Category: Germany

Women in Nazi Germany were undoubtedly recognized as the ‘home-makers’ and mother figures of the household. However, although politically non-existent, during the period leading up to the Second World War, women were intensely involved within the Nazi Regime, regardless of whether they supported the regime or not. Thus, demonstrating a transformative perception of women and their roles within the Nazi regime. Although Nazi ideology promoted the female as the care takers, their incorporation in key roles throughout the regime directly went against their ideology and proved the significance of German Women in the Nazi’s quest to abolish German threats and to assist in their progression to their rise to prominence. Commonly perceived as inferior and weaker in contrast to male figures, they were often given the ‘lesser role’. During the Third Reich, women were excluded from political life and no women held a high position in Nazi Germany. Hitler proved to be a firm believer in keeping women in the home and used to bring children into the world for the fulfilment of the master race. With the implementation of several programs and legislations regarding women and the future of Germany. These programs, deliberately enforced, demoted women to the duty of motherhood and caretaker of the upcoming generation of the Third Reich while concurrently leading the private lives of the German women. The Nazis required women to stay stagnant in their ‘private sphere’, meaning in the kitchen and at home. Agendas expelled German women from political movements and senior education. Nazi men expressed their perception of the role of women in the Third Reich, though they contradicted the role of motherliness through the progression of the Nazi age. Despite the Nazi ideal of women as mothers who stayed in the ‘private sphere’, both the Nazis and Hitler required women to fulfill greater positions within the regime, and the German women indeed fulfilled these roles.

With the implementation of several programs and reward systems put in place by the dictatorial force of Adolf Hitler during the early stages of the Nazi era, women had something to work towards for recognition for their efforts to fit the role of a compliant home-maker, care-taker and motherly figure for their spouses and children. These reward systems, specifically, the Cross of Honor of the German Mother, was presented by the Nazis on the 16th of December, 1938. Simply put forward to encourage Aryan women to birth more children in his mission to develop a strong, regimented all German society comprised of masculine men. The German Reich desired a vigorous and increasing population and fortified couples to have big families. Once German girls turned 18 years old, they were automatically qualified for an organization named ‘Faith and Beauty’, this branch trained German girls to understand the importance and develop into ideal mothers for the betterment of the German race. One specific constituent of that ideal was fertility. Further signifying the emphasis on the importance for females to be able to conceive which Hitler constantly preached. In honor of Hitler’s mother, Hitler awarded a gold medal to women who birthed seven children, a silver medal to women with six children, and finally a bronze medal to women who had five children. Thus, the Mothers Cross, recognized the efforts of the German mothers in developing offspring to aid the Nazis in their rise to power. The Cross honored German women for their extraordinary value to the German state.

Marriage laws enforced by Hitler during the Nazi regime showcase the importance of a mother figure in constructing an efficiently run household. Hitler was on a mission to increase the number of Aryan marriages to fulfill his desire of an increase in birth rates for the German regime. Hitler also enforced divorce policies, making it easier to get a divorce by the Marriage Law of 1938. For instance, if a man and woman already have four children together, the man gained the right to divorce that women in order to re-marry and produce more children. On June, 1933, Hitler implemented the Law for the Encouragement of Marriage, this distributed a loan of one thousand marks, and permitted them to retain 250 marks for every child they had. Tactics involving charging heavy tax fees to single men and families with no children, illegalizing abortion in 1933, using forceful propaganda to initiate the glorified characteristics of what made up the ideal German woman, and women employment significantly dropped. In 1933, just 11 percent of university spots were distributed to women, 15 percent of female teachers were stood down, and 19,000 female civil servants were dismissed. Constant notions clarified by Hitler enforcing that, “the world of the woman is a smaller world for her world is her husband, her family, her children, her home”. Thus, reinforcing the notion of Hitler’s admiration of keeping women in the home and fulfilling their primary goal of conceiving offspring and later raising them to comply and conform to the standards and ideals of the Nazi regime.

However, these policies proved to be contradictory as Hitler later enforced new policies prior to the Second World War that eased the pressure off women to take on the role of a submissive wife to their spouse and a care taker for their children. Elizabeth Heineman argues in her book, ‘What Difference Does a Husband Make?’, that marital status under the Nazis and later in the FRG and the GDR informs the conflicting differences of marital status that was built upon erratic political and ideological contexts. Heineman argues that new policies were implemented in West Germany that relieved the burdens off women to have a family and spouse to care and nurture for. The GDR promoted the concept of women in the workforce and devalued the common role of the full-time housewife. Nevertheless, Heineman also stresses on the fact that ideals of marital status regarding women were different in West and East Germany and the perception of women’s marital status were reliant on a series of political agendas. Although, marital status outlined women’s position and involvements Heineman discovers that combat made the experience of single women greatly dramatic in the West of Germany, but proved to be of lesser importance to the lives of German women in East Germany. This was due to the fact that women were already involved in the labour force and worked full time, making it less risky for women in East Germany to get a divorce than women in the West. This proves that the perception of women in Germany was progressively changing through Hitler’s enforcement of new policies and his differing perceptions of women for the betterment of the Nazi regime and his political agenda.

Whilst the Nazis glorified the magnificent role of motherhood for women, they did not dismiss them from the racist ideologies that were widespread and practiced by the regime. While the Nazis declared to protect their women from the ‘unfortunate’ reality of racial politics, German women were highly involved in the bigotry of the Third Riche. During Adolf Hitler’s and the Nazis rise to prominence, they consistently preached the qualities of the German race and the necessary annihilation of German rivals. This outlook, imbedded in young women’s learning, ensured their understanding of the significance of the cleanliness of the German’s blood. Women enlisted in the Band of German Maidens and made their way into the East where they aided the Nazis to terminate the Jews and Poles. Women took the role of nurses and were implemented as guards for the Nazi concentration and death camps. Although men were regarded as the leaders of the Nazi movements, women played a crucial role. Racism infused the functions of women in Nazi Germany.

Since the appointment of Hitler as chancellor in 1933, a generous shift in historical depictions has emerged from women being perceived as victims of the confrontational, patriarchal powers of Nazism into a more nuanced examination regarding the ways that women established personal agency, through the widespread notion of anti-feminism driven by the Nazi government. Rather than observing women as disempowered sufferers who endured the cruel Nazi policies that were forced amongst them, recent findings have stated the many differences between numerous factions of women in society, particularly based on social class, religion, and age and how these factions of women were able to achieve a personal benefit inside a sexist regiment.

Modern historiographies have certainly defied several prior statements resulting in a modified historical viewpoint. This innovative historicism comprises of: an inquisitive speculation regarding the entirety of the Nazi regime concerning female resistance to ‘total war’ occupational enterprises; a weakening of the concept of a homogeneity of the experiences of women; and a launch of a broader scale of particular female contribution and collaboration within the Nazi regime. These current findings construct a renewed perception of women throughout the Nazi age, not merely just the objects of an oppressive regime, but as topics who were complicit with the ideologies and policies of the Nazi regime. Recent findings have also shown that women were active, influential participants in molding the applications and direction of the Nazis central policies.

A critical contributor to the re-evaluation of women’s history in the Third Reich is Claudia Koonz, whose influential writing ‘Mothers in the Fatherland’ condemned prior interpretations on women as historical ‘non-agents’. Koonz analytically investigated the ways that women actively participated to the Nazi regime on an individual and collective level. Koonz also states that women supported and encouraged Hitler “from conviction, opportunism and active choice”, and the excessively misogynistic philosophy of Nazism essentially shaped opportunities for females to have agency and built the common dismissal of them, driven by male forces. Koonz also debated, that women appeared to be ‘enablers’ to the cruelty of Nazism through their part as a homemaker. They, “made the world a more enjoyable place to live’’ by creating a facade of civilization in the midst of a brutal dogmatic organization”. In addition to the notion of women as willing contributors to the Nazi scheme, Koonz expressed the means in which pro-Nazi females, like Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, lovingly expressed their involvement within the Nazi women’s organization during the post war period. Contrastingly, Leila Rupp’s assessment of Koonz’s, ‘Mothers in the Fatherland’, admired Koonz’s work as it displayed the shift from an “repressive model” of the historical nature of women, influencing modern historiographies to “challenge the implications of women’s contribution in Nazi civilization”. Thus, Koonz’s writings on women in the Third Reich is specifically notorious for its declaration that “far from staying unaffected by Nazi brutality, women did in fact operate within the center of its regime”.

