Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

162

I was discussing was trying to discuss N.S. Germany with a coworker and the subject of the labor based currency came up (for example, 1 dollar equals 1 hour of work or goods produced). My coworker had apparently already heard about it, and went on about how it somehow ended with N.S. Germany having hyperinflation at the end and that it would never work. He was not exactly clear why, and I could not find any information about N.S. Germany having hyperinflation, only the (((Weimar Republic))).

Still, I have never heard about hyperinflation in the Reich before. Is there any truth to this guy's claim or is he just running his mouth?

I was discussing was trying to discuss N.S. Germany with a coworker and the subject of the labor based currency came up (for example, 1 dollar equals 1 hour of work or goods produced). My coworker had apparently already heard about it, and went on about how it somehow ended with N.S. Germany having hyperinflation at the end and that it would never work. He was not exactly clear why, and I could not find any information about N.S. Germany having hyperinflation, only the (((Weimar Republic))). Still, I have never heard about hyperinflation in the Reich before. Is there any truth to this guy's claim or is he just running his mouth?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (20).
[–] • 1 pt

No. Any kind of (((hyperinflation))) was solely due to (((WW2))) and not a natural consequence of the economic system - capitalism - used by NSDAP Germany. Also you can't talk about the (3rd) Reich and be talking about the (((Weimar))). They didn't exist at the same time, the latter cured Germany of the former.

[–] • 0 pt

That's about what I figured. Thanks.

[–] • 0 pt

I’m no expert on the subject, but from my understanding it was not a capitalist economic system. I mean they literally called themselves socialist. You cannot be both socialist and capitalist. They are two different economic systems. A lot of people, especially Republicans seem to think that Socialism equals Communism, which is not the case.

[–] • 1 pt

Hitler's definition of Socialism, and why he was intent on using it as a part of the name for his movement: https://pic8.co/sh/N9klMI.jpg https://pic8.co/sh/s3AfAa.jpg In short, the term was subverted, he wanted to take it back. Ultimately, history was rewritten by the (((victor))), so that's why this question keeps popping up all the time.

[–] • 0 pt

...but from my understanding it was not a capitalist economic system.

You're wrong. https://files.catbox.moe/dvp700.jpg

I mean they literally called themselves socialist.

Great. No argument. You don't know what socialism is if you think it has anything to do with or against capitalism.

You cannot be both socialist and capitalist. They are two different economic systems.

One is an economic system, the other is not.

A lot of people ... seem to think that Socialism equals Communism, which is not the case.

Agree.

especially Republicans

... Disagree also who do you think Republicans are? Republicans aren't conservative and are just as liberal as "the left" but on a more relaxed timeline for instituting communism. However everyone should know that the socialism that "the left" wnats and ushers in as a means of instituting communism is not actual socialism, it's marxism.

[–] • 0 pt

Forgetting Germany you have a very limited understanding of Socialism. Because it is an economic system and cannot exist alongside capitalism. You can have a sort of mixture of capitalism and Socialism, or be somewhere on the spectrum between capitalism and Socialism. But you cannot be both.