> nazi germany's economy was like a le house of cards - they ran on hekkin debt; that's why Hitler HAD to start WWII> Nazi Germany's Debt-to-GDP ratio: 40.43% (38 bn. RM / 94 bn. RM)Meanwhile 2023:> FRG : 64.28%> USA : 122.15%> China : 83.64%> Japan : 263.90%
>>17082686Hitler's debts were foreign debts and those have to be paid back as you are not allowed to rob other countries' citizens. Gaberments can rob their own citizens at will as no one will wage war in their defense.
>>17082766Then seems war with the Soviet Union was inevitable.
>>17082766> Hitler's debts were foreign debtsforeign debts in 1938 were less than 3 bn. RM thoughbeit
>>17082686The issue is that places like AMerica actually spend their money building stuff. Hitler just bought weapons. If all you have are weapons and no actual industry capable of being competitive on a market, then you are going to have to go to war.
>>17082988Germany built the Autobahn, America has the highest military budget in the world right now
>>17082988Hitler didn't just "buy weapons" before the war. Their war shit had to be lied about and called tractors etc, it wasn't much compared to normal statebuilding things. Where do you even come up with silly comments like that you silly billy?
>>17082686and USA is warmongering around the world anon
>>17083190>Built the autobahn Which was mostly to falicate the movement of weapons. Most of their GDP was spend on weapons, way more than America does now. >>17083340He mostly bought weapons. His efforts to build local industry was also a massive failure.
>>17082686That's not actually what the shrinking markets problem is, its quite simple: Hitler's mind> No food in germany > But industrial goods> sell industrial goods to the east, buy their food surplus> but east is industrializing> now they'll buy their own industrial goods, and won't need ours> so germany will starve because they'll have no reason trade food with us/won't have enough food to trade with us> therefore i must invade the east to get the food and stop the east from industrializing Bear in mind this is before the green revolution and most of western Europe could barely feed itself, if at all. With this in mind, Hitler had to invade the east or else Germany would just slowly grow irrelevant and fade away.
>>17084768> He mostly bought weapons. His efforts to build local industry was also a massive failure.none of this is true
>>17084768Germany had already industrialized prior to the frist world war in a fraction of the time it took the British to do so.
>>17085913Both is true. Part of the reason why he invaded Czech was because they actually got a working industrial sector.>>17086398They were still totally unable to compete with the UK and Hitler's attempts failed miserably.
How much value was siphoned from Germany for the decades after WW1?
>>17086403> Both is true.why are you such a disingenuous fagliterally name a single weapon germans had to buythe idea that germans had no working industrial sector so they had to annex czechoslovakia is beyond insane
>>17082766Foreign debt wasnt the problem.In fact, Hitler had forfeit all bonds and demonetized the Reichmark. There was no more foreign currency in circulation which led to inflation and lack of foreign investment and diffiult in trade since Germany could essentially only pay for goods with bartering.He did this because he knew that the currency and debt would be worthless anyway in a war, and that Germany would be cut off from world trade anyway. The ides was to achieve autarky so a scenario where a foreign blockade cant subjugate Germany like it had done in 1917-1918.The real debt was internal. Hitlers government operated on a massive budget deficit which was mostly the result of the exploding defence spending and the fiscal policies of government public investments, which also would lead to long term hyperinflation but the aim was for short term maximizing Germanys readiness.Debt was also stacked against domestic investments, the so-called MEFO bills which was a sham project to have German business provide for the government in exchange for a false promise of repayment.This wasnt necessarily prepartations for a world war, but at least serving as a way to deter especially Britain and France from intervening local wars by these huge spending because this massive spending in fiscal and defensive expansion was in itself serving as a deterrence: A war with Germany would be too costly.We know for a fact however that Germany did plunder countries as soon as they had the opportunity to do so, hyperinflation was averted when Germany time and again confiscated the national gold reserves of Austria and Czechia, and Germany kept pegging their own currency to the currency of occupied nations as a means to again avoid hyperinflation by pooling all its excesses.Germany also nationalized the industries and plundered the resources and production. Their source of rubber came almost exclusively from plundering since synthetic rubber was less successful
>>17082686It's a meme. The real problem with Germany and the reason it's economy would collapse is the lack of raw materials.
