If Hitler had not invaded Czechoslovakia?

[Typo]

They are government consumption. Government consumption is paid by taxes. The workers pay taxes, and thus forsakes private consumption for government consumption. Just replaces tanks with hospitals if that makes you happy, it doesn't really make any difference. Its just a matter of (national) preferences.

You didn't answer the question

In a country which produces weapons as its primary product, how do you keep the purchasing power of the average worker in lieu of hard currency/commodity to facilitate imports while inflating your currency into worthlessness?

I mean your answer right now is basically to choose butter over guns, but of course that would imply the slowing down or cessation of rearmament, like let's ignore the difficulty of how that could actually be done without massive economical disruptions, but that's kinda what we are saying in the first place: that Germany can't rearm without looting foreign resources.

 

[Peter]

The size of the German public sector was way smaller then the post-war public sector. Running a large government sector is quite obviously not something that will immediately lead to national collapse.

You are just moralizing over the composition of German consumption, but get this: consumptions by definition implies to consumption of resources, and from a macro-economic view-point its quite irrelevant if that consumption is of butter or guns. That is just a matter of preference.

In a country which produces weapons as its primary product, how do you keep the purchasing power of the average worker in lieu of hard currency/commodity to facilitate imports while inflating your currency into worthlessness?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

However, generally, stimulating the economy when it is already at the natural rate of production is, of course, not good. It will lead to, among other things, inflation. And there are clear signs that Germany was overheated. However, the sky was not about to fall. Hyperinflation was not next. And if it was, the looting of some yellow metal wouldn't really change it.

And if Germany was really concerned about its negative balance of payment it could just have re-pegged its currency to a lower level, making imports more expensive and exports cheaper.

If I'm to clarify my position, this is want to say:

1. There's no economic reasoning why a depressed country can't return to full production through building tanks. It works fine.

2. That's what Germany did.

3. Thus, despite there being I'm sure many pathologies in the German economy, with clear signs of overheating etc, the idea that Germany was about to die if it didn't launch a world war (since those are so economically beneficial) is not a position borne out of rational analysis, but rather economic moralism.

 

[Typo]

The size of the German public sector was way smaller then the post-war public sector. Running a large government sector is quite obviously not something that will immediately lead to national collapse.

You are just moralizing over the composition of German consumption, but get this: consumptions by definition implies to consumption of resources, and from a macro-economic view-point its quite irrelevant if that consumption is of butter or guns. That is just a matter of preference.

So dude, can you start answering questions instead of just stating again your incredibly poor understanding of economical concepts and red herrings?

Like seriously you seem to be taking an intro level Econ course atm and is trying to shove as many concepts into your posts as possible regardless of how much you understand them or how relevant they are.

 

[Peter]

I answered it as good as I could. (See the edit.) The question wasn't very coherent, though.

And no, I'm not taking introductory level economics. You might benefit from one, though.

 

[Elfwine]

Alas, we will miss your confusi...er, contributions.

On the issue of German rearmament (to Typo et al): If Germany had a sane & sustainable rearmament program, would Czechoslovakia still be worth invading (beyond obviously more power is better), or is the value primarily because Germany is eating its seedcorn?

 

[Typo]

I answered it as good as I could. It wasn't very coherent, though.

And no, I'm not taking introductory level economics. You might benefit from one, though.

Dude, you should go with gracefully leaving instead of trying to start flame wars

 

[Typo]

Alas, we will miss your confusi...er, contributions.

On the issue of German rearmament (to Typo et al): If Germany had a sane & sustainable rearmament program, would Czechoslovakia still be worth invading (beyond obviously more power is better), or is the value primarily because Germany is eating its seedcorn?

It really depends on how the Germans handle rearmament, I mean one interesting option would be to export the weapons in exchange for stuff to make new weapons. But that would involve 1)finding customers and 2)arming potential enemies.

Of course, in theory Germany could get bread and butter, but how the Nazis manage from the depression on that is another question.

 

[Peter]

Germany is eating its seedcord here. I think someone earlier used some phrase like that.

The seedcord is not private consumer goods, the seedcore is investment (and thus saving). And as far as I know German investment was doing quite fine.

 

[Prem_Rack]

Simply not true. The Munich Agreement got overwhelming approval in Britain and France.

I think I might have some idea what I'm talking about because I actually wrote a paper about perception of Germany in UK before WWII.
The reactions during the first week were indeed most favorable but question started to be asked after that.
From diary of C.M. Headlam, a kind of reactionary old victorian so I think it's telling:

