A "Napoleanic" Third Reich

[Johnrankins]

What I mean by that is Germany is taken over by someone who is imperialistic but sane. When Germany invades the east there it is not trying to enslave/slaughter large numbers of people but have it join the German Empire and pay taxes and raise troops. Assume the USSR stays the same until the invasion in 1941. What happens?

[mattw101]

Perhaps puppet states can be formed in the Soviet Union to gain the support of minority groups there? With no racial policy, and the support of Ukrainians, Latvians etc the Germans would be much more successful IMO.

[General Zod]

Ukrainians, Baltics, and Bielorussians are not hugely and tragically disappointed in their hopes that the Germans invaders are worthy liberators from the Bolshevik "famine and gulag" nightmare.

Without Nazi racial genocide and ruthless enslavement, vassaldom in a moderate authoritarian German Empire is a rather more pleasant place to be than Stalinist collectivization, economically and politically.

Recruits from non-Russian minorities and many from the less fanatically Communist or nationalistic Russians rush to the German banner like a mighty river.

Partisan problem for the Germans disappears and unrest spreads in unoccupied Russia, as the people realizes a decent way out of Stalinism has become available. Rebellions against Stalinist rule, especially among the non-Russian minorities, occur as the Wehrmacht (would it still be the Reichswehr ?) advances deep into the USSR.

Instead of a partisan breeding ground, Ukraine and to a lesser degree Western Russia become logistically safe areas for advancing German forces, and the source of substantial additional manpower and natural resources.

Germany has just been given the shot of additional resources it needs to crush the Red Army, while the Soviet regime has been stolen the main argument it needs to motivate its people to fight a total war.

This is the kind of radical PoD (it would require a completely different German leadership in WWII) that makes entirely feasible a German advance to the Volga and the Urals, occupation of Moscow and the Russian heartland, and conquest of the Caucasus. The USSR is done as a major power, the Soviet regime probably collapses after being pushed beyond the Urals, or survives as a mostly impotent Siberian rump like some kind of super North Korea. Some coup from the military or moderate party leadership possibly shots Stalin.

The Russian people will probably reassert their autonomy from the German Enpire in a generation or two, much like India did from the British Empire, European Russia is just too big to stay a vassal forever. But minors from Central Europe and Eastern Europe may well stay for good in the Empire if the economical and political leadership is sufficiently competent (although moderate authoritarianism is rather more stable on the long term than Nazi extremism, democracy would probably reassert itself in a generation, the economic and social structure is too advanced, albeit on the medium term a "Chinese" model is not out of the question).

As much as Germany and Russia are concerned, the outcome of WWII will be totally reversed. As much as the Western Allies are concerned, the PoD by itself does not clarify whether a war with them exists at all or not.

[Johnrankins]

Ukrainians, Baltics, and Bielorussians are not hugely and tragically disappointed in their hopes that the Germans invaders are worthy liberators from the Bolshevik "famine and gulag" nightmare.

Without Nazi racial genocide and ruthless enslavement, vassaldom in a moderate authoritarian German Empire is a rather more pleasant place to be than Stalinist collectivization, economically and politically.

Recruits from non-Russian minorities and many from the less fanatically Communist or nationalistic Russians rush to the German banner like a mighty river.

Partisan problem for the Germans disappears and unrest spreads in unoccupied Russia, as the people realizes a decent way out of Stalinism has become available. Rebellions against Stalinist rule, especially among the non-Russian minorities, occur as the Wehrmacht (would it still be the Reichswehr ?) advances deep into the USSR.

Instead of a partisan breeding ground, Ukraine and to a lesser degree Western Russia become logistically safe areas for advancing German forces, and the source of substantial additional manpower and natural resources.

Germany has just been given the shot of additional resources it needs to crush the Red Army, while the Soviet regime has been stolen the main argument it needs to motivate its people to fight a total war.

This is the kind of radical PoD (it would require a completely different German leadership in WWII) that makes entirely feasible a German advance to the Volga and the Urals, occupation of Moscow and the Russian heartland, and conquest of the Caucasus. The USSR is done as a major power, the Soviet regime probably collapses after being pushed beyond the Urals, or survives as a mostly impotent Siberian rump like some kind of super North Korea. Some coup from the military or moderate party leadership possibly shots Stalin.

