Hitler's Economic Principles

[Camikaze]

To go off on a tangent from the Obama-Hitler? thread, what were Hitler's economic principles, and how were, or weren't they reflected in his policies, or the policies of other Nazi officials?

Originally Posted by Moff Jerjerrod
Just want to point out a small mistake: Hitler was a Fascist, Obama is a Communist

Other than that continue with the discussion.

Originally Posted by Camikaze
But Hitler's economic principles were, in fact, quite socialist.

Originally Posted by Dachs
Outlawing trade unions? Banning strikes? The tax cuts in the Reinhardt Plan? Close partnerships with big businessmen? Patronage of major firms such as Messerschmitt and IG Farben? Hell, workers even lost the right to quit their jobs, and needed their employer's permission.

Originally Posted by Cutlass
No they weren't. German and Italian fascism of the 20s and 30s was built on co opting the language and groups of socialism while ruthlessly crushing the reality of socialism.

Originally Posted by Cheezy the Wiz
Aaand reality comes smashing back one post later.

Interestingly, some of their other policies were quite leftist in nature, including pension and retirement money, health care, and unemployment compensation for all citizens. Of course, to be a citizen one must be "ethnically German"...

My original point was that many of Hitler's, or more to the point, the NSDAP's, economic principles, were quite socialist. Principles, not policies. I got this from the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, albeit published in 1920, well before the Nazi's had a chance to realise any of their goals.

[9] All citizens (see points 4-8) of the nation must have equal rights and obligations.
[10] The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. Citizens work for the benefit of the nation.
[11] We demand the abolition of uneraned incomes.
[13] We demand the nationalisation of all industries.
[14] We demand a division of profits of all industries.
[15] We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
[17] We demand a land reform suitable to our needs ... abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
[20] The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education.
[21] The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labour, by the encouragment of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organisations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Firstly, was the 25 Point Program a reflection of Hitler's personal beliefs?

And, again, how were these economic principles transformed or not transformed into policy by the Nazi government?

Also, to what extent are they socialist, or socialist-like, principles, and later on, socialist, or socialist-like policies?

And, taking a structuralist approach, was Hitler himself merely opposed to communism on a race basis, and in fact favourably disposed to socialist economic principles, with the chaotic Nazi government misinterpreting these race based anti-communist beliefs as economically based anti-socialist beliefs in their decision making?

 

[Agent327]

Other than the ignorant Obama comment, all of your quotes are theoretically accurate, save for one small detail: Hitler wanted a reversion of the Versailles Treaty and that, to him, meant war. Also his virulent anti-semitism had a strong economic component. (On a micro-economic scale however, Nazi economic "principles" were all about self-enrichment - not of the nation, but of leading Nazis in person.) Finally, Hitler cared little for German people or economics, other than what was needed to create his "1000 year Reich".

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah. Hitler himself was really only interested in foreign policy, not domestic policy. Many of the 25 points were imperialist, and, of course, against the Treaty of Versailles:

[2] Cancellation of the peace Treaty of Versailles.

But he himself was not lavish and worried about personal wealth, as was, say, Goering. But, taking a structuralist viewpoint, his personal non-interest in personal wealth wouldn't have mattered towards Nazi policy, as he wouldn't have developed any policies pertaining to it.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Finally, Hitler cared little for German people or economics, other than what was needed to create his "1000 year Reich".

Germany was almost bankrupt before attack to Poland, which one was of the decisions leading to war.. and of course looting Jewish possessions helped.

 

[Masada]

Also his virulent anti-semitism had a strong economic component. (On a micro-economic scale however, Nazi economic "principles" were all about self-enrichment - not of the nation, but of leading Nazis in person.)

Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was Minister for Finance under Hitler till 1937. Mefo Bills and the deals he hammered out with a slew of nations that allowed payments in Reichmark was what allowed Germany to run a huge CAD and re-arm at the same.

Mefo Bills effectively allowed the state to issue secretly bonds, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles allowing both a larger deficit (4.5% interest was the limitation) than was technically possible and a mass of spending on re-armament which was able to be hidden.

The yawning German CAD, was also effectively closed, allowing the purchase of raw materials in Reichsmarks which of course had to be spent in the Reich. These raw materials including rubber and other crucial war materials further assisted in Germany's rearmament.

