Skip to main content

Weimar Hyperinflation




It is a truism that "hyperflation in Germany paved the way for Hitler's takeover." Everybody knows this ... right? Everybody has seen the photos of the wheelbarrows -- filling one wheelbarrow with marks was enough to get the bearer of the barrow a loaf of bread.


Like much that everybody knows, this isn't quite ... accurate. There is some truth to it, but ...


The worst of the hyperinflation in Weimar Germany was over long before Hitler became Chancellor in 1933.


It was in the early 20s that those famous wheelbarrows were rolling about with those bills. Late in '23, after a new currency was introduced [one Rentenmark, as above, was pegged to each one TRILLION of the cheapened Reichsmarks] the govt wisely pegged the new Rentenmarks to the US dollar at a ratio of 4.2:1. A peg to the U.S. dollar was, indirectly, a peg to gold.


Then the currency situation gradually normalized. This is worth noting because there was no very direct relationship between the hyperinflation on the one hand and Hitler's acquisition of power almost a full decade later. The latter isn't irrelevant to the former, but the connection isn't as direct as people often assume, either.


The introduction of the Rentenmark roughly corresponds to Hitler's first grab at power, the Beer Hall Putsch, in November '23. That, in turn, made Hitler a celebrity in disaffected circles, and his celebrity status (while inside and then just months later back outside of prison) continued even when the hyperinflation was becoming a bad memory.


Still, a lot of other pieces had to fall into place before the two parliamentary elections of 1932 and Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January of the following year. and laying too much blame on the monetary crisis of 1922-23 just obscures all those other pieces.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak