The price of peace in Europe and who paid for it



By Neil Patrick

How Germany lost the war but won the peace.

I first visited Germany in the early 1970’s. I wasn’t much more than a boy, but we had family friends in Nuremburg and as they were keen to learn English and we to visit Germany, regular trips were made. I already had a keen interest in history, and I was delighted to visit the enchanting streets of the medieval city with its imposing castle and immaculate half-timbered buildings.

Scarcely 25 years earlier, like most German cities, Nuremburg had looked like this:

Nuremburg, 1945.
Photo credit: US Army


Yet within a few years, the beautiful city centre was more like a Disney movie set. It was a fairy tale sort of place with not a trace of the destruction which had been wrought upon the ideological birthplace of the Third Reich:


Nuremburg castle today.
Photo credit: AlterVista 

I was too young to wonder how such a recovery was economically accomplished. But once I began my university studies of finance and economics, that question began to nag at me. How was such a rapid and complete transformation possible?

What provoked an even stronger curiosity was that if Britain and her Allies had won the war, how come we seemed to be impoverished while Germans enjoyed such affluence? Our own bombed-out towns and cities were like Soviet concrete nightmares in comparison. Bad town planning was a totally inadequate answer. I already had a sense that this was to do with big money...

The Germans were tight-lipped. Post-war Germans had a collective amnesia. They didn’t ever want to discuss what had gone on in Germany during the critical years of 1933-45. They were content to attribute their prosperity to hard work, ingenuity and self-discipline. And I fell for that line at first.

As the years passed, I never lost my interest in this enigma. But more recently as Brexit has taken the centre stage of British and European politics, I felt it was high time to revisit the question, for it sheds useful light on the potential future for both the UK and the EU.

Today I think I have a fairly accurate picture of exactly how this economic ‘miracle’ was achieved. But I don’t really believe in miracles and this was indeed not one. Instead, the truth lies in murky deeds and events which are largely unknown or forgotten unless we look into the darker recesses of political and monetary history.

Like almost everything to do with post-war Germany, the roots are to be found in the leadership and ideas of Hitler's Third Reich. In fact Germany’s immediate post war economic plan was created under the auspices of SS chief Heinrich Himmler. In 1943, he tasked SS-Gruppenfuhrer Otto Ohlendorf to lead a panel of economic experts to plan the finances for Germany after they’d won the war. Ohlendorf was also leader of an Einsatzgruppe in Russia, found guilty at the Nuremburg trials of mass murder and hanged for his crimes.

Otto Ohlendorf.
Photo credit: Bundesarchiv
Bild 183-J08517 / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Ohlendorf’s economic planning panel included Ludwig Erhard, future Chancellor of West Germany (1963-66) and banker Karl Blessing who was to become President of the Bundesbank (1958-69).

Ohlendorf’s team recognised that Germany’s wartime economy would be unsustainable in peace time. During the war, it was propped up by massive money printing (which today would be called Quantitative Easing), the comprehensive pillaging of wealth from occupied nations and individuals alike, the engagement of slave labour and the denial of luxuries to most of the civil population of Germany.

The other key tool was the sale of Reichsmarks to conquered nations at vastly inflated prices – something which today we’d call Forex fraud. We think of Nazis today primarily as murderous zealots, but genocide was just the top of the pyramid of Nazi criminality. Theft and illegal financial transactions were just as much a part, and ones which would continue to yield enormous benefits to Germany long after the killing was stopped.

The absence of goods to buy in Germany imposed an enforced savings regime on Germans; there was little they could buy other than the basic necessities for life. In the (then expected) wake of Germany winning the war, these tools of economic exploitation and fraud could no longer be relied upon. So how could post-war Germany maintain its financial well-being in the wake of victory?

It was Erhard who came up with the radical answer. He proposed that the Reichsmark would be abolished and replaced by a new currency called the Deutsche Mark. But here’s the trick. Savers (which everyone was whether they liked it or not) would have their Reichsmarks converted to Deutsche Marks at a ratio of 15 Reichsmarks for a single Deutsche Mark. Business assets however would be converted at parity i.e. 1:1. At a stroke, the savings of German people would be wiped out, but business assets would be preserved and bolstered. It was in effect a massive wealth transfer program from the German public to Germany’s political, industrial and business elite.

