The Instigator
Reformist
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Ariesx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Nazi Economics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Reformist
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/29/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 877 times Debate No: 87408
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Reformist

Pro

Ive had an interest in debating this topic for a long time. We will be looking at economics and not the fate of Nazi Germany in WW2 due to the allies. Any point about the demise of Nazi Germany that is not related to its economics will have no impact in this debate.

Resolution: Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy

Rules
-Round 1 acceptance ONLY
-No kritiks
-Round 4 rebuttals ONLY (No new arguements)
-No use of semantics to turn rules or definitons in your favor
-If you somehow accept this debate without my permission you forfeit all points to me. Basically you lose the debate if i did not pick you

BoP is shared. My opponenet must make arguements that the Nazi economic policy was bad for Germany and rebutt my claims just like i have to.

Definitions:
Nazi Germany: The Nazi rule of Germany during the mid 1900's
Economics: the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.

Good: Prosperous or good for the nation
Ariesx

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Reformist

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting

Before we look at the economy of Nazi Germany we have to look at the economic collapse of Germany

Germany had a heavy economic down pour after WW1. The amount of money that the Allies wanted from Germany exceeded 30 billions US dollars (1), this kind of cost required Germany to stop focusing on its economy and start focusing paying back its debt.

For example, because Germany ignored building infrastructure and jobs unemployment rose to an incredible amount, almost 30%!(2)



Not only that but growth in Germany decreased significantly by 30 million marks (3).



Inflation was also another problem in Pre Nazi Germany. Inflation was so high that it took almost 20,000,000 marks to buy one loaf of bread (4).


"German children counting stacks of marks to shop with"

Now that we have seen the economic collapse of Pre Nazi Germany lets look at the economics of Nazi Germany.

1. GNI increased under Nazi Rule



As we can see the Gross National Income took a massive hit during the 1920's but as soon as Hitler rose to power the GDP increased massively (5). With economic collapse of WW1 it was obvious that Germany was in Great Depression. It had to take massive economic reform to raise peoples income during a depression but Hitler managed to do this with the following policies

2. Unemployment



As we can see as soon as Hitler took power (1933) unemployment took a drastic decrease to almost 8 percent (6). From 1933 to 1939 unemployment the unemployment rate decrease by 22 percent! Compare that to other US presidents where unemplyoment goes down maybe 5 or 4 points.

3. Construction of Highways

In 1935 Hitler started the Reichsautobahn which started a mass production of highways in Germany. This caused massive growth in the Germany public and private sector job graphs (7). With these highways the amount of jobs skyrocketed and led Germany into the modern age

4. Moochers off Welfare didnt exist

In America there are many people who abuse the welfare system however in Nazi Germany people like that would be put in concentration camps because they werent contributing to the system. These people who were called "work shy" would be weeded out of the system and only the people who needed it would get welfare benefits (8)

Not only did the Nazis save money by starving/weeding out the lazy they also set an example that you should do your work.

So as we can see from the evidence shown here Germany benefitted economically under Nazi Rule

I will get into more depth and more arguements in later rounds

Sources:
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2): http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...
(3): http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...
(4): http://www.history.ucsb.edu...
(5): https://en.wikipedia.org...;
(6): http://www.dailystormer.com...
(7): https://en.wikipedia.org...
(8): https://en.wikipedia.org...(badge)
Ariesx

Con

I am going to be arguing from the standpoint that Nazi Economics was harmful both economically, and morally(limits opportunity for a nation to become prosperous). I will also argue that there are way better economic systems such as Capitalism which would make one's nation even more prosperous. I would also like to state that a lot of the benefits that Nazi Germany acquired was through war. All arguments that deal with growth should be focused on the wealth gained from war. There economy is not the sole reason why the Nazis gained so many benefits.
First I would like to address the three goals that Nazi Germany was trying to achieve:
•Elimination of unemployment
•Elimination of hyperinflation
•Expansion of production of consumer goods to improve middle- and lower-class living standards.
These all seem to be solid reasons for a stable nation, but I believe that there are other more democratic ways of achieving this. I would also like to state that all of these goals came through force which creates a lot of unintended consequences as a result.
http://www.nazism.net...

