16 Answers

  1. If it hadn't been for the war, the Nazi state of 1934-1945 would still have had: secret police, Schutzstaffel detachments, censorship, Jewish pogroms, concentration camps, uncontrolled violence, secret laboratories, murders of dissenting politicians and publicists, an extensive forced labor economy, racism, and other abominations. With such a set, of course, only to prosperity and go. I just don't understand people who say, “I could have done it, but I was too crazy.” Like, an oddball person, could it have just led in the wrong direction?

    Yes, Hitler was a mentally ill man who came to believe in his own messiahship after suffering a concussion at the front. A large part of his personality was dominated by various kinds of esoteric experiences; he sincerely believed that he was connected with higher forces, and these forces entrusted him with the task of saving Germany. In personal communication, Hitler was a typical abuser: using caresses and persuasions combined with tantrums and accusations, he tried to break the will of the people around him, to subdue them. It is no coincidence that most of his women tried to commit suicide. Whether a shell-shocked esoteric can be a good ruler is rather a question for psychiators.

    Hitler's political asset was grassroots popular support, which is why he is quite rightly called a right-wing populist. He was a successful street speaker, skillfully manipulating the mood of the crowd, parasitizing on German complexes and fears. He terrified the bourgeoisie with a Bolshevik plot, cursed French capital for imposing the humiliating Peace of Versailles, and attacked the internal enemy, the Jews, who were supposedly swimming in money stolen from the workers. He promised millions of jobs and justice for every single Aryan. To demonstrate his capabilities, he periodically held frightening torchlight processions and parades, encouraged pogroms and arson. Of course, the more radical the Nazis were, the more power various adventurers and demagogues gained within the party.

    The first thing the Nazis did after coming to power was to establish a state of emergency, ban the KKE and SPD, reject the federal system, and dissolve the trade unions. Concentration camps were opened for the discontented and representatives of the wrong ethnic groups. At the same time-surprisingly-the socialist Weimar Constitution formally remained in force. Although no one paid any attention to her position anymore.

    Before his death, the nominal leader of Germany, President Paul von Hindenburg, appointed Hitler as his successor. As a result, in the summer of 1934, a paranoid politician gained full power in Germany, rallying around him people who believe in the effectiveness of power discourse, and relying on a mobilized population. Reducing the degree of rhetoric and cooling the crowd would inevitably lead to a decline in the popularity of the Nazis, a return to the politics of the left, as well as the independence of the old elites, temporarily paralyzed by fear. The assembly of August 1934 was extremely unstable, requiring constant heating, demonstration of achievements and implementation of election slogans.

    What did the Nazis, or rather the Nazi-led bureaucrats, do in the economy (which, contrary to Yegor Rusakov's statement, was not “destroyed to the ground” at all)? They began the country's reindustrialization, based on two pillars: on government orders and attracting private capital to projects with cheap labor. In addition, the Reich Labor Service sent burghers who zig-zagged Hitler on torchlight processions to forced labor in the agricultural and municipal sectors. How are you going to fulfill your unfulfilled obligations, Hitler's opponents asked in the early 1930s? I will take power, you will find out, the future dictator replied. The magic plan for transforming the country turned out to be a hybrid of Marxist labor armies with Roosevelt's new deal (state regulation of the economy). As a moral compensation, cheap workers were offered a racial theory in which they could imagine themselves as superhumans, and all the surrounding peoples-dirt under their feet.

    All these measures helped to reduce the severity of the crisis somewhat, but they did not guarantee further economic growth in any way. By and large, the Nazi economists only reallocated money flows in favor of the poorest strata. How did they plan further development? And here is the most important point that shows the meaninglessness of the question in the topic. Further growth was to be ensured by the expansion of the German living space, the forcible withdrawal of the resources of the conquered territories, and the plundering of the rich countries of Europe and the world. And this is not a metaphor, not an assumption, but a fairly accurate quotation of the economic doctrine of the Nazis. And this means that the war was a key, integral part of both the foreign and domestic policies of the Hitler government.

  2. No doubt he could, since he practically succeeded.

    • Hitler managed to stabilize the social climate-despite the fact that before he came to power, there was practically a civil war in Germany. Of course, the Nazis used intimidation of radical political opponents, even terror, to do this.

