What would've happened if he had stopped here?

>land is more important than money

This is how Venice declined. Don't repeat their mistkae.

germaboos would no longer have wet dreams over a potential Großdeutschland

Probably an inevitable war with Soviet, possibly with US, France, UK and Germany on the same side. And the history books would talk about the 6 gorillion kulaks who were murdered to death in the gulags.

please elaborate on Venice

They started spending money and people, and losing good favor, on claiming and conquering land in Dalmatia, the islands near Greece/Turkey, and so on.
Basically they decided they need to OWN and govern the land they were using for trade hubs, which lost them allies, gained them enemies, wasted their money and eventually they failed.

Genoa failed in a similar way, when they overextended all the way to the Crimea, instead of just "renting" rights there, decided to govern it, getting them in conflicts.

The German recovery was effectively a massive economic overheat. This overheat would have consumed all the forex in the country unless they dismantled the overbuilt system that required it.

Tldr, German economy was overheating and they needed fuel, read Adam tooze's wages of destruction

>land is more important than money
short term, yes, long term, no

Venice declined, because all the trade and wealth moved west, toward the atlantic, and their monopoly on mediterranean trade became obsolete

>short term, yes, long term, no
i don't know if this came out right

i meant money is for short term, while land is important in the long term

>Blobbing is good
I see we have a fan of paradox games here

This is only true today, and not at all true when the Venetians were readily trading diplomatic influence, money and manpower for land that they could've made use of anyways, just to make their name bigger on the map.

All of those had German cultured pops with fascist ideology.

Should have immediately sued for peace after taking Paris. The symbolic victory was won. Versailles was reversed, german people were united. There was no reason to continue the war other than the stupid "labens realm" shit and the fact that hitler had an ego the size of America.

Same thing for the same reasons. Just the allied propaganda part would look a little weaker.

The German economy was in full overheat mode. What about this do you not understand?

But had Hitler died in early 1938, he would been remembered as the biggest canine loving German, even more so than Bismark.

He's right you know. Germany needed those pops in order to get more national focus points.

>Muh libertarian gold meme

What would've really happened is that Poland takes Danzig from the League of Nations.

Honestly he probably could have gotten Danzig back and some kind of international government in the corridor if he worked through the league.

He never had a problem with Poalnd existing until around 1939 when they told him to fuck off. He didn't like that and Molotov didn't like poland existing at all as it was a Versailles insult to to Russia, who in their mind fought for the allies and got fucked as hard as germany during the peace conference.

He should have stopped there but he didn't actually think France and Britian would go to war over danzig adn the corridor because they were trying to get poland to negotiate a deal and it was so insiginifant in the grand scheme of things.

The gold store meme is a meme. They could have sold the arms to Finland, Romania, Italy, Baltics, USSR, you name it. THey all wanted it. The economic 'bubble' everyone refers to is because of the transition of the economy into autarky. It wasn't designed to grow the economy but to make it self sufficient (they never achieved it) but they could have flipped a switch and returned to an import economy and solved the problem at any time.

fucking reddit. Hitler sued for peace before and after paris. France wanted it and signed an armistace thinking Britian would follow suit and the war would be over.

Churchill wanted none of it because his PMship depended on the war.

He should have put the Nazi Hohenzollern son on the throne and retired in 1939 after Bohemia/Moravia.

However, thats hindsight talking.

>Stalin was just as millenarian, ideologically driven, and risk-acceptant as Hitler!
You have no idea how much this bit of stupidity annoys me. Just because he was just as nasty and evil as Hitler, for whatever value judgments you use to get there, doesn't mean he was exactly the same. The idea that Stalin would suddenly reverse his foreign policy of 17 years for no fucking reason absent external stimuli is stupid beyond belief.

How'd they recover after the war then?

>Having land creates wealth, wealth does not create land. Venice would've survived if they were able to expand further, especially int northern italy. They would've had more manpower, domestic resources, and forts.

woops, that's alotta unintended greentext

You continue to think in terms of real estate in the 20th century and not an island next to the Ottoman Empire in the 15th.
I won't reply further, everything has already been stated and you refuse to read.

