-5

I heard, but cannot verify, that some economists call what Hitler did for Germany's economy an "economic miracle."

This claims (my emphases):

Hitler's Economic Miracle
The real reason for World War Two?

"Germany is too strong. We must destroy her."
—Winston Churchill Nov 1936

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly bankrupt. For years, the Allies had demanded crushing reparation payments, and private currency speculators would now cause the German Mark to plummet.

It was a total destruction of the national currency and wiped out saving and businesses, leaving ordinary Germans to starve.

Hitler devised a national credit program which included the construction of new roads, bridges, canals and port facilities.

Jews at this point were removed from prominent financial positions and instead of borrowing from the banks at interest, the government issued bills of exchange called Labour Treasury Certificates.

This issuance of currency was backed by the productivity and economic output of Germany's labour force, and it came on the authority—not of some privately-owned central bank—but that of the National Socialist government itself.

Germany even succeeded in exporting goods abroad despite the 1933 international Jewish boycott, using a barter system that again cut out the banks completely.

As a result, Germany—despite worldwide depression—became the most powerful and prosperous state in Europe in only 5 years.

According to the 1978 book Which Way Western Man? by William Gayley Simpson:

The German peasant, who had been on the verge of utter ruin, was given an honored status as the source of the nation's food supply, his land was released from the grip of the Jewish usurer and measures taken to ensure that it should "remain permanently in the possession of one family, handed down from father to son."

The Jews could not let this continue as they knew it would spell death of their debt-driven monetary system. World War Two starts in earnest that year.

It was not a war between Germany and the Allies; it was a war between Germany and the Jewish powers who controlled the Allied governments and their media, using both to propagandize the Allied populace into fearing and hating the German people.

In the end, it took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution and bring Europe back under the heel of the bankers where it remains to this day.

Are what I emphasized in bold true? What are some good sources regarding this?

thanks

closed as unclear what you're asking by Alex, CsBalazsHungary, Mark C. Wallace, Tea Drinker, congusbongus Mar 5 '15 at 4:34

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • "despite their WWI war debts" doesn't make any sense. They just stopped paying them… – o0'. Mar 4 '15 at 15:30
  • What economic theory would possibly predict that removing Jews from key financial positions would lead to an economic miracle? – two sheds Mar 4 '15 at 15:43
  • @twosheds: One that sees usury as harmful to an economy. – Geremia Mar 4 '15 at 16:16
  • 2
    I do not think it is proper to discuss a Nazi web site here under the title "history". – Alex Mar 4 '15 at 20:02
  • 1
    @Geremia: on my opinion, no special rule is needed. This is a site on history. We should not discuss all kinds of nonsense here. – Alex Mar 6 '15 at 3:42
8

The statement in your second paragraph is a piece of neo-Nazi antisemitic propaganda, which is taken from a Nazi web site. It is improper to call these people "economists".

The economic conditions in Germany indeed improved at the time of Hitler in comparison with what they were before. But this has nothing to to with "removal of Jews" or abolition of "ushury", this is a complete nonsense which should not be seriously discussed in a "history" site.

  • This answer has very little substance and is just your opinion. Where's you evidence backing up your claims that Germany did not abolish usury and reorganize its financial leaders? – Geremia Mar 6 '15 at 3:20
  • @Geremia: What is "ushury"? Banking business? Germany did not abolish banking business. – Alex Mar 6 '15 at 3:43
  • I don't know what "ushury" is, but the OED defines usury as "the practice of charging, taking, or contracting to receive, excessive or illegal rates of interest for money on loan." What the Fed does in making interest off printing/inflating money is even worse than usury (cf. the section "Inflation is Worse Than Usury" of this). – Geremia Mar 6 '15 at 3:50
  • And Hitler abolished this? – Alex Mar 6 '15 at 3:55
  • @Alex That's part of what I'm asking. – Geremia Mar 6 '15 at 4:00
5

I did not watch the movie on the linked web site, so I have no idea what the exact claims are, but I will comment on the alleged "economic miracle" of Nazi Germany from a historical point of view:

At the time the economic events in Germany were popularly considered an economic rejuvenation and Hitler was credited with restoring the economy of Germany. American newspapers of the time, especially socialist papers, had one article after another praising the nationalizing effect of the Nazis. For example, the government would take over a private mine, reduce the hours of the workers, subsidize the mine, plant flowers outside the buildings and such things were publicized as an "economic miracle" and "workers paradise" where the "people" benefitted instead of a few rich owners. The Nazi state crushed Germany's private auto industry and centralized it, creating "Volkswagen", the "people's car" that everyone could afford, not just the rich. American newspapers made a big deal of how the United States was "forgiving" the World War I reparation payments and how this going to be a big win-win for the world economy. The Nazis instituted all kinds of make-work projects to "employ" young men on city-year type projects and then trumpeted how they had "full employment".

In short, everything was done to give an appearance of huge economic success.

In the background, however, and unknown to the public, these superficially beautiful economics had a rotten core. By destroying small businesses and nationalizing everything the Nazi's economic foundation was quicksand. Sure, they could make poster-child successes like Volkswagen with secret subsidies, but the reality was people, rich or poor, were driving fewer cars than ever. Much of the Nazi's glowing "industrial successes" were financed by monetary tricks and large, secret debts originated in Switzerland, in addition to huge internal debts (like Social Security). The Nazis were boasting how they were feeding all the poor old people, but then hiding how they were financing such "successes".

By 1936 on the surface everything was "fantastic", what a huge success, everyone is employed, no more starvation, industry is booming, we are building a highway network unparalleled in the world that will create a new golden age of commerce! It was easy to make it look good in the newspapers. A few wise observers noticed the true reality: secret work gangs were ripping up park benches and railings in Berlin to salvage them for scrap metal, state bankers were taking ever more frequent trips to Switzerland, rationing of critical goods like butter and meat was introduced (1936). If your economy is so good, why are you rationing?

The definitive book to read about this is Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.

  • 1
    I find the argument someone had to starve to death, due to the blockade, so it might as well be the Jews repugnant at its core, and highly suspect. Not all reviews of that book are favourable. – Pieter Geerkens Mar 4 '15 at 16:16
  • 2
    @PieterGeerkens What does this have to do with my answer? Are you citing something from the book? My apologies if you don't like the book, but it is widely considered the best work on Nazi economics published in the last 30 years and one of the most important books ever published on the subject. If you have better books to recommend why not write your own answer? – Tyler Durden Mar 4 '15 at 16:29
  • @TylerDurden I modified my original question with a transcript of the movie's claims. thanks – Geremia Mar 6 '15 at 3:42
  • @PieterGeerkens Of course that's repugnant, but that doesn't imply it didn't happen. – Geremia Mar 6 '15 at 3:45
  • 1
    I don't see what any of this has to do with my answer. – Tyler Durden Mar 6 '15 at 15:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.