Nazi Wealth- I will admit that the German population was contributing(forced) a lot into the economy. But, I do the think that this lead to a prosperous nation. War made Nazi Germany a prosperous country, while propaganda kept the citizens happy.
Here are the main points and statistics:
-Nazis unfairly taxed racial minorities, and took there property for money.
"The report also details the ransacking of 72,000 apartments in the eastern territories – Poland and the Baltic states – and shows how the taxman noted carefully down the wagons which brought the loot back to the Reich; 1,457 rail cars to Cologne, 1,023 to Rostock, 1,928 to Essen and 2,699 to Hamburg.
The Nazis also made vast profits out of selling off the possessions of those Jews who left – and those who were later deported to die in the extermination camps in occupied Poland.
For example, in Hamburg, auctions were held from 1941 onwards of furniture looted from Jewish homes. Auctions were staged on every working day between February that year and April 1945, the profits being lodged with a Gestapo bank account which transferred the money to the Reichsbank in Berlin."http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
-Nazi Profit from War
Now, Pro cannot say that the Nazi German wealth came directly from economics. The Nazis gained over 200 billion dollars from their conquests. This is because Nazi Germany ruled almost all of Europe. The Nazi German Empire occupied Ausria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Netherlands, France, Luxemburg, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, and Norway. They also taxed all of the racial minorities in each country.
http://www.top10hq.com...
-Centrally planned economy
Nazi Germany also focused a lot of their economic policy on building up a strong military. The Nazis controlled virtually all aspect of trade from the unionized labor to the actual prices. This hindered free market economics, and created less freedom which would create dramatic effects for the German people.
-Private property
Private property was allowed in title, but not in practice. The Nazi government, under control of the Fuhrer, dictated the ownership of the means of production - which in turn controls the use of all private property. "Private" property was often considered a construct of Jewish greed, and was shunned by Nazi supporters.
http://www.paoracle.com...

Better Economic Policies
Free Market Capitalism is able to go hand to hand with democracy and freedom. I am also talking about the 1980s capitalism where inflation was low.
Let's first talk about competition. Competition enabled businesses to actually innovate which was missing from the German Economy. There was no innovation. In fact, the people that actually did innovate moved to America, because they were frightened by the unpredictable nature of the regime. Competition enabled companies like Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter to compete and innovate.
Examples:
Apple: Apple was created by the visionary Steve Jobs in 1976. There goal was to create computers that were user-friendly to the common man at this time. Now, think about this. What would give you the drive to create computers for the average individual? Money. Money would motivate people like Jobs to create computers, and give him a purpose to do this. Apple made the Macintosh in the 1980s hoping to replace IBM. Apple went on to make many useful things that we use today such as the IPhone, IPad, and Macbooks. "Q3 2011: 20 million iPhones, 9 million iPads, 7 million iPods [5]
http://www.asymco.com...
Microsoft-Microsoft and Apple used to have heavy competition in the 1980s. This motivated both companies to produce the best they could offer to people. For those that do not know, Gates and Jobs actually worked together in creating the Macintosh. What happened was that Gates took the GUI from Apple, and created Windows. One might think that this was a backstab, but think about how much benefits happened as a result of this. Windows revolutionized how you worked. Back in the 80s, people used IBM and MS-DOS which was not user-friendly. The general theme here is that these visionaries were working for the people. They could have had selfish ambitions, but the point is that the reason why we are debating through this social network right now is because of user-friendly devices. Microsoft estimates that there are 400 million active users of Windows. http://www.winbeta.org....
http://www.winbeta.org...
Facebook-This is also another social network that rose in an age dominated by Myspace. This not only can be a story of how a company was founded, but how even if there is a corporation that has dominated the market, you still have a chance to make it big. http://womeninbusiness.about.com...
1.581 billion people now use Facebook.
These arguments are just less than 10% of how competition has created so many industries in America. This has made America a very prosperous country.America is extremely prosperous comparing it to Nazi Germany. America has also kept up with a relatively stable democracy where everyone can vote, and has a lot more free than Nazi Germany.