The plan had a fundamental flaw however – it assumed Germany would win the war. By 1944, this was clearly not going to happen and so the Ohlendoft/Erhard plan was quietly shelved. However circumstances would lead to this plan re-emerging and being implemented sooner than anyone would guess…

Less than three weeks after the successful D-Day Allied landings in France, Franklin Roosevelt was also thinking about how to organise the German economy after the Allied victory. He set up a meeting for representatives of the forty Allied nations at the New Hampshire Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods. Here, the leading economic minds of the time would determine how to treat post-war Germany and financially restructure the world in the aftermath of the bloodshed. The UK dispatched John Maynard Keynes, probably the pre-eminent economic theorist of his day. He had been highly influential on the leading US delegate, Harry Dexter White.

But Keynes the mentor and White the student were to clash. Keynes' proposal was brimming with intellectual power. White was buoyed by the emerging US power vested in its economic and military might. Keynes advocated a globalised system which would stabilise global capitalism for decades to come. White sensed the winning hand was his however and sought to reshape the post-war world into a deal which made the US the pre-eminent global economic superpower. In what became termed ‘the New Deal’, he placed the dollar as the world’s reserve currency (there could really be no other contender) and the one to which the post-war currencies of nations in Europe would be pegged.

It was inevitable White would win. As a final blow to Keynes, when weeks later they met to discuss the softening of terms for the repayment of US war loans to Britain, White was implacable; there would be none. Distraught at this outcome, Keynes was to suffer a heart attack within days of his return to Britain and died at the age of 62. His failure was also to ensure the UK was repaying war loans to the USA until 2006.

The inescapable fact was that in the post-war world, only one nation had escaped economically more or less unscathed - the USA. By 1948, the new world order was becoming plain. The Cold War was a reality and Germany’s critical role in the NATO - Warsaw Pact balance of power was obvious. Without economic assistance, West Germany’s reliability as the bastion of the West was in question.

Erhard and his colleagues took their old plans out of the drawer. According to Handelsblatt, 25 June 2006:

'On 20 April 1948, a heavily guarded bus with opaque windows brings them to the airbase at Rothwesten near Kassel. There, after weeks of persuasion, the German experts get the representatives of the Allies to go along with their concept: on 20 June 1948, small savers lose everything, whereas owners of shares and material goods lose almost nothing…Erhard’s policy has one aim and one aim only: to support businesses in building up their capital. This he sees as the royal road to dynamic growth.'

Thus at a stroke, a Nazi economic plan for Germany was implemented three years after the end of WW2. But there was a big bonus too; the Marshall Plan was to see German debt (unlike Britain’s) written off. According to Professor Albert Ritschel in The Economist 25 June 2012:

'Here’s the core. German public debt in 1944 amounted to 379 billion Reichsmarks, roughly four times Germany’s 1938 GDP. Currency reform under the auspices of the US Army in 1948 wiped out this debt. To zero. From 1947 to 1952, the Marshall Plan bought West Germany a foreign debt holiday…that makes 465 billion Deutsche Marks of cancelled debt, still not including all deferred interest payments…Does that beat Greece? You bet.'

This then is the reality of Germany’s phoenix-like economic resurrection in the wake of losing the war and seeing its cities reduced to rubble. It is also why I visited such a wealthy and prosperous country in the 1970’s while my own was bleak and impoverished. From an economic perspective, the US restored Germany not just from the ashes of defeat, but also put in place the foundations which would see it emerge as the economic master of Europe, despite the US abandoning its financial aid to Germany in 1973, when the costs of the Vietnam War meant it was no longer affordable. America had its own home-grown problems to address by then.

From a British and US perspective, the liberation of Europe and the restoration of freedom to its people was accomplished at a very heavy price - not just the bloodshed of a generation. A debt which today’s European politicians would do well to remember I think.





Participate or perish – the implications of surveillance capitalism for your career



The fourth industrial revolution will not be our saviour, it risks becoming our enslaver. Big data and the internet are assuming control.

We have entered a new economic age under immense ignorance about our personal data and its use by technology. Our human rights are not so much being abused, as being expropriated and monetised by information oligarchs who are all but invisible to citizens and governments alike.This power to shape behaviour for others’ profit or power is entirely self-authorising.

We are dazzled by the technological progress that the fourth industrial revolution promises. We are also blind to the invisible ways in which the digital world is assuming control of our very existence.

There is a fundamental problem even with calling this the fourth industrial revolution. That’s because this title implies that it is relational to previous industrial revolutions. It is not. Previous industrial revolutions delivered mechanical, transport and communication advancements. The fourth industrial revolution is capitalising on our very thoughts and actions.

It has no foundation in democratic or moral legitimacy, as it usurps decision rights and erodes the processes of individual autonomy that are essential to the function of a democratic society. Once I was mine. Now I am theirs.

And it is rolling out at breakneck speed, so fast that the legal and regulatory powers we trust to protect our lives and society are being left in the dust.

The relationship between speed of change and human lifespans is critical for survival.

