>>510776501You claim Roosevelt copied his 1933 work program from Hitler's 1934/35 loans program. This is demonstrable nonsense.
>I've read Hitler's Revolution front to backAh, this is where you got that nonsense from.
Forget that self-published vanity piece. Anyone who seriously proposes that it was not losing the resource war but a stab-in-the-back by the most amateurish clique of wannabe coupists that destroyed the Wehrmacht sucks cocks and must be disregarded.
>Reinhardt put everyone to work and clearly built infrastructureThis is painful to read. He did neither. In today's terms, what he did was first and foremost give microcredits to SME and start-ups.
The infrastructure and putting-to-work bit were picrel, which is a very different thing.
The Reinhardt program was one of the few comparatively pure attempts at what eventually became known as Keynesianism in world history; a similar program would have been introduced by the Weimar coalition if it had still held a majority post 1933. The first to propose it were actually the SPD reformist wing, but initially the Liberal parties were still too strong so it stood no chance to pass in the Coalition.
But the Reinhardt plan simply wouldn't have worked if women, leftists and Jews hadn't been concurrently removed from the workspace, the NEET population absorbed into the RAD, and ultimately Schacht's gigantic fiat scam enabled to hide the surplus debt.
The Reich economy was not in a shape to be fixed by kickstarting the petite-bourgeoisie. It had been systematically destroyed by the 1915-18 loans hedged onto a victorious war. Without that victorious war, the difference between monetary and goods-and-services economy was too large.
This is why the West German economy could be re-built more smoothly after 1945: because it was so thoroughly destroyed on a physical level that it had to be written off and started from scratch rather than being used as collateral.