Statistics on America:
-Unemployment rate is 4.9%. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

-America's GDP is 17.43 trillion dollars.

-America's assets combined equal 225 trillion dollars. http://finance.yahoo.com...

-Inflation has certainly been very low. During the past five years, the consumer price index has increased at an annual rate of just 1.5%.
http://www.project-syndicate.org...

How to deal with an economic crisis:
The great depression also impacted America. Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded in one of the best ways ever. He created the new deal. I will expand on this argument in the next round due to a lack of characters.
I will address how what Roosevelt did would have also benefited Germany at the time.

Thank you Pro for creating this debate.


Debate Round No. 2
Reformist

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his arguement. Like i stated before i will make my final arguements in this round because round 4 is strictly rebuttals. However before i start my arguements i would like to remind my opponent and the voters that the resolution is "Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy" and i stated in the rules that the resolution may not be changed.

1. Work Programs

The 25 point plan was a national socialist economic plan that was developed in the 1920's but werent instituted until 1933.

The plans points were political, social and economical. The main points of the plan were the nationalize the country and create a system where the government controls the means of production and the production was primarily focused on the war effort. Also that the creation of a welfare state is neccessary ensure equality for all its citizens. (1)

2. Non reliance on global macro economics

Along with the 25 point plan the Germany economy was fully independent of other nations. This created a scenario where even if the economies of other nations fail they wont. For example recently China's economy was taking a bit of a stumble but the effects of their stumble severly hurt US and other european countrie's economies (2)

However the Germany economy didnt fail even when the threat of sanctions and cutting off aide became apparent when Germany was aggressive in Europe

3. Large Public Work projects

Like ive stated in the previous round the Germans centered their economy around war and public work projects. For example the creation of new buildings, highways and weapons reduced unemployment to a staggering .8 percent! (3). Not only this but public support for Nazi's grew with the creation of these new projects! So not only did the Nazi's increase their economy through projects they also gained support

4. The complete lack of interest in paying reparations

In order to have a fully functioning economy the Germans needed to get out of the Great Depression. However one major things was standing in their way: Reparations. 50 million marks were required (4)! Because Hitler's economic policy was not reliant on other countries the Germans could do what they wanted. However a capitalistic approach would not be able to survive because that requires reliance on other countries. The fasicst/nationalistic approach of Nazi Germany allowed Germany to rebuild its economy at an astonishing rate




Rebuttals

Nazi's unfairly taxed minorities

My opponent doesnt explain how this negativley effected the Nazi economy. He seems to be making more of a moral arguement than an economic one. In fact this actually helps me because hauling items from other non germans and distributing the wealth in Germany is actually helpful to the economy. Again i explicitly state we were talking from an economic standpoint and not a moral one.

War fueled the economy not just economics

Again my opponent isnt really making sense here. He is stating that war helped the German economy and not just economic policy. However the resolution clearly states "Nazi rule over germany created a better economy". I did not say "Nazi economics, and only Nazi economics, created a better economy in Germany". So my opponents point about the war effort is null and void.

Not only this but fascist economies rely on high military spending and wars. Citizens create weapons and drive the economy by having jobs and supplying the unending military conquest.

Centrally planned economy

Again my opponent makes a moral arguements and not a economic one. Why should rights effect the economy and if it does Con has still not explained why they effect the economy. I have made arguements that a centralized government creates a better economy in round 1 already.

