NAZI RULE

Ellesmere Guardian, Volume LX, Issue 24, 28 March 1939, Page 7

NAZI RULE

LABOURER'S BREAD AND

CIRCUSES

NEED OF IMPORTS IN

GERMANY

An account of the economics of the Third Reich was given by Mr Norman Crump to the members of the Royal Statistical Society recently. Mr Crump asked whether the German economic system was by itself necessarily unneighbourly or unsound, and said that doubts arose because the system was combined with uncongenial political and social customs. He admitted that the first condition of willing co-operation was a "complete change" in the spirit of Germany's rulers, but maintained that the likelihood of such a change would be increased "if in the meantime we consider this problem on a strictly objective and scientific economic plane, ridding our minds of the prejudice that inevitably exists in them today and discriminating between the legitimate and illegitimate needs of Germany and of other countries as well."

Mr Crump took as the basis of his survey such statistics as were available for the period 1933-37, which corresponded roughly to the period of recovery, and excluded the special factors that followed the Anschluss and the occupation of Sudetenland. Behind Germany's economic experiment lay the concept that unused labour force should be regarded as the country's ultimate reserve, to be brought into use at once. He described the effect of this principle on the internal economy of the country, particularly in relation to banking.

He saw no direct economic reason why this system should not continue indefinitely, though there were several indirect reasons. First, the psychology of the worker, who was now kept going on "a limited supply of bread and a regular succession of circuses." The one might affect his efficiency, and the other become exhausted. Mr Chamberlain's reception at Munich suggested that "the latest circuses are not entirely satisfying." In fact, deterioration in labour efficiency had probably already begun, and was perhaps being accelerated.

Other indirect reasons were the danger of a breakdown in the complex machine necessary to carry out the national plan, the limits of the scope of public works, and the increase in the volume of obsolescence and replacements which followed every extension of plant. Finally, there was the question of Germany's need of imports and of her relation with the outside world.

Mr Crump then examined the external aspect of Germany's economic system. In effect, he said, her system was a practical application of Socialism. Her exchange devices, he suggested, might well be "so much scaffolding, while the real secret lies in her power as an important industrial and commercial nation, operating under a system of national planning and able to import and export as a single large-scale unit."

Germany could not be blamed for seeking to expand her extefnal trade. She has been Slow in joining the post-depression recovery, and never succeeded in catching up. This might explain Dr Funk's trade drive of last year, and lessen our own alarm. "Whatever we think of Germany's methods," continued Mr Crump, "she must be able to trade abroad. If we seek to deny to Germany those raw materials and goods which she legitimately needs, I do not see how we can complain of the economic and political consequences." He recognised a legitimate economic motive behind Germany's demands for colonies, but added that the answer to this demand did not depend upon economic considerations. "The real tests," he concluded, "are whether this development of Germany's internal trade adds to the wellbeing of the German people; and, above all, whether Germany's neighbours get the goods which they really need, or whether they simply have to take under pressure what is offered to them. There is evidence that these tests have not been fulfilled. Is this the fault of the system or of its modus operandi?"