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....
Minister of economics, actually. Before that he was president of the Reichsbank. The point is Schacht didn't agree with Hitler's preference for autarky and protectionism; it was this conflict of interests that ultimately removed him from a position of power.
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.
The "economic superstructure" was already in place
before Schacht; it's a given.
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.
Obviously Schacht shifted way to the right after he co-founded the German Democratic Party. But the wartime autarkic/protectionist system was none of his making, as I pointed out above.
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.
You seem to overestimate both Schacht's role in the war economy and the chaotic way the Nazi state actually worked. As concerns the first, Albert Speer did much more to ensure wartime production:
While Speer had tremendous power, he was of course subordinate to Hitler. Nazi officials sometimes went around Speer by seeking direct orders from the dictator. When Speer ordered peacetime building work suspended, the Gauleiters (Nazi Party district leaders) obtained an exemption for their pet projects. When Speer sought the appointment of Hanke as a labor czar to optimize the use of German labor, Hitler, under the influence of Martin Bormann, instead appointed Fritz Sauckel. Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing labor from the occupied nations — and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, using the most brutal methods.[72]
By 1943, the Allies had gained air superiority over Germany, and bombings of German cities and industry had become commonplace. However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign did not concentrate on industry, and Speer, with his improvisational skill, was able to overcome bombing losses. In spite of these losses, German production of tanks more than doubled in 1943, production of planes increased by 80 percent, and production time for submarines was reduced from one year to two months. Production would continue to increase until the second half of 1944, by which time enough equipment to supply 270 army divisions was being produced—although the Wehrmacht had only 150 divisions in the field.[75]
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.
Though there were in all 42 assassination attempts against Hitler, none succeeded obviously, mostly because of poor organisation. That "millions were in no position to bring down a dictatorial regime" did not stop daring individuals from trying. But I would not say that "a great many did ... actively try and bring him down." (That just contradicts the former statement as far as numbers are concerned.) The upper echelons of the military - individual exceptions notwithstanding - completely failed to take the consequences of Hitler's disastrous leadership.
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.
On the contrary, I have countered several points, but you choose to ignore this. I did not suggest you being pro-Hitler, merely did I point out that you misinterpret Hitler's moderative role, if any. (You claim this, but give no examples or evidence to support it.)
If you want a "narrative or system with which to explain 'Nazi economics'", there are plenty of books on the subject; it is not my place to substitute for these. To say that the economy of the Third Reich was "his creation" is simply an exaggeration of Schacht's personal role, an understimation of the forces underlying the economy at large and shows a lack of understanding of the chaotic nature of the Nazi regime in general.
Suharto and Marcos do not compare to Hitler's totalitarian regime; that's just an underestimation of the horrors of fascism; a comparison to Franco would be more suitable. Hitler was corrupt for sure (all dictators are); he just hid it very well, as he was always aware of his public image. A man who condoned and authorized the Final Solution (and made sure no direct evidence linked him to it) is by definition not only corrupt to the extreme, but plain evil; to anyone who's ever read
Mein Kampf it's crystal clear that such a man is by no means a moderate. That Hitler wasn't an extremist when it came to economics is mostly due to both his lack of knowledge of and alck of interest in the subject; he never approved a "total war" economy until late 1944, when it could make little difference anymore. (One reason for this was that it would mean a concentration of power in another man's hands, something he always was very suspicious of.)
. 
)