The rifeness of women prevalent in the Nazi scheme is a major topic discussed by several historian’s, particularly Leila Rupp and Erich Johnson. Collectively, their research has led to significant discoveries that blast the misconception of women as submissive, and paved the way for a newfound, multifaceted understanding of the role of women in Nazi Germany. Johnson’s article regarding the participation of German women in the differing stages of the Nazi legal system suppressed the notion of the normal German female who surrenders to the instruction of men whilst living in constant terror of the Gestapo. Johnson also proves that German women were “crucial participants within the Nazi regulatory apparatus, playing the role as the denouncer and as an eyewitness”. Johnson also disputes that, “majority of German women discovered very little in the Nazi rule to condemn, at least not out in the open”, and he also stated that “several women actively supported the regime through turning people in who diverged against the Nazi system to the Nazi secret state forces”. Johnson states that the German women, “did not recognize the Third Reich as a hell for women and that women were satisfied in working directly within the system”. Whilst women were undoubtedly less politically involved as opposed to the men, they did acquire a crucial role in contributing to justice for the Nazis. German women started to progress in their involvement during the course of the Second World War as women given the part of communal self-policing due to the deficiency of men who were fighting in the war. Johnson states that about one quarter of women made up the denouncers and an estimate of one-fifth of observers in denouncement instances for offences in contradiction of the Nazi state. However, traditional perspectives of females do come into place when deciding to listen and respond to the testaments of numerous women, centralized on their marital status and age by the Nazi authority powers. Hence, some women might have silently tolerated Nazism, Johnson uncovers that a substantial number of women encompassed the policies associated by the Nazi Regime and actively participated in it.

Class was a major issue in determining the role of women within the Nazi regime and the volume of middle- and upper-class women to evade conformism to the states needs for growth in female labor. This clearly proves that German women undoubtedly had agency inside the Nazi government and were proficient in using it to broaden their individual needs. This is severely apparent in the attentiveness of the middle- and upper-class women to avoid national calls to aid their will to leave the load of physical work to the women of the working class. Nazi ideologies regarding the incorporation of women as homemakers intensely challenged the financial reality of war manufacturing; but, energy to enlist women into work were encouraged by the concurrent idea that, “women were a part of the populace on whom common adversities should not randomly or constantly be imposed”. Aside from the worry over the alienation of women, the Nazis were persistent in avoiding to offend males who had previously articulated disapproval regarding the state’s exertions to forcefully influence their wives to participate in paid and unpaid services. Leila Rupp states that the Nazis uncertainty in convincing every woman to work “was not of an ideological order, but was rooted in the well-founded fear that civil conscription for women would be extremely unpopular, both with women and with men”. Rupp’s portrayal of the upper- and middle-class women parading their ‘affluence and freedom’ depicts a visual of a substantial share of women holding a level of dominance and status in an oppressive, tyrannical, and patriarchal state.

Ultimately, the incorporation and perception of women in Nazi Germany was highly transformative. Women were perceived as the homemaker and caretaker for their children under the dictatorial force of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. The effect of social class, age, and religion are instantly noticeable as key contributors that initiate how women react and respond to the Nazi regime. However, this ideology was consistently contradicted to fulfill Hitler’s efforts to further his quest to achieve racial purity, imperial defeat, and total war which assisted the regime in their rise to prominence in the twentieth century. Although the Nazis initiated failure for their German women, several of them still actively did their part for the success of the Nazis and their beloved regime. The Nazi ideology of women as caretakers and mothers did not delineate who they were. Some women passionately uplifted the Nazis regime, although some were silently tolerating Nazism and some women protested against it, but all German women held various vital roles within the Nazis regimen. There was a shift from women being perceived as oppressed by the Nazi dictatorial forces to a nuanced interpretation of females as agents who certainly molded the progression of history through their choices and their actions during Nazi era.

Germany and UK both are European countries, but when it comes to the refugees, Germany is way more generous than the Uk. The three main differences between the refugee policies of the two countries are the number of asylum applications, financial support, and license to work. Beside these differences, the two countries have two similarities that are public involvement and security issues.

To begin with, the number of asylum applications in Germany and UK is the first difference. “In 2016, Britain received 38,517 applications for asylum (one per 1,664 people in the population), and in Germany it is 722,370 (one per 112)”, (Kirchgaessner, p.2). Germany is trying to accept more refugees as Angela Merkel made the humanitarian response to open Germany’s borders for the asylum seekers. On the other hand Theresa May said that helping refugees and providing them the rescue ships might encourage them to try the dangerous sea journey and it may increase the tragic deaths.

The second, contrast is the financial help. “Britain is the second bilateral donor of humanitarian aids. In Britain the state gives the asylum seekers £36.95 a week and are given accommodations”, (Kirchgaessner, p.3). They have to manage all their expenses like food, clothing, transport and other things with this £36.95. Unlike Britain in Germany asylum seekers are given accommodation and €31.15 that is equal to £26.50”, (Kirchgaessner, p.3). However this amount does not cover their food. Refugees who don’t know the German language, for them fee of the German classes are also paid by the state.

Allowance to work is the third difference of the two countries. Refugees in Germany are allowed to work. They can start working after the three months of submitting their asylum applications. On the other side, UK has the strictest rules for refugees working. In Britain refugees don’t have the permission to work. They cannot work in any paid job. After twelve months they get the allowance to work only for the jobs that are in the “shortage occupations” list of UK , such as, orchestral musicians and engineers…

The first similarity of Germany and UK’s refugee policy is the public involvement. In Germany many people are willing to help refugees. They give clothes, food, and some of them help refugees by providing them shelters. In the same way, the people in UK want the government to help more the refugees who ran away from their home countries because of wars and are trying to get a peaceful life. British people said that they couldn’t let thousands of people to die trying to get to the Europe. People of both countries want the government to help refugees.

Security issue is the second similarity of Germany and UK. People of both countries want a happy and secure life. They don’t want the foreigners to become a danger for them. Germany has accepted more asylums than the Britain, so the chance of insecurity in Germany is more. Some people think that the open border policy should be stopped. They think that keeping the borders open and accepting refugees without clear identities is like taking risks.

Finally, Germany has accepted more refugees than the UK. Financial support for refugees in Germany is more than the UK. Asylum seekers in Germany are allowed to work but in UK they don’t have the permission to work. However, people of both countries are volunteer to help refugees and want a happy and peaceful life.

The wave of rebellion that swept across West Germany in 1968 is commonly documented to be an attempt to confront the Nazi past. This was exhibited through the mass of student protests by the so-called ‘68ers’, dragging the issues they were passionate about into the public sphere so they could no longer be ignored. As a result, the reasons conjuring this tempestuous movement should be explored. Firstly, the statement in question suggests that confronting Germany’s Nazi past was the main motive of the student activists, as supported by historians such as Dirk Moses and Uta Poigner. This is true, given the frustration felt as a result of the collective amnesia from the older generation about the Third Reich and Hitler’s genocidal regime. However, there were undoubtedly additional motives contributing towards the rise of this cultural crusade which should also be considered, as recognized by historians such as Timothy Scott Brown. For example, the poor quality of university education caused an uproar amongst students. Furthermore, the changes within the political system, such as the formation of the Grand Coalition in 1966, provoked fear of a return to Nazi totalitarianism. Additionally, the growing discontent from the Vietnam War concerned a war-weary West Germany. Arguably, these struggles were also significant in arousing anguish amongst the students in 1968. Yet the wider picture must be taken into account. Each cause is symbolic within its reasoning, but all must be recognized with their link to the Nazi past. Thus, I will conclude that confronting the Nazi past was the main motive to these 1968 student protests, and were the undercurrent to other causes too.

Whilst unmasking Germany’s Nazi past is often viewed as the main cause of student rebellions in 1968, other contributing motives must be considered. The great increase in university students, combined with a decline in the quality of education which they received, resulted in a mass of unsatisfied and angry students. There were many factors contributing to this surplus in students. Greatly, the affluence and wealth following the prosperity of the 1950s, an era which became coined as ‘Wirtschaftswunder’, meant more families could afford higher education for their children. This increase was illustrated in the number of students entering universities rising from 195,000 to 281,000 between 1960 and 1966. Schmidtke adds further reasoning to this growth in students, suggesting the influx also came as a result of immigration from Communist East Germany before the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. This contributed 3.5 million people to the Western side. This mass influx of students created a heavier strain and demand on the university system, resulting in overcrowded facilities and a lack of contact between students and professors. Consequently, this led to sentiments of hostility and discontent towards the West German education system. These feelings became exhibited during the 1968 movements, with half of Germany’s students having participated in strikes and demonstrations by the summer of that turbulent year. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the poor organization within the education system was a plausible factor to influence their rebellion in 1968.

