To what extent is it true to say that single party states usually try to control the national economy but always fail?

Authors Avatar
To what extent is it true to say that single party states usually try to control the national economy but always fail? A country that wishes to be in the forefront of modernization cannot survive without a strong, fruitful economy. In the 1920's the leading powers went into economic depression and nearly collapsed. However: a decade later single party leaders such as Stalin and Hitler took a firm hold on their economically stricken countries and raised them to great heights. Yet as quickly as it (the economy) is raised it can also just as quickly fall into shambles. In the 1930's there was a certain man by the name of Adolf Hitler. His potential as a powerful leader was immediately noticed and he slowly gained power until finally (through elections) becoming supreme leader of Germany through the creation of his infamous workers party the Nazi's. The Nazi party at this point in time had an enormous affect on the German people. They (the Nazis) were able to raise crippled Germany so that it would once again become powerful. They did this through what is called Hitler's "economic miracle". Hitler's "economic miracle" can be perceived as positive from the German civilian/citizen point of
Join now!
view because jobs were being created and the Nazi party was rising to meet the needs of the German people, and according to Hitler unemployment ceased to exist: However if we refer to the statistics compiled by Dan Silverman's Hitler's Economy "Unemployment was reduced in Germany from 34 percent or about 6 million people, in January 1933, to 14 percent, or 2.5 million people, in January 19361" But what happened the 14 percent that wasn't counted by Hitler? Well the other 14% was what Hitler did not count because they weren't members of the master "Arian" race. Or in other ...

This is a preview of the whole essay