German Economic Myths

by Don Boudreaux on January 7, 2010

in Great Depression, History, Man of System, Myths and Fallacies

Here’s historian Steve Davies, writing in the current issue of The Freeman:

In the case of the Third Reich, the widely held perception even now is that whatever else may be said about his regime, Hitler managed to bring about a dramatic revival of the German economy. After 1933 Hitler and his finance minister Hjalmar Schacht stabilized the economy and managed to solve the huge unemployment crisis that had destroyed the Weimar Republic’s legitimacy. This was partly due to Schacht’s imaginative monetary policy and partly to massive public works programs, such as the autobahnen. There was a sharp move away from free markets to a much more interventionist economy that worked better than what had gone before. During World War II this economy was able to achieve great success in terms of war production, notably under Hitler’s armaments minister, Albert Speer.

Obviously there is some truth in this account, or else it would not be credible. There was indeed a sharp move in the direction of a more state-controlled economy. In fact few people realize just how interventionist—even socialist—the policies of the Nazi state were (although the full name of the party should give some indication of this). However, the picture overall is mostly wrong. Adam Tooze conclusively debunked this account in his masterful work, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. Tooze shows that the public works programs had little effect on unemployment and wasted resources; that the 1930s saw constant financial and foreign-exchange crises for the Reich; that by 1939 the condition of the German economy was desperate and that this was in fact a major factor in Hitler’s increasingly aggressive policy; that the supposed success of Speer simply did not happen; and that overall the regime was so crippled by its economic incompetence that it is nothing short of a miracle that it had as much military success as it did.

Check out the entire issue.  It’s an especially good one, with articles by, among others, David Henderson, John Stossel, and Bruce Yandle.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • elizadavid
    I wrote an article on the financial and environmental efficacy of solar power (any source -- solar thermal OR PV) about six months ago just basing it on the solar constant vs. the US power grid, plus basic factors like "reasonable" efficiency (50%), 12hr/day sunlight, and so on. In order to replace the USA's power generation with solar, it would be necessary to cover a surface area of not less than the entire state of Delaware with some form of material. That is an absolute number, can't be "played" with or reduced by technological tricks, it's tied to the actual amount of power in the sunlight reaching the surface of the earth. Even if you only target the 20% figure currently called for, you're still talking about covering a fifth of an entire STATE with materials.
    buy r4 card
  • andy
    Vampire Economy (search google) is also a very interesting book
  • "But it was low because millions were sent to the front, and the ones left were pressed into armaments work."

    This, by the way, is what enabled the U.S. to pull out of the Great Depression. The difference from Germany, of course, is that we won and the savings of Americans (who'd had little to spend their wages on during the war) became the capital that funded the great post-war boom.

    Not a justification for war (before anyone accuses me of suggesting it), of course.
  • SRCHicks
    Socialism, indeed. In *Nietzsche and the Nazis* I discuss Nazi economic theory (http://www.stephenhicks.org/2009/12/04/economic...) and
    Nazi economic practice (http://www.stephenhicks.org/2009/12/27/economic...).
  • J Cortez
    Good article. It makes me want to pick up Tooze's book.

    A commenter on the Freeman site mentioned a book that sounds similar to Tooze's called The Vampire Economy by Günter Reiman which is also an account of the economic turmoil under Nazi fascism. I haven't read that book yet either, but it also looked very interesting.
  • vidyohs
    "Trading with the enemy" by Charles Higham gives a pretty good understanding of where Hitler got the money to stay afloat and build enough war machine to run an excellent bluff, until conquests could bring the resources they needed to advance from there. However, his original sources did not dry up with the outbreak of hostilities. Fear wasn't what kept Hitler from invading the Swiss, oh no, the reason was they made an excellent conduit for the investors to funnel money through.