While these explanations for the troubles within the universities are persuasive, the cemented legacy of Nazism within the system also needs to be considered. An example of this is accounted for by the German educator Georg Picht, in his book ‘Die Deutsche Bildungskatastrophe’ (The German Educational Catastrophe). Within which, Picht urged for reform in the university system, away from the traditional German academia which was run by ‘the older generation’ who had been ‘ideologically poisoned’ as a result of Weimar Germany. This is true, given many lecturers and professors had been Nazi members and retained their high-profile position after the party’s demise. This is evidence of how Nazism remained rife in the university system, within its archaic curriculum and by those who taught it. Thus, supporting the idea that confronting the Nazi past was also found in other motives, which supports my thesis. The 68ers expressed this concern in their activism, coining the slogan ‘Don’t trust anyone over 30’, which referred to their teachers and even their parents, as they would have been infused in life under Nazi occupation. This idea is reinforced by Brown, who argued that young West Germans demanded nothing less than a “democratic renewal of society from the ground up”. Consequently, although the troubles mounting within universities had great importance to spark discontent amongst the students, the issues were also a consequence of Germany’s Nazi past, which sparked the greatest demands for change.

The actions of the government fueled the student movement by provoking their existing fears. Schmidtke would agree, stating that the main cause of student activism was to change the political system of West Germany. The behavior of the government in the 1960s instigated worry that history would repeat itself as it had done with the rise of the Nazi’s. This is explained through the creation of the Grand Coalition in 1966, and further, the introduction of the emergency laws in 1968. This aroused concern amongst students, given it was similar emergency laws that allowed Hitler to assume dictatorial power in 1933. These movements appeared like a return to authoritarian values, whilst the students themselves headed in the opposite political direction, developing socialist and the New Left ideologies. These condemnations of the government and the development of new beliefs are accounted for in the Socialist German Student Association, which discussed the hope for the New Left to radicalize and reform the existing focus of the left. Therefore, this fear that the government was returning to a fascist-style system, whilst the students were developing radical ideas for greater democracy, was a concocting mix contributing to the student movement.

As similarly found within the universities, the ex-Nazi’s who remained central figures in the political system heightened the fears of the government. For example, the federal chancellor of the coalition, Kurt George Kiesinger, was a former member of the Nazi party and worked within the propaganda department. The fact the government still had infiltrations of ex-Nazi members reinforces Brown’s argument that West Germany was “still darkened by the shadow of Nazism” in the 1960s. Therefore, the behavior of the government appearing to return to a fascist regime conjured great worry amongst students, which is a possible reason accounting for their activism within the turbulent year of 1968. Yet, like with the deeper issues within universities, Nazism and its scars were also a cause within the discontent towards the government. It is therefore salient to conclude that the students were provoking the state to question its existing fascist nature, and thus confronting the Nazi era.

The Vietnam War boiled tempestuous feelings in West Germany due to the parallel between U.S. actions in Vietnam and those of the Nazi’s. Following the government’s unconditional support for U.S. foreign policy, student resentment had been building against the war in Vietnam since 1966. However, it grew into a pivotal movement in West Germany in 1968. This congress is representative evidence of the severity of this situation and the extent of anti-war sentiment, given the mass amount of young people. Largely, this was a result of the major burden of guilt felt by the younger generations from their parent’s generation and their actions within World War II. Particularly, the prosperity of the 1950s is linked to the Vietnam War as a motive for the student rebellions of 1968. These post-war baby boomers were the first generation to experience growing up with a television within their homes, thus were exposed to the news from around the world as a result of their improved standard of living. This discourse is one overshadowed by historians, yet is worth recognition given the significance of young people being influenced by the media. This explanation exhibits a difference between influence in generations, their elders arguably by Nazi influence and the students by the media. Thus, their exposure to the media influenced the anxieties and heightened the guilt surrounding the Vietnam War, which was an example of confronting Germany’s Nazi past.

So far, the discussion has focused upon individual motives for the student rebellion of 1968, whilst suggesting all causes had an undercurrent link to Germany’s history of Nazism. Yet the overarching and most penetrative reason conjuring this student rebellion was to revolt against the older generations, Nazi past and their complicity towards this era. Strong senses of resistance arose against the silence of their parents and those within the prime of the Nazi generation. This is arguably the most common discourse followed by historians, such as Brown, that in challenging the older generations about their ‘complicity in the crimes of the Nazi era’, helped the students to spur a dialogue of democratization across Western Germany. However, Brown is one of the few reflective historians who speak of the connections between Nazism and other motives catalyzing this movement. For example, he suggests that there was still a persistence in Nazi-like attitudes within society and the educational system, thus supporting my thesis that confronting the Nazi era was also a cause of many other issues. This conclusion is problematic in the eyes of Helmut Smith, who debates that confrontations against the Nazi period had been happening since the 1940s, and therefore was less significant than other issues in 1968. Although plausible evidence, it is undeniable that this feeling of rebellion was exemplified in the year of 1968. Ultimately, confronting Germany’s Nazi past, a concept known as ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’, through these institutions such as the education system and the government, is representative of this being the main cause of protest.

However, historians overlook the idea that these students had a certain degree of social and psychological freedom to participate and lead such large-scale movements, which I believe is a statement worth consideration. If Nazism and its authoritarian glory was still so deeply infiltrated in society, it begs the question of, how were students able to lead such wide-sweeping movements? Regardless of the success, or lack of, the student movements, the ability for these rebellions to occur suggests some leniency in West German society.

Overall, it is evident that there was a myriad of reasons contributing to the motives of the student activists in 1968. Although there were individual motives for the student rebellions, such as the poor quality of education and the Vietnam War frustrations, the principal and initial motive was to confront Germany’s Nazi past. In doing so, this was attempted by challenging existing institutions where Nazism remained penetrated, such as the education system and the government. Most significantly, it marked the first serious challenge in confronting the silence surrounding the Nazi past. In protest against the traditionalism of Germany’s history, the student’s shock the country to its core with their activism and attempted to warn others when they saw it heading back to a fascist regime. Their protesting involved campaigning for democracy and a cultural refresh, whilst objecting against the falseness of the government and the silence of their elders. Yet ultimately, all of these causes were intrinsically linked to confronting the Nazi past, through its cemented ideals, individuals and practices. They were a generation that desired peace and freedom, free from the guilty of Germany’s Nazi past.

When looking into comparing and contrasting America and Germany economies during World War II and how the war affected them financially the overview of each country before the war with both countries facing tragic events with Germany with the Treaty of Versailles and America with the Great Depression that crippled both of their economy. Then during World War II each country found ways to improve and support their economy by America opening their job opportunity to women and minorities to sustain their war fighting efforts while Germany used different methods in the way of slave labors to provide the same fighting capabilities. Then finally, the aftermath of World War II provided America with a strong economy and putting itself has the richest country in the world then Germany starting form economic downfall to turn it around with the German economic miracle to becoming the third richest country after the tear down of the Berlin wall. While both America and Germany improved their economy during World War II, America focused on economic growth while Germany sought for self-gain while overtaking Europe.

The United States economy after World War I ended seemed to be on the rise until the “Great Depression” started with the stock market crashing on October 24, 1929 which was “Black Thursday” in which 16 million shares of stock was sold by scared investors due to their lost of faith in the American economy.8 This was due by America over time spending more than they earned, heavy debt and the effects of World War I. During the Great Depression workers who were lucky to keep their jobs had their wages decrease by 43% and farmers lost their homes and land due to the drastic fall of produce prices. The Great Depression effected American industry by factories closing, mills and mines abandoned that put business and labor in serious trouble. The Great Depression destroyed the United States economy by its height in 1933 a quarter of the Nation’s work force, 12,830,000 people were unemployed. American people looked at President Franklin D. Roosevelt for help which he proved with his “New Deal” program that provided some relief to the people and supported drastic changes to the federal spending, price regulation, job placement, expansion of unions, easier access to home loans, social security, and public view of restored confidence in their government.8 This program did not stop the crisis at hand but the gearing up for World War II would bring an end to the most catastrophic economic crisis in the “Great Depression”. Germany also had economic issues of their own before the war that ultimately led to the uprising of Hitler and the start of World War II. The end of World War I provided the creation of the Treaty of Versailles that named Germany at fault for the war and had the country pay for all the damages caused by the war. The amount was 132 billion gold marks which was 33 billion dollars which just destroyed the Germany economy. These led to vast unemployment, factories closing, and currency inflation. The German mark was losing its value to where a loaf of bread in the morning was 20,000 marks and by night fall it would go up to 5,000,000 marks.9 It was where workers were paid twice a day to survive. The German economic collapse happened on November 15 and it was where it took 4.2 trillion German marks to equal one single American dollar. Then the Allies agreed to help Germany with the creation of the Dawes Plan that provided short-term economic benefits towards German economy and lessen the burdens of war reparations of the Treaty of Versailles. This provided Germany the economic upswing it needed until the Great Depression. The American investors took their loans back from Germany and led to the country’s second largest insurance firm collapsed and unemployment skyrocketed to three million during the year and then reached its maximum in 1932 to six million people before World War II.9 When comparing both country’s economy before World War II both Germany and America were negatively affected by the Great Depression that caused millions of their people to be unemployed, factories to close, and increase of debt. The difference was that Germany was also greatly affected by the aftermath of World War I with the Treaty of Versailles that forced Germany to pay 132 billion gold marks for war damages that crippled their economy from the start. The start of World War II was important for these two countries to help get out of the economic struggles that they were in.