The Russian people will probably reassert their autonomy from the German Enpire in a generation or two, much like India did from the British Empire, European Russia is just too big to stay a vassal forever. But minors from Central Europe and Eastern Europe may well stay for good in the Empire if the economical and political leadership is sufficiently competent (although moderate authoritarianism is rather more stable on the long term than Nazi extremism, democracy would probably reassert itself in a generation, the economic and social structure is too advanced, albeit on the medium term a "Chinese" model is not out of the question).

As much as Germany and Russia are concerned, the outcome of WWII will be totally reversed. As much as the Western Allies are concerned, the PoD by itself does not clarify whether a war with them exists at all or not.

For this TL I think the most likely diversion is that Germany stalemates the Western Allies and the German Empire remains more or less intact and doesn't need to pay reperations.

[General Zod]

For this TL I think the most likely diversion is that Germany stalemates the Western Allies and the German Empire remains more or less intact and doesn't need to pay reperations.

Well, without an Eastern Front the Wehrmacht/Reichswehr certainly has the resources to deny the Western Allies a landing in Europe, and possibly also to kick them out of North Africa and the Middle East, which would surely fufill the conditions for a stalemate, but the burning question remains: American Nukes ??? Albeit it is quite possible that America would not pick a fight against a non-genocidal, politically-wise German Empire.

[Johnrankins]

Well, without an Eastern Front the Wehrmacht/Reichswehr certainly has the resources to deny the Western Allies a landing in Europe, and possibly also to kick them out of North Africa and the Middle East, which would surely fufill the conditions for a stalemate, but the burning question remains: American Nukes ??? Albeit it is quite possible that America would not pick a fight against a non-genocidal, politically-wise German Empire.

True enough, it is unlikely that the German Empire would be able to build a navy that could be used to invade the US.

[Roberto]

True enough, it is unlikely that the German Empire would be able to build a navy that could be used to invade the US.

The OP said a sane dictator, and the definition of insane in AH is pretty much trying something like you just posited.

Germany would be much scarier if it had a sane leader, I could see them getting all of Continental Europe into their fold through war, shrewd diplomacy, intimidation, etc. After at least a generation, all of Germany's incorporated territories will have democritized to some extent, which is much better than OTL in a few respects (see the Warsaw Pact).

[Johnrankins]

The OP said a sane dictator, and the definition of insane in AH is pretty much trying something like you just posited.



True enough.:o

[Cory]

I think it's fair to say the German's would have been victorious in this war because Hitlet is the primary reason Germany lost in the first place.

As for the USSR invasion, it's simple really.

Germans declare their invasion a "liberation crusade" against Stalin = Soviets collapse virtually overnight. There's just no way the ethnic minorties are going to side with Stalin over the Germans, especially in the Ukraine.

[Xen]

It would be possible for a sane German leader to either ally with Britain and France or at least neutralize them, perhaps making a pact with Poland which allows Germany to gain the Danzig cooridor back, with Poland being compensated with a coastline at the expense of Lithuania. So a Polish-German alliance moves to attack the USSR, with Britain and France turning a blind eye.

I wonder though, as it has been mentioned Russia is just so big, would Germany try to break it down into smaller states reforming the Republic of Novogorad, and the Duchy of Muscovy, and play on smaller ethnicities in Russia, this will keep Russia from getting too powerful again, and by playing on or rather rebuilding old nationalities, Russia could be in a permanent fragmented state, with Russian Nationalists in the fringe minority, and illegal in the Russian States.

[Michele]

The importance of the foreign volunteers serving the Germans is often greatly overestimated.

For starters, many of the ethnic SS "Divisions" were divisions only in name, they never exceeded regimental strength, and some of them were even smaller.

Secondly, they were nowhere near comparable to the average German infantry units, let alone the lower-numbered large SS units (which by late war were even better equipped than the average Heer Panzer or Panzergrenadier Division). Many of them were poorly equipped and poorly trained, second or third rate units actually. They did come in handy for anti-partisan duties, though that might well become a chicken-egg question; these units were useless as true frontline combat units against regular enemy troops. There were exceptions; a few ethnic SS units had actual regular-combat value. But this was the rule.

Had the Germans recruited more of these men, of course they would have incurred in the obvious difficulty: they were already short on equipment for their own Heer units. Additionally, the foreign manpower pools that had given mid-numbered SS Divisions of some actual frontline combat usefulness had been used; further recruitment drives would have had to rely on those manpower pools that provided the questionable units. So the Germans would have had more second or third rate foot regiments, and they would have still needed to feed, pay, train, arm, clothe and equip them – out of an ever-decreasing resource pool.

