But TIK, if Hitler wasn't a Madman, why did he assume Britain wouldn't fight

My Patron Elon Musk has said, Hi Tig, thank you for your extremely well done videos in answer to my questions. I always learn a lot from your videos. I am very humbled that you took it out of your busy time to answer me. Thank you. I have a follow up question regarding the lead up to World War 2. I must confess I am not perfectly cleared up on the motive why World War 2 started, and I will explain why right now. The motive of Hitler acting whilst thinking Britain and France were weak and bluffing hangs by a string. I will explain why in a second. It is highly likely that Hitler seems the type of man who fancies to dabble in thinking about long-term goals, perspectives, scenarios, worldviews, philosophies, visions, fantasies, etc. This fact is clear from Mein Kampf and Hitler's Table Talk. I assume we are both in agreement on this. He does not seem like a short-sighted individual. Quite the opposite. Let's assume this quite like the assumption is accurate, and he was the type of guy capable of long-term thinking, planning, and perspectives, he must have been aware early on from the start of his economic regime where his economic system was leading. Okay, let me just stop you right there for a second. Hitler believed in the shrinking markets idea, so the current system was going to fail. He also knew that he couldn't implement full autarky until he's taken the land and resources of the East. He therefore implements a limited autarky, which doesn't work, because autarky never works. And so the economy dies quicker than what he perhaps thought it normally would have done. So, while he's aware that the system is collapsing, he doesn't blame it on his autarkic economics. He has his excuses. However, we need to be aware that the economy of the Third Reich was dying from about 1937 onwards, as Gottlieb shows in Hitler's Beneficiaries. In the first two years of the Nazi regime alone, the Reich spent 300 times more than it was earning, and its debt grew by 10.3 billion Reichsmarks. In 1939, their revenue was about 18 billion Reichsmarks, yet their expenditure was 36.8 billion. 3.3 billion of that was payment on the interest of the debt. And the only solution to this problem was to go to war and extract resources from the rest of Europe to cover the problem, which is what drove them to war. But Elon Musk highlights a contradiction. "...if it is true that Germany's economic system under Hitler was due to implode on itself if Germany didn't expand, it therefore means that Hitler was aware of this from early on and he purposely continued this type of system that he created whilst being aware that he would need to invade other countries in order to keep his economy afloat." Yes, although he didn't necessarily think it was his autarkic economic policies that were to blame. He blames the old system, not the new one, just like loads of people do. So for example, if we think our current system is A, and we also think A is bad, we therefore conclude that we need B. We then implement B, and B leads to unintended consequences and ultimately makes the problem worse. But instead of blaming B, which we still think is wonderful in theory, we blame A, and call for more B. So the problem gets worse until economic reality kicks the rotten structure to the floor. Well, it's the same with Hitler and many other people. Hitler implemented a limited autarky with the intention of going to war to get the land and resources he needed to implement full autarky. But when his economy started to come apart, he could excuse this by saying, well, it's because we've still got too much of the old system and haven't implemented full autarky, and it just proves that the markets are shrinking. So it's a self-reinforcing belief. And the tragedy here, if we think about it, is that he ultimately wanted to do what was right for the German people, and that's a noble goal, but the end result of the unintended consequences of his policies was the destruction of Germany as well as millions of people. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so to speak. But Hitler would never blame himself. He'd blame everyone else first. As the Nazis currently argue, it's Britain's fault for getting involved over Poland. So it's not Germany's fault for gearing up for war for several years, and then invading Poland. No no no, it's Poland's fault, or Britain's fault, or the classic, it's the Jews, somehow. And these Aryans think they're amazing, like they're perfection, and therefore nothing can be their fault, even though it is. We are also saying here that when he signed the Munich Agreement, he knew in advance he will breach it because he couldn't just stop at the Sudetenland. Correct. He stated in Mein Kampf that he wanted the land and resources of the East. He was going East, specifically to Russia, which he believed was ripe for dissolution. And he wrote Mein Kampf in 1923, which was over a decade before the Munich Agreement. So yes, he knew well in advance that he would breach the Munich Agreement. Are we saying that Hitler, a man who was certainly aware of Britain's centuries-long European balance of power policy, since he loved Napoleonic-era history, assumes that he can just conquer European territories indefinitely and get away with it? Are we saying he assumed Britain's balance of power policy since forever, just so it happened not to be in effect anymore? I believe we both agree the answer to both of these questions is most probably not. Actually, I don't agree with you. Yes, on the one hand, Hitler was aware of Britain's balance of power policy, and wrote about it in Mein Kampf. "...the traditional tendency of British diplomacy ever since the reign of Queen Elizabeth has been to employ systematically every possible means to prevent one power from attaining a preponderant position over the other European powers, and, if necessary, to break that preponderance by means of armed intervention." But Hitler also explains in Mein Kampf that Britain only wanted to prevent Germany from becoming a world power, because that would threaten her overseas empire. That's why she went to war in the First World War, because Germany had built a fleet and was heading west, not east. He says Britain didn't care about Germany going east, or becoming a large European power. So he says, if Germany makes this clear to Britain, they could get her on their side and go east. What England has always desired, and will continue to desire, is to prevent any one continental power in Europe from attaining a position of world importance. Therefore, England wishes to maintain a definite equilibrium of forces among the European states, for this equilibrium seems a necessary condition of England's world hegemony. He says that France has been strengthened because of the First World War, and presents a bigger threat to Britain. And France wants Germany to be dissolved, and therefore concludes … "...England did not want Germany to be a world power. France desired that there should be no power called Germany. Therefore, there was a very essential difference. Today we are not fighting for our position as a world power, but only for the existence of our country, for national unity, and the daily bread of our children. Taking this point of view into consideration, only two states remain to us as possible allies in Europe, England and Italy." So yes, Hitler does think Britain's balance-of-power policy was still in place, but that he could conquer the East because this wouldn't threaten Britain's overseas empire. It's a misinterpretation of Britain's policy, but explains why he was willing to gamble with invading Poland. So, why would Hitler purposely follow an economic course that will unavoidably lead him and Germany to no good? Yet he was shocked when Britain declared and asked Ribbentrop, now what? That's like purposely driving at 150 mph indefinitely, and be shocked when you either receive a speeding ticket or have a car crash. Hitler believed that the markets were shrinking, and that the only way to save Germany was to implement a limited autarky, and then head East to gain the land and resources he needed to implement full autarky. He misinterpreted Britain's stance on the European balance-of-power, and didn't believe they would be serious over Poland. I mean, they hadn't been serious over Austria or Czechoslovakia, so why would they care about Poland? Especially when Germany was going East, which is away from Britain. That's why he was shocked. But Britain isn't just looking to prevent one European power from dominating the world, but also to prevent it from dominating Europe itself. And I've been over this in another video, but in a nutshell, if any country dominated the European continent, even if it didn't have colonies elsewhere, this would be a serious threat to the British mainland, because this dominant continental power would have access to more ports and resources, and then be able to dominate any naval race that might happen. So Hitler misinterpreted Britain's policy to mean that she didn't care if Germany got large in Eastern Europe, when in reality that wasn't the case. Britain did care, because a large Germany that conquered the Soviet Union would be a huge future threat to Britain. So it does make sense. Additionally, Germany did not have a war economy. I 100% understand why you'd believe this, and there will be a lot of people watching this who think the same thing. And the reason why is because the narrative from way back in the day was that the Third Reich did not have a war economy until God-Emperor Albert Speer descended from the heavens in mid-1942 and got things in order. This was a narrative in loads of documentaries and books, including a very popular one from the 1960s. William Shire's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. This was my Grandad's copy from 1964, which is why it's falling apart. But here's what Shire says about the German economy. "...despite all the plans and all the talk in Nazi Germany concerning total war, the resources of the country had been far from totally organized. At Hitler's insistence, the production of civilian goods had been maintained at a surprisingly large figure throughout the war, ostensibly to keep up morale. And he had balked at carrying out the pre-war plans to mobilize women for work in the factories." So, it's no wonder that you and many other people believe that the Third Reich did not have a war economy. This was the narrative that's been pushed for decades, so it must be true, right? But is this really the case? And no, the Third Reich absolutely did have a war economy. Germany implemented a war economy in peacetime. That's why its economy was crumbling by 1937. Rearmament was in full swing as early as 1935. Price and wage controls were implemented in 1934. Massive regulations were introduced. There were input and output controls. The debt was accumulating, even though the tax rate had increased by 25%, and then went up even further later. Between 1933 and 1935, expenditure on the German military increased from less than 1% of German national income to nearly 10%, a bigger and quicker increase than ever seen before in peacetime in a capitalist state. So yes, the Third Reich had a war economy before it went to war. When they did go to war, there was no major change, or call-up to war in the economy, because the economy was already set up as a war economy, unlike almost every other power. Now, maybe Hitler did keep consumer goods production higher than some might expect, but there's a blatantly obvious reason for that. Hitler had lived through the German Revolution of 1918 to 1919. There were massive shortages of everything during the First World War, and he saw that living standards had dropped by about half of what they had been in 1913, and how the first street demonstrations in Munich had been caused by an increase in the price of In Episode 2 of my Weimar Hyperinflation series, I even commented saying, "...it's no wonder the National Socialists didn't destroy their alcohol stocks prior to the Battle of Berlin." It is therefore understandable why Hitler would want to keep consumer goods production up during the Second World War. He doesn't want another stab in the back. Myth. But regardless of how efficient it was, or whether Albert Speer increased that efficiency, the Nazi economy was a war economy from the mid-1930s onwards. And I know that goes against what the older books and documentaries claimed, but the reason they're saying Germany didn't have a war economy is because to admit that it had a war economy would force them to concede that it had a war economy in peacetime, which means that they'd have to admit what the economic policy of the National Socialist German Workers' Party actually was. Which they can't, because that would be unpopular. Thus, they say it wasn't a war