>>17086457> hyperinflation was averted when Germany time and again confiscated the national gold reserves of Austria and Czechia> It is believed that these three sources boosted German official gold reserves by US$71 million ($1.3 billion in 2020 currency) between 1937 and 1939> 1.3 billionthat's literally nothing
>>17086449The backbone of the Wehrmacht armored firepower came from Czech tanks in the opening of ww2. The overwhelming majority of German tanks were German, but they were weak mark 1 and 2, while the panzer 3 was still in relative small numbers and the panzer 4 had a very soft caliber at the time.The Czech tanks (PzKw 35 and 38) were both superior in firepower (they had equal firepower and armor to medium tanks) and in far more substantial numbers than the PzKw III and IV in 1939.Chassit for Czech tanks were also used for Germany tank destroyers, such as the most produced tank destroyer Jagdpanzer 38 (Hetzer) and the Marder III. The Skoda, CKD, Tatra and Zbrojovka Brno were all some of the largest armament industries in the world at the time which were all producing for Germany after Hitler illegally took control of Czechia. and Czechia was also one of the most industrialized parts of Europe (it had been the most industrialized part of the Austrian empire before), which the Germans immediately nationalized once German forces occupied Czechia and turned it into a self-styled "protectorate" under German administration until capitulation.Wehrmacht also armed itself with Czech rifles which were often based on German designs, and were given German designated names under the Wehrmacht use (the hundreds of thousands of Czech Vz 24 rifles became the Gewehr 24 in the wehrmacht, until Czech factories were fully converted to produce Kar98k rifles).As for trucks, the seizing of Czechia greatly motorized the Wehrmacht. By 1942-1945 the Tatra 111 truck was the backbone of the German motorization, and by the start of ww2, at least 3000 Praga RV were immediately used to give the Wehrmacht increased motorized capability against Poland.Seizing Czechia also had its benefits in confiscating the gold reserve which avoided hyperinflation (the reason why Hitler made emergency cut-backs in the budget deficit in 1938 was because the German economy was at breaking point).
>>17086480>that's literally nothingTell that to Hitler, Göring, and Schacht (tho he had been removed from office at that point but still alarmed it).
>>17086517>and in far more substantial numbers than the PzKw III and IV in 1939.Meant to rephrase this part. My mistake. The mark III and IV outnumbered the Czech designs but the Czech designs were in such substantial number that it bolstered the number of tanks with real firepower by 50% of its original force.Nearly 75% of the German armor in 1939 were panzer 1 and Panzer 2, barely meant for combat service.
