A major historiographical debate about the relationship between the German economy and foreign policy decision-making was prompted in the late 1980s, when the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason claimed that an economic crisis had caused a “flight into war” in 1939. Mason’s arguments were that the German working-class was always opposed to the Nazi dictatorship; that in the over-heated German economy of the late 1930s, German workers could force employers to grant higher wages by leaving for another firm that would grant the desired wage increases; that this was a form of political resistance and this resistance forced Adolf Hitler to go to war in 1939. Thus, the outbreak of the Second World War was caused by structural economic problems, a “flight into war” imposed by a domestic crisis. The key aspects of the crisis were according to Mason, a shaky economic recovery was threatened by a rearmament program that was overwhelming the economy and in which the Nazi regime’s nationalist bluster limited its options. In this way, Mason articulated a Primat der Innenpolitik (“primacy of domestic politics”) view of World War II’s origins through the concept of social imperialism Mason’s Primat der Innenpolitik thesis was in marked contrast to the Primat der Außenpolitik ("primacy of foreign politics) usually used to explain World War II. In Mason’s opinion, German foreign policy was driven by domestic political considerations, and the launch of World War II in 1939 was best understood as a “barbaric variant of social imperialism”.
Mason argued that “Nazi Germany was always bent at some time upon a major war of expansion” However, Mason argued that the timing of a such a war was determined by domestic political pressures, especially as relating to a failing economy, and had nothing to do with what Hitler wanted. In Mason’s view in the period between 1936–41, it was the state of the German economy, and not Hitler’s “will” or “intentions” that was the most important determinate on German decision-making on foreign policy. Mason argued that the Nazi leaders were deeply haunted by the November Revolution of 1918, and was most unwilling to see any fall in working class living standards out of the fear that it might provoke another November Revolution. According to Mason, by 1939, the “overheating” of the German economy caused by rearmament, the failure of various rearmament plans produced by the shortages of skilled workers, industrial unrest caused by the breakdown of German social policies, and the sharp drop in living standards for the German working class forced Hitler into going to war at a time and place not of his choosing. Mason contended that when faced with the deep socio-economic crisis the Nazi leadership had decided to embark upon a ruthless “smash and grab” foreign policy of seizing territory in Eastern Europe which could be pitilessly plundered to support living standards in Germany Mason described German foreign policy as driven by an opportunistic “next victim” syndrome after the Anschluss, in which the “promiscuity of aggressive intentions” was nurtured by every successful foreign policy move. In Mason’s opinion, the decision to sign the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union and to attack Poland and the running of the risk of a war with Britain and France were the abandonment by Hitler of his foreign policy programme outlined in Mein Kampf forced on him by his need to stop a collapsing German economy by seizing territory abroad to be plundered.
Mason’s leading critic was the British economic historian Richard Overy. Overy argued against Mason’s thesis, maintaining that, although Germany was faced with economic problems in 1939, the extent of these problems cannot explain aggression against Poland and that the reasons for the outbreak of war were due to the choices made by the Nazi leadership. For Overy, the problem with Mason’s thesis was that it rested on the assumption that in a way not shown by records, information was passed on to Hitler about the Reich’s economic problems. Overy argued that there was a difference between economic pressures induced by the problems of the Four Year Plan and economic motives to seize raw materials, industry and foreign reserves of neighboring states as a way of accelerating the Four Year Plan. Overy asserted that the repressive capacity of the German state as a way of dealing with domestic unhappiness was somewhat downplayed by Mason. Finally, Overy argued that there is considerable evidence that the German state felt they could master the economic problems of rearmament; as one civil servant put it in January 1940 “we have already mastered so many difficulties in the past, that here too, if one or other raw material became extremely scarce, ways and means will always yet be found to get out of a fix”.
Another part of the new German economy was massive rearmament, with the goal being to expand the Versailles 100,000-strong German Army into a force of millions. The Four-Year Plan was discussed in the controversial Hossbach Memorandum, which provides the “minutes” from one of Hitler’s briefings.
Nevertheless, the war came and although the Four-Year Plan technically expired in 1940, Hermann Göring had built up a power base in the “Office of the Four-Year Plan” that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters by this point in time. In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Todt saw the economy move to a full war economy under the efficient leadership of Albert Speer.
Initially, the outbreak of World War II did not bring about any large changes in the German economy. Germany had spent six years preparing for war, and a large portion of the economy was already devoted to military production. However, rationing was introduced immediately in 1939. Britain immediately put their economy on a war footing, Germany resisted equivalent measures until later in the war. They were ideologically opposed to women participating in the work force. Unlike most other governments, the Nazis did not increase direct and personal taxes by any significant amount in order to fund the war. The top personal income tax rate in 1941 was 13.7% in Germany as opposed to 23.7% in Great Britain.
Germany never had the resources to increase production of war materiel I suggest reading a very good book often quoted on forums ‘Wages of Destruction’ by Adam Tooze now widely recognised as the most complete book on German war production. Just taking one example ‘Steel’ its priority was constantly shifted between Tanks, Submarines, Munitions/other weapons with never enough to go round.
(“Wages of Destruction” Penguin Books, by Adam Tooze, is a (novel) account. Of the Third Reich Wages?. I have not read this book, so I can only make my own interpretation. I ask myself, is it a (novel) account, meaning, a new look as to what did happen, or is it a (novel) fictional account on what did happen).
By June 1944 it was all over for the Axis, the only thing a failure of D-Day would have done was the iron curtain settles further westwards than it did.
(Mistake, Russia (iron curtain), would not have existed IF the German’s had! Won the battle in Russia, has I have said in my other post’s, by using more military fire power, which they could had. As for the German troop’s left in Scandinavia, you have to the question to what reason/purpose, they were left there), another mistake?
Remember the cost!!!
Britain settles WW2 debts to Allies. By paying two final instalments before the close of 2006, the Treasury has said. The payments of £42.5 million to America and £11.6 million to Canada are the final of 50 instalments. Hitler’s Greatest Mistake?/Bad luck. was not to have had this opportunity, of borrowing, IF he had!!!.
