What? Economic growth does not come from building unrelated infrastructure and programs. In order to construct said infrastructure and programs, you must possess a strong economic base to start with. Obviously, Germany did. Ever since Germany was formed it pretty much had an excellent economic base to jump off of, even after horrible defeats and setbacks like WW1 and WW2. Being defeated by America has nothing to do with Germany's success.
If I am wrong, tell me how. Germany’s entire economy post 1932 was aimed at fighting World War II.
Soooo... in order to refute my point about pre-WW1 Germany having a larger economy than GB, you cite sources about the USA? Allright then![]()
Post 1932?
Well, anyways, of course it got directed towards arment and war efforts. But yo u cant direct an economy towards military means if said economy is not up for it! Yes, in good Keynesian manner the Nazi regime did tacjkle the unemployment problem with public investment, which mostly had the form of defense projects (but it gt helped massivyl b the fact that the economcial crisis at this point was becoming better anyways).
However, even for that the industrial and economicla base already had to be in place - and in was in Germany, it just was hindered all the time by things like reperations, the Ruhr occupation and Versailles restrictions (which also did restriuct the German civilian economy).
Nothing,m but neither have you. And Im too lazy to go search anyways. Couple of points about your sources though: First, politcial and economical might are different, and second 1871 is not 1914. In 1871, Britains economy still was larger than Germanys, and really, who could have called even an united Germany more powerful than the British Empire? So that makes sense to rank Germany only strongest on the continent, but it says nothing about its comparative 1914 economy.Now, what have you produced to show that Germany’s economy was larger than Britain’s?
How so?
Hitler’s armaments programs ended the Great Depression in Germany. The Great Depression did not get better on its own.[/quote9
It did. Thats the nature of economy, economcial cycles. In the ealry 30s (that is, beofre Hitler took over), German unemployment and GDP actually did get better again. It wasnt over yet, but, yeah, it got better, the downpoint of teh cycle had been reached.
But enough to severly hurt the economy, as said also coupled with Versailles restrictions Hitler ignored - and on that he did good. And yes the Ruhr Occupation already was over, but thats what Im saying - the economy also already was getting better again.The French had left the Ruhr in 1930, before Hitler became Chancellor and by the time Hitler took power Germany’s reparations payments had been re-negotiated- and even without renegotiation they were never more than Germany could have afforded.
And the "Peaceful British" Empire that used atrocities in the Mau-Mau uprising?
Nothing,m but neither have you.
How so? Have you even read what I’ve posted? The fact that as late as 1900 Britain’s exports accounted for 40% of the world’s total shows that its economy was larger than Germany’s.
This thread is just dumb. People being better off because the British Empire took over? The USA needing to have run herd over Germany and Japan instead of letting them become "threats" to its security? A massive independence movement in Puerto Rico? Where do people in this day and age keep coming up with this moonshine?
No, you just proved that Britain was a large colonial power in terms of exports. You did nothing to prove that Britain had a superior economy than Germany.
It's pretty much just Flaja who's saying that stuff. I expect him to be banned quickly if he steps it up.