How did Nazi Germany finance itself during the war? They produced a large amount of war material during 1939-1945, but how was this production financed? What were Germany's revenue streams that enabled them to purchase and transport the raw materials of war and pay the workers? I doubt they were exporting goods during the war, so any revenue was likely internal to the country. Given the Depression was still going on in 1939, how did they pay for the war?
- 1
- 1
- 12
- 25
- 1,083
- 1
- 9
- 19
-
3@Sam - I converted your answer to a comment. After looking into it, it does look relevant, and might even be true, but it doesn't contain nearly enough supporting material to count as a full answer here. If someone (perhaps you) wants to flesh it out to a full answer, feel free. – T.E.D. Apr 24 '13 at 23:26
-
2@T.E.D. Nicely done. Thank you for leading by example. – David Pointer Apr 25 '13 at 14:05
-
A pretty broad question. There are books on this subject. – Tyler Durden May 07 '14 at 14:22
-
@TylerDurden Excellent! Do you have a book title in mind that a non-economist like me could grasp? – David Pointer May 07 '14 at 14:48
-
2@DavidPointer "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze – Tyler Durden May 07 '14 at 16:56
-
@TylerDurden Thank you, I just ordered the book.It looks quite interesting. After reading it, I will post my (non-economist) summary here if it adds something to the other answers. Unless you'd care to post your summary? – David Pointer May 07 '14 at 21:01
-
I don't like breaking the rules but I dont have enough credit to comment. I expect the answer to be demoted to a comment. I would just like to second Tyler Durden's recommendation of the book 'The Wages of Destruction' by Adam Tooze to anybody interested in the subject of Germany's economy and finances in the pre-war and war era. Unlike most material, there's actually something revealing on almost every page! – MacroMarc Sep 11 '15 at 17:21
-
I agree with your book re-recommendation. Fascinating material. I am reading it slowly, as I find it a bit heavy for a non-economist like me. What I have read so far completely supports Mare Gaea's initial point regarding Germany holding themselves on the thin edge of bankruptcy in order to support the initial military build-up. I have not gotten past 1938 yet. – David Pointer Sep 11 '15 at 18:47
-
New users are not given comment access to encourage participation by providing quality answers, circumventing it is discouraged. While this book may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here with supporting citations from the book. Your quality answer will gather votes and give you reputation to have more access to the site. Without access to the book, others cannot know the argument. As for supporting Tyler's recommendation, you can vote up his comment, a "me too" answer is not necessary. – Schwern Sep 11 '15 at 19:09
-
I don't have the time or energy to write an answer but maybe someone would want to talk about how Albert Speer was able to keep the war production going so well despite the massive bombings. He was extremely effective at it and the US went out of its way to capture him before he was arrested to get this information. – Pryftan Jul 16 '18 at 23:10
9 Answers
I think the Great Depression was quite irrelevant for Germany in 1939 similarly to for other countries that took measures at state regulation.
As for the income, Germany was a well-developed industrial country with advanced technology. It was a pioneering country at chemistry, electrical engineering, machine-tool construction, railroads and transportation, metallurgy and mining. Its industry was known for exceptional quality.
Germany had extensive exports, which did not stop throughout the war mostly through the neutral countries.
With the German conquests German firms earned numerous advantages that maximized their income:
- They replaced or adsorbed the local businesses in many occupied countries
- They earned the ability to use cheap forced labour of the conquered peoples
Also prior to the war any strikes were outlawed in Germany so that the firms could operate without risking with workers' protests.
- 32,728
- 13
- 90
- 183
-
Very clear, concise answer. Thank you! The answers I managed to find on the web were focused on only one economic aspect or were full of rather advanced (to me) economic terms. – David Pointer Apr 24 '12 at 17:05
-
15Germany heavily relied on various forms of forced labour not only of conquered peoples but also of the domestic population. For example any worker knew that once he is fired, he would be sent to the front which meant possible death. Once you rely on forced labour, you do not need to care about money any more. Germany was really short only of foreign currency for buying materials abroad. – Anixx Apr 24 '12 at 17:22
-
7Also many categories of workers and farmers were paid with pseudo-money (occupation marks, ghetto money, camp money, "Ukrainian" and "Polish" money, Soviet banknotes) to minimize the need to use Reichsmark. These "currencies" could not be used outside of certain area and only could be used to buy basic things. – Anixx Apr 24 '12 at 17:24
-
1Also, Operation Bernhard used slave labor to produce British and US currency, then used for foreign purchases and pay for foreign agents...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard – DJohnM May 04 '14 at 00:53
The recent book Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly offers a new and very important look at this question. It is the subject of an ongoing academic debate but many of the factual findings seem to be indisputable, if I understand correctly (haven't read it but read very detailed reviews).
Very brief summary:
The Nazis borrowed prodigious sums to finance the re-armament of Germany, the Autobahns and the social benefits the Germans received. "Fortunately", at the very moment the chips were due to fall and they would have had to face insolvency, they started the war and turned it into a great expopriation scheme. That the Nazis looted all Europe and made it pay and work for the war machine is quite well-known;
Ali goes into great detail showing the mechanics of the process and showing that the German was effort was to a large degree a financial pyramid, where the conquered countries and the murdered Jews were looted to pay off the deficits the Nazis had kept accruing.
He posits that the common German people were quite aware of this, grosso modo, and claims that this partly explains the tenacity with which the Germans fought to the bitter end (a claim that may not immediately follow from his economic data, as other factors, e.g. ideology, are involved).
One detail for example: they herded hundreds of thousands of Russians to work as labourers, industrial workers and domestic help in Germany; they were ostensibly paid (very low) salaries - but these salaries were stashed into a fund which nobody ever saw.
Another example: the Germans paid for goods in the countries they conquered (at least in the East) with "occupation marks" - an artificial currency whose exchange rate they loaded heavily in their own favour.
- 105
- 4
- 25,817
- 6
- 85
- 192
-
3Your answer would be improved by adding a descriptions of the core findings of said book. – Sardathrion - against SE abuse Dec 04 '12 at 13:50
-
1Could you please give us a paraphrase of the "detailed reviews" at the very least? Part of our guidelines is to provide a complete answer rather than sending people off to another location to look for it. Otherwise we will have to closew this answer. Thanks! – Steven Drennon Dec 04 '12 at 14:42
-
-
BBC History Magazine in the Q&A section contains an article that supports and elaborates on Mr. Goldberg's answer. – MCW Aug 27 '13 at 18:14
-
@MarkC.Wallace I couldn't find it there. Can you give a direct link? – Felix Goldberg Aug 28 '13 at 09:29
-
Alas, BBC History doesn't seem to support direct links. I am a subscriber, so I can see it in my copy; quoting is both technically and legally problemmatic. I suggest writing to the editor; they're fairly responsive and the Q&A has some very nice details. – MCW Aug 28 '13 at 10:55
-
Thanks! My answer was going to be to suggest reading Hitler's Beneficiaries. – davidfurber Apr 09 '14 at 21:32
-
With better formatting and some more quotes and information from the referenced book given, this would be the correct answer. The Third Reich ran up massive deficits that were unsustainable unless they could conquer and plunder themselves out of it. My own source is Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, but as it's not the main topic, I don't think it's fitting for an answer of its own. – Marakai Apr 29 '16 at 23:32
-
1This fact is always good to know. In older European generations, including French people who fought against Germany, it is not uncommon to hear some variation on well, Hitler was rabid loon, but he did get them out of the Great Depression. From many people, I see this more as a belief in statist/dirigism solutions to economic issues than as any form of Nazi sympathy or anti-Semitic tendencies (though I am sure neo-Nazis love to play up the "economic miracle" as well). – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica May 22 '19 at 04:28
According to a recent study commissioned by the German Finance Ministry, looting of German Jewish wealth amounted to 120 billion reich marks and financed about 1/3 of the expenditure of the German armed forces during WWII.
- 89
- 1
- 1
Germany conquered and occupied a number of countries, and stripped them of their gold reserves (except in those instances where the countries were able to ship the gold abroad).
They sometimes paid in either marks, or more often, local currency, since they effectively controlled those countries' banking systems.
And in a pinch, they could requisition the supplies and labor that needed, basically at the point of a gun.
And Germany was one of the first countries to "exit" the Depression. That was a major result of the rearmament program, which had a "pump priming" effect on the economy.
- 104,554
- 17
- 253
- 530
Nazis got there money by kicking out the privately owned central bank. (Just like the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of USA, aka Central Bank). After that Hitler printed their own money which was interest free. within a few years Germany was the richest nation in the world while the rest of the nation were in a depression from the privately owned central banks greed.
- 39
- 1
-
2
-
2Furthermore "printing money" is always "interest free" - printing money causes inflation, not interest. The more I read this answer, the more doubt I have. – MCW Feb 29 '16 at 20:38
-
@MarkC.Wallace - A broken clock shows the right time twice a day. The thirteen Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned entities, specifically, they're owned by the regional institutions they lend to. They have no controlling interest to go along with their ownership, and can take no profit from it, either. The Fed is reeeeeeaaall complicated. Similarly, the Reichsbank was privately owned, and then commandeered by Hitler personally in '39, and used Oeffa and MEFFO dummy currency expansion to strengthen the Reichsmark fraudulently. So, no upvote, but it's not way out there, either. – RI Swamp Yankee Mar 01 '16 at 13:03
-
-
@ RI Swamp Yankee said, "Reichsbank ... used Oeffa and MEFFO dummy currency expansion to strengthen the Reichsmark fraudulently." Yet Lincoln used Greenbacks the same way and it is enshrined in the US Constitution that is how it ought to be, "Congress shall have the power to ... coin Money" – user73457 Mar 08 '19 at 06:11
Some US Bank and large US Companies funded the Germans in World War 2. One of these banks,The Union Bank run by Prescott Bush owned by George Herbert Walker was seized by the U.S in 1942 for trading with the Germans. Under The trading with the enemy act. Mr Julius Silverstein and Mr. Gingold sued the Bush family and the United States in 2001 for profiting from the Auschwits concentration camps. One of the reason the United States didn't get involved in World War 2 was because of US companys profits. One company was Ford Motor Company.
- 11
- 1
-
5
-
2
-
Nitpick: Auschwitz was an extermination centre. Yes there's a difference between a concentration camp and an extermination centre. And I seriously doubt that that's the reason the US didn't get involved at first; certainly I've never encountered that reason. The fact the public had no interest in another war is however significant. This should be obvious given that it wasn't until a certain bombing by Japan - and the fact Japan did try and declare war prior but due to an encryption problem couldn't helped rile up support - and an infamous speech that the public was open to it (yes summarised). – Pryftan Jul 18 '18 at 00:28
-
I think the true answer is: money is a fiction, useful for bookkeeping, but ultimately meaningless. What truly matters is control of resources, infrastructure and labor. Using money is the "civilized" method of gaining that control, but if you're prepared to resort to uncivilized methods (forced labor, seizing privat property, outright conquest), you can pretty much ignore it.
See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/bitcoin-and-the-fictions-of-money/ and http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/423/the-invention-of-money
- 2,689
- 16
- 20
-
That is a very interesting statement. Would you post a reference or two supporting your position? – David Pointer May 05 '14 at 16:56
-
1@DavidPointer: it's pretty obvious once you take a step back from the assumption that money is inherently a store of value (that really only holds for makeshift currencies that consist of repurposed consumer goods, like cigarettes). I couldn't find academic sources that put it in this perspective, but I'll add two interesting articles that illustrate the idea. – Michael Borgwardt May 07 '14 at 11:27
-
3I don't see this as an answer to the question; your sources support your opinion ("I think") in the first sentence, but they don't answer teh OP's question. – MCW May 07 '14 at 11:49
-
1You have not included quite a few steps necessary to support your position that money being a fiction allows Nazi Germany to finance themselves. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but you need am much more fleshed out answer. Perhaps you could expand on the theoretical aspect of money (unit of account, store of value, medium of exchange), and how government control of the money supply would be important if you have to self-finance things as a government. Additionally, expand upon the monopoly on violence that a government wields. – ihtkwot May 08 '14 at 19:34
-
2Actually that's not a bad answer - in the years before WW2 a purely ficitious company (the "Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft", MeFo) was founded to issue bills of exchange that where backed by the German "Reich" and the central bank () and where used to pay for re-industrialisation and re-armament. This was purely a legal fiction (there weren't really any assets to back up the value for the bills). Not an answer, though, as the scheme had ended by 1939 AFAIK. Search for "MeFo-Bills" ("MeFo-Wechsel") , as I can't really explain this very well. – Feb 05 '15 at 13:19
Not sure if it's already mentioned here, but not many people know that Nazi Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy in the years 1936-1938. Uncontrolled investments in weaponry, social plans plus the build up of an extensive police- and army apparatus where too much for the state, which just was coming out of the deepest recession in German history until then. After 1938 this changed of course, as occupying other countries, hence robbing their gold reserves and access to massive private (mainly Jewish) capital, meant a big boost for for them. And let's also not forget that Germany was financially supported by very rich Americans of German and Irish (Henry Ford!) descend. Although this proved to be a drop on a boiling plate. German economy only SEEMED strong, but in fact was still very weak in the 30's. That's why I don't agree with the answer chosen as the correct one as it's not a correct answer.