economy, which is a blatant lie. And then Numpety here comes along and sticks his neck out, and is slammed for doing so because he went against the lamestream narrative by telling the truth. Anyway, you can see why this entire paragraph of yours now doesn't make any sense. If you know your own economic system will only survive if you go to war, you would imagine Hitler would have had a much better war economy into his 6th year. It is quite possible that it would have reached such a well-thought-out preparation stage by this time in which Hitler would afford not to care whether Britain was bluffing or not in September 1939. Yet, the German war economy does not reflect this, and the situation does not vary much from 1938 until August 1939. He did have a war economy by 1939. Was it 100%? No. Was he completely prepared? No. But he was in a much better position than you're making him out to be. That said, he didn't expect a war with anyone in 1939 apart from Poland. And this is where people like David Hoggan will argue that Poland might have backed down over Danzig in 1939 had Britain not got involved. Then Germany might have gone around Poland. But personally, I don't see it. Hitler would have destroyed Poland later, even if they had handed over Danzig. So I'm not convinced by that argument. We have arrived in a territory where things start not to make sense. Logic dictates this. We can tell from Hitler's actions that he most certainly wanted peace with Britain, including from the speeches post-September 1939, having Luftwaffe spread peace promotion leaflets in London, etc. He definitely did not want war with Britain for many reasons, including from the racial perspective, since he considered the British as fine Germanic people. You're using logic, but you've made several assumptions that turn out to be incorrect. So you're coming to the incorrect conclusion, and this is easy to do. The solution is to always ask the question, but is this really the case? Germany never implemented a wartime economy, but is this really the case? Hitler seemingly forgot about Britain's balance of power strategy, but is this really the case? You see? And I know not everyone has the time to dive into this stuff like me, that's why I'm here, but if you do have the chance, and you do come across a problem or contradiction, you've got to challenge any assumption you're making and see if you can find out whether that assumption was wrong or not. We can sum it up and take it one by one logically again. We assume it is true that Hitler was capable of long-term thinking. Yes, and it's not an assumption in this case, because he actually did throughout Mein Kampf and elsewhere. We assume it is true that Hitler's economic plan was leading unavoidably to economic ruin unless he conquered other countries. Subjective opinion here. Very poor choice of economic plan if you ask me. Surprised a man called by many of his peers post-war a genius would opt for such an economy with such an outcome. Keynes was heavily influenced by Hitler's economists, and Nazi economics is often referred to as Proto-Keynesian for that reason. Yet people still believe in Keynesian economics even though it's along the same lines as Hitler's economics. It's a terrible ideology, yet many academic expert geniuses still believe in Keynes, despite the fact his work has been shown to be incorrect thousands of times. So I agree with you. But just because people believe in central planning, doesn't mean they're madmen. It just means they're uninformed. Therefore, by using logic, if both the assumptions above are correct, it would be true that Hitler knew his economy leads to the requirement of foreign conquests. Yes, although again, Hitler believed the economy would collapse anyway, and didn't blame his own economics for that. We assume it is true that Hitler is aware of Britain's since-forever-long European balance-of-power policy. He was, but he misinterpreted it. We assume it is true that Hitler is not under the conviction that this policy has just ended just because the special snowflake Hitler came to power. Okay? We assume it is true that Hitler most definitely hates the thought of being in a war with Britain. I don't know about hate, but he certainly doesn't desire it. Yet, World War 2 started because of Hitler acting like an unreasonable blind man, therefore proving at least one of the above arguments false. Yes, and hopefully you now see which are incorrect. Yet Hitler, despite Britain very repeatedly and publicly running out of patience, and her repeated warnings, and the publicly declared Polish guarantee, something Britain had not done for Austria, Rhineland, Sudetenland, or Czech Republic, attacks Poland, and is shocked that Britain followed course with her publicly declared guarantee. It's like going in a police station, hitting a policeman, and act shocked that you get arrested. My analogies may not be the best choices. Hopefully they will not detract an awful lot from the main idea. With respect, thank you very much, Tick. Well, hopefully I've clarified this for you now. But Chris Wilsdon actually replied to you a while back, saying, We assume. You can if you wish. I for one don't think Hitler was a one-man-despot forcing everyone around him to do stuff on penalty of death. He also makes the point that Britain was in financial trouble after the First World War, and that public opinion wasn't necessarily against Germany because of what had happened in the interwar period. So, Hitler may have seen that, and believed Britain would let him get away with things this time around. I think these are good points, but the main problem is all the assumptions being made. Hitler made assumptions and was wrong with those assumptions, but that doesn't mean he was a madman. Similarly, you making assumptions about Hitler's beliefs has also led you to incorrect conclusions. But it turns out that there is a logic to it, and that Hitler's wrong assumptions about Britain's balance of power strategy is what led him to assume he could go East without getting involved in a war with Britain. And his economic policies only reinforced the idea that he had to go East. That's why he had to take the gamble when he did, and it didn't pay off. I hope that makes sense, and I'm happy to hear what you guys think in the comments below. And if you haven't seen my video on why Britain wouldn't just let Hitler go East, please check it out here. Thanks for watching, bye for now.