If we experience fundamental change over the course of our entire adult lives, we have a fair chance to adapt and survive. When fundamental change is happening in more or less real time, we struggle.

The First Industrial Revolution involved the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the US, in the period from about 1760 to 1830. It therefore took around 70 years – in other words more or less the average lifespan of a human being.

This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system.

The economic models associated with the first industrial revolution were the transfer of capital from a feudal elite, to a new class of commercial/industrial elites who owned and controlled not land but the resources and means of manufacturing production.

The Second Industrial Revolution

This took place between 1870 and 1914. It therefore happened within a period of forty years or so; about half a human lifespan. It used new power sources such as electricity and the internal combustion engine to expand communications, domestic comfort and personal mobility. Major technological advances during this period included the telephone, light bulb, phonograph and the internal combustion engine.

A key socio-economic change associated with the second industrial revolution was that women were increasingly freed of many domestic chores and their political emancipation enabled them to choose to free themselves of economic dependency on their husbands.

The Third Industrial Revolution

The Third Industrial Revolution, or the Digital Revolution, refers to the advancement of technology from analogue electronic and mechanical devices to the digital technology available today. The era started during the 1980s and was essentially mature by the early 2000’s. It therefore took around 20 years or about half the duration of the Second Industrial Revolution.

Advancements during the Third Industrial Revolution include the personal computer, the internet, and information and digital communications technology.

The economic characteristics which emerged in the Third Industrial Revolution were the rise of globalisation, the industrialisation of second world nations and the rise of disruptive business models.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution 2015 - present

This is fundamentally different from the previous three, which were characterized mainly by advances in technology. The fourth industrial revolution involves advances in what is called ‘connectivity’ rather than technology. Advocates claim this development has great potential to connect billions more people to the web, drastically improve the efficiency of business and organizations and help regenerate the natural environment through better asset management.

I don’t see it like that at all. That’s because these are merely technical possibilities. Whereas what determines what ultimately happens to our society hinges not on what is technically possible, but what is commercially advantageous to capital and investment.


Much scarier than Steven King...
 Zuboff lays the truth bare in her new book.


This is what Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff has termed, ‘surveillance capitalism’.

Her definition of surveillance capitalism is:

1. A new economic order that claims human experience as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction, and sales;

2. A parasitic economic logic in which the production of goods and services is subordinated to a new global architecture of behavioural modification;

3. A rogue mutation of capitalism marked by concentrations of wealth, knowledge and power unprecedented in human history;

4. The foundational framework of a surveillance economy;

5. As significant a threat to human nature in the twenty-first century as industrial capitalism was to the natural world in the nineteenth and twentieth;

6. The origin of a new instrumentarian power that assets dominance over society and presents startling challenges to market democracy;

7. A movement that aims to impose a new collective order based on total certainty;

8. An expropriation of critical human rights that is best understood as a coup from above; an overthrow of the people’s sovereignty.

Surveillance capitalism is essentially parasitic. It feeds on the data that we all create though our engagement with the digital world. Google was the first to monetise this through the creation of targeted online advertising but today Google is applying the same business model to other applications. Apple, Facebook and Amazon have all followed in Google’s footsteps.

The big data we all create is the raw material for surveillance capitalism. It’s all but invisible and is given away for free. It operates largely without our knowledge. The legal basis for its use is hidden inside the endless pages of legal mumbo jumbo which form the basis of every user terms and conditions document we consent to every time we sign up to a digital service or platform.

The law and our institutions have been completely blindsided by the fourth industrial revolution. And that is because of the speed of mutation of surveillance capitalism. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation Rules (GDPR) which were introduced in 2018, began being drafted in 2012. They reflected the digital world as it was then, not as it is now. It’s little wonder therefore that it’s already hopelessly out of date and that the surveillance capitalists have moved on, leaving the regulators flailing in their wake.

Surveillance capitalism is now becoming the technology framework that underpins our career opportunities just like every other aspect of our lives. If you think career technology is Linkedin, job boards and online job ads, you’re about ten years behind what is happening. The latest recruitment technology is pulling data from places you’d never even think about. If your smart fridge is ordering mostly beer and pizzas, if you use online gambling, if you take a payday loan - that data or parts of it will find its way sooner or later into the data sets the internet holds about you. For better or worse, but most likely worse.

We can choose not to participate. We can choose not to use social media, or online shopping, or read online news reports. To live outside the digital grid. It’s increasingly difficult, but you can become digitally invisible. But in the age of surveillance capitalism, doing that is to choose to perish.

We all need a strategy to cope. To mitigate the exploitative forces which are at work, and as much as possible turn things to working for us rather than against us. Boycotts and protests are not a practical or realistic answer. But there are things we can do to reassert our own power of self-determinism. But that's for my next post here.

In the meantime, if you're not scared half to death already and you want to reassert some control, my friend Marcia LaReau at Forward Motion Careers has antidotes ready. I recommend you read her blog post, You are Being Stalked here.




HR data and analytics drives profits but at what cost?





By Neil Patrick

HR analytics can punish your employees, but you won’t worry about that if you want to win.

In his 1976 book, 'Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation', author Joseph Weizenbaum laid out the case that while artificial intelligence may be possible, we should never allow computers to make important decisions, because computers will always lack human qualities such as compassion and wisdom. Weizenbaum made a crucial distinction between deciding and choosing. Deciding is a computational activity, something that can ultimately be programmed. But it is the capacity to choose that ultimately makes us human. Choice, however, is the product of judgement, not calculation.

Stephen Hawking went even further when he said,  "...the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded."

I cannot say if this distopian vision will or will not ever manifest. But it is plain to anyone that we are racing down this path with scarcely any care. We are already seeing the first applications of big data and AI based workforce decision and management systems. HR leaders like it because it promises to solve several of their most longstanding and vexing problems.

HR has been fed up forever about not being taken seriously. HR big data and analytics promises to be their saviour. It suggests that HR can transition from being perceived (wrongly in my view) as fluffy and utilitarian to having a proper seat at the leadership table, because like its rivals in finance, sales and marketing, it can now deploy hard ‘scientific’ data to back up its proposals.

It also promises a happier, more engaged workforce. One in which every twist and turn of employee sentiment can be quantified and responded to. If the data says people are feeling worse about something, HR can know this quickly and help rectify the problem.

I wish this were true. But I fear the opposite. That’s because every technological advance includes the option of being deployed for good or evil.

What HR may not like so much is that HR data delivers an extremely useful tool for business leaders to push and punish people. It’s a deal with the devil, in which HR’s quest for happy, engaged workers, risks being hi-jacked by the rest of the business to brutally force up productivity and drive down cost.

Incidentally, my argument skims over the very real practical questions around HR data and its inherent unreliability as Marcia LaReau has convincingly described here in her post, ‘To a Hammer, Everything is a Nail’.

Business has some critical problems today. Growth and profitability are chief amongst these. And countless studies show there is little correlation between hard profit and employee satisfaction. Sure there are plenty of examples of firms growing successfully who also invest in their people. But when we look at the most established large firms who are making the most money, most care much less about their people.

This is actually a very simple economic truth to understand. In an open competitive market, whoever gets the most work done for the lowest cost, wins. And if that means some people suffer, then so be it.

Every employee survey I have ever seen identifies that a person’s manager is the single greatest determinant of job satisfaction. It’s not pay, it’s not perks, it’s not flexible hours. It’s the person who manages you. If they are inspiring, caring, transparent, supportive, their staff will enjoy their work.

But here’s the problem. Managers that display these qualities are becoming an endangered species. Because their bosses usually don’t care very much about strategic HR. They do care about smashing their immediate revenue and profit targets. HR gets people hired for them, sorts out people issues and keeps them out of court. Everything else is fluff.

It’s that simple. Good leadership (not data) delivers happy and productive teams.

But we also know that good leadership is a frustratingly elusive and expensive resource to acquire and maintain. One accidental bad hire of a psychopathic manager and the whole of an organisation’s carefully nurtured culture can be demolished in a few months.

So if good leadership is expensive and scarce, but data is cheap and plentiful, the choice becomes a no-brainer.

What is becoming visible now is that there are firms who take HR data very seriously. And what we can also see is just how punishing and dehumanising the application of HR data can be in practice. To verify this, all we need to do is examine the firms where HR data is most developed and embedded in the day to day operations of the organisation.

And right now, probably the most advanced organisation in this field is Amazon. In January 2019, Amazon became the world’s third most valuable company by market capitalisation, after Apple and Microsoft.




Yet in some US states, nearly one in three Amazon workers are on food stamps. For Amazon, this is even better than paying people almost nothing. It is the transference of part of Amazon’s wage bill to the taxpayer.

In Amazon warehouses, every second of people’s work is measured and evaluated. They may walk over twenty miles on a day’s shift. Their productivity is tracked and ranked against their peers, with whoever is at the bottom of the table likely facing disciplinary actions and threats. A toilet break can cost you your job if it exceeds a tightly prescribed time allowance. Many describe it as a daily hell, which they endure only because they have few other options.

Welcome to the brave new world of HR big data. It’s being corrupted from the get-go. And if you’re an HR leader, be careful what you wish for.