Private Property

Again the morality arguement! Con STILL does not explain why the government taking property away from citizens negatively effects the economy

Better economic policies

Again the resolution states "Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy". We are not talking about other systems. Con's job was to prove that Nazi rule over Germany negativley effected the economy, not bring up other solutions. My opponent brings up how new things have been invented in a free market economy but the Germans also invented many things as well such as the volkswagon and pionneering large scale highways (5)

My opponent also brings up current US economics. Not only does this have nothing to do with the resolution it is completley biased. The economics of WW2 germany should be compared with the economics of WW2 american. However even that is futile since it has nothing to do with the resolution.

My opponenet concludes with the fact that FDR got us out of the great depression. And how did he do this? By instating welfare programs. And who pioneered one of the largest welfare states of all time? Thats right! Germany (5)

The arguements used in Round 2 of this debate by my opponent have either been promptly rebutted or have nothing to do with the resolution.

Sources:
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2): http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(3): https://en.wikipedia.org...
(4): https://en.wikipedia.org...

(5): http://listverse.com...
Ariesx

Con

I would like to add as I have stated in the previous round due to a lack of characters that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's plan was more efficient at dealing with the problem.

New Deal:
Jobs-12 million jobs were lost in The Great Depression which made up more than half of the American population.
The Great Depression had devastating effects in countries both rich and poor. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25% and in some countries rose as high as 33%. Congress responded with dozens of bills for huge public works programs providing a very well needed relief and pro-worker legislation. Roosevelt also has stated that he was working towards creating a Capitalist economy. The private industry collapsed, so the government was forced to replace the private sector in a lot of ways to create a stable economy.
The Public Works Administration put hundreds of thousands of people back to work on a variety of projects such as building new schools, libraries, hospitals, post offices, and playgrounds for the expanding population. They built Roads, bridges, and dams which were bound to collapse.
In those six years, 8,000,000 workers with monthly earnings adding up to a living wage.
The Civilian Conservation Corps put approximately 2,750,000 idle young men to work to reclaim government owned land.
This economy not only worked for the common man, but for intellectuals who were aiming to do more with there lives. Thousands of unemployed writers, actors, musicians, and painters were given an opportunity to earn a most livelihood for their artistic talents. This is in just one of the many ways that the New Deal outweighs Nazi Economics. They provided jobs that could meet the needs of one's specific abilities.
The National Youth Administration made it possible for 1.5 million high school students and 600,000 college students to continue there education. It also gave them part time jobs that met their expenses.
The New Deal also created Tennessee Valley Authority produced cheap electric power and fertilizer. This gave the foundation for the tech era which will explode in the 80s.
The economics system will gave 20 million Americans jobs, and allowed Americans to prosper during relatively tough times.

Now, I will provide the reasons why this system is better at creating an effective economic policy for a country.

1. GNI Increased under Nazi Rule
Pro clearly argues that wealth and the GDP is increasing which is unfair to the resolution. GDP was rising, because Nazi Germany occupied a large amount of Europe. This argument is irrelevant to the debate if it is purely about economics.

2. Unemployment
Pro fails to explain where the jobs went. All pro says is there was construction of highways. I assume that a lot of jobs were focused on military, and highways. The New Deal was more efficient, because it created a variety of jobs for people with different talents, and also decreased the unemployment rate to less than 2%. The New Deal allowed for the construction of schools, hospitals, and electrical power. There was a rebuilding of intellectual pursuits that The New Deal provided. The productions of the WPA Theater Project, for example, entertained a phenomenal audience totaling 60 million people, a great many who had never before seen a play.
The Nazis did very little in this field, and were completely outweighed by American economics at this point.

4. Moochers off Welfare didn't exist
This could also be due to the fact that the government killed those that they viewed unproductive in there society. Also, Pro has yet to find evidence that states that moochers existed in the New Deal era of America.

Non Reliance of global macro economics
Pro does not explain in full detail how exactly global economics hurts normal countries. Nazi Germany also did not need global economics, because of their imperialistic pursuits.

The New Deal was trying to create a country where Capitalism again could flourish, and it did that.
Statistics on America:
-Unemployment rate is 4.9%.
-America's GDP is 17.43 trillion dollars.
-America's assets combined equal 225 trillion dollars.
-Inflation has certainly been very low. During the past five years, the consumer price index has increased at an annual rate of just 1.5%.

My concluding statement will be include a defense to what Pro has stated about my arguments.
The resolution states Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy.
Terms:
Better- of a more excellent or effective type or quality
I would also like my opponent in the next round to answer these two questions, because I believe that they are very important in deciding which economy is more efficient.
Were jobs in Nazi Germany focused more on military and infrastructure?
How did the Nazi economy suit the needs of intellectuals and artists?
Why did the New Deal create a more effective economy, than Nazi Germany?
The New Deal and Nazi Economics have one significant similarity.
They both came extremely close to eliminating unemployment. The is an impact that holds significance in any economic system. But, the resolution is worded now to the quality of the respective economic systems. The New Deal created a more efficient economic system that had better quality.
Reasons for better quality:
-The New Deal created schools, hospitals, and dams that helped lead to a stable country where capitalism would flourish.
-The New Deal made it possible for 1.5 million high school students and 600,000 college students to continue there education by providing them part time jobs to pay expenses. Pro provides no evidence of Nazi Economics doing something similar.
-The New Deal put great emphasize on the young people living in America. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) put approximately 2,750,000 idle young men to work to reclaim government-owned land and forests through irrigation, soil enrichment, pest control, tree planting, fire prevention and other conservation projects. The young men earned a dollar a day, and they had to send part of their wages to their families back home. Pro provides no evidence of Nazi Economics doing something similar.
-Monthly earnings during these times were 41 dollars which was very high for the time. Pro provides no evidence explaining the state of individuals during the German economy.
-The New Deal employed thousands of writers, actors, musicians, and painters. The New Deal gave them the opportunity to live a modest livelihood for their talents. The productions of the WPA Theater Project, for example, entertained a phenomenal audience totaling 60 million people, a great many who had never before seen a play.
Pro has yet to provide facts that prove that artists and intellectuals were being used to their full extent at this time.

Sources:
[http://www.laboreducator.org...]
[http://americanhistory.about.com...]
[http://faculty.washington.edu...]
[Oxford Dictionaries]
[http://www.history.com...]
Debate Round No. 3
Reformist

Pro

For the majority of my opponenets arguement he talked about the New Deal. Its obvious he didnt read the resolution and he didnt read what i said against his arguement. The New Deal or any other Western economic policy was not the point of this debate and i clearly stated this in the rules and mulitple times in previous rounds. My opponent did not argue througout the debate that Nazi Germany economics were not benefecial to the country so he by default does not fufill his burden of proof

Not only this but he asks ME questions! I cant answer my opponents questions because i specifically stated that no new arguements were to be made in round 4! Only rebuttals!

Now that thats out of the way onto the rebuttals

Rebuttals

My opponent made no arguement that i need to rebutt. All of his arguements were centered around the New Deal which had nothing to do with the debate

Counter Rebuttals


1.GNI increased under Nazi Germany

"
GDP was rising, because Nazi Germany occupied a large amount of Europe............irrelevant.......if it is purely about economics"

I never said that it was purely economics. Again the resolution is "Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy". I did not say anything about focusing just on market descions made by nazi germany.

2. Unemployment

"Pro fails to explain where the jobs went.....i assume alot of the jobs were focused on the military..."

My opponenet doesnt really explain why job increase in the military is a bad thing he just states its not good. Not only that but again he brings up the New Deal which has nothing to do with the resolution. Again this point has no impact.

3. Large Public Work Projects

My opponent does not mention this so i believe he conceded this point

4. Moochers off welfare didnt exist

"This could also be due to the fact the government killed those......unproductive.........Pro has yet to find evidence that moochers existed in the New Deal......."