Which brings up the usual issue about recruitment drives in the Ukraine and other conquered territories of the USSR. The Germans could have been nicer to Ukrainan city-dwellers. That would have meant, for starters, feeding them. But the regular German Heer units, after 1941, were largely expected to live off the land; the war in the East should have been, ideally, a self-sustaining effort when it came to foodstuffs. Had the Germans chosen to feed the Ukrainan cities, they would have been short on grains (for both men and horses), local transportation means (read horses, wagons and carts) and even strategic transportation means (read rail capacity and rolling stock) which they historically largely sucked up and used to keep their army going. Simultaneously, the German civilian population also was not facing the rationing hardships it would have faced, had food not been stolen from somebody else's farmlands and dinner tables.

The Germans did not choose to largely starve the "superfluous eaters" in Ukraine, and Poland, and Russia etc. simply because they were led by evil racists. One can imagine their leaders being simply mad conquest-seeking imperialists, the problem remains that if they treat their conquered territories nicer, then the pace of their further conquests will not be the one we saw in OTL. And stomachs will grumble back in Berlin too.

[Michele]

It would be possible for a sane German leader to either ally with Britain and France or at least neutralize them, perhaps making a pact with Poland which allows Germany to gain the Danzig cooridor back, with Poland being compensated with a coastline at the expense of Lithuania. So a Polish-German alliance moves to attack the USSR, with Britain and France turning a blind eye.


The questions are obvious:
Why? Why? Why?

Why would a sane German leader want to attack the USSR? Hitler's reason was Lebensraum, which meant: I want an empire, which was rationalized in: Germany must not depend from food imports, especially from overseas.
But why did Germany need to avoid imported food? Many other highly industrialized and densely populated countries, say Britain or France, imported food. Hitler's reasoning is a polished example of off-kilter circular reasoning:
a) we need to launch wars of conquest so that we won't depend on imported food;
b) we need not to depend on imported food because otherwise our enemies having navies will cut the imports, starving us;
c) our enemies with navies will cut the imports – why? – because we're going to launch wars of conquest.
The averagely intelligent sane leader won't follow Hitler in this, so why should he covet Ukrainan farmlands?
Note that if this Germany has enough clout, leverage and skill to befriend Britain and France to the point that they at least acquiesce to, if not actively ally in the war against the USSR, then it can certainly befriend them to the point that they don't interfere with German imports.

Then, why should Britain or France join in with Germany against the USSR? What's in it for them? Britain and France were satisfied with the status quo in the 1930s. They loved peace and balance. Britain was gradually disposing of the outdated concept of an empire. Why on earth should they support a German conquest in the East?

Then, if Britain and France don't support that, why should Poland? If the Germans can't convince France, Poland feels secure in turning down Germany's proposals. BTW, the idea of providing Poland with a coastline at the expense of Lithuania isn't that good, either. If there is something a militaristic, nationalistic German leader would share with Hitler, it's not Lebensraum, but Ein Volk, ein Reich. The coastline you are eyeing is the region of Memel, which was German enough for Hitler to make it his last land grab before Poland.

[DuQuense]

I would use a POD in the Early 1920's - One of the Austrian attempts to be Annexed by Germany Succeeded.

This changes the Politics of Central Europe, No British Guarantee to Poland, No Western Front.

In 1941 after the German Invasion -The Ukraine declared Independence, Hitler Ignored this Ukrainian Republic, during his Invasion.

This Reich would loudly proclaim that The German Troops were Entering the Ukraine to support the New Republic against the USSR.

[Johnrankins]

I would use a POD in the Early 1920's - One of the Austrian attempts to be Annexed by Germany Succeeded.

This changes the Politics of Central Europe, No British Guarantee to Poland, No Western Front.

In 1941 after the German Invasion -The Ukraine declared Independence, Hitler Ignored this Ukrainian Republic, during his Invasion.

This Reich would loudly proclaim that The German Troops were Entering the Ukraine to support the New Republic against the USSR.

Sounds good to me.

[Xen]

The questions are obvious:
Why? Why? Why?


Why would a sane German leader want to attack the USSR? Hitler's reason was Lebensraum, which meant: I want an empire, which was rationalized in: Germany must not depend from food imports, especially from overseas.

