It’s easier to think of Nazis as just evil and incompetent. The uncomfortable truth is that a significant part of their platform was popular, especially in the beginning of their rule. They were also extremely competent early on, it wasn’t until Hitler was in full on drug psychosis that things started going down hill. Expecting something the Nazis did, especially early on to be unpopular and a massive red flag is just foolish on the teacher.
It would be better if we focused more on the uncomfortable parts of Nazi Germany. Their militarization efforts pulled them out of global recession faster than everyone else. Jewish segregation was inspired by the US treatment of African Americans. Jesse Owens was treated better in Nazi Germany than in the US despite being a national hero. The eugenics movement was also massively popular in the US and elsewhere. There was a lot of luck involved in the war in Europe going as well as it did, Germany winning wasn’t ever really realistic unless the US aided them, but things could have been much worse.
They were also extremely competent early on, it wasn’t until Hitler was in full on drug psychosis that things started going down hill.
In a lot of ways, it’s not that they were competent, it’s that the more popular parts of their policies (e.g. public spending, job creation programs) were running on borrowed time - the government kind of strong-armed the banks into funding them, and if they were ever going to pay them back, it was through spoils of war. I guess it takes some kind of competency to put that plan into action…
Funnily enough, that’s what I expect a government to do (except for the war part). Invest into the future, reap the rewards later. It’s very difficult to bring about change without credit of some sort. That’s why I’m always confused by the debt ceiling debate in the US - assuming the money would be invested into the country and not siphoned off, which I know is naive. But investing money it doesn’t have (yet) is one of the main levers a government has, usually supported by taxes in the following years.
You’re not wrong. If you could be reasonably certain that you’re 1. going to win the war and 2. win the war without too much damage to your own country, it would be a sound investment. The Nazis probably had enough overconfidence to believe both of those.
You make it sound like spoils of war wasn’t the main income for Europe for pretty much all of history until then. Colonialism put a little nicer name on it.
After industrialization, selling industrial products was frequently far more profitable than the expensive and uncertain spoils of war. Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.
And there wasn’t really a likely reality where Nazi Germany fought their war in a way that was actually winnable, their overconfidence was only matched by the idiocy of many of their tactic and strategic decisions.
You’re right about colonialism being a net loss for the government. In the Netherlands the NSB (Dutch Nazi Party) based a lot of their messaging around the idea that if the Netherlands were to join up with the allied forces, they would be forced to relinquish their colonies.
This was absolute nonsense but it spoke to people at the time because the idea of giving the colonies their independence had become a popular talking point during the recession because they were no longer profitable (fuckery involving the united fruit company).
During the second world war the Dutch colonies would become profitable but for completely different reasons. Basically a lot of the fosfate used in bombs came from Curacao and the aluminum to craft airplanes came from Suriname.
Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.
noteworthy the british empire never turned a profit for england at all. it was losses all the way through. the english wikipedia article mentions it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
edit: nvm i can’t find it anymore rn. probably i remembered badly
Also, duckduckgoing it, there are quite a few sources that still claim that the British Empire wasn’t profitable for the government in Britain, or regular British people, e.g.:
TBH the “Economy of the British Empire” article is poorly sourced, especially for the claim that Britain profited from its colonies - the linked source is a Fortune article (even if it has help from an economic historian from Stanford), with only one paragraph on the British empire, and the relevant sentance seems to be this:
“At the height of the British Empire, about 6% of its total output came from its colonies, more than any other Western power.”
I don’t really understand what this is supposed to mean, since according to the table in the Wikipedia article, British India’s GDP was higher than the UK’s. 6% certainly doesn’t sound impressive. But even then, GDP =/= profit, and being the worldwide dominant power is not really a status that most colonial powers can hope to achieve.
Eh, Nazi Germany basically attacked Poland to do settler colonialism (or at least that was the regime’s justification). Main difference is that the Poles were more developed that e.g. the Native Americans.
IMO the error is assuming that it was likely to be successful and profitable, war/colonialism is generally not sound government policy.
Spoils and plunder isn’t really trade. Rome wasn’t trading for slaves, Spain wasn’t trading for gold, England wasn’t trading for anything that they could lift…
and yet, despite all the ‘genius’ of our political consultant class, they can’t seem to understand that. because they are so blinded by ‘social issues’, at least in the USA.
and when candidates focus on economic issues and less on social ones… they do way better at the polls and have better approval ratings… especially when their policies make a positive and visible economic impact…
but then again, in USA at least, our political class is so totally detached from economic reality of the voter, so i suppose it’s inevitable, really.
It’s not so much that the political consultants don’t understand that. It’s more that they can’t do anything about it: That would mean changing our economic structure to help out the workers, rather than their rich friends.
the USA politicians understand perfectly well that it’s all about the economic situation. yet they have already decided that they won’t tax the rich (because their rich friends say so) so they need to make up excuses and divert the attention to other topics instead. at least that’s how it has been for the last 3 elections that i actually looked at up-close.
It’s easier to think of Nazis as just evil and incompetent. The uncomfortable truth is that a significant part of their platform was popular, especially in the beginning of their rule. They were also extremely competent early on, it wasn’t until Hitler was in full on drug psychosis that things started going down hill. Expecting something the Nazis did, especially early on to be unpopular and a massive red flag is just foolish on the teacher.