My opponenet doesnt explain why killing those who were unproductive to society negatively effects the economy. Again the morality arguement is coming into play. Also i dont need to rebutt the New Deal. That wasnt part of the resolution.

5. Non reliance of global macro economics

"Pro does not explain.....how global economics hurts normal countries"

Unfortunatley i did. I already had the example of China's stumble creating a economic fall of many countries including the US. See round 2 and 3 for more detail on this


For the rest of the round my opponent again starts talking about the New Deal. My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof which was "Nazi rule over Germany NEGATIVELY effected the economy". Vote Pro!
Ariesx

Con

I will spend most of this debate explaining why my arguments are relevant to the topic. My opponent claims that the resolution does not permit any other economic policies. The resolution states "Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy". I am free to say according to this resolution that there are better economic policies that the German government could have implemented. Nowhere in the resolution does it state that you cannot say that other economic policies would have been better for Germany. Pro did not do a good job explaining that there will be no other economic policies mentioned in round 1. Voters must read round 1 carefully. "Any point about the demise of Nazi Germany that is not related to its economics will have no impact in this debate." My case about the New Deal was purely about economics. It talked about how the new deal was more efficient at dealing with American problems, and it could have been implemented to meet the needs of German problems. My opponent has attacked all these arguments by saying that it is irrelevant to the debate. Pro should have been more specific in stating the rules. He has not been clear, and there is no rule in round 1 stating that no other economic policies were allowed. Round 1 was also stated to be acceptance only.
I accepted these rules:
We will be looking at economics and not the fate of Nazi Germany in WW2 due to the allies. Any point about the demise of Nazi Germany that is not related to its economics will have no impact in this debate.
If my opponent claims that these are new arguments, than that is because you also introduced new arguments. It is unfair to Con, because Pro also introduced new arguments attacking my case by calling it irrelevant. It must be addressed.
My opponent has created a poorly organized debate if he is putting rules after round 1.

Dropped Arguments:
My opponent has only attacked my case by stating that it is irrelevant to the resolution. I have proved above that it is relevant.
Pro has basically dropped all of my arguments, and also states that he will not make any arguments. Judges should note that this is an open drop of all my arguments already making Pro disadvantaged.
Counter Rebuttals:
1.GNI increased under Nazi Germany
My opponent says that this debate was not purely economics. He states that it is about the consumption of wealth which is economics. The New Deal was more efficient at creating an economy with better quality.
Better-of a more excellent or effective type or quality,
My opponent did not respond to this definition, therefor he conceded to this definition.
Quality- the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind
Quality can also count how moral the economics are, and how effective they are at helping the population. GNI increased in Nazi Germany, because of occupation of other lands, and taxing of other races. The New Deal did not need this, and still was able to give everybody jobs.
2. Unemployment
My opponent rebuts my points by stating "My opponenet doesnt really explain why job increase in the military is a bad thing he just states its not good." I did my comparing the quality of the two economies. Nazi Germany lost due to their military, and a lot of young men died in a wasted effort to conquer the world. I compared the quality by stating " The New Deal was more efficient, because it created a variety of jobs for people with different talents, and also decreased the unemployment rate to less than 2%. The New Deal allowed for the construction of schools, hospitals, and electrical power. There was a rebuilding of intellectual pursuits that The New Deal provided. The productions of the WPA Theater Project, for example, entertained a phenomenal audience totaling 60 million people, a great many who had never before seen a play.
The Nazis did very little in this field, and were completely outweighed by American economics at this point."
That is how the new deal helped bring a more effective economy. They focused on all areas which propelled America to greater wealth than Germany.

3. Large Public Work Projects
I thought it was pretty self explanatory that the New Deal had large public work programs too.

4. Moochers off welfare didnt exist
My opponent never rebuts the idea that no moochers existed during the New Deal era in America.

5. Non reliance of global macro economics
China is just one of the countries that is hurting from global macro economics. Pro does not explain how America, Russia, Europe, Mexico, and Canada are hurting from relying on global economics.

Reasons for winning:
-Pro has completely dropped the majority of New Deal arguments. I have already explained why the argument is relevant, and how Pro did not address introducing new economies in round 1.
-Pro advocates that a better quality economy is where it is built on the military. I believe that the better quality economy is one that focuses on all fields.
-Pro's spelling and grammar also did not work for this debate. "Moochers off welfare didnt exist. opponenet doesnt really explain why job"
-I have proved why The New Deal had a better quality economy, and how the Germans could have used the New Deal economics to create a better economy. My opponent just refused to debate this making it easy for Con to win.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Francie123 11 months ago
Francie123
@Reformist

I do know you're talking about economics. But I disagree quite strongly with your interpretation of the Holocaust. You said people were "put in concentration camps because they werent contributing to the system" and that "starving/weeding out the lazy" saved money and set an example. I am simply disagreeing that the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust were targeted for those reasons. There is no historical evidence that suggests Hitler spared Jews or gay men or gypsies if they could show they paid taxes and worked hard. Rather, it was a wholescale murder of a huge section of the population, including children, and was not done to help the German economy, but rather to help ethnic Germans.

I do appreciate this is a debate about economics, and not one of morality. This is not a moral point, just a disagreement about a factual argument you gave.
Posted by Reformist 11 months ago
Reformist
@Francine

Yes....I know that....

We are talking about economics and I already know why the german ecobomy failed
Posted by Francie123 11 months ago
Francie123
I'm not one to think it's my business to correct people, but there were some pretty serious factual errors on the half of Reformist.

1. The Holocaust did not target the work shy. I think I need to say that twice. THE HOLOCAUST DID NOT TARGET THE WORK SHY. It targeted groups that Hitler 'blamed' for the state of Germany in 1933. This was largely Jews, who were prosperous and hardworking businessmen, and had largely survived the Crash by virtue of their tight knit community. By banning them from civil professions, such as working as lawyers, and then instigating a boycott on their shops, Hitler encouraged Germans to buy from other Germans. Jews, as non-Aryans, were then not counted in unemployment statistics. Millions of professional, literate and experienced Jews - such as Einstein, who emigrated in 1933 - also left the country. This is not economically beneficial. Instead, it reduces competition and barrs skilled workers from doing what they do best. Other groups of perfectly hard working people, such as gypsies and homosexuals, were also sent to the concentration camps. It is important to recognise that long term, Hitler intended to work to death 45 million Slavic people from the East, such as Russians, and replace them with German labourers. This would have been a tragedy on a scale that annuls any sense in which 'economic gain for Germany' matters. Furthermore, it would have been crude, inefficient, and dangerous to long term peace in the region.

2. The crash of 1929 was not caused by Germany's failure to build infrastructure. It was caused by the Wall Street Crash. America had loaned the war torn European countries money, both during the war and after it. When the Great Depression hit, they demanded their loans back, so Germany had to return those loans. Demand for goods also slumped across the world, so there was no-one to export or sell to, and therefore no work. This, of course, has no actual bearing on Nazi success.
Posted by Reformist 11 months ago
Reformist
To what it was before
Posted by Briannj17 11 months ago
Briannj17
How do you define prosperous or good? Your resolution is vague. A better economy compared to what? To what it was before or better than the rest of Europe?
Posted by Reformist 11 months ago
Reformist
We are mainly talking about the implementations of these practices during nazi rule over germany
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
Sure, but their long run output would have destroyed the economy.
Posted by Reformist 11 months ago
Reformist
No

Will everyone please look at the resolution and then comment
Posted by Ceaser_6.0 11 months ago
Ceaser_6.0
Considering the tanks and military stuff they made for the economy i would argue their defeat plays a role
Posted by Reformist 11 months ago
Reformist
No its not
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
ReformistAriesx
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tXszY2gHaRdf3O6Yhora2hvsZbP18IKZIBfJJLSDFk/edit?usp=sharing