During the start of World War II President Roosevelt wanted to keep his promise of neutrality but also wanted to help Britain against the German, he proposed the Lend-Lease Act which turn the United States economy into a wartime economy that shifted factories from the production of consumer goods towards war supplies and military vehicles.2 Then businesses started to produced plans, tanks, guns and any other military equipment needed at an unbelievable rate which in turn resulted in more jobs and more Americans back to work. Then after the tragic bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 the United States declare war on Germany and Japan and millions of soldiers were called to duty. These provided millions of jobs that were left due to the solders leaving for war. This provided issues by labor shortages which was picked up by previously denied workers. The workforce during World War II was made of six million women and many of them, it was their first time holding a job outside of the home. Factories open new job opportunities for African Americans. President Roosevelt made the Bracero Program that allowed Mexican laborers to temporally immigrate to the United States to work on nation’s farms due to the shortage of farmers and farm workers enlisted to the war effort.2 The shift to a wartime economy helped end the nations plague of the Great Depression and help energize the nation’s financial growth. Due to the massive production towards the military effort certain consumer goods were made scarce like gasoline, steel, coffee, oil was rationed by the means of “ration stamps” to provided people availability for these items not just the rich.3 Germany was also suffering from the effects of the Great Depression before World War 2 until Adolf Hitler took power and started providing relief by introducing different policies that target in improving the economy. These policies included tariffs on imports, and privatization of state industries. Germany also rationed its consumer goods due to the reduced foreign trade. Hitler increased Germans military spending to an unbelievable rate, by 1940 the military eventually came to represent much of the German economy. Another aspect to look at was the unemployment rate during Hitler rein which dropped from 6 million to less than 1 million in a matter of years. During World War II Germany under Hitler sustain a supply of slave labors which consist of prisoners of war and concentration camp inmates.11 When Germany took over Poland, more than 5 million citizens were used as slave labors during the war. When you look at both Germany and the United States during the war the similarities were, they both used rational methods to help their economy during the war and provided different policies and methods to get out of the Great Depression. The differences were that Germany used the countries that they conquer to improve their economy with using slave labors compare to the United States opening their jobs for women and minorities for the war effort.

The aftermath of World War II saw different economic impacts of both countries in which America saw an economic growth in which they consolidated its position as the world’s richest country. The economic growth started with the takeoff of the automobile industry, the housing boom that provided affordable mortgages, rise in defense spending due to the Cold War escalating, and fewer workers producing good and more providing services like corporate manager, teachers, salespersons. The gross national product that measures all goods and services produced jump from $200 million in 1940 to $500 million in 1960, due to the uprising of the economy many Americans considered themselves part of the middle class. The German economy due to World War 2 now lay in shambles due Hitler’s scorched-earth policy that burned or destroyed crops or any other resources that might be used by an invading enemy force.4 This reduced housing stock by 20% and lowered food production by half its level compared to the start of the war. A large percentage of Germany’s working men ages 18 – 35 were killed or crippled due to the war. The country was split into two-half one controlled by Iron Curtain and the other by the Western Allies. Then thanks to currency reform and the elimination of price control The German economic Miracle happen in which everything changed for the better by the new currency had value, black market ended, industrial production rose to 80 percent since 1936.7 Then finally when the Berlin wall came down and Germany was once reunited, Germany had the third-biggest economy in the world.

For conclusion, World War II provided economic aid and growth for both America and Germany in the time of need due to events like the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles that demolished both country’s economy. The after math of the was provided economic stability for both countries even if it took a while for Germany to find it footing.

References

1. Goodwin, D. (2001, December 19). The Way We Won: America’s Economic Breakthrough During World War II. Retrieved from https://prospect.org/health/way-won-america-s-economic-breakthrough-world-war-ii/.
2. Texas Gateway. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.texasgateway.org/resource/world-war-ii-impact-us-economy-and-society.
3. Shmoop Editorial Team. (2008, November 11). War in World War II: Home Front. Retrieved from https://www.shmoop.com/wwii-home-front/war.html.
4. Henderson, D. R., Kling, A., Horwitz, S., Moore, T. G., & Minarik, J. J. (n.d.). German Economic Miracle. Retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html.
5. The Nazis and the German Economy. (2015, March 9). Retrieved from https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-nazis-and-the-german-economy/.
6. Pike, J. (n.d.). Military. Retrieved from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-drittes-reich-economy.htm.
7. Gregg, S. (n.d.). The forgotten story of the German economic ‘miracle’. Retrieved from https://acton.org/pub/commentary/2016/07/06/forgotten-story-german-economic-miracle.
8. What was the Great Depression and why did it start in the USA? (n.d.). Retrieved from htps://www.sahistory.org.za/article/what-was-great-depression-and-why-did-it-start-usa.
9. World War II. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-Third-Reich-1933-45.
10. Boer, A. E. (1949). The History of Basic Metals Price Control in World War II. The Journal of Marketing, 416–416.
11. ZLindholm, R. W. (1947). German Finance in the World War II. American Economic Review, 37(1), 121–134.

The World War I or the Great War started on July 28, 1914, and ended in 1918 with the Treaty of Versailles. The First World War started after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on June 28, 1914. In the First World War, the Triple Alliances which were Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy fought against the Triple Entente which consisted of Britain, France, and Russia. The MAIN causes of the First World War were Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, and Nationalism because Militarism is one of the triggers for a strong arms race and disrupts the role of diplomacy to resolve a dispute, The alliance sparks countries into confrontation and conflict with their neighbors, imperialism led to competition between empires for new territories and sparked the World War I between major European powers, and Nationalism resulted in increased tensions between the European Nations which led to the World War I.

Militarism is one of the triggers for a strong arms race and disrupts the role of diplomacy to resolve a dispute. Militarism is the idea or belief that a nation should have a strong military to build a strong nation. During the 19th century, Britain had the most powerful military in the world, The Royal Navy as the industrial revolution was happening in Britain. But Britain felt threatened as German wanted to build a bigger German navy than Britain announced by Keiser Wilhelm to protect its country. Germany had to fight both Russia and France at one time while Russia could put millions to fight over Germany and France had a plan to invade deep and forcing Germany to surrender. France and Britain were designing their military plans to achieve quick victory since the British Navy knew that the cost of the war would lead to the economic collapse of the enemy. Therefore, militarism led to World War I because if a country has a big military system, it would ready for any conflicts.

An alliance is a relationship among political allies or friends for mutual benefits. The alliance sparked countries into confrontation and conflict with their neighbors because if the allies attacked, the others would defend them. The war was fought between the Triple Alliances which consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, and the Triple Entente which was Great Britain, France, and Russia. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian man led Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia because their leader, Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been assassinated. This resulted in Russia getting involved in the war to defend itself from the attacks. Germany also got involved as they declared war on Russia because Germany was Austria-Hungary’s allies. And also, Britain was trying not to get involved in the war but Britain had agreements to protect Belgium and France. So, Britain got involved as Britain declared war on Germany because it invaded neutral Belgium. Thus, the alliances led to the Great World War I as many nations protecting one another.

Imperialism is the attempt to conquer additional land from other nations and claim it for themselves to form colonies. Imperialism led to competition between empires for new territories and sparked World War I between major European powers. During the Great War, Great Britain was the richest and most dominant imperial power as British Empire had occupied one-quarter of the world, British imperialism was focused on maintaining expanding trade, as well as being able to distribute manufactured goods. France was one the nation which had a dominant imperial power, French acquired Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (Indochina), some of the pacific islands, and several colonies in West and North-west Africa. As European nations expanded their empires, it resulted in increased tensions between the European Nations which led to the World War I.