Of course Mssr. Schacht was also instrumental in allowing Hitler to ascend to power in the first place, who polled all the industrialists and got their endorsements for Hitler? Granted that was a mistake, one he remedied later by being active in the resistance to Hitler later in the game. Hitler was no economist, he relied in his early pre-war years on the services of Mssr. Schanct, Germany's economic policy in large part was Mssr. Schancts.

I also call bull on the second assertion, some certainly profited, and amassed substantial fortunes. But for a dictatorial state it was remarkably parsimonious, find me a dictatorship which has taken less, for that matter find me a dictator that has taken less.

*

Nazi economic principles were fairly similar to German Socialist economic principles, sure they crushed and brutalized the Socialists... but they were not all together dissimilar. They did tend to aim towards militaristic purposes, but in a German political party that was not exactly uncommon. In any case, it is to simplistic to call them socialist, but they certainly owe alot to the German left (although as mentioned above, Mssr. Schanct was from the German right). They oscillated and changed... as time went on and its very hard to know how they would have ended up had they won the war.

But he himself was not lavish and worried about personal wealth, as was, say, Goering. But, taking a structuralist viewpoint, his personal non-interest in personal wealth wouldn't have mattered towards Nazi policy, as he wouldn't have developed any policies pertaining to it.

Not with the central party certainly... but with everyone else I think it was a given that corruption and malfeasance were less than desirable (war profiteering et al were all punishable by death). It's not like they could fleece the public purse or accept the corporate dollar to much or the leader might get annoyed sufficiently at the abuse to act. We need to view the state at least at the top as a system of personal links not as a system or institution unto itself, that was yet to develop. Personal links as in a new Monarchy were the glue which kept the central party together... not institutional relationships between at least nominally indifferent Ministers.

Germany was almost bankrupt before attack to Poland, which one was of the decisions leading to war.. and of course looting Jewish possessions helped.

It didn't matter if it defaulted to be completely honest on its conventional bonds. Most were not held by Germans (hyper inflation) and were low interest in any case 4.5% as per the Treaty of Versailles. Mefo Bills were never meant to be on-sold or redeemed in any case. I also don't think Jewish possessions counted for a significant portion of German expenditure.

 

[Agent327]

Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was Minister for Finance under Hitler till 1937. Mefo Bills and the deals he hammered out with a slew of nations that allowed payments in Reichmark was what allowed Germany to run a huge CAD and re-arm at the same.

Mefo Bills effectively allowed the state to issue secretly bonds, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles allowing both a larger deficit (4.5% interest was the limitation) than was technically possible and a mass of spending on re-armament which was able to be hidden.

The yawning German CAD, was also effectively closed, allowing the purchase of raw materials in Reichsmarks which of course had to be spent in the Reich. These raw materials including rubber and other crucial war materials further assisted in Germany's rearmament.

Of course Mssr. Schacht was also instrumental in allowing Hitler to ascend to power in the first place, who polled all the industrialists and got their endorsements for Hitler? Granted that was a mistake, one he remedied later by being active in the resistance to Hitler later in the game. Hitler was no economist, he relied in his early pre-war years on the services of Mssr. Schanct, Germany's economic policy in large part was Mssr. Schancts.

I also call bull on the second assertion, some certainly profited, and amassed substantial fortunes. But for a dictatorial state it was remarkably parsimonious, find me a dictatorship which has taken less, for that matter find me a dictator that has taken less.

You can bull all you want, but:

1. Hjalmar Schacht never was a member of the NSDAP
2. You seem to forget that WW II rendered huge amounts of plunder, both to the Nazi state and to leading Nazis (Hitler certainly not excluded, although Goering topped the bill. The Nazi state may have depended on personal relations in governance and other administrative matters, but ultimately those relations were only important because of their link to the Führer, who was both head of the party and of the state, and ultimately of the army - through the infamous Führer oath of loyalty and by assuming supreme command in the course of the war. The Nazis in fact couln't have lead the country if it wasn't for the willing assistance of leading economists and especially industrialists, something Hitler realized quite early on and fit him well, as he was totally uninterested in labour interests, having never worked a day in his life.)

 

[Yeekim]

Germany was almost bankrupt before attack to Poland, which one was of the decisions leading to war.. and of course looting Jewish possessions helped.

Being "almost" bankrupt was probably a massive improvement over much of Weimar era.
IIRC, at times 2/3 of Weimar Republic's budget was spent on paying unemployment benefits (which weren't exactly big to begin with).