    However, it is impossible to call this an exhaustive answer. The Second World War demonstrated the colossal social homogeneity of the Reich. Everyone knows how cruelly the expectations of Soviet political instructors for the “solidarity of the working people” and the disintegration of the German army were shattered.

    That is, this alone allows us to talk about prosperity in the future.

    • The Nazis managed to give the economy and industry a significant boost even before the start of a series of military adventures. This is usually associated with the policy of hyperarmament, but this view is a bit biased.

    It is worth remembering from what level the armament program started. The Reich had the right to 100,000 soldiers and officers, was not allowed to create combat aircraft and tanks, there were restrictions on heavy artillery and even the existence of a General Staff was prohibited. So simply achieving parity with potential adversaries required a colossal rate of weapons production. In principle, it was possible.

    Naturally, the elimination of unemployment and the growth of effective demand dragged all other areas of the economy after military production. So, all the opportunities for further development existed. It was planned. For example, the creation of the Volkswagen People's Joint Stock Company.

    • It is difficult to say exactly what activities of the Nazis led to the fact that science and technology in the Reich developed at a colossal, almost incredible pace.

    Even despite all the mistakes and blunders, for example in the nuclear program, jet aircraft or the creation of a submarine fleet, at the end of the war, the Reich was literally a Klondike of developments. So, in terms of peaceful development , one could expect the Reich to lead in the nuclear sphere, jet aviation, including civil aviation, rocket science and automotive industry.

  3. The history of the twentieth century knows the only ruler who has not changed for decades, who led the people to prosperity. This is Lee Kuan Yew, a man who always doubted, revised his views, studied the scientific literature. Everyone else at an early stage fell ill, sorry, mania o*uevaniya. With the resulting facaps in science, economics, and so on.

  4. Of course not. And for the same reasons that have already been expressed here, and for the fact that he was given money by representatives of big capital precisely for the war, and not so that the burghers could drink Bavarian wine and eat sausages. 😉 WWII was prepared by big capital to get out of the economic crisis (naturally, the goal was not to benefit everyone, but only to get super-profits for specific people). And big capital did not like the USSR very much… and the fact that the Germans first went to the West, so it is-the intrigues of the Americans, who played against the British Empire (which at that time owned half the world). And moreover-they succeeded in this intrigue.

  5. HELEN LORRE I can't help but notice that the war happened precisely because this ruler went to it for a long time and stubbornly. Therefore, “would lead Germany to prosperity” is infinitely far from what it actually led it to.

  6. If the tags contain “philosophy”, then I would like to recommend that anyone who is interested in the topic of the question read Erich Fromm's book” Escape from Freedom”, where he described German society, predicting the birth of fascism.
    Spoiler alert: I don't know about the economy, but Hitler didn't do anything good for the psychological health of society

  7. The answer is simple:no.Hitler came to power and started spending 60%!!!tax revenues for “defense”.And politically, such a state would be unstable.Every 3-4 years, some colonel who wants to become a general out of turn would arrange coups.We know such countries by the example of Latin America.

  8. It depends on what counts as a good ruler. Economically, no doubt. Without it, Germany, devastated by World War I and crushed by the Great Depression (read the Remark), would not have been able to effectively resist most of the world. And it effectively resisted, and even won for quite a long time, until it was drawn into a war of attrition with the USSR. The first few years of his rule were a way out of Germany's ass, and if things had gone on like this, he might have been able to lead the country to prosperity. Or so it seems. In fact, he could not help but start a war, the people demanded retribution, and the economic recovery was built largely on this. Being a threat to everyone and taking over more and more territories, he understood that he could not stop, and that sooner or later the USSR would go to implement its idea of a world revolution at the expense of Germany, if not to attack first. So in fact, a large part of his achievements were destined to be destroyed. However, if he had won , to some extent he would have really brought Germany to prosperity. At the expense of all other nations. But the man who made the whole of Germany believe in racial theory and exterminated the Jews is hardly a good ruler.

  9. Let's try to imagine what would have happened if Hitler hadn't had such a maniacal goal of starting a world war.

    A particular inspiration for the future dictator in the early twenties was another right — wing politician, Benito Mussolini. He did not set out to start a world war, but the Italians did not have a thirst for revanchism, as was the case with the Germans who lost in the First World War, who received humiliating post-war living conditions in this regard.

