They were also extremely competent early on, it wasn’t until Hitler was in full on drug psychosis that things started going down hill.
In a lot of ways, it’s not that they were competent, it’s that the more popular parts of their policies (e.g. public spending, job creation programs) were running on borrowed time - the government kind of strong-armed the banks into funding them, and if they were ever going to pay them back, it was through spoils of war. I guess it takes some kind of competency to put that plan into action…
Funnily enough, that’s what I expect a government to do (except for the war part). Invest into the future, reap the rewards later. It’s very difficult to bring about change without credit of some sort. That’s why I’m always confused by the debt ceiling debate in the US - assuming the money would be invested into the country and not siphoned off, which I know is naive. But investing money it doesn’t have (yet) is one of the main levers a government has, usually supported by taxes in the following years.
You’re not wrong. If you could be reasonably certain that you’re 1. going to win the war and 2. win the war without too much damage to your own country, it would be a sound investment. The Nazis probably had enough overconfidence to believe both of those.
You make it sound like spoils of war wasn’t the main income for Europe for pretty much all of history until then. Colonialism put a little nicer name on it.
After industrialization, selling industrial products was frequently far more profitable than the expensive and uncertain spoils of war. Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.
And there wasn’t really a likely reality where Nazi Germany fought their war in a way that was actually winnable, their overconfidence was only matched by the idiocy of many of their tactic and strategic decisions.
You’re right about colonialism being a net loss for the government. In the Netherlands the NSB (Dutch Nazi Party) based a lot of their messaging around the idea that if the Netherlands were to join up with the allied forces, they would be forced to relinquish their colonies.
This was absolute nonsense but it spoke to people at the time because the idea of giving the colonies their independence had become a popular talking point during the recession because they were no longer profitable (fuckery involving the united fruit company).
During the second world war the Dutch colonies would become profitable but for completely different reasons. Basically a lot of the fosfate used in bombs came from Curacao and the aluminum to craft airplanes came from Suriname.
Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.
noteworthy the british empire never turned a profit for england at all. it was losses all the way through. the english wikipedia article mentions it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
edit: nvm i can’t find it anymore rn. probably i remembered badly
Also, duckduckgoing it, there are quite a few sources that still claim that the British Empire wasn’t profitable for the government in Britain, or regular British people, e.g.:
TBH the “Economy of the British Empire” article is poorly sourced, especially for the claim that Britain profited from its colonies - the linked source is a Fortune article (even if it has help from an economic historian from Stanford), with only one paragraph on the British empire, and the relevant sentance seems to be this:
“At the height of the British Empire, about 6% of its total output came from its colonies, more than any other Western power.”
I don’t really understand what this is supposed to mean, since according to the table in the Wikipedia article, British India’s GDP was higher than the UK’s. 6% certainly doesn’t sound impressive. But even then, GDP =/= profit, and being the worldwide dominant power is not really a status that most colonial powers can hope to achieve.
Spoils and plunder isn’t really trade. Rome wasn’t trading for slaves, Spain wasn’t trading for gold, England wasn’t trading for anything that they could lift…
Eh, Nazi Germany basically attacked Poland to do settler colonialism (or at least that was the regime’s justification). Main difference is that the Poles were more developed that e.g. the Native Americans.
IMO the error is assuming that it was likely to be successful and profitable, war/colonialism is generally not sound government policy.
In a lot of ways, it’s not that they were competent, it’s that the more popular parts of their policies (e.g. public spending, job creation programs) were running on borrowed time - the government kind of strong-armed the banks into funding them, and if they were ever going to pay them back, it was through spoils of war. I guess it takes some kind of competency to put that plan into action…
Funnily enough, that’s what I expect a government to do (except for the war part). Invest into the future, reap the rewards later. It’s very difficult to bring about change without credit of some sort. That’s why I’m always confused by the debt ceiling debate in the US - assuming the money would be invested into the country and not siphoned off, which I know is naive. But investing money it doesn’t have (yet) is one of the main levers a government has, usually supported by taxes in the following years.
You’re not wrong. If you could be reasonably certain that you’re 1. going to win the war and 2. win the war without too much damage to your own country, it would be a sound investment. The Nazis probably had enough overconfidence to believe both of those.
You make it sound like spoils of war wasn’t the main income for Europe for pretty much all of history until then. Colonialism put a little nicer name on it.
After industrialization, selling industrial products was frequently far more profitable than the expensive and uncertain spoils of war. Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.
And there wasn’t really a likely reality where Nazi Germany fought their war in a way that was actually winnable, their overconfidence was only matched by the idiocy of many of their tactic and strategic decisions.
You’re right about colonialism being a net loss for the government. In the Netherlands the NSB (Dutch Nazi Party) based a lot of their messaging around the idea that if the Netherlands were to join up with the allied forces, they would be forced to relinquish their colonies.
This was absolute nonsense but it spoke to people at the time because the idea of giving the colonies their independence had become a popular talking point during the recession because they were no longer profitable (fuckery involving the united fruit company).
During the second world war the Dutch colonies would become profitable but for completely different reasons. Basically a lot of the fosfate used in bombs came from Curacao and the aluminum to craft airplanes came from Suriname.
noteworthy the british empire never turned a profit for england at all. it was losses all the way through. the english wikipedia article mentions it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
edit: nvm i can’t find it anymore rn. probably i remembered badly
this article (Economy of the British Empire) mentions that it was profitable.
Also, duckduckgoing it, there are quite a few sources that still claim that the British Empire wasn’t profitable for the government in Britain, or regular British people, e.g.:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2598015
https://iea.org.uk/media/empire-and-slavery-did-not-make-britain-rich-finds-new-iea-book/
(I’m not that knowledgable about the quality of these particular sources, just demonstrating that the claim isn’t rare)
TBH the “Economy of the British Empire” article is poorly sourced, especially for the claim that Britain profited from its colonies - the linked source is a Fortune article (even if it has help from an economic historian from Stanford), with only one paragraph on the British empire, and the relevant sentance seems to be this:
“At the height of the British Empire, about 6% of its total output came from its colonies, more than any other Western power.”
I don’t really understand what this is supposed to mean, since according to the table in the Wikipedia article, British India’s GDP was higher than the UK’s. 6% certainly doesn’t sound impressive. But even then, GDP =/= profit, and being the worldwide dominant power is not really a status that most colonial powers can hope to achieve.
most of europe had very little income from international trade until 1800 or sth
Spoils and plunder isn’t really trade. Rome wasn’t trading for slaves, Spain wasn’t trading for gold, England wasn’t trading for anything that they could lift…
You’re right in what you say but it’s not relevant to this discussion. Colonialism is a very different MO than attacking neighboring countries.
Eh, Nazi Germany basically attacked Poland to do settler colonialism (or at least that was the regime’s justification). Main difference is that the Poles were more developed that e.g. the Native Americans.
IMO the error is assuming that it was likely to be successful and profitable, war/colonialism is generally not sound government policy.
It’s a matter of distance really. Germany raiding France or Brazil isn’t functionally different.
brazil didn’t yet have weapons to attack the homeland, france did