Lots of American aid.

After the annexation of Czechoslovakia and Roosevelt's speech in congress about US military re-armament, Churchill was banking on American involvement at some point. The problem for him was not if, but the when.

Maybe it wouldn't have happened in 41, but it would have happened at some point, maybe 45 or 49.

The quite simple fact of the matter is that the two great superpowers of the time, were not going to tolerate Hitler waltzing around in central Europe and the Balkans trying to build an empire stretching from Paris to Cairo.

>German economy would have crashed, Germans don't make goods or provide services that anyone wants.

>T-Mobile
>a mobile phone company
>totally helped Hitler's economy in 1930 guys

Who gives a fuck about German economy collapsing?

That wouldn't mean them losing the land as I doubt the Allies would have actually attacked them nor would USSR, which didn't even share a border with them

>actual video game logic

>You need to stay at a losing war because your economy will implode if you don't wage more war
Neither option seems good.

>Stop the war and collapse
vs
>Continue the war and if you somehow win, salvage the situation with reparations and new land.

I'm just showing that Germans are incredibly industrious, capable of creating goods and services used worldwide. And these are wealthy companies created AFTER Germany lost the war and was partitioned. Imagine how powerful that nation would have been without the war.

All of the success went to his head and he thought he could pull another Munich and out-negotiate the Allies over the Corridor.

He could not. Neither the first nor the last time success went to Hitler's head.

Based upon all the hardware they encountered in the West of Russia, I would venture that Stalin was planning to try for more himself. If that would have only been Poland or more, it's hard to say. My guess is Stalin would have eventually tried for Europe.

>Maybe it wouldn't have happened in 41, but it would have happened at some point, maybe 45 or 49.
What the hell makes you think that? Stalin scrupulously kept his agreements with people who could actually hurt him if he went back on them. It was only weak, isolated powers that he bullied around. He wouldn't even invade places like Romania or the Baltic States before diplomatically isolating them. Do you really think he's going to chance fighting several major powers together?

>The quite simple fact of the matter is that the two great superpowers of the time, were not going to tolerate Hitler waltzing around in central Europe and the Balkans trying to build an empire stretching from Paris to Cairo.
But we're positing a situation where Hitler sticks to post Munich and isn't empire building, remember? He's apparently trying to form some anti-communist alliance. Do you think Stalin's intelligence is so bad he wouldn't notice? Or that the Soviets are so stupid they would fight a war they have very little chance of winning?

A common mistake by the Allies was thinking that Germany wouldn't be ready to do X for another few years. Example: Poland wasn't expecting an invasion until 1941 or 42, because intelligence figured the Germans wouldn't have the materiel to beat England and France until then. Soviets had the same logic, largely because they personally wouldn't be ready to fight until then. It's funny because technically they were right--Germany couldn't beat Russia if they invaded in 1941, as we know from experience.

Frim what I understand, the nazis did try to arrange peace after the victory in the battle of france. Britain told them to fuck off.

Economic and cultural superpower.

The Soviet Union would've approached him later after they were finished with their purges and more prepared for war, and asked for a partition of Poland. Realistically there'd be no reason to say no. In theory, if that happened, UK/France might end up facing a war against Germany and the Soviets at the same time. I wonder if Japan would've joined the Allies in such a scenario.

If Hitler still refused to violate Poland's territory then maybe the balance of power in Europe would be more stable. The Soviets would have to contend with a potentially hostile axis and the allies' guarantee of Poland. The axis would have to contend with potentially hostile Soviets and the allies' guarantee of Poland as well. And the allies would have to contend with the fear of a Soviet/German common front against them.

I'm still of the opinion that war would've broken out at some point, though. Maybe over the Soviet war with Finland, maybe over Italy's ambitions in Greece, maybe over Yugoslavia. All these countries were re-arming and gearing for war, I seriously doubt war could've been avoided. Unless maybe someone developed nuclear weapons first and the principle of MAD was discovered.