>Hitler's economic policies were super successful and raised the living standards of common Germans greatly.
It was nothing magical. Everything that happened is explained by conventional historical and economic logic. Germany was already beginning its recovery once Hitler took power. The preceding government was about to embark on a work creation campaign precisely as Hitler did and already had credit earmarked for it, which was the new regime's first burst of spending. Then the following recovery was carried out in a very similar manner to what other states did at the same time, and to what other hypothetical German regimes would have done. For a time there was relatively little inflation despite the drop in unemployment, but that is precisely what some economists at the time predicted. Then after growth continued under full employment there was inflationary pressure, which is also in line with what was predicted.
Then even after recovery the gap in living standards remained, as the very post you quoted describes. The housing shortage was unsolved. Consumer goods industries had not recovered. The quality of available consumer goods was on the decline. Most of the regime's consumer goods programs had failed.
This is not because the regime was incompetent (Tooze repeatedly refuses incompetence as an explanation for what took place and shows the rational basis for what political or economic forces did) or failed in a drive to increase living standards. It wasn't aiming for a short-term increase in living standards in the first place. Hitler's long-term strategy, which he settled for on his first days in power, was to use militarization to pave the way for a definite solution to Germany's structural disadvantages, and only then achieve material prosperity. And militarization was done very efficiently, at a pace and scale unmatched by any other capitalist economy in peacetime. In a handful of years the military share of the economy went from almost none to so high that it the threat of inflation was looming and the entire economic system was under strain, with consumer goods and railways suffering.
This isn't "guns vs. butter" as militarization was a popular measure; guns server as a sort of butter. But the long-term plan was to use them to replicate the conditions for American success and affluence within the European continent.
>Germany had no military and was constantly invaded by its neighbor since the "end" of the world war. Of course it was necessary to increase military spending for self defence when there was none before.
That other governments would still rearm is something discussed in this thread. But it's also a point that the specific government in power had a rational long-term geopolitical strategy that didn't include mere self-defense in its pursuit of rearmament.

>>31960
>Just don't ask any questions USA's strong economy
America's economic supremacy is precisely one of the book's central themes!