Question about Nazi Germany's economy

How about this:
POD: Hitler dies (accidently), May 1939.

November 10, 1939, Hannover, Germany (NY Times article):
British, French, and Polish officials, after seeing a demonstration of the JU87D in action, place large orders for them, and other German military equipment. As a codicil of the agreement, the new German government of Rudolf Hess pledges not to invade anyone. In return for the Ju87s, the Germans recieve substantial cash from the Allies, whio are worried about the growing belligerence of the USSR.
The Ju87 is seen as a 'wonder-weapon' against not only the Soviets, but as a counter-insurgency tool to maintain order in the increasingly restive empires. Indeed, the Japanese also purchase a number of the machines for use in China.
Many financial experts now say that if Germany can maintain it's strong exports of military equipment to other countries that it's current economy can be maintained or even grow...


Mike Turcotte

Why on earth would those countries place orders for Ju 87s? They all have their own similar projects and designs. Poland has the Pzl P.23, France the LN.411, the British the Skua and the Battle. In many cases these were superior to the early Stukas who died like flies as soon as something even remotely resembling a fighter was encountered. And the Red Air Force has plenty of I-15 and I-16.
 
I am afraid thet the most fundamental reason is that there is a need to reassure ourselves by means of singing the mantra "The Nazis were evil and thus they were doomed to failure" (achieving thruth by means of repetition).

Nah. As a German I am immune to this. :D

You are certainly right with what you say, mailinutile, but IMHO you miss the point. You mostly refer to the situation during the war which saw Germany within 12 months getting into control over most of Continental Europe.
But exactly that was needed for the Third Reich to keep its economy going the way it did OTL - and also one of its central aims; keeping the German standard of living clearly above the one during WW1. With these ressources at disposal, it was easy to spoil my grandparents' generation.

Without the war, though, it was a house of cards. Germans wouldn't starve either, but it would run into grave economical problems which wouldn't permit a continued armament at such a pace.

[Besides, an interesting, though controverisal, read on the plundering of Europe (and esp. the Jews) is "Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State" by Götz Aly. ]

Seen objectively, the economic effort of germany in 1930-1940 is surprising: the country passed from deep depression to full occupation and the infrastructure network also boosted internal trade.

Yes, but be careful with the wonder of full employment. Other nations recovered from the Depression as well after 1933 and Germany did a lot by expanding not only the armed forces, but also introducing forced labour for young people (RAD) to take pressure from the labour market. Also, women and jews were massively discouraged to pursue their careers (to put it mildly in the first case).

Interesting to note as well, that real-income remained at pre-depression levels or slightly below.
 
Actually I was not basing my assertion on Speer memories: there are several historical fonts reporting a better life level for the average german citizen in the WW2 respect to WW1. The role of the government in this (which feared the post-WW1 famine-induced collapse) is also generally accepted.

Do your sources say how that improvement compares to simialr improvement in UK, US....?

The average Berlin citizen in 1940-1941 (probably also 1942) had a higher lifestyle profile that the equivalent in London.

Hardly. Little in terms of consumer goods, while not starving the intake of "luxury" goods wasn't common, housing was worse etc. While true that they had money they had little to spend it on (concentration on armemnts ment little consumer goods wereproduced domestically and concentrationn on steel imports ment that little was improted as well)

Requisition is a quite more complex argument, and in fact I was referred to manufactured goods taken from political prisoners (holocaust and similar) rather than raw goods taken from occupied countries: you certainly have a point in saying that such raw materials, oil were extremely valuable, but my point is that there was an internal manufacturing industry working (thus products for the internal market, and also wages to buy them).
I did not read "Wages of Destruction": could you please provide the author name?

The requsition from "undesirables" (I take it you mean aryzation) profited very few people, those who already had money and took over Jewish competition, those near people with power who obtained those bussineses and high-ups of state and party who had dibs on such property.

As for manufactoring goods see above
 
(snip)

Also, women and jews were massively discouraged to pursue their careers (to put it mildly in the first case).

(snip)

IIRC one of the things Tooze argues in 'Wages of Destruction' is that the lack of female participation in the German workforce is a myth as before the war female participation was much higher in Germany than in the UK or USA, mostly due to the large number ofwomen working in farming. So, while female participation in the workforce did not increase much in Germany during the war, the UK and USA were merely "catching" up to Germany in that regard.
 
IIRC one of the things Tooze argues in 'Wages of Destruction' is that the lack of female participation in the German workforce is a myth as before the war female participation was much higher in Germany than in the UK or USA, mostly due to the large number ofwomen working in farming. So, while female participation in the workforce did not increase much in Germany during the war, the UK and USA were merely "catching" up to Germany in that regard.

He points out that women were employed in large numbers. as you said, it was agriculture which was more work-intensive that ritish or american. so with war and draft there was a massive shortage so forced labourers were welcomed.

On a side note, my maternal grandmother was one such forced labourer. Worked in saw where there was significant french labour force (POWs, if she got it right) as well. Saw was burned down by phosporous bomb later. She received compensation from FRG after the war.
 
germany DID keep manufacturing civilian goods (as indeed did the other powers), but very little of this was destined for German civilians, who basicaly had as hard a time as Soviet citizens.
I know this one isn't true. Soviet citizens were still starving to death on their official rations in 1943. German citizens, at least the ones not in the camps, weren't starving until... well, it had to have been sometime in '44 at least. The Soviet civilian economy was rationally estivated so all possible effort could go to the war. Hitler feared for his popular sovereignty and didn't go far enough, early enough asking for civilians to endure hardship. He preferred them popping out babies.

The following book is a goldmine of Soviet economic information.
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Economy-Red-Army-1930-1945/dp/0275948935
 

Typo

Banned
I know this one isn't true. Soviet citizens were still starving to death on their official rations in 1943. German citizens, at least the ones not in the camps, weren't starving until... well, it had to have been sometime in '44 at least. The Soviet civilian economy was rationally estivated so all possible effort could go to the war. Hitler feared for his popular sovereignty and didn't go far enough, early enough asking for civilians to endure hardship. He preferred them popping out babies.

The following book is a goldmine of Soviet economic information.
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Economy-Red-Army-1930-1945/dp/0275948935
As mentioned, that's because the Soviets didn't have all of Europe to loot
 
I know this one isn't true. Soviet citizens were still starving to death on their official rations in 1943. German citizens, at least the ones not in the camps, weren't starving until... well, it had to have been sometime in '44 at least. The Soviet civilian economy was rationally estivated so all possible effort could go to the war. Hitler feared for his popular sovereignty and didn't go far enough, early enough asking for civilians to endure hardship. He preferred them popping out babies.

The following book is a goldmine of Soviet economic information.
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Economy-Red-Army-1930-1945/dp/0275948935

Hitler had Soviets, and Jews, and Poles, to starve instead...
 
I know this one isn't true. Soviet citizens were still starving to death on their official rations in 1943. German citizens, at least the ones not in the camps, weren't starving until... well, it had to have been sometime in '44 at least. The Soviet civilian economy was rationally estivated so all possible effort could go to the war. Hitler feared for his popular sovereignty and didn't go far enough, early enough asking for civilians to endure hardship. He preferred them popping out babies.

The following book is a goldmine of Soviet economic information.
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Economy-Red-Army-1930-1945/dp/0275948935

I don't think Astrodragon was refering to food but rather consumer goods.
 
I don't think Astrodragon was refering to food but rather consumer goods.

Oh, they ran out of food too!

Problem was, they now have to feed Europe, and as today Eurpoean farming depends on imported fertilisers..of which there was a noticeable lack.

They were (by 1940) starving Jews in Poland not because of racial ideas but becaus ethere wasnt the food - which annoyed the hell out of the industrialists who were trying to conscript them for labour use...

They managed for a while importing from Russia, but that failed in 1941...:)
In any case, the Russians were getting very insistent by Barbarossa on actually getting PAID for what they'd been shipping.
 
> The average Berlin citizen in 1940-1941 (probably also 1942) had a higher lifestyle profile that the equivalent in London
.

> The average Berlin citizen in 1940-1941 (probably also 1942) had a higher lifestyle profile that the equivalent in London

This really isn't true, and wasn't true before the war either..

I am afraid it was.
Alimentary situation was certainly harsher, so that dig for victory campaign had to be enforced.
Anyway, it is no wonder since britain was the isle under blockade
 
Do your sources say how that improvement compares to similar improvement in UK, US....?
yes.
And from the comparison it results that the improvement in the german situation was by far the most significative.
Truth to tell this is not because civilian situation in germany during WW2 was much better than USA territory (on UK we have different views), but rather because civilian situation in germany during WW2 was a lot worse than in entente territory

Hardly. Little in terms of consumer goods, while not starving the intake of "luxury" goods wasn't common, housing was worse etc. While true that they had money they had little to spend it on (concentration on armemnts ment little consumer goods wereproduced domestically and concentrationn on steel imports ment that little was improted as well)
Foodstuff was assured.
Alimentary blackmail basically caused the revolution at the end of Great War.
Also, see dig for victory

The requsition from "undesirables" (I take it you mean aryzation) profited very few people, those who already had money and took over Jewish competition, those near people with power who obtained those bussineses and high-ups of state and party who had dibs on such property.
That's my point exactly.
Requsitionw from "undesirables" were a criminal thing, but they really were not what german manufactury industry worked on.
The image of an evil power basing its wealth on spoliation of "undesirables" is certainly a powerful image, but it is not accurate.
Being evil does not necessarily translate in being unable to set-up a reliable industrial base.
My point is that germany situation was not so prone to collapse since they had a reliable and efficient manufactury network.
Deficit spending policy could not go on ad infinitum, but the situation was certainly not a house of cards
 
