Was Hitler the saviour of Germany

So I've just finished my Christmas reading on Nazi Germany and one thing stood out in the back of mind the whole time.When Hitler came to power......Germany was worse off than Zimbabwe.People had to get paid 3 times a day becuase due to the inflation produced by huge debts to France and other allies....the value of money was literally in a free fall....halving by the minute.The 1929 Stock Market crash threatened to destroy them completely.


Hitler's huge successes in the regeneration of Germany's economy over just a few years, recovering it from what seemed like unredeemable circumstances. In 1932, one year before Hitler's rise to power, unemployment had been at over five and a half million, but by 1938 Germany was producing at record levels, and unemployment was below 200,000 and real wages were up for the first time since authoritarianism.

Whatever moral issues you have with him......this right here is no *bleep* joke.That type of financial turnaround ....with the debts they still owed is absolutely amazing.

So I ask you.......if the unfortunate events post 1938 had not occured, if you are to base his accomplishments soley on his work up to this point, is Hitler the best leader Germany has ever had other than Bismark and furthermore is he one of the greatest leaders in history?

Secondly, would Germany have survived without him?

EDIT: Wrong section

More like this guy and his epic mustache.

Rag you can't attribute that recovery to Hitler alone. That was right after the great depression commenced, unemployment levels had skyrocketed everywhere, and by 1938 most of them had come down to more normal levels. I don't know the situation in any detail, but I would assume that just followed a very normal recovery pattern if you compare with other countries.

No he was not the saviour! I think the recovery would have come anyway and it did not have to be Hitler's way.

I'm not too familiar on the topic either, but Gustav Stresemann arguably made bigger contributions to the economic recovery, no?

Sushi Master wrote:

More like this guy and his epic mustache.

Spot on Sushi.

Bismark with his progressive social policy to revolutionize the Prussian structure and lay the essential blueprint for Alemania's balance of power and lay the foundation for what the country has become now.

Hitler wasn't even a leader as the masses were only attracted by his frivolous speechs yet behind doors with his empty words and complete lack calibration of his "leadership" essentially brought himself to a demise.

Plus Hitler had far many greater minds as his thinktanks as the OPs post and the praise for Hitler SHOULD BE attributed to none other than Gustav Streesman and of course, Ludwig Erhard as Hitlers economic augmentations were purely arbitrary.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Rag you can't attribute that recovery to Hitler alone. That was right after the great depression commenced, unemployment levels had skyrocketed everywhere, and by 1938 most of them had come down to more normal levels. I don't know the situation in any detail, but I would assume that just followed a very normal recovery pattern if you compare with other countries.

Nah....the thing about it is.....Germany were basically dependent on american capital to pay off their RIDICULOUSLY HUGE DEBTS to the Allied forces of World War 1. No other country waseven close to their situation......modern day Zimbabwe makes germany in 1932 look like Denmark.It was that bad.

Just an example.........People had to be paid 3 times a day because the money they made in the morning was literally worthless at noon and the money you made at Noon was worthless in the evening.It was crazy.....and they literally had no way out of it because of their debts.....which France was still demanding they pay because of the fact that their economy was thrown slightly off balance by American crash.

The way he stood up to everyone.....French leaders , American leaders............he stood up to everyone in Europe and the world again and again....building his army....creating jobs.....he literally forced Germany back into equality from subservience from 1932 -1938.

I stand amazed at this guy......I am inspired by him......what he did later was unfortunate and disgusting but that dosen't change the fact that every single president of any country facing economic turmoil should study his six year term religously.......but they won't because he's Hitler.

@Arq......I'm aware of the minds he had behind him and I'm aware of Bismark....I mentioned him in the OP but he was long gone by this time.

His political stances against everyone....literally having 0 support from anyone due to the ididiotic "War Guilt" clause in the treaty of Versailles......he gave those guys the room to work.

I'm just doing my preliminary work here but this module of my work

World War 1, Bolshivek Revolution,Nazi Germany World War 2

I'm going Crazy over here doing insane amounts of superflous research on every topic.Outstaning few months ahead........in school.

Although I don;t attend History class because the teacher is boring and I have Spanish and Economics scheduled at the same time ......but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

Hjalmar Schacht, and his mefo bills where a big part of the recovery.

Treaty of Versailles...worst treaty ever.

Hitler was spending money that Germany didn't have... the invasions of neighboring nations covered up a large part of Germany's problems by creating an influx of wealth and work while also distracting others, but Germany's recovery under Hitler and the Nazi's was largely superficial and not at all sustainable.

Hitler was just the result of the continuous war against British Empire. Spaniards, French and Napoleon, Russian Empire, Kaizer's Germany and then Hitler, USSR. One day we all be together to destroy em (Anglosphere)

RedOranje wrote:Hitler was spending money that Germany didn't have... the invasions of neighboring nations covered up a large part of Germany's problems by creating an influx of wealth and work while also distracting others, but Germany's recovery under Hitler and the Nazi's was largely superficial and not at all sustainable.

Wars are usually the best way to revitalize a falling economy Red. With an influx of capital into the economy, its potential is increased and a new equilibrium is formed. Of course, Hitler might have taken it overboard, but i am only countering your point about sustainability.

kiranr wrote:

RedOranje wrote:Hitler was spending money that Germany didn't have... the invasions of neighboring nations covered up a large part of Germany's problems by creating an influx of wealth and work while also distracting others, but Germany's recovery under Hitler and the Nazi's was largely superficial and not at all sustainable.

Wars are usually the best way to revitalize a falling economy Red. With an influx of capital into the economy, its potential is increased and a new equilibrium is formed. Of course, Hitler might have taken it overboard, but i am only countering your point about sustainability.

It wasn't sustainable, even with the invasions... they only papered over the ever growing cracks.

@OP: No.
@Thread: What RedOranje said

Also I'm prone to overreacting, so I'll elaborate later, but: no. He wasn't. Neither was Franco the saviour of Spain or Mussolini the saviour of Italy. Just to go full circle to the "good dictatorship"-thread.

RedOranje wrote:It wasn't sustainable, even with the invasions... they only papered over the ever growing cracks.

Are you talking about the economy or cracks in the society?

kiranr wrote:

RedOranje wrote:It wasn't sustainable, even with the invasions... they only papered over the ever growing cracks.

Are you talking about the economy or cracks in the society?

Both, honestly... though this thread is aimed at the economic part.

RedOranje wrote:

kiranr wrote:

RedOranje wrote:It wasn't sustainable, even with the invasions... they only papered over the ever growing cracks.

Are you talking about the economy or cracks in the society?

Both, honestly... though this thread is aimed at the economic part.

Well then, the war cannot obviously be used to sustain an economy. I may have erred in making my point. What i meant to say was that wars are a good way of lifting an economy out of a slump. However, they cannot sustain an economy. For that you need different policies which can provide employment to everyone and that cannot be done by war alone.