I've skimmed his biography on the German wikipedia. I'll say, there are a lot of ambiguities to swallow. It's probably a good idea to read his autobiography. You'll seldom find tooth and nail defenses or all out apologies, though the 50s and 60s way of processing and dealing with one's own nazi past may be bewildering to read today.

The classification of yes-no-maybe-Nazis after WW II is an interesting field. Having supported Nazis and having wildly profited from that didn't mean you were automatically out of business forever. Should it have, shouldn't it have, these are all questions worth investigating into.

In that respect, you may want to take a look into the Hugo Boss brand's history as well.

Pretty much this. History was one of my main courses at school and we spend a lot of time with the period of the Weimarer Republic. But when it comes to economy it was more about general trends and the political consequences that followed these trends.

Hugo Boss and KRUPP are the reasons every child or teenager wants to play as the Germans.

Yupp.

rather extensively, from what I recall
if you throw in some keywords from that time like reparation payments, hyperinflation, currency reform/Rentenmark, golden twenties, young-plan, etc. I think it will ring a few bells for most germans.
From reading that guys wikipedia page he just doesn't seem to be that important/interesting to be generally known.
I don't recall hearing the name before.

The only reason I know his name is that I used to play a lot of Hearts of Iron 2, and he's one of the possible nazi ministers in that game.

When it comes to the interwar period in Germany, I think only major economic trends are taught, and even then mostly to explain Hitler's rise to power. Then again, that time period is not at all my specialty so I could be wrong.

The name rang a bell of vague WW2 ressonance and Hitler's rise to power. I haven't gone to wiki to check but other's posts make me believe I'm not too far off in that recollection.

I probably read about him in a book titled The Wages of War. It is a brilliant revisionist economic history of WW2 Germany. If you want I can go check its index to confirm and see if there are any particular takeaways on the guy.

I was thinking about him too. Seemed like a good warrior, too hot headed as a king though.

According to the wiki, Schacht was acquitted at Nuremberg trials. It's impressive how few bounties are ever applied on bankers, even shady ones, but alas such is the world.

I actually remember that name from my history classes in school. He was mentioned because of his involvement in stopping the hyperinflation in 1923 but that's about it.

Don't forget BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Fanta, Ikea, etc., etc.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

Yep, besides the technical economic stuff (which is what primarly interested me as it's a good case of of a period of a country in economic turmoil), the fact that he looks politically always in the "grey area" makes the thing potentially even more interesting. By reading his conclusion of the book (well, it's not really spoilerish for me as it's not a fiction) he seems the kind of guy who works primarly for an healthy and strong local economy and the "small moral details" aren't important as long as they don't interfere (kind of like "war is bad because it costs a lot").

For Hugo Boss, his past is widely know (well I hope so....)
Well, if it doesn't take you too much of your time, you can do so ;) It's primarly the economic stuff which interests me.

The shelf was less than 10 meters away :)
The book's actual title is The Wages of Destruction (not War as I thought - should have mentioned the author: Adam Tooze to avoid such mistakes). It's almost 800 pages, though from 676 on it's references.

I say the above because the index is double column, and half of a column are references to the guy - that's not counting a few more lines pointing to Reichsbank under him, listed under Reichsbank. From those page numbers, seems I would have to re-read circa 100 pages spread around the first thrid of the book.

So firstly, if you are into economic history, get the book. It's required reading on WW2 in my opinion. And it should be easy to find.
Secondly, the individual in question was clearly an important player when it comes to economic topics of the period - I recalled while browsing the index his '38 memorandum, how he was involved in critical industries - not sure if mining or steel, but something of that sort - and that he was key in specific policies around currency.
Lastly, from the overall thesis of the book which I do recall, I can probably say the picture that is painted is of a man that wanted Germany to become more powerful, and went about influencing and helping realize policies that contributed to isolate Germany from international markets (the crash of 29 was key though), to prioritize specific industries for central management resulting in Nazi control of the national economy and a short term productivity spurt. And therefore someone that in some way contributed to weaken the German economy on net and understood that as time went on, and therefore was against forcing the issue through war.

I'll leave it at that. It's a book I want to reread, but you'll forgive me for not starting so now I'm sure. :)

OK, thanks, I've put it on my Amazon wishlist ;) (although I don't know when I'll have the time to read so much ^o^)

Here's a rabbit hole for ya, little rabbits.

Do a search for UNION BANKING CORPORATION (UBC for short).

*short version* Basically, the UBC was set up by American financiers (including the Bush family) to funnel money to German accounts in order to hand over enough credit for German war industries like KRUPP and IG Farben to modernize the German army and get it ready for the totally not planned World War II. Goes down some conspiracy holes, but most of it was in fact true. Many of the names were redacted from the Congressional transcripts to protect 'certain public reputations'. Whole things got gobbled up in the Trading with the Enemies Act, which actually had the opposite effect. Rather than shine a light on companies who may be dealing with the enemy, they let the initial wave of financial transactions through, then they used the Trading with the Enemies Act as a smokescreen (via national security directives) to protect those involved with complicated levels of red tape and diplomatic immunity.