It would be better if we focused more on the uncomfortable parts of Nazi Germany. Their militarization efforts pulled them out of global recession faster than everyone else. Jewish segregation was inspired by the US treatment of African Americans. Jesse Owens was treated better in Nazi Germany than in the US despite being a national hero. The eugenics movement was also massively popular in the US and elsewhere. There was a lot of luck involved in the war in Europe going as well as it did, Germany winning wasn’t ever really realistic unless the US aided them, but things could have been much worse.
In a lot of ways, it’s not that they were competent, it’s that the more popular parts of their policies (e.g. public spending, job creation programs) were running on borrowed time - the government kind of strong-armed the banks into funding them, and if they were ever going to pay them back, it was through spoils of war. I guess it takes some kind of competency to put that plan into action…
Funnily enough, that’s what I expect a government to do (except for the war part). Invest into the future, reap the rewards later. It’s very difficult to bring about change without credit of some sort. That’s why I’m always confused by the debt ceiling debate in the US - assuming the money would be invested into the country and not siphoned off, which I know is naive. But investing money it doesn’t have (yet) is one of the main levers a government has, usually supported by taxes in the following years.
You’re not wrong. If you could be reasonably certain that you’re 1. going to win the war and 2. win the war without too much damage to your own country, it would be a sound investment. The Nazis probably had enough overconfidence to believe both of those.
You make it sound like spoils of war wasn’t the main income for Europe for pretty much all of history until then. Colonialism put a little nicer name on it.
After industrialization, selling industrial products was frequently far more profitable than the expensive and uncertain spoils of war. Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.
And there wasn’t really a likely reality where Nazi Germany fought their war in a way that was actually winnable, their overconfidence was only matched by the idiocy of many of their tactic and strategic decisions.
You’re right about colonialism being a net loss for the government. In the Netherlands the NSB (Dutch Nazi Party) based a lot of their messaging around the idea that if the Netherlands were to join up with the allied forces, they would be forced to relinquish their colonies.
This was absolute nonsense but it spoke to people at the time because the idea of giving the colonies their independence had become a popular talking point during the recession because they were no longer profitable (fuckery involving the united fruit company).
During the second world war the Dutch colonies would become profitable but for completely different reasons. Basically a lot of the fosfate used in bombs came from Curacao and the aluminum to craft airplanes came from Suriname.
noteworthy the british empire never turned a profit for england at all. it was losses all the way through. the english wikipedia article mentions it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
edit: nvm i can’t find it anymore rn. probably i remembered badly
this article (Economy of the British Empire) mentions that it was profitable.
Also, duckduckgoing it, there are quite a few sources that still claim that the British Empire wasn’t profitable for the government in Britain, or regular British people, e.g.:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2598015
https://iea.org.uk/media/empire-and-slavery-did-not-make-britain-rich-finds-new-iea-book/
(I’m not that knowledgable about the quality of these particular sources, just demonstrating that the claim isn’t rare)
thanks, especially this second link seems convincing to me. they argue fairly well, with clear arguments and meaningful logical conclusions.
TBH the “Economy of the British Empire” article is poorly sourced, especially for the claim that Britain profited from its colonies - the linked source is a Fortune article (even if it has help from an economic historian from Stanford), with only one paragraph on the British empire, and the relevant sentance seems to be this:
“At the height of the British Empire, about 6% of its total output came from its colonies, more than any other Western power.”
I don’t really understand what this is supposed to mean, since according to the table in the Wikipedia article, British India’s GDP was higher than the UK’s. 6% certainly doesn’t sound impressive. But even then, GDP =/= profit, and being the worldwide dominant power is not really a status that most colonial powers can hope to achieve.
You’re right in what you say but it’s not relevant to this discussion. Colonialism is a very different MO than attacking neighboring countries.
Eh, Nazi Germany basically attacked Poland to do settler colonialism (or at least that was the regime’s justification). Main difference is that the Poles were more developed that e.g. the Native Americans.
IMO the error is assuming that it was likely to be successful and profitable, war/colonialism is generally not sound government policy.
It’s a matter of distance really. Germany raiding France or Brazil isn’t functionally different.
brazil didn’t yet have weapons to attack the homeland, france did
most of europe had very little income from international trade until 1800 or sth
Spoils and plunder isn’t really trade. Rome wasn’t trading for slaves, Spain wasn’t trading for gold, England wasn’t trading for anything that they could lift…
reason it was popular is because they… delivered on a lot of their political promises.
the german economy was in shambles in the 20s and early 30s and they made it boom. people like that.
“It’s the economy stupid” is probably the most applicable statement to how political success happens across all systems and ages.
and yet, despite all the ‘genius’ of our political consultant class, they can’t seem to understand that. because they are so blinded by ‘social issues’, at least in the USA.
and when candidates focus on economic issues and less on social ones… they do way better at the polls and have better approval ratings… especially when their policies make a positive and visible economic impact…
but then again, in USA at least, our political class is so totally detached from economic reality of the voter, so i suppose it’s inevitable, really.
It’s not so much that the political consultants don’t understand that. It’s more that they can’t do anything about it: That would mean changing our economic structure to help out the workers, rather than their rich friends.
George Carlin said it clearly. “Cause the owners of this country won’t allow it”
the USA politicians understand perfectly well that it’s all about the economic situation. yet they have already decided that they won’t tax the rich (because their rich friends say so) so they need to make up excuses and divert the attention to other topics instead. at least that’s how it has been for the last 3 elections that i actually looked at up-close.
they are the rich.
fastest way to become a multi-millionare is to be elected to federal government.
By taking on unrepayable levels of debt and stealing from Jewish citizens