Why did Hitler hire and fire Schacht? 

Great post! I'm going to pin this because it's well written

@@TheImperatorKnight Socialists try to portray Hitler as a tool of capitalists, free market fanatics (like you TIK :P ) try to portray him as a socialist , but he was neither. Simply saying, In economic terms Hitler kept somewhere in the middle, and didn't have ideological problems of sometimes moving closer to capitalism and sometimes to socialism. Why ? Because Hitler did not consider economy as a heart of his ideology (that place was taken by biology, i.e. race problem) . And Hitler kept this middle road until the war started, and then gradually switched to total command economy, but other countries did that too, even US.

@@aleksazunjic9672 Fascist and Nazi economic models is based on corporatism. Everything is brought into the orbit of the state via the guilds, i.e. corporations or syndicates or in Hitler’s case a single national trade union. You have syndicates that engage in collective-bargaining for things like wages, prices, and production quotas. Utilities are under direct state ownership like banks, infrastructure, and so forth to prevent private enterprise from subverting state authority. Further proof of this is in Mein Kampf in Vol. II, in the Personality and The Conception of The Völkisch State: “The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But, as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves, and just as here the endless schooling, ranging from the smallest business to the largest enterprise, occurs spontaneously, with life alone giving the examinations, obviously political minds cannot be ‘discovered.’ Extraordinary geniuses permit no consideration for normal mankind. From the smallest community cell to the highest leadership of the entire Reich, the state must have the personality principle anchored in its organisation. There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man. The principle which made the Prussian army in its time into the most wonderful instrument of the German people must some day, in a transferred sense, become the principle of the construction of our whole state conception: authority of every leader downward and responsibility upward. Even then it will not be possible to dispense with those corporations which today we designate as parliaments. But their councillors will then actually give counsel; responsibility, however, can and may be borne only by one man, and therefore only he alone may possess the authority and right to command. Parliaments as such are necessary, because in them, above all, personalities to which special responsible tasks can later be entrusted have an opportunity gradually to rise up. This gives the following picture: The völkisch state, from the township up to the Reich leadership, has no representative body which decides anything by the majority, but only advisory bodies which stand at the side of the elected leader, receiving their share of work from him, and in turn if necessary assuming unlimited responsibility in certain fields, just as on a larger scale the leader or chairman of the various corporations himself possesses. As a matter of principle, the völkisch state does not tolerate asking advice or opinions in special matters - say, of an economic nature - of men who, on the basis of their education and activity, can understand nothing of the subject. It, therefore, divides its representative bodies from the start into a political chamber and a corporative chamber that represents the respective trades and professions. In order to guarantee a profitable co-operation between the two, a special selected senate of the élite always stands over them. In no chamber nor in the senate does a vote ever take place. They are working institutions and not voting machines. The individual member has an advisory, but never a determining, voice. The latter is the exclusive privilege of the responsible chairman, who must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion. This principle - absolute responsibility unconditionally combined with absolute authority - will gradually breed an élite of leaders such as today, in this era of irresponsible parliamentarianism, is utterly inconceivable. Thus, the political form of the nation will be brought into agreement with that law to which it owes its greatness in the cultural and economic field.” Furthermore in Vol. II, The Trade-Union Question “As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the nation’s economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence. Above all, the trade unions are necessary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers of estates… As already emphasised, the germ cells for the economic chambers will have to reside in bodies representing the various occupations and professions, hence above all in the trade unions. And if this future body representing the estates and the Central Economic Parliament is to constitute a National Socialist institution, these important germ cells must also embody a National Socialist attitude and conception… This state, to be sure, must, in place of the mass struggle of the two great groups - employers and workers - (which in its consequences always injures the national community as a whole by diminishing production) assume the legal care and the legal protection of all. Upon the economic chambers themselves it will be incumbent to keep the national economy functioning and eliminate the deficiencies and errors which damage it. The things for which millions fight and struggle today must in time be settled in the Representative Chambers of Estates and Professions and in the Central Economic Parliament. Then employers and workers will not rage against one another in struggles over pay and wage scales, damaging the economic existence of both, but solve these problems jointly on a higher plane, one where the welfare of the Volksgemeinschaft and of the State will be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations. Here, too, as everywhere, the iron principle must prevail that the interests of the Fatherland must come before party interests.”

@@aleksazunjic9672 Now none of the above stuff was implemented sure but! To quote the introduction of Corporate Freedom of Action in Nazi Germany, which was a lecture delivered at the German Historical Institute in Washington which delves into why the privatization narrative is flawed: “The central, load-bearing propositions of the Buchheim-Scherner interpretation are as follows: 1. The Nazi state regulated German business in order to achieve autarky and rearmament, but did so quite unsystematically and never established anything resembling a centrally planned economy. 2. Because the Nazi state generally respected private property rights and freedom of contract, the regime rarely forced corporations to serve its objectives, but rather offered an array of inducements, which firms could take or leave without adverse consequences, to get enterprises to meet the regime’s production goals. 3. Given this context, private enterprises in Nazi Germany retained much of their autonomy over their investment decisions and production strategies, which continued to reflect managers’ estimates of long-term commercial prospects. The problem with all of these propositions is that they are half-truths. Point 1 uses the well-known improvisation and lack of central planning that characterized Nazi economics to divert attention from the fact that the interventionist spiral set in motion by Nazi trade policy in 1933-34 developed by 1938 into a full-blown, comprehensive, and state-mandated rationing and allocation system for every factor of production. That system then became more rigorous during the war and almost airtight from 1942 on. Point 2 is right that the Nazi regime preferred the carrot to the stick, for both ideological and practical reasons, but quite wrong to deny the intimidating effect of the most spectacular exceptions to this preference: the forced sale of Junkers aircraft in 1933, the conscription of private enterprises to underwrite the formation of the Braunkohle Benzin AG (Brabag) in 1934, and the virtual confiscation of the Salzgitter iron ore fields from German heavy industry in 1937 as part of the establishment of the Hermann-GöringWerke, not to mention the impact on corporate decision-making of the numerous removals of chief executives during the war, including Paul Reusch of the Gutehoff nungshütte, Willy Messerschmitt and Ernst Heinkel in the aircraft industry, and Franz Josef Bopp at BMW. Point 3 is correct that many corporate leaders recurrently imagined- indeed, longed for-an economic future that would resemble the pre-Nazi, free-market past and thus tried to sustain their traditional core operations. But Buchheim and Scherner both overstate the limited success that most large firms enjoyed in clinging to business as usual and understate the considerable extent to which many executives modified their evaluations of commercial prospects along party lines in the key interval of 1937-42.” Reading this we begin to see why the privatization narrative is flawed, especially when presented to us by Marxists. Privatization was only pursued in a limited capacity, and the industries privatized were brought back into the state sector with the regulations and political maneuvering put forth by the state. The narrative neglects much of the explorations which happened, and another good book which I will not go into much which covers a lot of the expropriations and regulations is The Vampire Economy by Gunter Reimann. Reimann was a German Marxist, so before anyone calls him out for bias, he had a Marxist bias which would lead him to still label the German economy as capitalist even though he covers extensive regulations, state planning, price-fixing, expropriations, etc. Even admitting these were socialist policies. These are even covered in The Wages of Destruction too. To elaborate on this point, I will quote Antisemitic Anticapitalism in German Culture from 1850-1933 by Matthew Ryan Lange: “Moreover, Nazí decrees of 1937 compelled further cartelization to streamline the chain of command and prepare for war, which had been the goal of the Four-Year Plan of 1936. The results of this massive interventionist policy were “complete consolidation of the entire economy, complete elimination of personal initiative and freedom of choice.”81 Even if a semblance of private ownership of business remained before the outbreak of World War II, with war raging on two fronts the National Socialists took the final step when they created the Amt für Zentrale Planung (Office for Central Planning) in 1942 which removed any remnants of private initiative.” The German economy had extensive state control and curbed private business interests unlike what Marxists like to tell you, showing its parallels to the Italian economy, relying on systems of state planning boards, economic representation, state allocation, and so forth. However, if one is not yet convinced, I will now quote “The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938” by Richard J. Overy: “Even heavy industry, that had favoured some degree of autarky and state aid in the early 1930s, found that the extent of state control exercised after 1936, and the rise of a state-owned industrial sector, threatened their interests too. The strains that such a relationship produced have already been demonstrated for the car industry, the aircraft industry and the iron and steel industry; but much more research is needed to arrive at a satisfactory historical judgement of the relationship between Nazism and German business. What is already clear is that the Third Reich was not simply a businessman's regime underpinning an authoritarian capitalism but, on the contrary, that it set about reducing the autonomy of the economic élite and subordinating it to the interests of the Nazi state.” All “private” initiatives in the German economy were ultimately up to the state to manage and allocate to its whims, which makes it nothing like the private sectors we see in capitalist economies. Having more parallels with countries like modern Red China and Tito’s Yugoslavia. In fact, according to the Nazi Economic Recovery which I just quoted, private enterprise was to be treated as more of placeholder management rather than “private” in any substantial way, as I mentioned earlier. To quote the book again: “As the state extended its role in supervising or regulating all the main economic variables, it developed a more coherent economic system. German economists christened the system 'die gelenkte Wirtschaft', the managed economy. Under such a system businessmen were regarded as economic functionaries serving the interests of the nation rather than as independent and enterprising creators of wealth. The concept of the 'managed economy suited the regime's ideological ambitions, but stifled enterprise.” Everything provided beforehand echoes this same sentiment, and to further substantiate upon this, I will quote Nazism, 1919-1945: State, economy, and society 1933-1939: “By 1939, businessmen were subject to a whole range of controls on imports, the distribution of raw materials, prices, wages, employment, capital markets and so on. The Government dictated to a large extent what and how much they should produce, the amount of new investment, where new plants should be built, the type and amount of raw materials to be used, what prices to charge their customers and what wages to pay their employees, the amount of profit they could take and how it should be used-largely in reinvestment or for the purchase of Government bonds.” With all that being said, Corporate Freedom of Action in Nazi Germany cites a statement by Hitler and his State Secretary: “In my book on IG Farben, I cited numerous such examples, including Hitler’s public remark in September 1937 that “[i]f private enterprise does not carry through the Four Year Plan, the state will assume full control of business,” and State Secretary Brinkmann’s warning a conference of insurance and banking executives in October 1938 not to “underestimate the possibility of the state managing wherever business cannot produce to an adequate degree or perform creatively.” Hitler did not have a lax attitude towards private initiative as I have just shown, and the German economy as a whole did not operate by this sense of “private” initiative and privatization. Even the citation they use arguing for privatization refutes itself because many of these companies were allocated to the higher ranking members within the party and the party was the state. They were controlled by a National Trade Union (German Labor Front), just more regulations, economic planning or ways to increase further control or ownership by the state. Essentially this functioned not much different than the Italian model. Now if you read Wegener’s memoirs or Hitler’s Table Talks. He planned to eventually implement the similar bureaucratic bodies based on occupation in a Corporative parliamentary system with a senate acting sorta like the Italian Fascist Grand Council. So yes the stuff in Mein Kampf was being pushed gradually. All of this was identified as a version of German socialism that was anti-communist with people like Rudolf Jung in the early years to later on with people like Wegener or even Reinhardt. Even non-Nazis like Werner Sombart and Oswald Spengler in the conservative revolution were pushing German Socialism.