    I would be happy to say that without the ideas of revanchism, Hitler would not have won elections in the early thirties, but his party regularly lost in the twenties, even after the collapse of the currency in 1923, on the eve of the beer hall putsch, made in the likeness of the march on Rome. Even then, right-wing ideas were not yet popular among Germans.

    The main reason for the rapid growth of the Nazis ' popularity in the 1930s and 1933s is the deterioration of the world economic situation. The Great Depression affected not only the United States, but the entire world, including the Soviet Union. The reason for the failure of Stalin's first five-year plan can be called, among other things, the unpredictability of the Great Depression, which did not fit into the economic plan. Moreover, it caused a new anti-Stalinist wave of internal party opposition in 1929-1930. Stalin's own allies turned their backs on him. If you are interested, read something about the internal party struggle in the period 1923-1930.

    But sovok was an isolated society, and he was also affected. It is impossible to imagine what was happening in Germany, which was falling apart under the control of the West. No party could offer a realistic program of action, outside of a radical context. The Germans became disillusioned with the Communists in the early twenties. They failed to seize power in the same way as the Bolsheviks in Russia. They simply did not have time to do it at the same time, and hurried. Therefore, the entire political agenda was bent on Hitler. We can say that his victory was simply inevitable in the historical context. Therefore, he would have won, whatever his ideas were, while maintaining the right-wing radical spirit.

    Hitler's rise to power is inevitable, but the course that he presented as a German could well be replaced by something significantly constructive. All 12 years of the Fuhrer can be divided into two parts of six years, before the war and, in fact, the war itself. In 6 years, there is not much that can be implemented in time. No visible changes in the people during this time are simply unable to occur. At this time, Hitler is filling in the holes in the economy with an increase in military enterprises. The whole country is getting on the rails of war. In 1936, a four-year plan was even announced for this purpose, similar to Stalin's five-year plans, only their goal was to accelerate the productivity of military production. The plan was later extended indefinitely due to the declaration of war in 1939. At the helm of this wartime industrialization was none other than Goering himself.

    It turns out that Hitler's entire economic course was aimed at war. But he might just as well have used ultraconservative ideas, as he did, with powerful propaganda and monopolization of the media space, to set a course for economic transformation. The Soviet Union, China, Singapore, and Japan all experienced the same conditions as Hitler. The Germans ' main problem was the destroyed economy. And as we can see after hundreds of years, the ideological component does not matter in the improvement of the country. But the very fact of a dictatorship in a crisis can be useful in principle.

    In short, Hitler's victory was inevitable, but the most correct and successful course he could choose. His obsession was self-defeating. He did not lead his people to greatness. He made cannon fodder out of the Germans. And what did he end up experiencing at the end of his life? The same obsession.

    Could it be that Hitler would simply become a second duce? But that's why the Fuhrer so easily made Mussolini, who disliked him, an ally, because Italian fascism was incapable of economic improvement of its country. But the Nazi regime, with its meticulousness and cynicism as a form of political governance, could have reached unprecedented heights if desired. Moreover, the mentality of Italians and Germans is extremely different. Italians are still in constant strife and unable to fix their economy, and the Germans, despite all the internal political confusion, have one of the largest and strongest economies in the world. Hitler might well have led his country to prosperity without war, but he was too crazy for that.

  10. War could not fail to happen, and the entire logic of Nazi Germany's development led to it, not to mention the fact that a conflict of this magnitude was inevitable at this historical stage. But even if you look at it from a purely economic point of view, you know a state that would lead to economic prosperity by the following measures: conscription of the male population from 18 to 25 years of age, striving for complete autarky ,sending more than half of the budget for military needs, expropriating property from its own citizens and active foreign policy loans to cover the huge budget deficit, etc. ( by the way, all this makes me think of Kim Il Sung's policy in North Korea, which led the country to starvation in the mid-1990s.) In my opinion, if the war had not started, the German economy would have collapsed. By the way, after the war, it was in a deep crisis, not only because the British and Americans bombed everything, but also because of the disappearance of military demand. So definitely: no, I couldn't.