The obvious answer is you completly missed the point. We are talking about a Napoleonic Third Reich, which means an expansionist country, not one that sits absolutley still and does nothing outside its own borders, which is exactly what you suggest.

But why did Germany need to avoid imported food? Many other highly industrialized and densely populated countries, say Britain or France, imported food. Hitler's reasoning is a polished example of off-kilter circular reasoning:
a) we need to launch wars of conquest so that we won't depend on imported food;
b) we need not to depend on imported food because otherwise our enemies having navies will cut the imports, starving us;
c) our enemies with navies will cut the imports – why? – because we're going to launch wars of conquest.
The averagely intelligent sane leader won't follow Hitler in this, so why should he covet Ukrainan farmlands?

Please for the sake of alternate history, please explain what you're trying to get at. It is possible for a leader of Germany to be sane and expansionist. And again this is a Napoleonic Third Reich, which is something you seemed to have missed. Why do you seem to think a Napoleonic Third Reich will just stay put? I really want to see your logic here, but unfortunately it is severly lacking. Perhaps if we were discussing what is best for Germany after its loss in WWI you might be onto something, but were not!


Note that if this Germany has enough clout, leverage and skill to befriend Britain and France to the point that they at least acquiesce to, if not actively ally in the war against the USSR, then it can certainly befriend them to the point that they don't interfere with German imports.

Then, why should Britain or France join in with Germany against the USSR? What's in it for them? Britain and France were satisfied with the status quo in the 1930s. They loved peace and balance. Britain was gradually disposing of the outdated concept of an empire. Why on earth should they support a German conquest in the East?

Britain and France would not willing to risk war for the sake of the USSR, and may even give the Germans some support in one form or another, even if its the old thumbs up.
1) They can find a way to profit off of the war
2) It kills communism, which neither country was particularly fond of

What would be the biggest concern to both countries is a remilitarized Germany having complete and utter control of post war Russia would tip the balance of power in Europe, that would be their biggest concern. Now if both countries are able to participate in the war, they would have some say in the post war settlement. This is a scenario that could lead to a World War with Germany and allies on one side and the British and French on another, and what do we come up with? Napoleonic style wars perhaps? Hmmm... Maybe just a cold war, but in the spirit of the thread, I am suggesting on potential ways to have a "NAPOLEONIC" Third Reich.


Then, if Britain and France don't support that, why should Poland? If the Germans can't convince France, Poland feels secure in turning down Germany's proposals. BTW, the idea of providing Poland with a coastline at the expense of Lithuania isn't that good, either. If there is something a militaristic, nationalistic German leader would share with Hitler, it's not Lebensraum, but Ein Volk, ein Reich. The coastline you are eyeing is the region of Memel, which was German enough for Hitler to make it his last land grab before Poland.

A Germany that forms an alliance with Poland, and is able to recover the Danzig cooridor from Poland makes perfect sense, since that was something Germany was chafing about anyway. Poland gaining access to the sea via another country is a way to "possibly" let Poland down easily for a lack of better terms. In the long run, Poland wouldnt be able to stand up to Germany if it really wanted to risk war over lost territory and could come up with less. In fact Poland relied heavily on Britain and France to avoid this fate, but as we seen in OTL, there was no guarantee Germany will lose. So instead of being surrounded by potential enemies (Germany to the west, Russia to the east) Poland can have a friendly Germany which would be beneficial, while keeping access to the Baltic (though a different port) and cooperate in its conquest of Russia, eliminating a potential enemy, and participate in the spoils of conquest. Logical enough for a Poland that feels threatened, and if it goes along with Germany on this, then why will England and France do anything about it?

The only reason is for the balance of power, but then again Napoleon wasn't too concerned about that, and if Germany acts quickly enough and has the same military leaders it did in OTL (no reason to see why not) France could be knocked out easily enough, leaving Britain alone against a hostile continent. That sounds familiar? What other European leader faced a similiar scenario? Oh hell his name escapes, but Im sure it is mentioned in the thread somewhere...:rolleyes:


EDIT: I am not trying to be rude with this post. However one of my petpeeves was hit and I had to comment.

[Michele]

The obvious answer is you completly missed the point. We are talking about a Napoleonic Third Reich, which means an expansionist country, not one that sits absolutley still and does nothing outside its own borders, which is exactly what you suggest.