>>17086517> backbone of the Wehrmacht armored firepower came from Czech tanks [...] panzer 3 was still in relative small numbers and the panzer 4 had a very soft caliber at the timeexcept that the Panzer IVs gun actually had more penetration than the 38(t) (which in turn had more than the 35(t))also: pic related > Wehrmacht also armed itself with Czech riflesnigga, who cares.you claimed that germans invaded Czechoslovakia because they had no working industrial sector themselves and that Hitler had to buy most of germany's weaponsand now you're talking about what? 200 tanks and less than 400k rifles> Tatra 111 truck was the backbone of the German motorizationwhat does this have to do with any of the stuff we've been talking about; is this shit AI? The Tatra 111 was developed in 1942 and until 1960 less than 34k were produced, meanwhile germans produced more than 100k Opel Blitz trucks
>>17086804The Panzer IV Ausf A model in 1939 was only equipted with the 75 mm howitzer gun which didnt have good armor penetration capabilities and wasnt designed to be that, it was a high-explosive howitzer meant for soft entrenched positions. The Czech 37 mm barrel on the Lt vz 38t was however designed for armor penetrationThe PzKw 38t had a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s and could penetrate 41 mm (at a 30° angle) at 600 m and 27 mm at 1 km.The PzKw IV had a muzzle velocity of 325 m/s and could penetrate 38 mm at a 60° angle at range of 500 m.These statistics are from the online tank museumIrregardless, no matter how much we would differentiate this, the point still remains that the Czech tanks greatly increased Wehrmacht firepower in 1939>who caresMore weapons>you claimed that germans invaded Czechoslovakia because they had no working industrial sector themselves and that Hitler had to buy most of germany's weaponsand now you're talking about what?I am literally not that anon. I wrote the two posts with attached Hitler / Chamberlain pics respectively and it should be a clear distininction that I am a different anon.In any case I will argue my point, not his. My point wasnt even arguing against you, it was just added context to the debate and you're just treading water at this point if you're going to continue arguing against the point I made because none of it was false>200 tanks Seeing how 70-80% of the German armored armaments in 1939 was barely fit for armored combat, the 200 tanks of real caliber was a considerable boost since the Czech tanks were essentially of medium tank caliber and were in a near 50% number of the existing German arsenal, even according to your own table>400k riflesThe rifles was just an example to the main point that German capture of Czechia greatly boosted the wehrmacht in nearly every category of armament and armament production, especially since the 4-year-plan was behind schedule with Hitlers budget cuts in 1938
>>17087216> Seeing how 70-80% of the German armored armaments in 1939 was barely fit for armored combatThe Panzer II was decent enough in 1939 considering that the Polish armoured force consisted mostly of Tanketteseven in 1940 the Panzer II wasn't completely useless, after all it had a radio unlike many French tanks. Furthermore, the French deployed hundreds of Renault FTs or cavalry tanks (like the AMR 35) which were also poorly armoured and often armed with nothing but a machine gun
>>17082686Anglos have been infested by the merchant mindset for too long and literally can't imagine people take actions with profit motives anymore.
>>17087216Correct. Pz IV was meant as a support tank, Pz III was meant to be the "battle tank". Strangely more Pz IV were ready in 1939 than IIIs. Without the Czech tanks Germany would have had a harder time defeating Poland, but not by much. Too many other factors came together there.
>>17086457They were in less debt than the UK and had a large productive sector and greater GDP than the UK.
>>17088868>They were in less debt than the UKDepends on how you define debt. Read the post again.>and had a large productive sector and greater GDP than the UK.UK + UK Dominions + UK colonies had a GDP of over 700 billion compared to Germanys roughly 350 billion so again, you're being dishonest.The UK could essentially mobilize 1/4 of the entire worlds production, manufacturing, resources and manpower to her disposal, while having complete access the remaining world market, unlike Germany which was subjected to blockade on the first day of hostilities.This is also excluding France and the French empire.This was the whole reason for the "phoney war / sitzkrieg", the western powers had every reason to wait and continue to mobilize their gigantic quantity of resources for the war effort while Germany will only become weaker as it was relying on stockpiles when it was cut off from the global market, and had essentially already mobilized its own capacities. Eventually, by enough time, the scale would tip in the allied favor. The entire German strategic principle was short war and quick victories. This is why it was the Germans who eventually had to break the deadlock in the west on May 1940, because if they didnt, the war would be lost before it even began.
>>17082686I never will understand this. But then again I'm no economist unlike every other normalfag on the internet.
>>17089224If you want chad understanding of ww2 economics, read Mark Harrison.If you want normie faggot understanding of ww2 economics, read Adam Tooze
>>17089829War and Economy in the Third Reich - Richard OveryHow the War was Won - Phillips O'BrienThe Economics of World War 2 - Mark HarrisonWages of Destruction - Adam ToozeHere is a piece of Harrisons publicationshttps://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf
