Your own link says
"His research shows that the most successful boycotts are those that generate the most media coverage, typically to a single, high-profile company. These headline-grabbing boycotts lead to a greater fall in stock prices and are more likely to cause a company to change its behavior."
And guess what? The Jews continuously made headlines on the Nazis. Hit piece after hit piece. You can't seriously claim I'm not giving you sources: you just don't want to look at them.
Just look at the last paragraph under "mass meetings". It clearly shows that this had a lot of support behind it. Former governors, senators, etc supporting it.

Image also from Germany and the Second World War, volume 1, page 240. Paints a different picture than the other one.
Considering how scarce motor cars were in Germany compared to other countries even by 1939, and how much the military relied on rail transport, I don't know how much of a good investment the highways were.

You have no data.

Opinion discarded.

Whether or not I do read the book, I won't be reading it right now. I have too many other things to read. Since I have not done enough research, and you have not done any research, this discussion is absolutely pointless. Do not expect further reply.