What Happened When Hitler Took on Germany's Central Banker(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
What Happened When Hitler Took on Germany's Central Banker
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/07/hitler-attacked-central-banker/683545/
12 comments
IIRC the German economic situation just before WWII broke out was dire. With massive deficit spending and economic imbalance meant they had driven the economy to the edge of an economic cliff and had nowhere to go but war. I assume removal of any educated / reasonable administrators was part of getting that process going.
TL;DR: Hitler demanded that he do as Hitler wanted. The central banker said No and claimed the law protected his institutional independence. Hitler acknowledged this, but said that he'd just get rid of him extra-legally. The fearful central banker resigned his post in less than 2 months after Hitler became chancellor, got himself fobbed off to an ambassadorship in which he humiliatingly spent time propagandizing on the Nazis behalf, and was replaced at the central bank by a Hitler Lackey who did as Hitler wanted.
Fin.
The headline implies a vigorous resistance to authoritarian control, that didn't at all happen.
Fin.
The headline implies a vigorous resistance to authoritarian control, that didn't at all happen.
..a Hitler lackey who, ironically, ended up in Dachau as a suspect in the assassination attempt on Hitler.
I guess he too finally lost a bit of that lackey blindness after also being fired in 1939.
“a fiscal conservative who subscribed to the “golden rule” of banking, which stipulated that a country’s indebtedness should never exceed its obligations.”
Hahaha how far we’ve come. The kids will pay for it genau.
Hahaha how far we’ve come. The kids will pay for it genau.
What does this mean exactly? "Indebtedness should never exceed obligations."
Isn't indebtedness an obligation? So are they not the same thing?
Isn't indebtedness an obligation? So are they not the same thing?
What it's legally obliged to do (or spend, in this case).
In many countries, there's obligatory spending and discretionary spending. His perspective (per this, never read about him before) was that you should not take on more debt than is actually required to meet the obligations. Skip the discretionary spending if it would lead to debt.
For a household analogy: If you have $50 in the bank and a $100 electric bill, go $50 into debt. If you have $50 in the bank and want to go to a dinner that will cost $100, skip the dinner.
> Isn't indebtedness an obligation? So are they not the same thing?
Indebtedness is a consequence, paying off debts can be an obligation.
In many countries, there's obligatory spending and discretionary spending. His perspective (per this, never read about him before) was that you should not take on more debt than is actually required to meet the obligations. Skip the discretionary spending if it would lead to debt.
For a household analogy: If you have $50 in the bank and a $100 electric bill, go $50 into debt. If you have $50 in the bank and want to go to a dinner that will cost $100, skip the dinner.
> Isn't indebtedness an obligation? So are they not the same thing?
Indebtedness is a consequence, paying off debts can be an obligation.
The obligations in this context were war reparations. Basically, Luther would permit issuing bonds to pay reparations, but not for counter-cyclical government investment. Germany had been experiencing significant deflation when the Weimar Republican collapsed, which exacerbated unemployment. The rise of Hitler wasn't because of the infamous hyperinflation a decade earlier, it was because of overly fiscally conservative economists like Hans Luther.
Ironically, I think Hans had just oversawn the issuance of bonds for the final traunch of war reparations repayments when he was ousted. The Americans (for a second time) had helped negotiate a settlement with France to minimize the devastating effect of reparations on Germany.
I think this Atlantic series (part book shill) is trying to draw parallels with Trump's administration. But it's doing so clumsily, twisting history to make a point.
Ironically, I think Hans had just oversawn the issuance of bonds for the final traunch of war reparations repayments when he was ousted. The Americans (for a second time) had helped negotiate a settlement with France to minimize the devastating effect of reparations on Germany.
I think this Atlantic series (part book shill) is trying to draw parallels with Trump's administration. But it's doing so clumsily, twisting history to make a point.
It's almost like history is repeating itself.
The book "Wages of Destruction" is a fantastic deep dive into the economics of Nazi Germany. It's one of the rare books that upended my understanding of WW2