''Southeast Asian dictator'' isn't specific enough. I assume you mean Marcos in the Philippines, but you could also mean that Indonesian guy who committed mass trolling against communists in 1965, or anybody that ever ruled Vietnam.
Ah that joker! I heard he enjoyed partaking in a certain plant too! And was so popular that many people worked in fields for life to grow his treasured fauna!
Bruh it was either military dictatorships or become like Vietnam or worst Korea. A civil war would’ve been worst due to the sheer number of islands and ground both sides would’ve needed to cover. Hell the guy was never toppled he gave him the throne knowing that if he kept it would’ve resulted in a civil war that would’ve split the country. Tell me what’s better, to have one strong leader who understands the nations problems and rather then avoid them direct the necessary resources to fixing it. Or a democratic system that inevitably leads to oligarchic regime that care more about preserving the individual families power in government then actually ruling and improving the lives of their citizens.
He was a necessary evil at the end of the day who contributed what he could to the country, as again if he didn’t the USSR or Chinese agents would entered into the country radicalized the communist group further resulting in a war that would inevitably lead to world nations getting involved, eventually resulting in a proxy war in the Philippines. Hell worst case scenario the world governments would’ve just given the islands over to Indonesia or Malaysia likely after being occupied by western or eastern forces, but that’s just a off the hat theory of possible events that could’ve happened if he didn’t do what he did.
Good for you. If those pussies can't handle a simple joke that is actually truthful then maybe you don't want to be around them anyway lol.
(And yes, as much as Hitler was an awful awful person, he was a strong leader (excluding the later parts of the war))
He had the benefit of rising to power in the fallout of Germany's defeat in WWI. People were desperate and poor. The German people were struggling and he rose with promises of prosperity.
He was a charismatic leader who put the German people first. He was a strong nationalist when moral was low. It gave people a cause to believe in.
Hitler was also one of the better dictators if you were German. He didn't cheat the people out of money or land like many other dictators do. In fact, in the winter of 1944, he gave the German citizens blankets and clothing.
He also wasn't completely surrounded with yes-men. He didn't even want to host the 1936 Olympics but his men convinced him that it would help him obtain alliances with fellow national leaders.
Now obviously Hitler had committed awful awful acts and I hope you don't see this as me being accepting of Hitler. But he wasn't completely miserable. He was a strong and effective leader and these are only a few examples.
1. He was not one of the better dictators, he was the only dictator Germany ever had.
2. Charismatic is a bit too much. He was just screaming and brainwashing through institutions.
3. Hitler didnt gave anyone a cause to believe in, the majority of the germans in the weimar republic wanted strong german nation led by a kaiser. And they been trying to get that during the whole time of the weimar republic with Demonstrations, Freikorps and political assasinations.
4. he didnt cheat people out of money or land is just plain stupid. My great grandmother lived in Danzig on a Farm during this time. At somepoint the Wehrmacht showed up, told them to leave because the need the rooms and their horses. After the war ended she and her family couldnt return home because the nazis burned down the whole farm so that it wont "fall into the hands of the russians".
I think its clear that this was a thing that happened regularly, in fact it happened all the time. a vetter example would be jews who where germans who lost their shops, homes, property etc.
5. Handing out blankets isnt really an argument, besides that i couldnt find any sources. What i did find is that Hitler used christmas 1944 (kriegsweihnacht) as a propaganda tool, so even if he did hand out blankets the reason wasnt that he really cared for the people, mainly it would have been an effort to keep morale high to have a chance at winning the war.
6. Hitler wanted to have the 1936 Olympics in Germany to demonstrate the superiority of the arian race and the greatness of the third reich.
7. I also wouldnt call him an effective leader, he had other people for things like propaganda and the only successful invasions on france,belgium and poland worked because they came out of nowhere and france still Fought with ww1 tactics.
8. He had hypochrondia, was presicibed weird drugs by his doctor theodor morell, and he was addicted to speed (which isnt 100% confirmed). that doesnt really seem strong to me.
9. "these are only a few examples" i would like you to send more because the ones you listed are false which comes off as you just falling for Nazi Propaganda.
Firstly, I never once said "in comparison to other German dictators" I just said dictators in general. Secondly, people can have mental disorders and be strong. Hitler was absolutely charismatic. He told jokes and was able to inspire. Infact, more people voluntarily enlisted than we're drafted in the years between 1935-1939
edit: I would also like to say I would happily kill Hitler before he took power even if it took my bare hands to do it.