Nationalism is the belief of superiority to a nation in which they are better than any other nation. Nationalism led to the start of the World War I through the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, June 1914, which made Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Nationalism had the biggest impact on the First World War as it caused most European countries to begin to practice militarism to create a strong military force. Nationalism was linked to militarism as most European nations were over-confident with their military strength. For example, the British considered its nation to be superior in terms of military power since they had the most powerful military force known as The Royal Navy. This made them believed that they are better equipped to win the war in Europe. The German leader also believed in its Prussian military efficiency, its powerful industrial base, and its military strategy, Schlieffen Plan for defeating France. Hence, nationalism resulted in increased tension among European nations to expand their nation by war.

The World War I started after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914. The main factors of the Great War are Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, and Nationalism. Militarism is the idea or belief that a nation should have a strong military to build a strong nation, militarism is one of the triggers for a strong arms race and disrupts the role of diplomacy to resolve a dispute. An alliance is a relationship among political allies or friends for mutual benefits, the alliance sparked the European nations into confrontation and conflict with their neighbors. Imperialism is the attempt to conquer additional land from other nations and claim it for themselves to form colonies, imperialism led to competition between empires for new territories and sparked the World War I between major European powers. Nationalism is the belief of superiority to a nation in which they are better than any other nation in which resulted in increased tensions between the European Nations which led to the World War I.

The main idea in the Treaty of Versailles was that since Germany was considered responsible for World War I, it had to accept full responsibility for causing the war. They had to pay the Allies over about thirty-three million dollars for the cost of the war, German territory was considerably reduced, and the German army needed to have it’s power taken, so they were only allowed to have 100,000 men, Â and they were not allowed to have any tanks, submarines, or an air force, and their navy consisted of only 6 battleships. This was because the Allies hoped that if Germany had a weakened army, Germany would not be able to start any more wars.

The Treaty of Versailles was extremely significant during the time of the war, but is also important in modern times. It was significant in earlier times, especially in the times of World War I and World War II, because it ended World War I and caused Germany to have extremely limited resources during World War II. Germany lost a lot of money paying for the war damage to the first world war, and they lost their military power and strength, so they were not in their best fighting condition for World War II. Although the treaty was violated occasionally, it helped keep Germany somewhat under control.

It is still important in modern times because any major historical event shapes the world as it is today. If the Treaty of Versailles never existed or wasn’t effective, there are countless other possible outcomes for the war. The Allies could have lost the war, and the world would be in a much different situation than it is. If Germany did not pay for war damage, then several of the other countries may still be struggling financially. The Treaty of Versailles was considered by many to be a good, peaceful treaty. But to many, especially the Germans, who suffered many losses due to the treaty, feel otherwise. Was Germany truly entirely responsible for the war? Was it really fair for them to lose so much of what they had? What about the German people?

They were not at fault for the war, yet they suffered the consequences: Their country lost a lot of money, some of them may have been living on the parts of land that was lost, one day Germans, the next, living on land that was taken as compensation for the war. Not to mention the insecurity of weakened defenses that the weakening of their army must have caused. However, viewing the situation from the point of view of the other countries, the ones that were against Germany in World War I, the terms of the treaty were fair. If you get into a car accident with someone, and it is the other person’s fault, regardless of how it effects that person or their family, they should pay for the damage that they caused. In some cases, when people are convicted of certain crimes, they are deemed untrustworthy, and they have their weapons taken from them.

There are many cases, and sometimes the person who is at fault becomes detremented. This is not entirely fair, but it is what is best for the majority of people. Germany suffered many losses due to the Treaty of Versailles, but the Allies benefitted from it and the war was ended. Sometimes what is best or right is not always fair. The Treaty of Versailles was not entirely fair, but it was the best and most efficient way to end the war.

World War 2 lasted between 1 September 1939 to 2 September 1945. The war impacted the lives of many people in numerous ways; politically, socially, economically and psychologically. In Britain and Germany, the ways in which people’s lived were affected through a social aspect are employment/unemployment rates, how the lives of children were affected and how the roles of women changed. Through comparing and contrasting the ways in which the two countries were impacted, the similarities and differences will be illustrated.

A major social impact that occurred during World War 2, was the change in unemployment/employment rates. In Britain, there was a period of poverty between 1918 and 1939 in which unemployment reached a peak of over 20% in 1933. The causes of this massive unemployment rate are: the closure of many industries and a combination of a lack of pre-war technological development and post-war competition damaging the economy. Although the rate of unemployment was very high, when the war began, unemployment rates decreased drastically going from 13% in 1938 to less than 3% from 1941. The drop in unemployment rates is due to the forming of many new industries meaning that more employees were needed. This data shows that the beginning of war helped with the drop in unemployment rates. Similarly, in Germany there were also high unemployment rates before the start of war which reduced drastically from 1939 onwards. In 1933, nearly 33% of Germany’s working population was unemployed which is an estimate of 6 million people, however, in January 1939, only 302 000 people were unemployed. Although Britain and Germany share a similarity of decreased unemployment rates due to war, the reasons for the decline are significantly different. In Germany, the main reason for the decline was that women and Jews were no longer included in the statistics as women out of work ‘did not exist’ and Jews lost their citizenship in 1935.

Children in Britain and Germany were severely mentally affected during World War 2. In both countries, towards the start of the war, children were evacuated to ensure their safety from enemy bombs, however, throughout the course of the war, the way in which children were treated changed significantly. The mass evacuation of children in Britain started in 1933 with more than 3 million children being removed from London and other cities and sent to the country side, the evacuation being known as Operation Pied Piper. The separation from their parents resulted in long-term trauma and those who stayed back endured bombing raids and were injured or made homeless. Furthermore, those who went to the countryside didn’t live a good life as well due to the trauma of separation and not all host families were as welcoming as expected. All children had to deal with the threat of gas attacks, air raid precautions, rationing and changes at school. Additionally, from 1941, all those aged between 16 and 18 were required to register for some form of national service. On the other hand, although there was a small evacuation towards the start of the war, Hitler focused on making the children of Germany, especially the boys, good leaders and influenced their minds from a young age with the Nazi ideology. Groups like Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) were formed in order to do this. By 1930, Hitler Youth had gained over 25 000 boys aged between 14-18 and they also had a new leader, Baldur von Schirach. Under his leadership, the youth group adopted and embraced the same symbols, culture, psychology and appeals to nationalism employed in the SA and SS. By 1937, Hitler Youth had almost 5 million children which is almost 64% of all German adolescent boys. Life in the Hitler youth was dominated by physical training and ideological moulding which would have been mentally and physically exhausting on growing boys.

One of the most notable social impacts from World War 2 would be how the roles of women changed drastically. In certain countries, they went from being a traditional stay at home wife in charge of taking care of the children and cleaning the house to obtaining education, jobs and being viewed in a different light. However, there is a major difference in the way in which the roles of women changed between Germany and Britain. In Britain, women were starting to get acknowledged whereas in Germany, women were treated the same way as always. Due to the war and the need for soldiers in Britain, women had to take up jobs that were traditionally meant for men and they also began enlisting in the British Women’s Land Army. Millions of women chose to work in factories producing all manners of ammunition, uniforms, weapons and even aircrafts and those in voluntary organisations provided support services such as firefighting and transporting food to the soldiers and the affected. By December 1941, women were conscripted to join either one of the auxiliary services or work in an industry to do their part in helping Britain win the war. Contrarily, in the German society, women were to be the homemakers of society whose lives were only to revolve around the three K’s: Kinder, Küche and Kirche (Children, Kitchen and Church). The guidelines for women in Germany were very strict with some examples being: women should not work for a living, not wear trousers and not wear makeup. The main purpose of women in Germany was to produce numerous children with their racially pure husbands or have children with a racially pure member of the SS if single. In Britain, women were encouraged to take jobs whereas in Germany, single women with jobs were pressured to give their jobs to unemployed men. The only time in which women went to work in Germany was in 1937, when a law was passed that all women should work a Duty year of patriotic work in one of the country’s factories.

World War 2 impacted the lives of many in numerous aspects through a social scale. The main impacts being changes to unemployment/employment, the lives of children and the roles of women. Both Germany and Britain had their similarities and differences in how each country was affected through those social impacts. Although each country shared at least one similarity for each impact, the reasons for the cause of that impact were majorly different.

Although the United States spends more money on health care per capita than any other country on the planet, this does not mean that it provides the best care available anywhere else. As a result, despite having the world’s most expensive healthcare system, which costs more than 16% of GDP, we also have one of, if not the least effective, healthcare systems among industrialized countries. They spend more than $10,000 per capita on health care, and not only is the quality of care poor, but we also lack proper coverage for all of our medical requirements. More than a quarter of insured people report financial issues paying for their treatment due to the high cost of therapy. 63 percent of respondents had to tap into their savings or take on a second job to fund medical bills, while 42 percent had to hunt for extra work. Pharmaceuticals that save lives are sometimes ten times more expensive in the United States than in other countries. Consider the following example: a vial of insulin costs $32 in Canada, while the same drug manufactured by the same company costs $300 in the United States, and this isn’t even an extreme case. Consider the HIV medicine Truvada, which costs $8 in Australia but $2,000 in the United States, even though it was developed with taxpayer money. In a country where 40% of the population cannot afford a meal, almost 500,000 people go bankrupt every year while seeking to pay their medical costs. A $400 ambulance ride to the hospital will set you back more than double that amount, and this is in the world’s richest country. The United States, unlike the majority of other industrialized countries, does not have a universal healthcare system. In terms of health outcomes, rising economic inequality in the United States has been paralleled by rising disparities in health outcomes. The wealthiest Americans live 10–15 years longer than the poorest Americans. Many studies have examined how, rather than alleviating income-based health inequities, the healthcare system frequently contributes to their exacerbation. The many types of organizations that provide health care in the United States include insurance companies, healthcare providers, hospital systems, and independently operated providers. The income disparities in the United States are the greatest in the world. When income inequality is measured before taxes and transfers, it is comparable to that of other industrialized countries, but after taxes and transfers, it is among the highest, meaning that the US transfers less income from higher-income households to lower-income households. The lowest quintile had a market income of $15,600 in 2016, while the richest quintile had a market income of $280,300. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.) The top 1% of the population collected $1.8 million, which is more than 30 times the median income of the middle quintile ($59,300). If there is income inequality in the country, universal healthcare should be provided for free as a basic standard.

The United States stands out as the country with the highest per capita expenditure on healthcare services. Per capita expenditures appear to be lower in systems that ration care through the provision of government-sponsored insurance or other means. However, waiting times in the predominantly private system in the United States are generally shorter than in rationed systems, which is a conclusion that can be drawn both from theory and observation (Sociomed 1). Americans have shown greater dissatisfaction with their healthcare system than their counterparts in Canada and Germany. Many people believe that the uninsured population in the United States, which totals more than 40 million people, is the most serious defect in the American system. While this does not indicate that they are completely without medical treatment, uninsured persons utilize half the amount of health care that insured people do every month. The United States is by far the greatest of the three countries in terms of absolute per capita expenditure. In addition, it is the largest consumer of goods and services as a percentage of its gross domestic product. A healthcare system in Germany provides universal health insurance while avoiding the enormous queues that beset government-run systems elsewhere in the world. However, costs per capita have been increasing at a higher rate than earnings per capita, a problem that drove drastic reforms in the 1990s to be implemented. Several hundred thousand Americans believe that Canada has established a comprehensive and universal national health insurance system that is both economical and widely accepted. The Canadian system is more affordable, offers more services, provides universal access to health care without financial barriers, and has a better overall health status than the United States’ system (Sociomed 1). Canadians and Germans have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates than Americans, according to the World Health Organization. One possible explanation for the difference in health-care costs between the United States and Canada is the failure to account for Canadian hospital capital expenses, a higher proportion of elderly people in the United States, and a higher level of research and development investment in the United States, among other factors (Sociomed 1). Unlike the United States, where a considerable section of the population believes that major and fundamental changes are required in healthcare systems, most Canadians and Germans believe that only minor to moderate adjustments are required in their respective healthcare systems. Germany has a healthcare system that is akin to the United States in that everyone purchases health insurance from a commercial corporation, and doctors, hospitals, and labs are nearly entirely owned and operated by private companies. Considering that the government dictates who they can accept as clients, they’re effectively just following orders. They’re essentially non-profit organizations in their basic form. They are not in the business of making money for their shareholders in the sense that American health insurance companies are in the business of. They are there to ensure that people maintain their health. That’s exactly why they’re there in the first place. They adhere to a set of regulations that would never be accepted by American insurance firms. This system is supported by mandatory contributions based on a percentage of employees’ earnings, with employers bearing a portion of the costs. In addition, safety netting has been constructed. The government will make a payment to S.H.I. on behalf of persons who have been out of work for an extended period. Sickness funds compete for clients even though they are non-profit organizations by offering particular coverage and incentives to attract new customers. In tandem with the expansion of the system to provide additional options to individuals, the nature of this competition has changed. There are approximately 100 statutory health insurance firms in the United States as of 2019, but there used to be many more.

In Germany, it is mandatory to have health insurance. Approximately 86 percent of the population is covered by statutory health insurance, which includes coverage for inpatient and outpatient care, as well as mental health and prescription drug coverage, among other things (Tikkanen 1). The administration is handled by sickness funds, which are private insurers that are not affiliated with the government. The federal government has a minimal role in the provision of direct healthcare services to patients. A mix of normal wage payments (14.6 percent of usual incomes) and a specific, supplementary contribution (1 percent of typical salaries) are used to finance sickness funds, which are distributed between employers and employees. Inpatient services and medications are subject to copayments, and sickness funds are subject to a variety of deductibles. Germans earning more than $68,000 per year have the option of opting out of SHI and instead purchasing private health insurance. The federal government does not subsidize private health insurance. Statutory health insurance (SHI), which is composed of competitive, non-profit, non-governmental health insurance plans known as sickness funds and private health insurance, are the two forms of coverage available: statutory health insurance (SHI) and private health insurance. In Germany, long-term care insurance is required by law and covers each individual who requires long-term care services (LTCI). In contrast to many other countries, in the United States, sickness funds, commercial health insurers, and long-term care insurance all use the same providers. In other words, hospitals and physicians provide care to all patients, regardless of whether they have SHI or private insurance. The Role of the Government: The German health-care system is well-known for the split of decision-making powers between the federal and state governments, as well as between self-regulatory payer and provider groups, among other characteristics (see exhibit). The following are the responsibilities of public health insurance: Health expenditures accounted for 11.5 percent of GDP in 2017, according to the World Health Organization (GDP). Health expenditures were covered by the government in 74% of cases, with SHI accounting for the vast majority of these expenditures (57 percent of total spending). Approximately 88 percent of the population is covered by sickness funds, with private insurance covering the remaining 11 percent. There were 109 sickness funds in operation as of January 2019. The following are the functions of private health insurance: 2017 had an 8.4 percent increase in overall health spending, which was driven primarily by private health insurance. 5 There are two types of coverage available: supplementary plans purchased by sickness fund subscribers and substitutive coverage purchased by those who are exempt from or have the option to opt out of SHI (such as higher-income individuals). Out-of-pocket expenses and cost-sharing arrangements: The amount of money spent out of pocket by individuals in 2017 amounted to 13.5 percent of total health expenditures. Nursing homes, pharmaceuticals, and medical assistance accounted for the vast bulk of personal expenditures. Protection nets: Unemployed people contribute to the SHI in proportion to the amount of unemployment benefits they receive. The government contributes on behalf of long-term unemployed individuals. Aside from that, Germans can reduce their out-of-pocket expenses by taking advantage of copayment restrictions and exclusions.

Covered services include: The following are covered by SHI:

• Regular dental checkups, kid checks, basic vaccines, chronic illness checkups, and cancer tests at various ages are all examples of preventive treatments.
• Hospital treatment, both inpatient and outpatient
• Services provided by physicians
• Mental health treatment
• Dental care is important.
• Optometry
• Physical therapy is a type of treatment that is used
• Prescription medications, except those that are expressly prohibited by law (most notably, so-called lifestyle pharmaceuticals such as appetite suppressants) and those that are prohibited due to an unfavorable benefit-risk evaluation.
• Medical equipment
• Rehabilitation
• Palliative and hospice care
• Prenatal and postnatal care
• Compensation for sick time.

Female-dominated occupations, such as childcare and restaurant service, remain at the bottom of the American wage scale. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women make up 67 percent of workers earning the federal minimum wage, which has remained at $7.25 since 2009. Women, on the other hand, account for only 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs. In 2020, CEOs earned an average of $15.5 million. Even though women now make up nearly half of the workforce in the United States, men still account for the vast majority of top incomes. Women make up only 27% of the top 10% of earners, and their proportion of higher income groups is much lower. Women account for slightly less than 17 percent of workers in the top 1%, whereas they account for only 11 percent in the top 0.1 percent. Women continue to be grossly underpaid in the American workforce. In 2016, women earned less than 81 cents for every dollar earned by males among full-time workers. Women are more likely to work reduced hours to manage childrearing and other caregiving responsibilities, thus the disparity would be considerably higher if part-time workers were included. In all industries, American women earn less than males on average. The biggest pay disparities are in management roles, where men earned an average of $88,000 in 2016 compared to just $55,000 for women. The construction business has the smallest gender disparity, with women accounting for only 9% of workers (Equitable Growth 1).

The health-care systems in Canada, Germany, and the United States were studied in this article. Finance, payment arrangements with providers, and government engagement, including centralization, all differ. The United States is the country with the highest healthcare costs. Per capita expenditures appear to be lower in systems that ration care through government distribution or insurance. According to both theory and observation, waiting times are shorter in the US privatized system than in rationed systems. In comparison to Canadians and Germans, Americans are less satisfied with their healthcare system. The uninsured – about 40 million people – are often regarded as the most serious shortcoming in the American system. While uninsured people do not go without medical treatment, they utilize half as much as insured persons. Of the three countries, the United States spends the most per capita. It is also the largest GDP consumer. Germany’s healthcare system provides universal coverage without the long lines that beset government-run healthcare systems. In the 1990s, however, growing prices per capita exceeded rising income per capita, necessitating significant reforms. Finally, the majority of Canadians and Germans believe that minor to moderate changes are required in their healthcare systems, but many Americans say that substantial and fundamental changes are required. Each of the three healthcare systems discussed above is constantly evolving and improving, all while maintaining and growing healthcare access. They can only aspire to come close to achieving this goal. In these three countries, health care consumes a big portion of the economic pie, and this is anticipated to expand in the future. As a result, future developments and improvements in the healthcare systems of Canada, Germany, and the United States will be fascinating to follow. It can be improved through universal health care as Health care for all is a term that can refer to any action made by a government to guarantee that the greatest number of individuals as possible have access to healthcare services. Governments can accomplish this by establishing minimum standards and rules, while other governments can accomplish this by implementing projects that benefit the entire community. The ultimate goal, on the other hand, is to provide universal health coverage to all citizens. Having universal health coverage means that everyone has access to the health-care services they require, when and where they require them, without having to spend a disproportionate amount of money. Prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care are all included in the scope of basic health services, as is the provision of medical equipment. Primary health care that is strong and focused on the needs of the individual should be the foundation of universal health coverage. Effective healthcare systems are those that are rooted in the communities that they serve. The prevention and treatment of disease and illness, as well as the enhancement of well-being and quality of life, are all important concerns for them.

Advantages of Universal Healthcare

Most obviously, universal health care ensures that all people have equal access to health insurance and medical services, as well as the fact that no one becomes bankrupt as a result of medical costs. (MasterClass staff 1)

Because the government sets the prices for drugs and services, universal healthcare lowers healthcare costs for the entire economy at the federal level, which benefits the entire economy. In part, because they are no longer obligated to interface with a large number of healthcare enterprises, doctors have been able to reduce administrative costs while also recruiting fewer staff as a result of simplifying. (MasterClass staff 1)

Universal health care also equalizes service because it eliminates the ability of doctors and hospitals to seek and cater to a wealthier clientele. As a result, everyone receives the same level of care, resulting in a more productive workforce and a higher life expectancy overall. (MasterClass staff 1)

When a person has access to universal health care from birth, it can also lead to a longer and healthier life, as well as a reduction in societal inequality. (MasterClass staff 1)

Disadvantages of Universal health care:

Patients in certain nations with universal health care face extensive wait times or even months before being treated. Governments may overlook rare diseases or elective procedures in their focus on delivering vital and life-saving health care. (MasterClass staff 1)

It is prohibitively expensive to provide universal health care. If a government is having financial difficulties, it may discover that health care is diverting funds from other critical initiatives.

Literature Review:

In January 2015 Germany passed a statutory national minimum wage (NMW). This is the first time Germany has had an economy-wide minimum wage. It was introduced at a level of €8.50 per hour. Previously there were only minimum wages in specific sectors of the German economy. The introduction of a minimum wage has been extensively debated by both economists and policymakers. It was argued that it would have significant negative implications on unemployment because a large proportion were set to receive a wage rise (13.3% of all employees) Seebauer (2018). But those predictions thus far have proven to be inaccurate. It is used as a tool for anti-poverty and to stop the exploitation of workers. International evidence on the impact of an NMW on unemployment does not give a clear result and is inconclusive. There have been several studies in this area providing different results. Either a positive, negative, or no effect.

Standard economic theory would suggest that the impact of imposing an NMW would increase unemployment. Firms faced with higher costs for labor will reduce their demand for it and will aim at improving their productivity and adopting new technology. An alternative view discussed by Card and Krueger (1993) is that a rise in NMW would decrease unemployment. This is if a firm has monopsony power. Whereby a firm faces an upward-sloping labor-supply schedule and since there has been a rise in the minimum wage, workers that would have previously not worked to fill these vacancies decide that the wage is at a level that they will work and the vacancies fill.

Moving on to assess the existing literature. Firstly, looking at the UK. Stewart (2004b) uses the difference in difference estimator to assess the effect of the introduction of an NMW in 1999. This is where you compare the treatment group, a group of employees whose wage is just below the NMW that has been set. The control group is a group of employees whose wages are slightly higher than the NMW introduced. The results showed that there were no adverse employment effects in any of the three data sets used or in the four demographic groups (male, female, adult, and youth). Criticisms of this approach included that there may be measurement errors in wages and the spillover effects of the NMW further up the pay distribution. Potential spillover effects are lower separation and hiring rates (Brochu and Green (2013)). Another approach used to measure the effect of an NMW on employment is to look at specific regions and was first proposed by Card (1992) who looked at US data and found no adverse effect. This method is used because it is recognized that there will be a greater impact in regions where more workers earn closer to the minimum wage. The bite of the minimum wage determines which regions will be most affected. It is the ratio of the minimum wage to median hourly wages and is known as the “Kaitz index” (Dube (2019)). This index in a specific area is then related to the employment rate. Dolton et al (2012) conclude using this approach that there is a statistically significant positive effect of the NMW on employment between 2004 and 2006. In Machin et al (2002) instead of testing for regions in which the NMW would have the largest bite they analyze the effect on the residential care homes industry. In this sector, one-third of workers were paid below the NMW that was set to be introduced. The results showed a rise in unemployment and cuts in hours worked. Caution for reaching conclusions must be taken as a particularly low-wage sector was chosen for analysis.

Now examining the literature that has been written on the NMW impact on unemployment in Germany since 2015. The data available has provided difficulties as there has been non-compliance by firms so greater regulation and enforcement needs to occur to fully determine the effect of Germany adopting an NMW. Testing the effect using the regional comparison approach Caliendo et al (2017) find no significant effect. However, their work is undermined because the minimum wage was not fully binding when carrying out their tests. In addition to this piece of literature, Bonin et al (2019) use this same approach and also find that there has been no significant effect. An interesting argument made for why there has been no real impact is that because of the implementation of the minimum wage, some workers became discouraged from looking for jobs and withdrew from the labor force. This means that these individuals are not taken into account in the calculations of unemployment levels. Boffy and Ramirez (2019) found this to be the case in the United States between 1990 and 2017.

Project Outline:

Research Question: What is the effect of Germany introducing a minimum wage on unemployment in the retail sector?

Motivation:

Given that Germany only passed a national minimum wage in January 2015, there is limited existing literature on the impact of this on unemployment. Especially when compared to the literature on this topic in the United States and the United Kingdom. This paper will use empirical analysis and econometric modeling to help determine the effect of the NMW on unemployment. Looking specifically into the effect in the retail sector.

This paper will be able to analyze the effect of the NMW over a greater period than previous papers which have only analyzed the impact over the short run (2 years). This will allow for a more robust analysis and allow us to gain a deeper understanding. Furthermore, after the introduction of the NMW, wage changes take time to implement so by analyzing in 2019 the impact will be more visible to see.

In this paper, the retail sector will be analyzed because it is a sector in which a large proportion of the labor force earns around the minimum wage. The potential effect on outcomes is far greater than in sectors in which workers were already paid well above the minimum wage such as in financial services. The disadvantage to specifically analyzing the retail sector is that there will be a greater ‘bite’ and so a larger potential negative effect.

Objective:

To determine both the direction and magnitude of the implementation of the minimum wage in Germany on the level of unemployment in the retail sector. Although this will not be conclusive in determining whether or not Germany adopting a minimum wage was beneficial as other macroeconomic and microeconomic factors have to be considered it will be one way of understanding the impact it has had.

Economic Significance:

The level of unemployment is an important measure in determining the health of an economy. And because minimum wage is introduced to try to reduce poverty and the exploitation of workers. Examining the impact of NMW on unemployment is a highly important and well-debated economic issue. Furthermore, because a large proportion of workers in a sector such as the retail sector will receive a higher wage because of the introduction of an NMW it is important to determine whether this is beneficial to their employment prospects.

Data and Methodology:

To conduct a comprehensive study on the issue requires robust and reliable data. The (German Socio-Economic Panel) GSOEP will be where I will be collecting the data for this paper. It is an annual survey of 16,000 representative households.

This paper will use one of the approaches that was discussed in the literature review. Whereby conducting a difference in difference estimate on unemployment data before and after the NMW introduction in the retail sector (treatment group) and the financial sector (control group). The financial services sector is chosen as the control group as the NMW will have no impact on this sector. The retail sector is the control group as it is the focus of our analysis. The DiD is a quasi-experimental design that will allow us to estimate the effect on a sector that it was specifically meant to benefit. A common approach used in previous literature. Potential issues that need to be considered when analyzing results are first, there may be endogeneity as all exogenous variables will not be able to be considered in the regression of minimum wages on unemployment. The effect of minimum wages may not be all translated into unemployment it could also lead to a reduction of hours worked so this paper will analyze if this has potentially occurred. Furthermore, the DiD approach assumes no spillover effects when in fact there could be.

Contribution to literature:

This paper aims to contribute to the existing literature to gain a further understanding of the impact of the NMW on unemployment in Germany. By looking into the retail sector where there is limited if any literature on the effect this paper can provide insight into the impact of imposing an NMW on a low-wage sector and could be of benefit to other countries considering an NMW.

Literature Review:

In January 2015 Germany passed a statutory national minimum wage (NMW). This is the first time Germany has had an economy-wide minimum wage. It was introduced at a level of €8.50 per hour. Previously there were only minimum wages in specific sectors of the German economy. The introduction of a minimum wage has been extensively debated by both economists and policymakers. It was argued that it would have significant negative implications on unemployment because a large proportion were set to receive a wage rise (13.3% of all employees) Seebauer (2018). But those predictions thus far have proven to be inaccurate. It is used as a tool for anti-poverty and to stop the exploitation of workers. International evidence on the impact of an NMW on unemployment does not give a clear result and is inconclusive. There have been several studies in this area providing different results. Either a positive, negative, or no effect.

Standard economic theory would suggest that the impact of imposing an NMW would increase unemployment. Firms faced with higher costs for labor will reduce their demand for it and will aim at improving their productivity and adopting new technology. An alternative view discussed by Card and Krueger (1993) is that a rise in NMW would decrease unemployment. This is if a firm has monopsony power. Whereby a firm faces an upward-sloping labor-supply schedule and since there has been a rise in the minimum wage, workers that would have previously not worked to fill these vacancies decide that the wage is at a level that they will work and the vacancies fill.

Moving on to assess the existing literature. Firstly, looking at the UK. Stewart (2004b) uses the difference in difference estimator to assess the effect of the introduction of an NMW in 1999. This is where you compare the treatment group, a group of employees whose wage is just below the NMW that has been set. The control group is a group of employees whose wages are slightly higher than the NMW introduced. The results showed that there were no adverse employment effects in any of the three data sets used or in the four demographic groups (male, female, adult, and youth). Criticisms of this approach included that there may be measurement errors in wages and the spillover effects of the NMW further up the pay distribution. Potential spillover effects are lower separation and hiring rates (Brochu and Green (2013)). Another approach used to measure the effect of an NMW on employment is to look at specific regions and was first proposed by Card (1992) who looked at US data and found no adverse effect. This method is used because it is recognized that there will be a greater impact in regions where more workers earn closer to the minimum wage. The bite of the minimum wage determines which regions will be most affected. It is the ratio of the minimum wage to median hourly wages and is known as the “Kaitz index” (Dube (2019)). This index in a specific area is then related to the employment rate. Dolton et al (2012) conclude using this approach that there is a statistically significant positive effect of the NMW on employment between 2004 and 2006. In Machin et al (2002) instead of testing for regions in which the NMW would have the largest bite they analyze the effect on the residential care homes industry. In this sector, one-third of workers were paid below the NMW that was set to be introduced. The results showed a rise in unemployment and cuts in hours worked. Caution for reaching conclusions must be taken as a particularly low-wage sector was chosen for analysis.

Now examining the literature that has been written on the NMW impact on unemployment in Germany since 2015. The data available has provided difficulties as there has been non-compliance by firms so greater regulation and enforcement needs to occur to fully determine the effect of Germany adopting an NMW. Testing the effect using the regional comparison approach Caliendo et al (2017) find no significant effect. However, their work is undermined because the minimum wage was not fully binding when carrying out their tests. In addition to this piece of literature, Bonin et al (2019) use this same approach and also find that there has been no significant effect. An interesting argument made for why there has been no real impact is that because of the implementation of the minimum wage, some workers became discouraged from looking for jobs and withdrew from the labor force. This means that these individuals are not taken into account in the calculations of unemployment levels. Boffy and Ramirez (2019) found this to be the case in the United States between 1990 and 2017.

Project Outline:

Research Question: What is the effect of Germany introducing a minimum wage on unemployment in the retail sector?

Motivation:

Given that Germany only passed a national minimum wage in January 2015, there is limited existing literature on the impact of this on unemployment. Especially when compared to the literature on this topic in the United States and the United Kingdom. This paper will use empirical analysis and econometric modeling to help determine the effect of the NMW on unemployment. Looking specifically into the effect in the retail sector.

This paper will be able to analyze the effect of the NMW over a greater period than previous papers which have only analyzed the impact over the short run (2 years). This will allow for a more robust analysis and allow us to gain a deeper understanding. Furthermore, after the introduction of the NMW, wage changes take time to implement so by analyzing in 2019 the impact will be more visible to see.

In this paper, the retail sector will be analyzed because it is a sector in which a large proportion of the labor force earns around the minimum wage. The potential effect on outcomes is far greater than in sectors in which workers were already paid well above the minimum wage such as in financial services. The disadvantage to specifically analyzing the retail sector is that there will be a greater ‘bite’ and so a larger potential negative effect.

Objective:

To determine both the direction and magnitude of the implementation of the minimum wage in Germany on the level of unemployment in the retail sector. Although this will not be conclusive in determining whether or not Germany adopting a minimum wage was beneficial as other macroeconomic and microeconomic factors have to be considered it will be one way of understanding the impact it has had.

Economic Significance:

The level of unemployment is an important measure in determining the health of an economy. And because minimum wage is introduced to try to reduce poverty and the exploitation of workers. Examining the impact of NMW on unemployment is a highly important and well-debated economic issue. Furthermore, because a large proportion of workers in a sector such as the retail sector will receive a higher wage because of the introduction of an NMW it is important to determine whether this is beneficial to their employment prospects.

Data and Methodology:

To conduct a comprehensive study on the issue requires robust and reliable data. The (German Socio-Economic Panel) GSOEP will be where I will be collecting the data for this paper. It is an annual survey of 16,000 representative households.

This paper will use one of the approaches that was discussed in the literature review. Whereby conducting a difference in difference estimate on unemployment data before and after the NMW introduction in the retail sector (treatment group) and the financial sector (control group). The financial services sector is chosen as the control group as the NMW will have no impact on this sector. The retail sector is the control group as it is the focus of our analysis. The DiD is a quasi-experimental design that will allow us to estimate the effect on a sector that it was specifically meant to benefit. A common approach used in previous literature. Potential issues that need to be considered when analyzing results are first, there may be endogeneity as all exogenous variables will not be able to be considered in the regression of minimum wages on unemployment. The effect of minimum wages may not be all translated into unemployment it could also lead to a reduction of hours worked so this paper will analyze if this has potentially occurred. Furthermore, the DiD approach assumes no spillover effects when in fact there could be.

Contribution to literature:

This paper aims to contribute to the existing literature to gain a further understanding of the impact of the NMW on unemployment in Germany. By looking into the retail sector where there is limited if any literature on the effect this paper can provide insight into the impact of imposing an NMW on a low-wage sector and could be of benefit to other countries considering an NMW.