I am afraid it was.
Alimentary situation was certainly harsher, so that dig for victory campaign had to be enforced.
Anyway, it is no wonder since britain was the isle under blockade

Well, I've presented figures, you haven't, so the onus is on you: I would be interested to see some.
 
these are the data I remember from 1940
rations, per person, per week
..............germany (averaged from ration card) .....UK
Butter: ....225g ..............................................about 113 g
Meat: .....200g ..............................................about 113 g

truth to tell german ration card system covered more items that UK ration systems, but the foodstuff rations were generally higher.

and I do not know of a german initiative so pervasive and comparable in magnitude to the victory garden campaign

digforvictory.jpg
 
these are the data I remember from 1940
rations, per person, per week
..............germany (averaged from ration card) .....UK
Butter: ....225g ..............................................about 113 g
Meat: .....200g ..............................................about 113 g

truth to tell german ration card system covered more items that UK ration systems, but the foodstuff rations were generally higher.

and I do not know of a german initiative so pervasive and comparable in magnitude to the victory garden campaign

A swift glance at wikipedia and axis history forum suggests your figures are not quite right - a hazard for us all when working from memory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=159844

You also ignore the matter of Britain having meat and bacon, the fact that in Britain butter meant butter not margarine, and that restaurant meals were not included in rations.

The AHF link also mentions German household gardens: we just hear less about them.
 
@aktarian

"housing was worse etc."

Well, not initially but the situation changed day by day, city by city, if you know what I mean.

"While true that they had money they had little to spend it on"

It is also true that the Nazis used the natural German disposition to save their money (and milked the accounts on the saving-banks for the war-effort, see likewise the "5 Mark per week for the KdF-Car"-scheme). But, on the other hand, Germany did not cut back as drastically on consumer goods as e.g. Great Britain. The limited economical strain of the "Blitzkrieg"-campaigns in 1939/40 very much favoured the German governments decision to delay a total war economy as long
as possible (until it was too late, one could argue).

"The requsition from "undesirables" (I take it you mean aryzation) profited very few people, those who already had money and took over Jewish competition, those near people with power who obtained those bussineses and high-ups of state and party who had dibs on such property."

Yes and no. Whereas few people got rich through aryanization, a lot more people profitted indirectly.

Again, I have to refer to Götz Aly who showed how the system of unfair exchange rates, the re-distribution of the possessions of European Jews and the continued rise of the welfare state during the war made possible by a general deficit spending in the belief that the defeated will pay for everything meant that quite a lot of Germans could at least had a little benefit from these policies.


@shimbo

"the lack of female participation in the German workforce is a myth as before the war female participation was much higher in Germany than in the UK or USA"

Upon increased research I have to concede that this is the case and that the period of pronounced measures to push women out of the workforce is restricted to the first years after 1933. The different economical situation in the late 30s already made such measures increasingly senseless and led to different
policies.

@Sol Zagato

"German citizens, at least the ones not in the camps, weren't starving until... well, it had to have been sometime in '44 at least."

Actually, the NS government was able to delay the disruption of food supply until the collapse of the Reich (not counting the Germans running from the Red Army). Even when they could only hold on to little more than Germany itself, they finally let the Dutch starve in the winter of '44/'45.

The German post-war hunger-experience dates from the very bad situation in 1946/47.


@malinutile

A cut back from the deficit-spending to reasonable levels (we are talking about a government where the budget was kept secret...) wouldn't have killed the German industry - the German industry even thrived during the most parts of the inflation of 1920-23. As today, it was a well-functioning and competitive economy and could have been able to export enough to pay for its needs.

The situation of the Reich's finances are a different thing. I think, we have to differentiate there. Also, while the mentionend requisitons were evil, there scope was not decisive, but the manipulaion of the way the Reich payed its expenses were far more grave and could hardly have been resolved without a major economical crisis - something Hitler feared more than war (OK, he was shivering with anticipation regarding war, but still).
 
[

It is also true that the Nazis used the natural German disposition to save their money (and milked the accounts on the saving-banks for the war-effort, see likewise the "5 Mark per week for the KdF-Car"-scheme). But, on the other hand, Germany did not cut back as drastically on consumer goods as e.g. Great Britain. The limited economical strain of the "Blitzkrieg"-campaigns in 1939/40 very much favoured the German governments decision to delay a total war economy as long
as possible (until it was too late, one could argue).

This, isn't accurate. The German economy had already cut back on civilian production prewar. Production of consumer goods for the civilian economy fell by half in the first year of war.

Germany was also more/as mobilised for war as Britain during the early years of war.
 
You have to remember, the 'civilian' market is a bit complicated.
There are civilian products needed just to keep the country and economy running, and 'luxury' products that people can do without.

So when countries at war keep 'civilian' production going, its the first of those that get the resources. That bit of the economy is no more optional in a war than tanks are...
 
Top