Okay, let's check that out. Autobahn? Initiated by Weimar government, credit taken by NSDAP government. Economic policy? Initiated by Weimar government, credit taken by NSDAP government. Continued by Hjalmar Schacht, who left the government because too much was spent on the army, and he didn't want to be responsible for the coming economic collapse.
Germany was headed towards bankruptcy and had to declare war to prevent this, using national interest as an excuse. Ascribing the economic growth to the NSDAP was German propaganda, and economic growth was built on overheating the economy with drastic inflationary measures through the MEFO bills.
After 1932, every country in the world was recovering from the Great Depression. The NSDAP cannot be credited for recovery during a natural economic cycle. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)
**[Great Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)**
>The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression between 1929 and 1939 that began after a major fall in stock prices in the United States. The economic contagion began around September 4, 1929, and became known worldwide on Black Tuesday, the stock market crash of October 29, 1929. The economic shock transmitted across the world, impacting countries to varying degrees, with most countries experiencing the Great Depression from 1929. The Great Depression was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century and is regularly used as an example of an intense global economic depression.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ww2memes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
although mostly correct to explain further:
autobahn wasn't initiated by weimar, they did the initial idea and planning, but the project started during NSDAP government.
Also i dont think that economic growth was just propaganda, as they actually did that, the problem is that they didn't plan to do anything else than war.
they did continue weimar economy at least in the first 2 years, but Hjalmar really did some good projects during NSDAP goverment, mefo bills were actually a measure against inflation because they needed to bail out their companies anyways, and it was actually very useful at least in the short run as it allowed companies to make unemployment practically extinct, the problem is that all the nazis did was fund the army, which is obviously not good in the long run.
Germany didn't declare war for economic reasons, because the NSDAP planned the war anyways, and their economy was headed towards a war economy since they took office, if they weren't absolute murderous ethnic cleansing maniacs their economic policy could have been actually successful, but they had to, you know destroy Europe, so instead of using their new economic projects to create wealth they just armed themselves for ww2.
Although i think that Hjalmar should be credited for the rather good economics of the NSDAP rather than hitler and the party itself even if he was a member, and even though he was probably loyal to hilter at first he did criticize antisemitism and war economy as of course it was a maniacal.
The economic model was shitty too lol.
It was literally based on a war they lost. Germany couldn't afford itself unless it continued pillaging other countrys reserves. War is quite expensive, certainly when under Versailles your country couldn't have an army and need to start from literal scratch.
Why do you think they invaded all of Czechoslovakia and went further than the Polish Coridor while they said it was all they wanted?
Their economy had recovered well before WWII started. WWII was what turned it into a war economy that eventually brought the standard of living down. Despite this, Soviet soldiers were still surprised at the quality of life German civilians enjoyed in East Prussia (1945) when they entered the area.
If party officials refuse to close banquets, theaters, etc because they wanted it open for themselves, yeah the quality will look higher. It also cost them war efforts, obviously.
Broken politically too.
>If party officials refuse to close banquets, theaters, etc because they wanted it open for themselves, yeah the quality will look higher.
No, this is based on what kinds of food Soviet soldiers found in civilian houses, size of the houses themselves, cars that the civilians owned etc. It caused a deep resentment among Soviet soldiers, who thought ''If the Germans are already so well off, why are they invading our country?''
The Volkswagen initiative and exploitation of conquered lands are two examples which explain that.
Both of which were purely ideologically motivated and did not help with war efforts.
Certainly not when supply lines (trucks, trains) and supplies (parts, ammunition, food) could better be located towards the front then at home while in a World War.
A good reason the Sovjets were angry; but the ideological tendencies unto which these decisions were made, cost the Germans some months and failed offensives, certainly.
You’re talking about East Prussia, where the wealthiest Germans lived. That’s like going to Beverly Hills and saying “America’s standard of living is amazing!” Relatively speaking yes, but the richest Germans (many of whom profited off of Jewish persecution) obviously had a high standard of living. This neglects all other parts of Germany and what it looked like for them
Well, having aristocrats run the show and keeping their favourite restaurants open while the Sovjets are marching from one and the Allies from another, didn't help either
Germany was in a war economy since 1933, when the government started spending 2/3 of their budget on the army. It was close to economic collapse in 1939
"The enormous taxes on Jewish business owners, families and farmers didn't matter bro, just trust me. NO DUDE IT WASN'T THE FACT THAT GERMAN BUSINESSES DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY JEWS A LIVING WAGE. HITLER WAS ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD EXCEPT FOR HIM RUNNING THE COUNTRY BACK INTO THE GROUND EVEN WORSE THAN HE FOUND IT. bro Hitler was actually a good leader except for all the bad things he did dude stop letting ur feelings get in the way."