@@ZoranZoltanous You are burdening yourself with trifles :D Hitler was not interested in any pure economic model, be it corporatism, capitalism, socialism etc ... He simply wanted Lebensraum for his Volk . Economy was just a tool, but his core belief was that if he had strong, Aryan, pure blooded people, such people would build its own civilization and society including economy. In economic terms, his primary concern was to build strong industry that could support his armies, but at the same time not to overburden people with hardship in order to avoid mutinies and revolutions of 1918. Therefore, until the war started, Hitler was moving sometimes towards socialism, sometimes toward capitalism, seemingly haphazardly . In fact, he didn't care . All he wanted was to built up Wehrmacht and prepare for war as best he could.

Hi

@@Dora-exnxplora Hi

Can you Min Max money supply?

Actually if you rush only mil factories is better anyway.

@@oceanmadrosci3381 haw dare you call me Madman

Actually... I may have to take a day off tomorrow. Absolutely knackered right now

You're .... not a machine? Oh my. 😄

No, I'm not a machine... beep

Yes but the point of his videos is Hitler micromanaging everything.

@Evan Langston You made me laugh out loud, thank you for that!

You dont need it after the first few years though

FIRST! And is that a HOI reference?

@@TheImperatorKnight yes it is!

*Heavy Water intensifies*

@@TheImperatorKnight have you played hoi4? And did you like it?

Seriously blows my mind how Papen of all people managed to be acquitted. Can someone 3explain that to me?

​@@spiffygonzales5160 "Let me get this straight, Mr. Papen, you thought you could put Hitler in charge and then control him from behind the scenes? That's... hmm... acquitted on grounds of mental retardation."

Not charged as a war criminal at Nuremberg, von Papen was classified as one in 1947 by a German de-Nazification court, and sentenced to eight years' hard labor. He was acquitted following appeal after serving two.

Weird how Mayer Rothschild the individual's 3 individual sons pursued his individual goal qnd the famioy has pursued that goal in concert with coethnics. Since, there are no groups and all

@@spiffygonzales5160 He was a obedient and loyal Knight of Malta of the Jesuit Vatican.

It's not really about the economics too much, unfortunately.

@@TheImperatorKnight it's close enough :)

Prescott Bush was Hitler's banker in America, via the Union Banking Corporation.

Yes, yes it could

With the benefit of hindsight it is

Honestly, it sometimes feels like I'm repeating that scene...

"We are all individuals"

There are ONLY individuals, all collective "sharing of the ego" are mere abstractions, philosophical nonsense if watched closely.

@@jakublulek3261 "We are all individuals"

This suits me, because it makes British Indian Army plain British. Pakistani activists estimate that there are about 1,000 “honor” killings every year.

Average German voter: This makes sense.

It makes more sense if you say "We're going to increase military spending so we can go take other peoples' stuff". Everyone understands taking other peoples' stuff.

Not necessarily a contradiction, it should be said. There are situations where there is no golden middle, while two more radical positions do each work. Indeed this happens somewhat frequently. Here particularly, there is no contradiction, as long as you plan to stabilize the economy with war booty, which Hitler did plan.

@@Paciat it was told to me over and over and over growing up. War gives us a good economy and mankind makes so many yuge leaps forward during wars, I was told many times by the WW2 generation. People need order and authority, they would say.

@@odysseus2656 Then you were told wrong. War economy is horrible with you as a civilian getting nothing of of it. Soviet Union in the years 1914 - 1945 had a war focused economy (almost wartime at best). And there are many stories where Soviet soldiers are stunned by the capitalist (read Soviet enemy) quality of life. Also wartime economy dosnt focus at the far future and with hindsight is often is called irresponsible. WW2 generation believed that working hard with overtime makes you understand more than the economy of their own wallets.

Agree on this! It's a fascinating but also horrifying subject.

Taking it a step farther would also be good; how all of that was wasted in a scatter-brained system.

Alsace and Lorraine would be good case-studies for this. When the Nazis took over they inserted party members into all businesses, siezed capital and other property if people resisted, exiled owners and politicians, and otherwise purged the regions of anybody who could oppose their political or economic plunder.

The mistake Schacht made was telling the mad dog Hitler that the Reichbank was broke & could no longer pay for rearmament. Also that inflation was rising fast due to out of control spending. GONE!

@@mikeoz4803 of what inflation are you speaking?

The July Crisis of 1914 has to be the best example of an Arrested Development-esque plot in real life.

Reality certainly can be stranger than fiction.

Welcome to Planet Earth: the planet ruled by psychotic apes.

@@juansantos-lq2kz believe me I know that ; just listening to politicaticans talk and act like they know what they’re talking about hurts my head

same, except it depresses me

Yes ,we all love TIK's growly bad guy voice.

Perfect for keeping yourself from getting audio quoted out of context! “I was CLEARLY doing the Hitler voice”

Power is a drug.

My wife keeps telling me TIK sounds like a big strong policeman with handcuffs and a truncheon... ...are we missing something?

No dude, just some guys think hitler was made to be the german leader and start ww2 to make the world shy away from nationalism as it was actually getting more and more popular before ww2. To then allow capitalism to profit even more from societies that dont give a fuck from the product comes from and how dependent a nation is from another and vice versa. Lots of details but you can just google it

Excellent point.

yeah, a lot of things happening today make no sense to me, half the world never even existed before 9/11 the other half did for one example.

Did he finally realize Mises is an idiot? Whats the timestamp for this?

@@tomogburn2462 how is he a idiot?