 

[Masada]

1. Hjalmar Schacht never was a member of the NSDAP

He was the Reich Minister of Economics, from August 34' to November 36' and was a Minister without portfolio until 43'. It doesn't matter that he wasn't a member of the NSDAP, he was a key player in the rise of Hitler, the re-armament of Germany, and was the person most responsible for the stabilization of the German economy. He setup the system of 'Nazi economics' that predominated in Germany in the lead up to the war, the only deviation from his model was the increased re-armament via the Four Year Plan in October 36'. Public works including the autobahns, the 'new plan', 'mefo bills' and the trade deals with like-minded 'fascist' regimes in South America and Europe were all accomplished under his watch. The only thing he opposed out of 'Nazi economics' was re-armament, and even that is strictly speaking not true, he opposed it at the time, he did not oppose it on principle.

He was also according to Wikipedia:

was awarded honorary membership of the NSDAP and the Golden Swastika in January 1937.

It's also important to note that a fair few members of other German right wing parties who served and supported the Nazi's did not become members. Didn't help them at Nuremberg, Nazi Party membership was not a precondition to trial.

*

You seem to forget that WW II rendered huge amounts of plunder, both to the Nazi state and to leading Nazis (Hitler certainly not excluded, although Goering topped the bill.

As to your second point, go figure it was a totalitarian regime, to paraphrase a certain English Gentleman who conquered large swathes of India, when called to Court on charges of corruption, "I am honestly surprised, considering the circumstance that I did not take more" [quoted from memory mind]. Leading Nazi's certainly made a killing, but its not like they diverted all the wealth of Poland to their own pockets to the detriment of the army and the regime. They indulged in a little bit of skim which on the whole considering the windfall to the state mattered not a whit to the war effort. It is therefore logical to assume that if they didn't completely loot everything they took for their own personal gain some sort of counteracting agent existed... in this case Hitler.

The Nazi state may have depended on personal relations in governance and other administrative matters, but ultimately those relations were only important because of their link to the Führer, who was both head of the party and of the state, and ultimately of the army - through the infamous Führer oath of loyalty and by assuming supreme command in the course of the war.

I didn't use the word Monarchy without a certain intent... to I don't know paint Hitler as a King with courtiers swanning around him for favor? Your also overstating the power of the Führer in a military setting, an oath wasn't enough to keep Canaris and co. honest was it? He had the loyalty of the military insofar as he maintained loyalists at the top, a certain 'lapdog' springs to mind, and managed to continue winning the war. Once that stopped he lost the loyalty of the significant parts of the upper echelons of the military. Some took a further step and drew the conclusion that he was losing Germany the war and took matters into their own hands, some may have had genuine objections on a moral level or never shared Nazi ideals... in any case it was only when the war was being lost that the majority acted.

The Nazis in fact couln't have lead the country if it wasn't for the willing assistance of leading economists and especially industrialists, something Hitler realized quite early on and fit him well, as he was totally uninterested in labour interests, having never worked a day in his life.)

When did I deny that? Your also wrong, Hitler hated organized labor unions, not because he was opposed to the notion of labor interests, but because they were tied to his chief ideological enemies, Communism and Socialism. He also hated them with the passion for their percieved links to Jews [at least for some of them] and because it had been labor unions in cahoots with others which according to his beliefs stabbed Germany in the back. He formed a state backed union organization to replace the ones he destroyed which was modeled on 'proper' German principles. He was also fond of some weird social policies, some of which included holidays in occupied Scandinavia as a means of re-connecting with German values... etc.

 

[JonathanStrange]

I've not read much in this area. I had seen these two books recently at my public library Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State and The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy which might give me some further insight into an area usually not prominently discussed. The reason I didn't check them out? Opportunity costs! The second book alone looked like 800 pages on a subject that while interesting isn't sufficiently interesting enough for me to complete.

But this is an interesting thread I can follow...

 

[Azale]

Weren't the Strasserites socialist to an extent?

 

[amadeus]

Weren't the Strasserites socialist to an extent?

The Strasser wing was certainly the more socialist in the way in which we think of socialist economic planning.

 

[luiz]

There were many socialist elements in the Nazi Party, especially in the early period. But his policies, IMO, could be described as vaguely Keynesian. Actually, considering that it is said that Nazi Germany inspired Keynes and not the other way around, we can say that Keynesianism is vaguely Hitleristic.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

The political compass website says that Hitler's policies were Keynesian.

 

[Agent327]

I think that overrates Herr Hitler's grasp of matters economic; he was about as good at it as we was at military strategy. Personally I don't think he'd ever heard of Keynes; reading wasn't his strong suit. (For instance, he needed glasses to read - which he hardly ever wore - and consistently referred to the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer as Schoppenhauer.)

He was the Reich Minister of Economics, from August 34' to November 36' and was a Minister without portfolio until 43'. It doesn't matter that he wasn't a member of the NSDAP, he was a key player in the rise of Hitler, the re-armament of Germany, and was the person most responsible for the stabilization of the German economy. He setup the system of 'Nazi economics' that predominated in Germany in the lead up to the war, the only deviation from his model was the increased re-armament via the Four Year Plan in October 36'.

Schacht feared it would cause inflation. Anyway with the implementation of the 4 Year Plan (how original), his role was basically finished.

It's also important to note that a fair few members of other German right wing parties who served and supported the Nazi's did not become members. Didn't help them at Nuremberg, Nazi Party membership was not a precondition to trial.

And Schacht was acquitted, partly because he'd been imprisoned in a camp following involvement in plans to remove Hitler, notably the Schauffenberg plot of '44. (Actually, Schacht was made an honorary member of the NSDAP, an offer which one couldn't refuse.)

Leading Nazi's certainly made a killing, but its not like they diverted all the wealth of Poland to their own pockets to the detriment of the army and the regime. They indulged in a little bit of skim which on the whole considering the windfall to the state mattered not a whit to the war effort. It is therefore logical to assume that if they didn't completely loot everything they took for their own personal gain some sort of counteracting agent existed... in this case Hitler.

You seem to have quite a rosy idea of Hitler's noble character. As said, Hitler took what he could; he made millions. But that's not the point: the Nazi state at war was a plunder state - conquered nations were ruthlessly exploited, especially in Eastern Europe, all to serve the greater effort towards Greater Germany's victory. (In fact the Nazi treatment of Ukrainians alienated many who initially welcomed them as liberators from the Soviet regime.)

He had the loyalty of the military insofar as he maintained loyalists at the top, a certain 'lapdog' springs to mind, and managed to continue winning the war. Once that stopped he lost the loyalty of the significant parts of the upper echelons of the military. Some took a further step and drew the conclusion that he was losing Germany the war and took matters into their own hands, some may have had genuine objections on a moral level or never shared Nazi ideals... in any case it was only when the war was being lost that the majority acted.

The oath of loyalty ensured that any soldier was subject to high treason when not following orders. The fact of the matter is, that the majority of the military never dared stand up to Hitler, let alone plot against him. (Several generals were tried at Neurenberg.) In private, notwithstanding the emasculation of the top military by Hitler's machinations, he expressed his admiration for Stalin, who could simply execute failing generals. (He never grasped that the failure of the German military was the result of his own blundering decisions - one of the reasons why the British aborted an attempt to murder Hitler.)

 

[kronic]

You can easily combine a planned economy with fascism. No need to call it socialist.

 

[Cutlass]

I would suggest reading this to get an idea of how well the fascist movement in Germany got along with the socialists. http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237331633&sr=1-2

 

[luiz]

You can easily combine a planned economy with fascism. No need to call it socialist.

I think that, if you are to have fascism, you have to combine it with a planned economy.

 

[Masada]

I think that overrates Herr Hitler's grasp of matters economic; he was about as good at it as we was at military strategy. Personally I don't think he'd ever heard of Keynes; reading wasn't his strong suit. (For instance, he needed glasses to read - which he hardly ever wore - and consistently referred to the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer as Schoppenhauer.)

When have I ever talked about Hitlers grasp of economics? Honestly, aside from making the point that he was a restraining influence in the looting for personal gains stakes I've never bought him into the argument. Schacht was the finance minister....

Schacht feared it would cause inflation. Anyway with the implementation of the 4 Year Plan (how original), his role was basically finished.

Correct he did fear it would cause inflation (which was only partially correct, he had engineered the system such that it didn't create quite as much as he thought). But the economic superstructure of the state, he created, lasted right up until the German economy had to gear up for total war. If you will, he created the playbook, everyone else followed it with the occasional deviation - re-armament and the formal creation of an industrial cartel. Just because he was no longer calling the shots, does not mean that his legacy, wasn't being followed.