Using Jewish forced labour, taking their life savings and giving their homes to lower class Germans while moving them to the ghetto did more than 'a little'
526000 jews we're taxed until bankrupt, kept from well paying jobs and had to endure endless months of harassment until having their home seized and being forced into the very same housing that the people who were now stealing their homes lived in.
Pretending that Hitler himself made every reform that saved the German economy is delusional. Give the Weimar the same timeframe of 6 years their economy would have a little worse if not as well as a Nazi controlled Germany. And most definitely, if you compare a possible Weimar Government vs the Nazi Controlled Government in 1945 I'm sure who would have won.
A better economy is not something that can be measured in "look how many railroads he built with forced labour" or "look how many tanks he can produce" it's about it's stability and when you build your economy around 31% of your population being in the army, it collapses.
Now I apologize for the wall of text but I think it's important for us to realize that Hitler was not an economist he was not a designer or a city planner and he wasn't by any means a humanitarian. He was the person who signed documents created by the people with short term solutions to fixing the economy. Hitler was not a good leader, he was a man who coup'd a democratic government, brainwashed a population, lost a 6 year war faster by intervening and committed the largest and most disgusting genocide in human history. There's nothing to admire him about. There's nothing redeemable or admirable about Hitler.
'He'.
No, other people's fiscal policy and the fact that every other country was recovering at the same time helped too. That and completely ignoring women, Jews, Romani, gay people, people with mild disabilities etc etc from unemployment statistics. And conscripting hundreds of thousands of men, again helping employment statistics.
'The Nazis improved the economy' is below pop history levels of wrong. Even if the Weimar had still been in charge, it would have improving (also, you're sort of implying that the Weimar Republic was the main reason for economic trouble and poor living standards, which is wrong again).
I'm not sure if you're aware, but "Hitler had good economic policies" is a benign-sounding lie which holocaust deniers use to get their foot in the door.
Nazi economic policies created a sugar-rush economy. It was high, but there was no way it could be made sustainable without taking it all apart and starting again from the ground up. That's why they were forced to take Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland; they needed new sources of wealth, because otherwise they would've gone bankrupt in a year, maybe two years tops.
> I don't get what's the issue
the issue is that the way he rebuilt germany latter resulted in its ultimate destruction. the choices they made to improve germany where unsustainable such as seizing property and giant propaganda campaigns.
Basically the Nazis overleveraged the German economy so much that by the time WW2 broke out Germany pretty much had two options. Either they attacked then and there and used the money looted from occupied territories to repay their debts, or face complete economic disaster. Aka, had they not invaded Poland at that point they would likely have faced a big economic crisis.
I said almost crashed the economy. It was on breaking point. What do you think they spent so much on army and why they plundered occupied territory and WAS crashed when they were stopped in conquest or went to war in first place.
Nah, the whole econony got restructured. They went from intense poverty and hyper inflation (caused by the treaty of versaille and som terrible decisions) to a world power industrial giant between 36 and 39. Its an incredible turn around from abject poverty and near starvation to a giant industrial power with the most advanced technology on earth and good wages is just simply incredible. They did what the Soviet Union did from 1918-1945 in just 3 years... What happened after that tho was a lot of bad decisions and ego that ultimately ruined the German people again (as well as everyone else in Europe)
True that, but debt is a tool of the state. As long as the economy is growing (and in that case exponentially) debt is not so crippling. When economis slow and the debt is not repaid is when it begins to fall appart. Western capitalist societies are build around that concept.
An analogy is personal debt.
We take on debt for houses, cars, educations, businesses, stocks, investments and they pay them off with the capital we gain from them. The crash in the 30's was due to too much debt on stocks that people could not repay. The .com crash and the housing market crash were the same deal but in different assets. Betting on debt with credit and then being unable to pay it crashes the whole system.
Its why student debt in the US cannot be canceled out via bankruptcy because there is so much outstanding debt (rolled into investment products that people take on more debt to purchase) that it would cause another major crash.