  11. Here it is important to understand for whom he was a good ruler. In Germany at that time there was a totalitarian regime, and the ideology was extreme nationalism, i.e. concern for one's own people, but a hostile attitude towards other nations and peoples. All repressions under this ideology are aimed not at fighting internal “enemies”-in the form of one's own people, as was the case under socialism, but at fighting external ones. Thus, the goal is to make the state “one-national”. At the end of the war, as one professor told me, the advancing troops were surprised that Germany had almost fallen, but the inhabitants of the cities were fed, clothed, and provided with everything they needed. Even the soldiers were provided with all their uniforms and provisions in full. And all the products captured by the Wehrmacht soldiers during the war were sent to Germany, and already there people bought these goods for a song. While our people almost always starved. So we can conclude that Hitler did a lot for the Germans of that time. While “hostile nations” were subject to repression.

  12. I think few people will argue that a good ruler is one who contributes to the prosperity of the country through the competent use of internal resources and the establishment of peaceful cooperation with neighbors. Foreign war or repression should not play a significant role. Yes, a good ruler at the beginning of his work can quickly and harshly “strangle” the rampant crime (if there was one) and “knock on the head” of a restless neighbor who constantly “bites the ass”. But this will only be an episode.

    If we accept this concept, then we cannot call Hitler a good ruler, because, as others have already said, all his activities were ultimately aimed at preparing for a BIG WAR. During the war, he learned the credit of trust and “big money” from the “powerful of this world”. With these “grandmas”, he undoubtedly carried out reforms that were useful for the people and created “social elevators” for the mass of”children from the people”. BUT WITHOUT THE WAR, it would all one day burst like a soap bubble. After all, weapons can not just endlessly accumulate in warehouses. And soldiers, ideologically pumped up for a quick storm, onslaught and victory – marinate in the barracks.

  13. So after all, he did-if you look at the level of approximately 1938…

    He was even the person of the year according to Time, there is practically no unemployment, the country has risen from its Versailles knees…

    The question is, could he have stopped? In principle, he could – but for this it was necessary to fuck up the ideology, but Hitler could not” poytit ” in any way…

  14. No, I couldn't.

    The author of the question admits the possibility of “prosperity” of Germany under Hitler, provided that there is no war. Totalitarian dictatorship, reprisals against political opponents and “racially inferior” residents of the country are not an obstacle to” prosperity”. That is, we are talking about macroeconomics: gross product, etc., and that someone is killed and tortured – it doesn't matter. Okay, so be it. �

    The Third Reich has always had an extremely unbalanced budget and was constantly facing the threat of financial collapse. The problem was also constantly solved by non-economic methods. At first, these were foreign loans. Then came the proceeds from robbing German Jews. Then came the looting of the annexed countries and territories: the Jews living there, just representatives of the local big bourgeoisie, the assets of national banks, museums, and just the whole country, from which goods were exported without equivalent supplies from Germany.

    By” war ” the author of the question probably meant the attack on Poland in 1939. So, without the war, Hitler's economic policies would have led Germany to financial collapse and hyperinflation in the same or next year. Prosperity was out of the question.

    Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht … German statesman and financial figure, director of the National Bank of Germany (1916-1923), President of the Reichsbank (1923-1930, 1933-1939), Reich Minister of Economy (1936-1937), Reich Minister without portfolio (1937-1942).

    One of the main organizers of the war economy of Nazi Germany.

    On January 7, 1939, he sent a letter to Hitler in which he pointed out that the course pursued by the government would lead to the collapse of the German financial system and hyperinflation, and demanded that financial control be transferred to the hands of the Reich Ministry of Finance and the Reichsbank.


    (emphasis added)

  15. Strange question: would the German dictator have been able to lead the country to prosperity in the 20th century, if not for the war?�

    Even more than strange.�

    If a civilized nation is not going to prepare for war, then it does not need a dictatorship in principle. Such a form of government is unnecessary and even harmful for solving peacetime problems.

  16. No, Hitler was a shitty ruler who for 12 years led his country to a national catastrophe-approximately 10% of the population (7 million people) died in World War II, Germany was divided and occupied, its economic potential was destroyed, the nation was in the pillory of civilization. All this happened not in spite of, but as a result of the policies and actions of Hitler personally. Dictatorships are never successful – they always lead to the collapse of the country. Hitler led Germany to ruin.

    “There would be no war” – so the war was Hitler's fault, he wanted it and planned it, he deliberately led Germany and the world to that war. The entire economic development of Germany after 1933 was subordinated to preparations for war.�

    Dictatorships are not needed for prosperity – they are only needed for war.

Leave a Reply