@@silent_stalker3687 Probably because he undermined his entire career with his own hypothesis? If you cant proof a system because actors are irrational, you cant then turn around and sell me a fuckin system based on people being rational. Bro thats like a person telling me not to take antibiotics that arent approved then turning around and trying to sell me some crystals. Yes you might be right about the medicine, but why the fuck would I buy what your selling when you just told me not to buy shit that aint approved. You're hocking some fucking crystals as a cure to the common cold. Fuck outta here. You just told me not to do that.

@@tomogburn2462 When governments have rational (honest) policies, people act rationally (on the whole). For example they save AND spend. However as fiat allows govts. to act irrationally (dishonestly), the people start doing the same. If your policies encourage 0 saving because inflation destroys savings, then people won't save and will begin frantically bidding up real assets. This bubble creation starts to become self sustaining. As we saw in Holland's Tulip Mania and in Bitcoin today. Irrational govts=irrational economic behavior.

The most interesting theory I've read is that WW2 was a battle between occultists with Churchie following Crowely and Addie following Blavatsky. FDR put the pyramid and the eye on the dollar bill. Weirdo occultists were part of GB, Germany and US governments.

I fully agree. The problem I have right now is that it's hard to actually tackle the arguments because the arguments are difficult to find due to all the censorship. I understand why people knee-jerk react and demand that Nazi or Communist books and content get taken down, but it doesn't solve the issue. All it does is drive it underground, making it more difficult for people like me to address it.

@@TheImperatorKnight as a rule, if you find yourself doing the same thing the Nazis did, you should examine your actions carefully. Deplatforming was practiced extensively by the Nazi party. When I was young they made a big deal about "book burning", but what is the difference between book burning and suspending some ones RU-vid channel? The underlying concept is that, decisions of this type should be made by the powerful, in back rooms and secret meetings, not by the general public.

He’s been asked to debate his stance on communism etc plenty of times. The Finnish Bolshevik even did videos on tiks take on ideologies

@@JohnKobaRuddy I looked at The Finnish Bolshevik's channel, I did not know that existed. I don't think "in person" debates are all that great, I think that they should just make videos responding to each other's videos. A sort of, video back and forth debate. The arguments will be better researched and better presented, which will help people make better decisions.

The mistake Schacht made was telling the mad dog Hitler that the Reichbank was broke & could no longer pay for rearmament. Also that inflation was rising fast due to out of control spending. GONE!

Don't be Schachtin' a fool!

The Germans never used the term "Blitzkrieg". They preferred the term "The Schacht Attack".

Schacht attack!

Hack-a-Schacht

Hjalmar had a "schactache."

really?

@@latagawande1978 Yes really!

Unlike democratic leaders?

@@nikolajwinther5955 Democratic leaders are limited in their power and influence.

@@nikolajwinther5955 watch for the edge

Bro a dictator can be wtv you wanna be. There have been countless of good dictators and countless of bad dictators. Its a matter of the people choosing the right one.

But how do you choose the right one though? Gaddafi started off good, then he became corrupt

You'll be happy to know that I'm working on a big video or series (not sure which yet) on a major inter-war event... Still a while away from finishing the research on it yet, but it'll happen at some point

Guess we found Halder's alt account

@@jackobrien47 ya

"Since we are talking about logistics in this video" We are? And I'm not an expert on ancient or medieval warfare, unfortunately. I will note that the Roman Republic expanded, whereas the Empire didn't do so as much, then the Empire split in two, with the west having a massive military and social budget which forced them to dilute their gold based money into fiat currency, causing them to suffer from inflation, which then destroyed their economy and helped speed up their collapse.

@@TheImperatorKnight "we are?" Economics = Logistics.