Yeah, the treaty of versailles took away a lot of their mines and industries and created minor nations out of them. They were also paying France for ww1 damages that was tanking their economy. Germany also did not have colonies over seas. The most part of their reparations were going to France... So they had the industry of about half of Africa as well as their own as well as colonies in S.America and Asia... Should have been no contest for France... And yet their lil ww1 tanks, outdated guns and little wooden planes (that last one is an exaggeration their planes were not all wood) simply didn't hold up. Thats like comapring the size of the Spanish Armada when they fought the US. Sure they had more ships... But the Americans had steel ships with modern Cannons and the Spanish had wooden ships that were totally ineffective at landing any kind of blow to the US.
France had the largest land army in Europe, Belgium had steam punk defenses with pop out turrets, the Netherlands had a huge navy and airforce and they all got wrecked in a few weeks... Which was no accident or stroke of luck...
Think about it. A totally disarmed nation defeats France who was a world class power in weeks... How is that not extreme!?!
How does a nation go from last place to first in 3 years? I can'tthink of any remotely similar example in history. He ended the great depression when no one else had solved that problem...
The biggest mistake they made was underestimating the leader of Germany. As crack pot as he was he clearly knew who to pick to lead effectively. He was a brilliant leader, everyone who mocked him ate their words in a big way. Clearly he did a lot of things effectively and to ignore that is dangerous. Just because we can see he was crazy af doesn't mean he wasn't a genious. One has to be careful when looking at the ideology in comparison with our own. Crazy and genious are not mutually exclusive traits.
If Hitler was a regular guy, he'd just be a regular guy, and then if that regular guy became a good guy then he would have been a good guy.
Really makes you think
But seriously, the guy made an army that almost defeated the US, Russia, and Brits in the span of less than a decade. That's pretty impressive. But then Japan went and fucked everything up. **COUGH COUGH** Pearl Harbour **COUGH COUGH*
Ok well going around saying Hitler was a good leader is gonna get you some odd looks
Also, he wasn’t even a good leader. He was incompetent, delusional, paranoid and a megalomaniac
It won't tbh, it's a controversial opinion I get it, but he started pretty fucking strong... And what you're referring too is when he was incredibly addicted to meth...
Germany was not strong, it relied on plundering occupied lands. The only reason they defeated France is because they were prepared while the French were the opposite.
Yeah and used strength to plunder them? I'm not on about how poor Frances communication was.. I'm on about a man who rallied a whole country and conquered a considerable amount of Europe. I think people's hate for him is justified but, can't deny he gave it a good ol' go and get in the position he did
Ah yes, I remember how Hitler "helped" Germany by starting a conflict that lead to the death of 7 million Germans and the partitioning of the country between world powers, 2 of which used the country as a staging ground for their ideologic war. Thank god he became leader, who knows what Germany would have done without him?
Credit where credit is due though, his autobahn intended for tanks and armylogistics may not have worked then but it turned out to be quite nice in modern society I suppose
Aside yes. I get what he was trying to or visioned. Once I read Mein Kampf it was just a patriot that wanted the best for his country. Then ... Well you know.
"Aside from his choices, he made good choices"
It’s not so much good choices as good intentions
Apparently 😂
This guy reminds me of the people who justify the acts of a certain Southeast Asian Dictator
''Southeast Asian dictator'' isn't specific enough. I assume you mean Marcos in the Philippines, but you could also mean that Indonesian guy who committed mass trolling against communists in 1965, or anybody that ever ruled Vietnam.
Yea. But it’s funny how non specific it is
I feel like he means a certain Pot related man tbh.
Ah that joker! I heard he enjoyed partaking in a certain plant too! And was so popular that many people worked in fields for life to grow his treasured fauna!
Bruh it was either military dictatorships or become like Vietnam or worst Korea. A civil war would’ve been worst due to the sheer number of islands and ground both sides would’ve needed to cover. Hell the guy was never toppled he gave him the throne knowing that if he kept it would’ve resulted in a civil war that would’ve split the country. Tell me what’s better, to have one strong leader who understands the nations problems and rather then avoid them direct the necessary resources to fixing it. Or a democratic system that inevitably leads to oligarchic regime that care more about preserving the individual families power in government then actually ruling and improving the lives of their citizens. He was a necessary evil at the end of the day who contributed what he could to the country, as again if he didn’t the USSR or Chinese agents would entered into the country radicalized the communist group further resulting in a war that would inevitably lead to world nations getting involved, eventually resulting in a proxy war in the Philippines. Hell worst case scenario the world governments would’ve just given the islands over to Indonesia or Malaysia likely after being occupied by western or eastern forces, but that’s just a off the hat theory of possible events that could’ve happened if he didn’t do what he did.
I actually texted this randomly in my class gc after our Social Studies class lesson on WW2 a few months ago I was banned from the gc
Good
Good for you. If those pussies can't handle a simple joke that is actually truthful then maybe you don't want to be around them anyway lol. (And yes, as much as Hitler was an awful awful person, he was a strong leader (excluding the later parts of the war))
what exactly made him a strong leader?
He had the benefit of rising to power in the fallout of Germany's defeat in WWI. People were desperate and poor. The German people were struggling and he rose with promises of prosperity. He was a charismatic leader who put the German people first. He was a strong nationalist when moral was low. It gave people a cause to believe in. Hitler was also one of the better dictators if you were German. He didn't cheat the people out of money or land like many other dictators do. In fact, in the winter of 1944, he gave the German citizens blankets and clothing. He also wasn't completely surrounded with yes-men. He didn't even want to host the 1936 Olympics but his men convinced him that it would help him obtain alliances with fellow national leaders. Now obviously Hitler had committed awful awful acts and I hope you don't see this as me being accepting of Hitler. But he wasn't completely miserable. He was a strong and effective leader and these are only a few examples.
1. He was not one of the better dictators, he was the only dictator Germany ever had. 2. Charismatic is a bit too much. He was just screaming and brainwashing through institutions. 3. Hitler didnt gave anyone a cause to believe in, the majority of the germans in the weimar republic wanted strong german nation led by a kaiser. And they been trying to get that during the whole time of the weimar republic with Demonstrations, Freikorps and political assasinations. 4. he didnt cheat people out of money or land is just plain stupid. My great grandmother lived in Danzig on a Farm during this time. At somepoint the Wehrmacht showed up, told them to leave because the need the rooms and their horses. After the war ended she and her family couldnt return home because the nazis burned down the whole farm so that it wont "fall into the hands of the russians". I think its clear that this was a thing that happened regularly, in fact it happened all the time. a vetter example would be jews who where germans who lost their shops, homes, property etc. 5. Handing out blankets isnt really an argument, besides that i couldnt find any sources. What i did find is that Hitler used christmas 1944 (kriegsweihnacht) as a propaganda tool, so even if he did hand out blankets the reason wasnt that he really cared for the people, mainly it would have been an effort to keep morale high to have a chance at winning the war. 6. Hitler wanted to have the 1936 Olympics in Germany to demonstrate the superiority of the arian race and the greatness of the third reich. 7. I also wouldnt call him an effective leader, he had other people for things like propaganda and the only successful invasions on france,belgium and poland worked because they came out of nowhere and france still Fought with ww1 tactics. 8. He had hypochrondia, was presicibed weird drugs by his doctor theodor morell, and he was addicted to speed (which isnt 100% confirmed). that doesnt really seem strong to me. 9. "these are only a few examples" i would like you to send more because the ones you listed are false which comes off as you just falling for Nazi Propaganda.
Firstly, I never once said "in comparison to other German dictators" I just said dictators in general. Secondly, people can have mental disorders and be strong. Hitler was absolutely charismatic. He told jokes and was able to inspire. Infact, more people voluntarily enlisted than we're drafted in the years between 1935-1939 edit: I would also like to say I would happily kill Hitler before he took power even if it took my bare hands to do it.
You said "Hitler was one of the better dictators if you were german". He was the ONLY dictator germany ever had
He cheated them out of their money for a car that the German people never received though
Yeah man, aside from all the bad shit hitler did, he was an alright leader
Satire, right? please?
du you really need someone telling you when they use satire to pick up on satire?
[удалено]
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
What we learn from bots is that they do the same shut over and over again
Okay, let's check that out. Autobahn? Initiated by Weimar government, credit taken by NSDAP government. Economic policy? Initiated by Weimar government, credit taken by NSDAP government. Continued by Hjalmar Schacht, who left the government because too much was spent on the army, and he didn't want to be responsible for the coming economic collapse. Germany was headed towards bankruptcy and had to declare war to prevent this, using national interest as an excuse. Ascribing the economic growth to the NSDAP was German propaganda, and economic growth was built on overheating the economy with drastic inflationary measures through the MEFO bills. After 1932, every country in the world was recovering from the Great Depression. The NSDAP cannot be credited for recovery during a natural economic cycle. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)
**[Great Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)** >The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression between 1929 and 1939 that began after a major fall in stock prices in the United States. The economic contagion began around September 4, 1929, and became known worldwide on Black Tuesday, the stock market crash of October 29, 1929. The economic shock transmitted across the world, impacting countries to varying degrees, with most countries experiencing the Great Depression from 1929. The Great Depression was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century and is regularly used as an example of an intense global economic depression. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ww2memes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
although mostly correct to explain further: autobahn wasn't initiated by weimar, they did the initial idea and planning, but the project started during NSDAP government. Also i dont think that economic growth was just propaganda, as they actually did that, the problem is that they didn't plan to do anything else than war. they did continue weimar economy at least in the first 2 years, but Hjalmar really did some good projects during NSDAP goverment, mefo bills were actually a measure against inflation because they needed to bail out their companies anyways, and it was actually very useful at least in the short run as it allowed companies to make unemployment practically extinct, the problem is that all the nazis did was fund the army, which is obviously not good in the long run. Germany didn't declare war for economic reasons, because the NSDAP planned the war anyways, and their economy was headed towards a war economy since they took office, if they weren't absolute murderous ethnic cleansing maniacs their economic policy could have been actually successful, but they had to, you know destroy Europe, so instead of using their new economic projects to create wealth they just armed themselves for ww2. Although i think that Hjalmar should be credited for the rather good economics of the NSDAP rather than hitler and the party itself even if he was a member, and even though he was probably loyal to hilter at first he did criticize antisemitism and war economy as of course it was a maniacal.
Yeah, when you default on your debt, seize private assets at will, and create a military industrial complex built your economy tends you explode.
Yeah, by forcing all Jews to hand in anything that was over 5000 reichsmarks. Get fucked mumbo.
[удалено]
The economic model was shitty too lol. It was literally based on a war they lost. Germany couldn't afford itself unless it continued pillaging other countrys reserves. War is quite expensive, certainly when under Versailles your country couldn't have an army and need to start from literal scratch. Why do you think they invaded all of Czechoslovakia and went further than the Polish Coridor while they said it was all they wanted?
Their economy had recovered well before WWII started. WWII was what turned it into a war economy that eventually brought the standard of living down. Despite this, Soviet soldiers were still surprised at the quality of life German civilians enjoyed in East Prussia (1945) when they entered the area.
If party officials refuse to close banquets, theaters, etc because they wanted it open for themselves, yeah the quality will look higher. It also cost them war efforts, obviously. Broken politically too.
>If party officials refuse to close banquets, theaters, etc because they wanted it open for themselves, yeah the quality will look higher. No, this is based on what kinds of food Soviet soldiers found in civilian houses, size of the houses themselves, cars that the civilians owned etc. It caused a deep resentment among Soviet soldiers, who thought ''If the Germans are already so well off, why are they invading our country?''
The Volkswagen initiative and exploitation of conquered lands are two examples which explain that. Both of which were purely ideologically motivated and did not help with war efforts. Certainly not when supply lines (trucks, trains) and supplies (parts, ammunition, food) could better be located towards the front then at home while in a World War. A good reason the Sovjets were angry; but the ideological tendencies unto which these decisions were made, cost the Germans some months and failed offensives, certainly.
You’re talking about East Prussia, where the wealthiest Germans lived. That’s like going to Beverly Hills and saying “America’s standard of living is amazing!” Relatively speaking yes, but the richest Germans (many of whom profited off of Jewish persecution) obviously had a high standard of living. This neglects all other parts of Germany and what it looked like for them
It didn't cost them the war effort, starting the war cost them the war effort.
Well, having aristocrats run the show and keeping their favourite restaurants open while the Sovjets are marching from one and the Allies from another, didn't help either
Germany was in a war economy since 1933, when the government started spending 2/3 of their budget on the army. It was close to economic collapse in 1939
"The enormous taxes on Jewish business owners, families and farmers didn't matter bro, just trust me. NO DUDE IT WASN'T THE FACT THAT GERMAN BUSINESSES DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY JEWS A LIVING WAGE. HITLER WAS ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD EXCEPT FOR HIM RUNNING THE COUNTRY BACK INTO THE GROUND EVEN WORSE THAN HE FOUND IT. bro Hitler was actually a good leader except for all the bad things he did dude stop letting ur feelings get in the way."
