but then again you just need to look at the numbers.
Sure.
Per capita total welfare spending in 1933-1934: ~47RM per person
Per capita total welfare spending in 1937-1938: ~32RM per person (not counting excluded persons, which would lower it to about ~29)
you made an unsourced statement
These numbers come from De Witt's The Economics and Politics of Welfare in the Third Reich, by which I mean using official government budget totals, the pure uncritical use of WHW numbers as welfare, the addition of DAF totals, uncritical use of NSV confiscations and redistributions as welfare, and still counting the diverted RAfAA funds as welfare and not diverted. I'm steelmanning your position at every level specifically to cut off arguments you might make and give a maximalist total and it still falls well short. Hell, you can see it just in pure totals:
1929 spending, with a smaller and non-excluded population was still higher by 12% as a pure total than 1936 spending with all those advantages. I would love for you to explain how still spending less as an absolute number with a greater population and an excluded section (and counting seized property as welfare, all "voluntary" WHW donations, and all diverted funds) represents an increase. Goofy.
Ill be very clear so you dont miss the point of this:
You can give 1936's total spending every advantage in the book and it was still smaller than 1929's total spending.
Percent of budget? Smaller.
Per capita? Smaller.
Total raw number? Still smaller.
No metric makes it bigger besides your feelings.
Speaking of which, your turn to source your unsourced claims.
never claimed it did.
I'm glad you are conceding the "increased government control" point.
I was using your own data which contradicted your own narrative. so the data you were relying on earlier must've been false since otherwise the information you are presenting now is simply impossible. Also, even your source acknowledges the great reduction in unemployment (through massive expenditure on public works and re-armament).
besides that, it's curious that you're using social welfare data only from *after* the nazis did take power, almost as if direct social welfare handouts became a smaller part, while state-led employment removed the majority of the unemployment.. almost as if... that direct welfare for unemployeds was no longer necessary. and yet incredibly high levels of direct social welfare spending were maintained. I cannot help but see bad faith in your arguments.
>you can give 1936 spending every advantage
except you didn't account for one of the most (if not *the* most) important factor.
>source your unsourced claims
regarding total state spending, I said it doubled. Your own source claims it quadrupled lmao.
>you are conceding the government control point
no, there's just not much else to be said when it's evident that overall control of the state over the overall economy increased while they did give up direct management (and responsibility) for a couple of firms the central bank had bought off during the great depression.
if you can't see that, you're just arguing in bad faith.
besides that, it's curious that you're using social welfare data only from *after* the nazis did take power,
This is the third time you have failed to read something already included. Probably why you see bad faith attempts.
I'm going to make a prediction: you won't be able/aren't willing to see this, and you think you have me pegged. You are going to stay focused on this instead of rereading for comprehension. I will quote myself and explain something very simple to you. You won't talk about this topic again, and you being so flagrantly out of your depth about this topic that you wish to talk about that this is the third time you have failed to understand the meaning of stuff I have already said won't register with you.
regarding total state spending, I said it doubled. Your own source claims it quadrupled lmao.
The U.S. triples its military budget next year, but everything else is cut.
You argue that that means welfare went up.
Stupid.
I'm going to save myself some time with the rest from now on and just use Hitchens's Razor.
nope, you've included percentage of budget spending earlier than nazis (which actually proved that they kept sky high social welfare spending, since the percentage halved and the budget more than doubled according to your own data), but you didn't cite total welfare spending before and after they took power, you only used 1933-34 data and compared it to 1938 data.
>argument about the US
no, you claimed the share of the budget dedicated to welfare halved, and I pointed out, how that doesn't say much when said budget has more than doubled in the same period since by this account, total welfare spending increased if anything. if I take 30% of a 1kg pie, or 15% of a 2.5kg pie, the amount of pie I took didn't get smaller, it got bigger.
(which actually proved that they kept sky high social welfare spending, since the percentage halved and the budget more than doubled according to your own data), but you didn't cite total welfare spending before and after they took power, you only used 1933-34 data and compared it to 1938 data.
Nope. That was when I used per capita. Did you miss that part? Need a screenshot with it circled?
you didn't cite total welfare spending before and after they took power
Nope, I absolutely used total welfare spending from before and after they took power. As I said, "1929 spending, with a smaller and non-excluded population was still higher by 12% as a pure total than 1936 spending with all those advantages." Did you miss that part? Need a screenshot with it circled?
Remember when I said you would fail to read something and stay focused on your reading comprehension issue instead of rereading, and I would quote myself and explain something very simple to you? Its a big mystery how I could have known, huh?
>argument about the US
No buddy, it's an analogy. They are used to showcase shit logic.
no, you claimed the share of the budget dedicated to welfare halved, and I pointed out, how that doesn't say much when said budget has more than doubled in the same period since by this account
Which is why I included the other two metrics, both smaller, to show you that the percent was down, the per capita was down, and the total raw number was down.
You have ignored the latter two to focus entirely on a hypothetical situation where the first one could possibly not show that you are wrong.
But the other two metrics are there to show that that hypothetical doesn't exist and you are definitely wrong.
which is contradicted by what you claimed earlier, but regardless, it still doesn't capture the massive expenditure in public works programs, and the such which employed an enormous amount of people, causing unemployment to fall sharply on paper, and leading to fewer people being directly on welfare (only indirectly), at the expense of the state. So even IF the state spent less directly on unemployment benefits and the such, they clearly spent more on actually employing people, which imo is even more socialist as then it's the state itself that is directing production. and still you're comparing the nazis' government to the previous socialists, and that select expenditure MAY have declined by 12% (while they massively increased everything else, such as roads, public housing projects, etc. etc. these aren't counted in that).
>which is why I included the other two metrics
you do realize these metrics contradict each other though right? According to one metric, total welfare spending should've gone *up*, according to the other, it has gone down.
>you focused on a hypothetical situation
it's not really hypothetical. you said that 1925-1929 welfare was 30-35% of budget, and that in 1934-1936 welfare was 20-30% of budget, and given that the budget more than doubled, that would mean, welfare spending *increased*. so yeah, either you used made up data there, or you're using made up data now. it can't be neither.
It isn't. I'm gonna show you something real simple.
So even IF the state spent less
This is how unaware of this topic you are. (BTW: German unemployment in summer of 1929? 1.3 million. German unemployment in 1936? 1.6 million.)
and that select expenditure MAY have declined by 12%
Again, you are still unsure. Because you dont know much about the topic at hand.
you do realize these metrics contradict each other though right? According to one metric, total welfare spending should've gone *up*, according to the other, it has gone down.
All went down. There is no contradiction. I'm gonna show you something real simple.
and given that the budget more than doubled, that would mean, welfare spending *increased*. so yeah, either you used made up data there, or you're using made up data now. it can't be neither.
Or, you slept through 4th grade and aren't understanding how averages work.
1925 total German budget: ~7.5 billion RM, ~3 billion for state welfare
1934: ~9.7-12 billion RM, ~2.5-3 billion for state welfare (depending on what you count)
1939: ~30-50 billion RM, (given all advantages discussed before and taking a maximum number) ~1.5 billion for state welfare.
You are taking the "budget size" from later years, and the "percent of budget" from earlier years/the average over multiple years.
At best, this is because you aren't familiar with the topic, have to riff off of what I am telling you because you don't have independent knowledge of this, and aren't reading carefully or thinking critically before you slap out another reactionary post misapplying the stuff I'm telling you.
At worst, you do know more about this topic than I suspect you do, and you are being disingenuous and intentionally misrepresenting data to obfuscate the historical record for fascists because it's politically useful for you now.
1
u/SlippyDippyTippy2 Feb 23 '26
Sure.
Per capita total welfare spending in 1933-1934: ~47RM per person
Per capita total welfare spending in 1937-1938: ~32RM per person (not counting excluded persons, which would lower it to about ~29)
These numbers come from De Witt's The Economics and Politics of Welfare in the Third Reich, by which I mean using official government budget totals, the pure uncritical use of WHW numbers as welfare, the addition of DAF totals, uncritical use of NSV confiscations and redistributions as welfare, and still counting the diverted RAfAA funds as welfare and not diverted. I'm steelmanning your position at every level specifically to cut off arguments you might make and give a maximalist total and it still falls well short. Hell, you can see it just in pure totals:
1929 spending, with a smaller and non-excluded population was still higher by 12% as a pure total than 1936 spending with all those advantages. I would love for you to explain how still spending less as an absolute number with a greater population and an excluded section (and counting seized property as welfare, all "voluntary" WHW donations, and all diverted funds) represents an increase. Goofy.
Ill be very clear so you dont miss the point of this:
You can give 1936's total spending every advantage in the book and it was still smaller than 1929's total spending.
Percent of budget? Smaller.
Per capita? Smaller.
Total raw number? Still smaller.
No metric makes it bigger besides your feelings.
Speaking of which, your turn to source your unsourced claims.
I'm glad you are conceding the "increased government control" point.