January 17, 2004
THEY WEREN'T THE NATIONAL CAPITALISTS:
Bush as Hitler? Let's Be Fair (ALEXANDER COCKBURN, January 10 / 11, 2004, Counterpunch)
Hitler, genocidal monster that he was, was also the first practicing Keynesian leader. When he came to power in 1933 unemployment stood at 40 per cent. Economic recovery came without the stimulus of arms spending. Hitler wanted a larger population, so construction subsidies produced a housing boom. There were vast public works such as the autobahns. He paid little attention to the deficit or to the protests of the bankers about his policies. Interest rates were kept low and though wages were pegged, family income increased by reason of full employment. By 1936 unemployment had sunk to one per cent. German military spending remained low until 1939.
Just a stock Leftist who tried applying Darwinism. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 17, 2004 07:18 PM
German military spending was low until 1939? What nonsense. Hitler began a massive rearmament program in 1935. By the next year, he was ready to test out parts of his new military in the Spanish Civil War. If Germany had not had a massive and expensive arms buildup well prior to 1939, they could never have launched a massive blitzkreig into Poland in September of 1939.
Posted by: Byron at January 17, 2004 09:06 PMAnother reason this is b.s. is that Hitler's economic policies were the equivalent of giving amphetamine to a sick person: the patient jumped up and was active for a while, but the comedown was inevitable. If it weren't for WWII, Germany would have had a severe economic crash.
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 17, 2004 09:23 PMWell, yes, but fair is fiar: us, too. (Hmm, FDR=Hitler?)
Posted by: David Cohen at January 17, 2004 09:35 PMActually there is some truth to the assertion that Germany did not move to a true wartime economy until late in the 30's. (Civillian Volkswagens were still being produced in 1940.)
As to the "massiive blitzkrieg" in Poland (1939) or even France (1940), if you read the accounts (e. g.; Guiderian) the primitive state of the German military is all too clear. (Extremely poor logistics....Over half the artillery was horse drawn.)
The more incredible thing is how such a backward military power was able to defeat the much more modern French army. ......Oh,.... wait.
Posted by: Earl Sutherland at January 18, 2004 12:05 PMGermany did not go to "total war" until AFTER Stalingrad. Strange, but true. Hitler was running a limited form of war when it came to the economy because he wanted German civilians to live a good life (usually from plundered goods in the occupied territories.) He certainly did not mobilize it as Churchill or FDR did.
However, there is also no doubt that much of the economic boom in Germany was due to rearmament.
It is also true that the German economy was showing strains in 1939 as PapayaSF said. Hitler needed conquests to continually inject capital into his economy.
Why did Germany defeat France (and Britain in France too, let's not forget)? Two words: superior doctrine.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at January 19, 2004 11:48 AM