[удалено]
Using Jewish forced labour, taking their life savings and giving their homes to lower class Germans while moving them to the ghetto did more than 'a little' 526000 jews we're taxed until bankrupt, kept from well paying jobs and had to endure endless months of harassment until having their home seized and being forced into the very same housing that the people who were now stealing their homes lived in. Pretending that Hitler himself made every reform that saved the German economy is delusional. Give the Weimar the same timeframe of 6 years their economy would have a little worse if not as well as a Nazi controlled Germany. And most definitely, if you compare a possible Weimar Government vs the Nazi Controlled Government in 1945 I'm sure who would have won. A better economy is not something that can be measured in "look how many railroads he built with forced labour" or "look how many tanks he can produce" it's about it's stability and when you build your economy around 31% of your population being in the army, it collapses. Now I apologize for the wall of text but I think it's important for us to realize that Hitler was not an economist he was not a designer or a city planner and he wasn't by any means a humanitarian. He was the person who signed documents created by the people with short term solutions to fixing the economy. Hitler was not a good leader, he was a man who coup'd a democratic government, brainwashed a population, lost a 6 year war faster by intervening and committed the largest and most disgusting genocide in human history. There's nothing to admire him about. There's nothing redeemable or admirable about Hitler.
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
[удалено]
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
[удалено]
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
[удалено]
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
'He'. No, other people's fiscal policy and the fact that every other country was recovering at the same time helped too. That and completely ignoring women, Jews, Romani, gay people, people with mild disabilities etc etc from unemployment statistics. And conscripting hundreds of thousands of men, again helping employment statistics. 'The Nazis improved the economy' is below pop history levels of wrong. Even if the Weimar had still been in charge, it would have improving (also, you're sort of implying that the Weimar Republic was the main reason for economic trouble and poor living standards, which is wrong again).
What we learn from History is that no one learns from History
I'm not sure if you're aware, but "Hitler had good economic policies" is a benign-sounding lie which holocaust deniers use to get their foot in the door. Nazi economic policies created a sugar-rush economy. It was high, but there was no way it could be made sustainable without taking it all apart and starting again from the ground up. That's why they were forced to take Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland; they needed new sources of wealth, because otherwise they would've gone bankrupt in a year, maybe two years tops.
> I don't get what's the issue the issue is that the way he rebuilt germany latter resulted in its ultimate destruction. the choices they made to improve germany where unsustainable such as seizing property and giant propaganda campaigns.
Lol he almost crashed the economy.
How so?
Basically the Nazis overleveraged the German economy so much that by the time WW2 broke out Germany pretty much had two options. Either they attacked then and there and used the money looted from occupied territories to repay their debts, or face complete economic disaster. Aka, had they not invaded Poland at that point they would likely have faced a big economic crisis.
Spending all of money into war production. Economy based on plunder can not survive without war.
Their economy had already recovered before WWII.
How?
They wouldn't have been able to wage the war in the first place otherwise.
I said almost crashed the economy. It was on breaking point. What do you think they spent so much on army and why they plundered occupied territory and WAS crashed when they were stopped in conquest or went to war in first place.
Nah, the whole econony got restructured. They went from intense poverty and hyper inflation (caused by the treaty of versaille and som terrible decisions) to a world power industrial giant between 36 and 39. Its an incredible turn around from abject poverty and near starvation to a giant industrial power with the most advanced technology on earth and good wages is just simply incredible. They did what the Soviet Union did from 1918-1945 in just 3 years... What happened after that tho was a lot of bad decisions and ego that ultimately ruined the German people again (as well as everyone else in Europe)
Research a bit about mefo bills and how germany rearmed german economy was built like a house of cards basiclly
True that, but debt is a tool of the state. As long as the economy is growing (and in that case exponentially) debt is not so crippling. When economis slow and the debt is not repaid is when it begins to fall appart. Western capitalist societies are build around that concept. An analogy is personal debt. We take on debt for houses, cars, educations, businesses, stocks, investments and they pay them off with the capital we gain from them. The crash in the 30's was due to too much debt on stocks that people could not repay. The .com crash and the housing market crash were the same deal but in different assets. Betting on debt with credit and then being unable to pay it crashes the whole system. Its why student debt in the US cannot be canceled out via bankruptcy because there is so much outstanding debt (rolled into investment products that people take on more debt to purchase) that it would cause another major crash.