    "Total War" by Peter Calvocoressi and Guy Wint gives an account of how Hitler ran his bluff to the point where when the Czechoslavakians were abandoned by the allies and capitulated to Germany, by seizing the Czechs weaponry the Germans in effect nearly doubled their available combat aircraft, tanks, and artillery.

    Had the Czechs received more support and faced the Germans down, Hitler would have been stopped dead in his tracks, as he did not have the war machine he needed, he just had big brass balls.

    If not stopped in his tracks, then certainly he would have had a greatly reduced capacity to conduct combat operations as freely as he did with that one single conquest.

    Wheels within wheels within wheels.
  • martinbrock
    ... the public works programs had little effect on unemployment and wasted resources; that the decade saw constant financial and foreign-exchange crises for the economy; that by the end of the decade the condition of the economy was desperate and that this was in fact a major factor in the leadership's increasingly aggressive policy; that the supposed success of economic planners simply did not happen; and that overall the regime was so crippled by its economic incompetence that it is nothing short of a miracle that it had as much military success as it did.

    What state was that again?
  • danielkuehn
    Tooze's book is excellent - I also highly recommend it.

    I'm not sure that was quite what Tooze argued with respect to Speer, though. He did make the case that there was an "armaments miracle" in 1942 and afterwards, but that it was due to policies made before Speer took office. Tooze's point with Speer is that history has been far to generous to him on a number of fronts, not that the armaments miracle itself didn't happen.

    And I should also note that Tooze said the public works programs had little effect on unemployment because of how small they were - I believe he said that only about a thousand people were working on the autobahn through most of the war. It wasn't a commentary on the multiplier or anything. It was much like Hoover's public works program - sure they existed and you can comment on that if you want, but they were pretty paltry.
  • Mommsen1625
    Well, wouldn't the issue be what they were doing "before" the war (1933-1939)?

    Anyway, the general point is incontrovertible; the Nazi economy was not nearly as successful as the meme about such suggests.
  • danielkuehn
    And it's also an issue of quality and looking behind the numbers. Was German unemployment low? Yes. That's not just a "meme". But it was low because millions were sent to the front, and the ones left were pressed into armaments work. As the article says - there's a degree of truth in these things, you just have to be careful how you interpret that.
  • Mommsen1625
    Actually, it is just a meme. If you have to engage in slavery to make your economy "work" - which the German regime did not only in WWII, but in WWI as well - then all it is a meme.
  • danielkuehn
    The slavery came in precisely because there was no German labor to spare. I don't know - rather than pretending that economic statistics aren't real I'd rather just say "yes, German unemployment was extremely low but labor wasn't directed toward productive uses".
  • Mommsen1625
    I'd rather not elide over what the German regime was doing and talk in neutral terms like "German unemployment." When states are conscripting (enslaving people) for war that falls outside the normal bounds of employment/unemployment.
  • danielkuehn
    Who's eliding over what the Nazis did? Words are words. You don't just ignore their meaning because you're talking about a regime you don't like. Just because I support public works projects here doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that the autobahn wasn't a public works project because I don't like the regime that carried it out.
  • Mommsen1625
    Yes, and the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was also a public works project.
  • danielkuehn
    Huh?
  • Mommsen1625
    Huh, indeed.
  • danielkuehn
    What in the world do internment camps have to do with public works?
  • Mommsen1625
    The same thing that slavery and employment do.
  • geckonomist
    As Tooze also writes, they were less successful in their weapons production efforts than the truly surprisingly effective Russians.

    It is a magnificent book, and DK is right Tooze's interpretation on the Speer "miracle".
  • danielkuehn
    What's really wonderful about the Speer chapter especially is that it's not just an economics book (although it certainly is that as well). He gets into issues of culpability for the Holocaust and the forced labor in the East, and he really puts a lot of effort into deconstructing not just Speer's economic policy - but also the "good Nazi" persona that's been built up around him. Speer was no Himmler but that doesn't mean he was above reproach.
  • Mommsen1625
    Well, Speer's persona after the war was largely created by, well, Speer.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: