[XangadsX]

Depends on the situation, but in most cases people do go to work, taxes are collected. Now these taxes either go directly to the occupier or to the regime they install. Economic exploitation can also take the form of confiscations or forced purchases (at the price set by the occupier).

Currency wise stability and integration are the two most important factors. The currency of the reich was introduced in Poland and parts of Slovenia to facilitate assimilation, the marc was at the time stable as well. The currency of a defunct state can loose value very quickly in a matter of weeks or even days in fact. The populance drops it as fast as they can.

Considering all the history buffs on poly this will be a very interesting thread!

[Aluback]

It also depends on the level of the occupation. In the past the actual day to day functioning of a city/state wouldn't change for the most part. All the conqueror wanted was tribute and adherence some basic economic laws and a display of inferiority to a governor every now and again.

[gardenerextraordinaire]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
The currency of the reich was introduced in Poland and parts of Slovenia to facilitate assimilation, the marc was at the time stable as well. Did Slovenia introduce its own currency in the period after March 1939, and before the war began?

[Xxmlqevq]

Good question, although the title doesn't really cover the subject you adress IMO. Apart from the tax, it's more about governing then economics.

From what I have understood about the Nazi occupation in the Netherlands, we practically rolled over once the Nazi's forced us into submission (not the least by (terror-)bombing Rotterdam and threathening to repeat that feat on other cities).
The goverment fled to the UK, and local officials by and large accepted their new overlords. Most of them begrudgingly, but still. These officials (mayors, governors of the provinces, Police chiefs etc.) had always been submissive to the central government (and appointed by them) and thus felt they had no real role in opposing the central government, even though it was now directed from Berlin rather then The Hague.
So, they took it upon them to get the best for the local population they represented and choose beteween the lesser of evils they were confronted with. Through time, a proverb/saying has developed from this: "Burgermeester in oorlogstijd" (being a mayor in time of war)
The bureaucrats kept doing their jobs. Raising taxes never became a problem. Tax had to be collected, nevermind in which coffers it ended up. The civil register had to be kept tidy. Religious heritage had always been kept on record, so there was no reason to stop registring protestants, catholics or jews. In fact, the infamous 'Ausweiss' had been a Dutch invention, which the nazi's happily adopted.
Civil society by and large functioned normally during the occupation. Burocrats eagerly did their jobs. There are several examples where Dutch civil servants went 'beyond the call of duty' to meet summons set by the occupier.

It was not untill the autumn of 1944 that this changed. The allied offensive had reached the southern netherlands and the government-in-exile called for a general strike. That's when the 'lower government' collapsed. Railway workers striked, civil service came to a hold.
Unfortunately, this did not trigger the collapse of the Nazi occupation, neither did it hasten the liberation of the Netherland above the big rivers (Rhine and Meuse). All that it did accomplice was the starvation of the Dutch in the west, since supplies didn't reached the major population centers in the west of the country.


While this is actually a sad story on the history of the nazi occupation of Holland, I guess the answer to your question is to leave the local government intact, as long as they serve you.

[ENCOSEARRALIA]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Did Slovenia introduce its own currency in the period after March 1939, and before the war began? No, but rationing was set in place long before the invasion.

[CathBraun]

Originally posted by Dis
I have some ww2 related questions, and general economics questions. Perhaps we need an economics sub forum. . One thing to keep in mind is that economic principles are always valid, be a country in a state of war or not. Supply and demand determine prices even in concentration camps.

On the other hand, a defining characteristic of war economies is state control, and an important aspect of that is control of prices.

This resulted in black markets everywhere, and a wide perception that there were "war profiteers" and thus support of the population for the state control of the economy.

A few notable things that happened:

- Germany's stated goal before the war was autarky (self-sufficiency), and it largely had one during the war as trade with the rest of the world was cut

- Shortage of men improved positions of women in many workplaces (US is named as an example of this, but not Germany)

- By the end of the war, Soviets had to tap into 17 and 16 year olds for soldiers, obviously women worked in factories

- Germany had trouble integrating economies of conquered countries into its own. It is said that potential of France's large weapons factories was barely tapped

- By the end of the war Soviet Union alone outproduced Germany in tanks and airplanes, quite a feat considering huge losses of people and territory it suffered

- Many countries expirienced an almost "full employement", not seen since

- Germans were pretty successful at operating coal->petroleum factories until those were bombed by the Allies

- Russians keeping Baku oilfields is what kept them in the game

- Most countries involved accrued huge debt

- There were practically no strikes worth mentioning

[Lypepuddyu]

It was simpler when armed forces had only to raid temples or churches, make off with large amounts of gold or silver or take away slaves, food and so forth.


Of course the Nazis also did this in WWII, showing that they weren't economically terribly much more advanced than Charlemagne, the Cordoban Caliphate, Mahmud of Ghazni or the Hephthalite Huns.


Rather than genuinely attempt to restart the economies of occupied countries, the Nazis rounded up able bodied workers in Poland and the Netherlands (for instance) and deported them to Nazi Germany as, effectively, slave labour.

Similarly, they also dismantled factories and workshops and shipped them to Germany.


The Japanese 'Co-Prosperity' Sphere in the Pacific was also nothing of the sort for the supposedly liberated allies of Greater Japan- caloric intake amongst the occupied populations went down, and the countries and provinces taken over by Japan were treated as vast raw material resources, not as trading partners or equals.

[KuevDulin]

I am deeply sorry for you that you ignore the difference between a concentration camp and a P.OW. camp which belong to different universe : the world of the Geneva convention for one, and hell for the other. And even there were for P.O. W. two categories of camps : stalags for all exept officers, and oflags for officers. As you know, officers enjoy serious advantages according to the Geneva convention, no obligation to work for instance, and with this free time they can play any economic game they like. But I confirm that economy has no room in a concentration camp in WWII.

[29clepayJainync]

Originally posted by VetLegion
You're pointlessly nitpicking . Is it so hard to recognize that you were awfully wrong?

[enrisaabsotte]

Originally posted by VetLegion
One thing to keep in mind is that economic principles are always valid, be a country in a state of war or not. Supply and demand determine prices even in concentration camps. No they do not. Prices are fixed when a country is in a state of war.