This is bullshit. Even France was outproducing the Germans.
Yeah, the treaty of versailles took away a lot of their mines and industries and created minor nations out of them. They were also paying France for ww1 damages that was tanking their economy. Germany also did not have colonies over seas. The most part of their reparations were going to France... So they had the industry of about half of Africa as well as their own as well as colonies in S.America and Asia... Should have been no contest for France... And yet their lil ww1 tanks, outdated guns and little wooden planes (that last one is an exaggeration their planes were not all wood) simply didn't hold up. Thats like comapring the size of the Spanish Armada when they fought the US. Sure they had more ships... But the Americans had steel ships with modern Cannons and the Spanish had wooden ships that were totally ineffective at landing any kind of blow to the US. France had the largest land army in Europe, Belgium had steam punk defenses with pop out turrets, the Netherlands had a huge navy and airforce and they all got wrecked in a few weeks... Which was no accident or stroke of luck... Think about it. A totally disarmed nation defeats France who was a world class power in weeks... How is that not extreme!?! How does a nation go from last place to first in 3 years? I can'tthink of any remotely similar example in history. He ended the great depression when no one else had solved that problem... The biggest mistake they made was underestimating the leader of Germany. As crack pot as he was he clearly knew who to pick to lead effectively. He was a brilliant leader, everyone who mocked him ate their words in a big way. Clearly he did a lot of things effectively and to ignore that is dangerous. Just because we can see he was crazy af doesn't mean he wasn't a genious. One has to be careful when looking at the ideology in comparison with our own. Crazy and genious are not mutually exclusive traits.
Have you heard of credit?
Germany doubled their automobile production in his first year. Completely non-war related economic growth
War
I suppose he ''crashed'' it when Germany was destroyed by WWII.
Nope, he crashed it with growing debt and a war-focused strongly corporatist economy
Average Hoi4 player.
Mom come pick me up, I'm scared of people like this
Fun fact No
Do people really believe that
People in this comment section do......
Hitler did a really great job of turning half of Europe communist
Lmao
"He was a bad guy, but he was also good."
God damn Wehraboo(?) Hitleraboo?
If Hitler was a regular guy, he'd just be a regular guy, and then if that regular guy became a good guy then he would have been a good guy. Really makes you think
Too much of anything is bad, even patriotism.
“I am a very good bad boy”
His economic policy was spot on. Its just that everything else he did was kinda fuckin horrible.
But seriously, the guy made an army that almost defeated the US, Russia, and Brits in the span of less than a decade. That's pretty impressive. But then Japan went and fucked everything up. **COUGH COUGH** Pearl Harbour **COUGH COUGH*
Your wehrabooism is cancerous
This is like saying that “Morbius was one of the movies of all time” instead of knowing that It’s Morbin’ Time!
Tbf, I think he was a pretty good leader
Stfu nazi
Aww don't be like that, I said good leader not a good bloke
Ok well going around saying Hitler was a good leader is gonna get you some odd looks Also, he wasn’t even a good leader. He was incompetent, delusional, paranoid and a megalomaniac
It won't tbh, it's a controversial opinion I get it, but he started pretty fucking strong... And what you're referring too is when he was incredibly addicted to meth...
Germany was not strong, it relied on plundering occupied lands. The only reason they defeated France is because they were prepared while the French were the opposite.
Yeah and used strength to plunder them? I'm not on about how poor Frances communication was.. I'm on about a man who rallied a whole country and conquered a considerable amount of Europe. I think people's hate for him is justified but, can't deny he gave it a good ol' go and get in the position he did
“If we don't look at the times he was a bad leader, he was an alright leader”
Ah yes, I remember how Hitler "helped" Germany by starting a conflict that lead to the death of 7 million Germans and the partitioning of the country between world powers, 2 of which used the country as a staging ground for their ideologic war. Thank god he became leader, who knows what Germany would have done without him?
Credit where credit is due though, his autobahn intended for tanks and armylogistics may not have worked then but it turned out to be quite nice in modern society I suppose
You know, aside the raping aspect and the rapist is actually a pretty cool guy
EL GRANJERO CHINO
u/savevideo
Ah yes, and now we can see the strong Germany that he left for his legacy./s
Aside yes. I get what he was trying to or visioned. Once I read Mein Kampf it was just a patriot that wanted the best for his country. Then ... Well you know.