@@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874 common misconception: warfare in the middle ages were not nobility supported by levied infantry as the paradigm. while levy systems existed, the norm was to rely solely on professionals and semi-professionals that made up retinues and mercenaries (although the connotations have shifted today, mercenaries in medieval times were often locally recruited). levies were only used when retinues were not sufficient and there wasn't enough money (or willing volunteers) to use short-term contract soldiers. its hard to compare the middle ages to other periods in terms of logistics because they relied so much more on poliorcetics, that is fortifications and siege warfare. and Fabian tactics were also far more popular (thanks to De re militari). we do know that at least in terms of food supply the decentralized system was superior for mobility (as shown later by Napoleon), and the fact spare parts wasn't an issue means the lack of centralized arms and armor was irrelevant, or even an advantage [armour was more common and more extensive for most of the medieval period than earlier or later, although arguably this is more technological than economic], also later on the decentralized dutch military system of the renaissance also proved superior in siege warfare to the centralized Spanish one. it is important to note the eastern roman empire switched voluntarily to a (then) more western-style (decentralized) military system which is credited as saveing the empire from the arabs aswell as their defeat of the Bulgarians (and other slavs). Byzantine sources describe it as more efficient in terms of resources including but not limited to manpower (and modern historians tend to agree) another thing of note, it took 200 years of near-continuous warfare to kick the crusaders out of 'the holy land', despite their recruitment pool and origin of their supply chain being on the other side of the Mediterranean sea (and said sea being full of anti-crusader pirates and raiders) and being heavily outnumbered. many historians consider this to be a clear example of the strength of the system.

The film "Maximillian" dramatizes much of the economic realities of Medieval Warfare, as Mary I of Burgundy needed to marry him, in order to fend off the advances of the French, after the death of her father Charles the Bold in battle.

@@TheImperatorKnight Oh dear. You need to read more Roman monetaryl history. But basically goes like this. Silver coinage until mid - 3rd century. Partial demonetization under Diocletian (the military annona) Partial remonetization under Constantine (the gold solidus). Full remonetization under Anastasius (late 5th century, bronze coinage). This is highly over simplified but will do as a rule of thumb. Based on Michael Grant, The Climax of Rome, chapter 3.

Well he did paint a grimm future

I am curious if Hitler continued his painting even when in power. Berchtesgaden has some phenomenal scenery, no wonder he loved it over there.

@@jakublulek3261 Thats an interesting question...I doubt if he would have had time..painting is so time consuming especially water painting that Hitler favoured..

That's not very unusual for socialists to do before they're ready for the final (and total) power grab.

Schacht made sure the money was available for state expenditure. What could be more socialist than that? Hitler was criticised for not nationalising but he seems to have realised that industry is best run by those who know it well, not civil servants. The British post-war government, in some ways more Nazi than Hitler, made the mistake of nationalising. One result was that the Coal Board was run from Hobart House in Belgravia, a long way from a coalmine. I had an interview with the staff manager. We discussed the plays of Euripides. See Corelli Barnett's book, 'The Lost victory.' Hitler was not only a socialist but a uniquely successful one. Remember he made health care free, in 1943!

Why are you asking?

@@overrated88 because I don't want to miss 😂

Yup that's a pretty good reason, gotta give it to ya

I think he would hate social media considering how insane they can be at times

It's a interesting question. I think the answer is the German industrial capitalism was exceptionally organised (kartellized) from its inception. You have to remember that Germany was economically unified before it was politically unified so that German industrialists saw themselves as national leaders. Which may help to explain why Schacht despite being a liberal banker, was prepared to accept a much more controlled economy than a British or American banker would have.

this is what is happening in the us tech oligarchs controlling govt and subverting justice.

I know that Rageaholic had heard of the video, but I didn't know the Lotus Eaters had looked into it too. What have they said about it?

@@TheImperatorKnight Callum has mentioned it a few times, using it to explain that socialists are essentially the same regarding authoritarianism and state intervention in the economy along with recommending your channel. As far as I'm aware, Carl hasn't watched it though but Callum has recommended you twice to him so you definitely have his approval.

Konstantin Kisen Triggernometry mentioned TIK too

It's why they're called the vampire state. The army they built bankrupted the economy and was instead funded by robbing neighbor states and Jews. As effective as the strategy is of making war pay for itself, it only works with an endless string of EASY victories, which is impossible.

@@samsonsoturian6013 he got very close tho

Who's the big swinging di*ck That's a sex machine to all the Reichsbank chicks? (Schacht!) You're damn right Who is the man that would risk his neck for his Fatherland? (Schacht!) Can ya dig it? Who's the cat that won't cop out when there's economic danger all about? (Schacht!) Right on You see this cat Schacht is a bad mother... (Shut your mouth!) But I'm talkin' about Schacht (Then we can dig it!) He's a complicated man but no one understands him but his fraulein (Jari Schacht!)