- 21 Nov 2014 06:19
#14489517
73% of the budget is not 73% of the economy.
I am not trying to imply that recover could be possible without an absurd investment in their military, I am saying that rearmament was far from the only thing revitalizing the pre-war economy. Regardless, it is entirely possible for the economy to have recovered without rearmament if they had instead spent the money in more infrastructure or industry. I don't think you've at all proved that that would have been impossible, just that it didn't happen that way.
Whether you said that military spending was the only part of the budget or that the economic recovery was only possible because of military spending is irrelevant, as you're wrong either way.
The recovery occurred 1933-1939. Unless the Nazis had developed time travel, I don't see how their policies during the war could cause an economic recovery in the past.
An epically large military was the most essential part of the Nazi geopolitical strategy. Without it, it is likely that Germany would have been swallowed up by the Soviet Union.
The only Germans who spent money at an "uncontrollable rate" were the Weimar Republic. Despite its size, I see no reason to believe that Nazi expenditures were unsustainable.
Do you believe that the Germans would have been better off economically had they continued the failed policies of the Weimar Republic? Are you still ignoring the massive improvements in standard of living seen in South Korea under Park Chung-hee?
DrSteveBrule wrote:
1) 73% may not be ALL of the economy, but it was a large enough share of the economy to dictate that a recovery would not have occurred at all without an investment in the armed forces. You're trying to imply that a recovery could be possible without an absurd investment in their military, which I have proved is false. My original statement also did not say that it was the only part of the budget. My original statement argued that the recovery was made only because of military spending.
73% of the budget is not 73% of the economy.
I am not trying to imply that recover could be possible without an absurd investment in their military, I am saying that rearmament was far from the only thing revitalizing the pre-war economy. Regardless, it is entirely possible for the economy to have recovered without rearmament if they had instead spent the money in more infrastructure or industry. I don't think you've at all proved that that would have been impossible, just that it didn't happen that way.
Whether you said that military spending was the only part of the budget or that the economic recovery was only possible because of military spending is irrelevant, as you're wrong either way.
2) I consider the 1939-1945 war period as relevant. Of course, their economic success declined as they lost the war, but the German economy did benefit greatly from conquered nations during the stages where Europe was under Nazi occupation.
The recovery occurred 1933-1939. Unless the Nazis had developed time travel, I don't see how their policies during the war could cause an economic recovery in the past.
3) Hitler's economy was barely sustainable. As evidenced by Reagan, a large military industrial complex only grows and leeches funds from other essential services of a nation. The low cost labor came at the expense of the people who were forced to work under less than ideal conditions. In fact, this excess spending caused their debt to grow at an uncontrollable rate. It might be successful on the surface, but the relative lack of quality of life improvements when compared to a democracy negates those gains. Of course, Fascism is always superior if you choose to disregard individual quality of life and civil liberties.
An epically large military was the most essential part of the Nazi geopolitical strategy. Without it, it is likely that Germany would have been swallowed up by the Soviet Union.
In fact, this excess spending caused their debt to grow at an uncontrollable rate.
The only Germans who spent money at an "uncontrollable rate" were the Weimar Republic. Despite its size, I see no reason to believe that Nazi expenditures were unsustainable.
It might be successful on the surface, but the relative lack of quality of life improvements when compared to a democracy negates those gains. Of course, Fascism is always superior if you choose to disregard individual quality of life and civil liberties.
Do you believe that the Germans would have been better off economically had they continued the failed policies of the Weimar Republic? Are you still ignoring the massive improvements in standard of living seen in South Korea under Park Chung-hee?