- 171
- 4
Nazi Germany was a command economy run via expropriation. Nothing was "paid for" in the rational sense of a physical currency but instead was basically looted from occupied countries. That included labor.
The Nazi economy had a very serious inflation problem going into 1939 and in fact 1938 as well. (Just read up on your Albert Speer...both his testimony before the Nuremberg Tribunal and his biography.) Everything was rationed in Nazi Germany once the Polish Campaign began. Anything could be requisitioned by the State at will...which normally meant your kid.
All POW's were to be put to work either producing armaments, building the Atlantic Wall, manning anti-aircraft towers or sent to France to defend against an Anglo-American invasion.
I believe the theory behind the "death camps" was Jews to the East "to fight the communists" and "undermenschen" to the West to the support The Reich.
Obviously this did not prove popular with the Undermenschen so they either fought for their "SSR", fought with the Nazi's to defeat Stalin's Russia or fought "for the Revolution" against the entrenched "establishment." Either way your odds of survival were pretty slim. There were Jews who fought ferociously for Nazi Germany as many had had their property expropriated by Stalin's Russia. The "future Nazi mayor of Moscow" was to be a Jew actually.
The whole process was very inefficient and basically unworkable. There was an emphasis on engineering but little in the way of mass production or interchangeable parts. The losses on the Eastern Front simply couldn't be made up by any sources of labor or forced production. As German positions in the East were over run the Nazi economy simply ceased functioning.
When the collapse finally came in 1945 the only thing of value were US dollars.
The Russians loved watches actually...can't really explain that one.
- 503
- 1
- 4
- 6
-
2This is a lot of opinions and very little supporting evidence. The assertion that nothing was paid for in currency is quite beyond belief. Sources & citations would improve this answer. – MCW May 31 '16 at 17:18
-
The Holocaust isn't supporting evidence? "In work freedom"? How about the existence of the Atlantic Wall? Or who actually manned the flak towers over Berlin? Or how Army Group Center started out at i00, – Doctor Zhivago May 31 '16 at 20:40
-
Started out at 800,000 then swelled to well over a million men before commencing Operation Typhoon? The OKW suddenly "discovered" 3 extra Army Corps? – Doctor Zhivago May 31 '16 at 20:41
-
2None of those are citations. None demonstrate research. None permit anyone else to follow up and check your research. – MCW May 31 '16 at 22:49
-
Research? Just read the testimonies under oath at Nuremberg. You will literally "hear it from the Horse's mouth." Even the lies and total fabrications are hilarious. None of it was ever denied...either by the Nazi's or the Russians. Unless of course you're denying the existence of the entire War...which you are more than welcome to do. Todt Enterprises, the Hermann Goring Works...these weren't "made up businesses." Goring had to be replaced by Albert Speer because the corruption and inefficiency was so bad. Just read Speer's autobiographry. This is History 101. – Doctor Zhivago May 31 '16 at 23:05
-
About Russians and watches. Yes. And they plundered them and even had to have a picture 'modified' because a certain Russian (don't know his name) had more than one watch on him. Not saying anything else on the answer though. – Pryftan Jul 16 '18 at 23:14