And Schacht was acquitted, partly because he'd been imprisoned in a camp following involvement in plans to remove Hitler, notably the Schauffenberg plot of '44. (Actually, Schacht was made an honorary member of the NSDAP, an offer which one couldn't refuse.)

You've missed the boat. It didn't matter that he wasn't a Nazi, Nazi peacetime economics and even for a significant period wartime economics were his creation. He had the formulaic years to shape the system, and did so.

As said, Hitler took what he could; he made millions. But that's not the point: the Nazi state at war was a plunder state - conquered nations were ruthlessly exploited, especially in Eastern Europe, all to serve the greater effort towards Greater Germany's victory. (In fact the Nazi treatment of Ukrainians alienated many who initially welcomed them as liberators from the Soviet regime.)

When have I contradicted this? I'm merely stating that Nazi economics as opposed to Nazi plunder owes most to Schacht . How that plunder was used also owes alot to Schacht , you should investigate the role he played in getting the industrialists (which Hitler was wary of) on side with the Nazis.

The oath of loyalty ensured that any soldier was subject to high treason when not following orders. The fact of the matter is, that the majority of the military never dared stand up to Hitler, let alone plot against him. (Several generals were tried at Neurenberg.) In private, notwithstanding the emasculation of the top military by Hitler's machinations, he expressed his admiration for Stalin, who could simply execute failing generals. (He never grasped that the failure of the German military was the result of his own blundering decisions - one of the reasons why the British aborted an attempt to murder Hitler.)

It's treason not to obey your lawful governments orders in time of war anyway - your former enemies who at the end of the war decide what is legal and what was not legal notwithstanding. The fact of the matter is that millions were in no position to bring down a dictatorial regime (like almost every other dictatorial regime) and that it was the upper echelons of the military in a military coup who tend to do it (outside of say the Sergeants Coup and a few other African examples).

His generals certainly grasped that fact, but Hitler was just doing what a great many people do having proved everyone wrong in the early stages, he had a confirmation bias. Just because some were party animals or had other conflicting reasons not to get rid of him, doesn't mean that a great many did not actively try and bring him down.

*

You seem to have quite a rosy idea of Hitler's noble character.

You haven't countered any of my points, beyond attempting to smear me as Pro-Hitler because I correctly deduced that something had to be holding back the agents of a dictatorial regime, in this case the dictator. It's not a glowing character reference its a simple recognition that Hilter for all his faults was not as spectacularly corrupt as he could have been ala Suharto or Marcos.

Nor have you really come up with a coherent narrative or system with which to explain 'Nazi economics'. Aside from lamely trying to say that Schant wasn't a Nazi (which is irrelevant) or that he didn't have anything to do with setting up the economy (it was his creation and it had continuity till later in the war). You can argue that the plunder aspect of the economy was important during the war, but you can't remove Schacht 's influence as any less important, given that the pre-war portion of 'Nazi economics' was as long as the wartime period.

I think that, if you are to have fascism, you have to combine it with a planned economy.

You need an element of planning, I think its a given in a dictatorship. Control of the economy in reality means just that extra degree of control and safety.

 

[Camikaze]

I would suggest reading this to get an idea of how well the fascist movement in Germany got along with the socialists. http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237331633&sr=1-2

I am well aware that Hitler didn't like socialists and really didn't like communists, but was this due to the 'November Criminals' myth and racial reasons, rather than economic principles? I'm starting to think that Hitler didn't really know anything about economics, and was merely opposed to socialists for the aforementioned reasons. More economically wise officials may have interpreted this dislike of socialists on an ignorant level, for a dislike of socialists on an economics level, therefore implementing anti-socialist policies, despite Hitler possibly having, in fact, reasonably socialist economic principles. That is what I'm interested in. Were his principles socialist, but the policies implemented anti-socialist?

With regards to trade unions, Dachs brought up the point that they were abolished by the Nazis. But they were replaced with the wider German Labour Front. Was this a more socialist, yet totalitarian, policy, creating organised labour under government, or was it simply a free market policy, getting rid of protection for employees?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I think that, if you are to have fascism, you have to combine it with a planned economy.

Pinochet (though I probably know much less about him than the South American )