"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

22 July 2017

Schacht and Hitler



Hjalmar Schacht wrote after the war about his high regard for the economic policy of the first four years of Hitler's rule, in which he had played a key role, when deficit spending was used to create jobs and increase production, without generating inflation.

Schacht was critical of the period from 1937 forward. The problem with Hitler's deficit spending in that later period, according to Schacht, was that Germany had already reached full employment. The theory is that for as long as deficit spending corresponds to increases in employment and production, it is not inflationary. But once full employment has been achieved, further deficit spending cannot produce further employment, and therefore will be inflationary.

Accelerated rearmament, however it might be funded, had become indispensable, however, because of the threat posed by growing Soviet military might and the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact.

In the program posted here there are about 20 minutes of lecture about Hjalmar Schacht's relationship to Hitler's agenda, followed by 20 minutes of discussion. 

The discussion seemed mostly to go in circles, elliptically orbiting around two questions: (1) whether an increase in the supply of money necessarily causes inflation and (2) whether inflation consists in an increase of the money-supply or (as Hitler says) in a rise in prices that might result therefrom.

By all accounts Hitler's accelerated rearmament of Germany through deficit spending beginning in 1937 did not seem to produce inflation (as Schacht had predicted) while Hitler's government still existed.

This avoidance of inflation was accomplished through what one foreign commentator called Hitler's "bag of economic tricks" (Free Lance-Star, 29 April 1938). Among these "tricks" was deterrence of speculation, since hoarding of goods in anticipation of selling them at a higher price (on the black market) tends to force the prediction of a price-rise to come true. Public loyalty and the expectation that Hitler would eventually find a way to cover the deficit, and thus maintain the value of the Reichsmark in the long term, may have been the main factors in keeping the Reichsmark from losing value. By 1942 Hitler was intending to cover the deficit with minerals from conquered Soviet territory (and if Germany did not win the war, an unsound currency would be the least of her worries).

It seems legitimate to say that if the quantity of money only temporarily outstrips production without causing a change in the perception of that money's value before the deficit is covered, then there was no inflation (which is to say, no devaluation). That is a justification of how Hitler used the word.

Schacht says that Hitler's deficit spending caused inflation of the Reichsmark after the war, but really, how could he tell? The effects of Anglo-American bombing and postwar looting on Germany's productive capacity surely overshadowed entirely any imbalance between currency and production caused by a few years of deficit spending. 

Hitler's position was this:


"The thing has got to be done. No State has ever gone bankrupt for economic reasons — but only as the result of losing a war!"[Table Talk, 22 April 1942]

It turns out that Schacht's opposition to this accelerated rearmament was not entirely a matter of fiscal scruples. Schacht, with his connections in England and the United States, was bent on hindering Germany's rearmament because he was disloyal. He admitted this in his book, The Magic of Money (1967).

An American diplomat, Donald R. Heath, wrote to Schacht in 1959 to inform him of how he had vouched for his collaboration with the U.S. government during the war:

I told [American prosecutor Robert] Jackson not only should you never have been brought before that tribunal but that you had consistently been working for the downfall of the Nazi regime. I told him that I had been in touch with you consistently during the first part of the war and Under Secretary of State Wells through me, and that you had passed on to me information adverse to the Nazi cause.... [D. Heath quoted by H. Schacht, The Magic of Money (1967), p. 107]

In any case, for purposes of assessing National-Socialism as such, it ought not to be forgotten that Schacht, an economist who placed supreme value on maintaining the stability of a currency, found the economic reality of National-Socialism quite praiseworthy prior to the period of accelerated rearmament that commenced in 1937.

 

4 comments:

Signifier said...

Again and again, I run into this situation: People who have no emotional sympathy for National Socialism or Hitler, no matter the degree of intellect or sense of what might constitute a fair and objective debate, cannot, cannot and will not, give an open listening to any defense of Hitler, National Socialism, or the economy of National Socialism because "market forces" are more important to them than real people, because understanding economics intellectually from an Austrian economics perspective or supply-demand perspective is a more superior goal than trying to help people practically live productive lives and grow happy families, because their education and court historians have instilled in them the worship of money over and above any feelingful and respectful regard for people, even of their own race or nationality. I think there is something called faith which is part of what makes National Socialism a sterling enterprise, and libertarians, in particular, are utterly lacking in this virtue, but not even libertarians: people known as conservatives or Republicans or neo-conservatives suffer from the same chilling void. No faith in the people themselves to rise. Southern conservatives greatly and grandly possess this faith, but it belongs only locally to a certain region in the U.S. and their faith is with the original U.S. Constitution in addition to the people of the South and they despise National Socialism because individualism is not a virtue in it and it doesn't look like what the Founding Fathers fought and died for in the Revolutionary War.

I hear the same dynamics underplaying this audio discussion. Haddington, with all his intellectual armor, is still feelingfully arguing for a better life for the people while Cantwell is arguing for a complete disregard that the purpose of economics has anything to do with helping or serving the people. If highly skilled middle-class people aren't smart enough to predict that their lives are in jeopardy and their demise is imminent because of a change in market trends and they die of starvation, that's just the justice of Darwinian economics in action playing itself out. These people obviously weren't as smart or as skilled as they thought they were; they were not needed for the future and so their demise is justified by the play of market forces. These people call their viewpoint "objective."

Chris Cantwell's whole purpose in listening to you, Haddington, was to criticize and pick apart anything useful you wanted to convey about National Socialism. He said so, openly, once you finished your recitation about Schacht and Hitler. He thinks making criticisms and picking at your work and research is called "critical thinking." It's not. He lacks utter sympathy with a different point of view. He literally is coming from a cold and indifferent universe, one much different from the one you live in, one that so far hasn't let him feel the full extent of its objective Darwinian "justice." In my humble opinion.

Hadding said...

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the German people suffered from an objektivitätsfimmel -- a mania for objectivity.

That's the appeal of commitment to "market forces." It looks like a commitment to objectivity (stand-in for God) and it simplifies the world by banning a whole sphere of decision-making, about who shall get what.

It's a form of secular saintliness to adhere to such an ideology, especially if it leads to ruin.

Signifier said...

Hadding, sorry about adding the "ton" to your name. You don't need to have a British moniker to be distinguished. Your native skills are fine enough for that. Secular saintliness, yes, or Jewish abstractions, I'm not sure which. Thanks for the insight about Hitler's assessment regarding the German people's "mania for objectivity."

Signifier said...

And "market forces" are so manipulable by the Powers That Be, and "free markets" don't exist. Libertarians will never admit to any of this. They even give lip service to the fact that it's wrong that corporations like government welfare, but they never fight against it.