29.09.1938
But if Neville has made him understand that he really won’t be allowed to do it again and has got some kind of larger agreement for European settlement out of him – why then he has deserved well of his country and all the world. (s. 136).
30.09.1938
And so peace has been preserved – for how long remains to be seen. If Neville is right, it may be indeed be for our time – and yet, if I were P.M., I should not stop preparing for war at home and abroad. The Czechs have been put down the drain because there was no means of helping them… throughout the world Neville has obtained a prestige which should help his country materially. If he has really brought the signed message from Hitler saying that all differences of opinion henceforth between Germany and England can be settled amicably – it may mean much or it may mean little – but by any rate, it is a confession made and that is something (s. 136-137).
01.10.1938
The chorus of praise of Neville continues and all the world agrees that he has saved us from war, and he has I think for the time being at any rate – and so long as there is peace there is hope. His policy is of course the right one – but its success depends upon Hitler first and foremost – and can one trust the man?
03.10.1938 (137)
The opposition to Neville is beginning to make itself heard. The usual idiots – Bob Cecil etc. – have sent a memorial to the The Times screaming that we have given way to violence and let down a gallant little democracy “
04.10.1938 (138)
Perhaps in the past had we been nice to Hitler we might have been able to deal with him hand he might have played the game by us – I always thought so and at any rate the game was worth trying – but we never were nice to him (…)
06.10.1938 (138)
“we were in no position to fight”
07.10.1938 (138)
“one should be thankful that we’re not at war”
08.10.1938 (138-139)
The correspondence in the The Times continues – carefully selected letters no doubt all explaining in one way or another how right he have been in the allowing the Germans to obtain control of Czechoslovakia. No sensible Englishman can view equanimity the continuing expansion eastward of a great power like Germany, especially under its present rulers” “and to argue that we could not have gone to war in defence of Czechs because they have been oppressing minorities is absurd.
09.10.1938 (139) – Out futile foreign policy not only brought Nazism into being, but also allowed it to become so powerful that it has now become a menace to world peace. Baldwin, MacDonald, Simon, Hoare, Eden & co are the men who have lead us into our present s somewhat futile and humiliating position – and now we are content to point out how much better it is for Czechoslovakia that we did not go to war on her behalf...
10.10.1938 Ledingham: feeling among Conservatives (…) is mixed – a great many people are very uncomfortable about the whole thing (139)

There were similar reactions among other politicians, journalists etc.

 

[Typo]

Dude, it's Eurofed, don't even try

 

[Elfwine]

It really depends on how the Germans handle rearmament, I mean one interesting option would be to export the weapons in exchange for stuff to make new weapons. But that would involve 1)finding customers and 2)arming potential enemies.

Of course, in theory Germany could get bread and butter, but how the Nazis manage from the depression on that is another question.

Yeah. A regime that was "merely" out to restore Germany as it was - probably ignoring Alsace-Lorraine for the time being as that's a sore spot and needs to be approached carefully - is probably better suited to this than anything like the Nazis could be.

Such a regime could approach this in step with western fears on Communism.

The seedcord is not private consumer goods, the seedcore is investment (and thus saving). And as far as I know German investment was doing quite fine.

I thought you were leaving this discussion.

If you're not, I have to point out that it very much wasn't - that's the whole problem with the German economy making it necessary to seize foreign assets that you've been missing.

 

[Peter]

Alas, we will miss your confusi...er, contributions.

Well, it's like Jesus said about pearls and swine.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, it's like Jesus said about pearls and swine.

Insulting people is not a good way to get us to change our minds about your economics comments.

 

[Typo]

Insulting people is not a good way to get us to change our minds about your economics comments.

dude, you are feeding the troll

 

[seraphim74]

So, most of us agree that Hitler HAD to occupy Prague or German economy would have gone down? And WI he refuses to hear bad news and in summer 1939 it actually happens? What then? Will the German Army try to overthrow him?

 

[Mikestone8]

So, most of us agree that Hitler HAD to occupy Prague or German economy would have gone down? And WI he refuses to hear bad news and in summer 1939 it actually happens? What then? Will the German Army try to overthrow him?

Have we actually established that?

I thought the argument was that he can't continue rearmament at the current rate without more money, so if he doesn't occupy Prague he has to slow down or face an economic disaster. Have I misunderstood?

The Army leaders would be disappointed by a slowing down of rearmament, but probably wouldn't stage a coup unless they could find someone to put in Hitler's place who could rearm faster than he could - which I very much doubt. After all, if the economy is threatening to run on the rocks, what do they gain by taking over? It would be like seizing command of the Titanic five minutes after hitting the iceberg.

 

[Elfwine]

Not sure if the army leaders would really mind a slower pace of rearmament. Frantic breakneck pace = no time to do things properly.

 

[Mikestone8]

Just another thought. Might it have been possible for the Germans to bully Hacha into forming an economic union with Germany, putting something in the fine print which brought Czecho-Slovakia's gold reserves effectively under Berlin's control, but without a formal annexation? Sounds the kind of thing which would have attracted little attention outside the Financial Times.

 

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by Mikestone8

Have we actually established that?
I thought the argument was that he can't continue rearmament at the current rate without more money, so if he doesn't occupy Prague he has to slow down or face an economic disaster. Have I misunderstood?

OK, I might have gone a little too far. But I'm not sure if he can slow down rearmament and avoid economic crisis. He's already done a lot of damage.

Just another thought. Might it have been possible for the Germans to bully Hacha into forming an economic union with Germany, putting something in the fine print which brought Czecho-Slovakia's gold reserves effectively under Berlin's control, but without a formal annexation? Sounds the kind of thing which would have attracted little attention outside the Financial Times.

An interesting idea. Hacha most certainly would have preferred to pay Germany instead of being occupied.

 

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

How about the oldest sources of all?

Hitler´s own writings, Mein Kampf and its 1928 sequel. Kinda explaines Hitler´s motivations for war and seizing territories some (approximatively) 9 and 5 years prior to seizing power.


Poland would give Dantzig without Franco-British guarantees. What then? In 1941, Hitler makes more demands, 1914 border or at the very least, military trepassing rights.


Roosevelt would not be re-elected in late 1940 without fall of France, new president is a true isolationist.

Red Army has grown more powerfull and the German military simply won´t realize that, they all believed soviet industry was inferior to german industry, both in quantity and technology.

Possibly, WW2 could have another start, the Soviet-Union invading Mandchukuo.