Please for the sake of alternate history, please explain what you're trying to get at. It is possible for a leader of Germany to be sane and expansionist. And again this is a Napoleonic Third Reich, which is something you seemed to have missed. Why do you seem to think a Napoleonic Third Reich will just stay put? I really want to see your logic here, but unfortunately it is severly lacking. Perhaps if we were discussing what is best for Germany after its loss in WWI you might be onto something, but were not!




Britain and France would not willing to risk war for the sake of the USSR, and may even give the Germans some support in one form or another, even if its the old thumbs up.
1) They can find a way to profit off of the war
2) It kills communism, which neither country was particularly fond of

What would be the biggest concern to both countries is a remilitarized Germany having complete and utter control of post war Russia would tip the balance of power in Europe, that would be their biggest concern. Now if both countries are able to participate in the war, they would have some say in the post war settlement. This is a scenario that could lead to a World War with Germany and allies on one side and the British and French on another, and what do we come up with? Napoleonic style wars perhaps? Hmmm... Maybe just a cold war, but in the spirit of the thread, I am suggesting on potential ways to have a "NAPOLEONIC" Third Reich.


A Germany that forms an alliance with Poland, and is able to recover the Danzig cooridor from Poland makes perfect sense, since that was something Germany was chafing about anyway. Poland gaining access to the sea via another country is a way to "possibly" let Poland down easily for a lack of better terms. In the long run, Poland wouldnt be able to stand up to Germany if it really wanted to risk war over lost territory and could come up with less. In fact Poland relied heavily on Britain and France to avoid this fate, but as we seen in OTL, there was no guarantee Germany will lose. So instead of being surrounded by potential enemies (Germany to the west, Russia to the east) Poland can have a friendly Germany which would be beneficial, while keeping access to the Baltic (though a different port) and cooperate in its conquest of Russia, eliminating a potential enemy, and participate in the spoils of conquest. Logical enough for a Poland that feels threatened, and if it goes along with Germany on this, then why will England and France do anything about it?

The only reason is for the balance of power, but then again Napoleon wasn't too concerned about that, and if Germany acts quickly enough and has the same military leaders it did in OTL (no reason to see why not) France could be knocked out easily enough, leaving Britain alone against a hostile continent. That sounds familiar? What other European leader faced a similiar scenario? Oh hell his name escapes, but Im sure it is mentioned in the thread somewhere...:rolleyes:


EDIT: I am not trying to be rude with this post. However one of my petpeeves was hit and I had to comment.

No, it's you who missed the point of the objection.
Yes, it is possible for a country to be imperialistic and sane at the same time. The problem is that a sane imperalist doesn't bite more than he can swallow, so we're back to the question. I will frame it in the terms you prefer: why should an imperialist but sane power, having the means and potential Germany had, decide to bite the Soviet Union?

Your insistence on the Napoleonic comparison is rather inappropriate. While it's true that Napoleon was expansionist and that he did establish vassal states, the fact is that most of the time France was attacked, not the contrary. Even in 1803, when it was France to declare war on Britain, France had been under a British blockade. Napoleon tried to solve the problems by being aggressive, but the kingdoms of Europe did not want a republic on their doorstep, at first, and an upstart emperor, later on.
That doesn't hold true for Germany in the 1930s.

Your assessment of the possible British and French reasons in supporting a German assault on the USSR is simplistic. One does not choose such a course of action just for the sake of helping his own arms industries to sell their products, not without assessing the possible drawbacks. The British and French rulers would have asked themselves if they preferred the balance, albeit shaky; or one of two outcomes, a German empire going all the way to the steppes or a Soviet empire reaching the Rhine. And they'd like neither one.
The problem is not having war "for the sake of the USSR". If one sees the issue in this light, then he'd conclude that in OTL, Britain and France went to war "for the sake of Danzig" – which is not true.
In other words, why do you say that a sane imperialist Germany could strike an alliance with the Westerners. Be it sane or deranged, the new German empire remains a threat to them.

As to the Poles being asked for a coastal territory containing a German minority, and being indemnified with another coastal territory – which also contained a German minority... you fail to address that issue. Sure, from a purely logistical point of view, it is better for Germany to have the Gotenhafen (Gdynia) coastline than the Memel (Klaipeda) one, because the former lets them rejoin the Eastern Prussia enclave. But we're talking about an imperialist Germany. I find it hard to believe that an imperialist Germany in the 1930 isn't also a nationalistic Germany. And the latter would be interested in Memel not for logistical reasons but for nationalistic ones.

[Faeelin]

[Why would a sane German leader want to attack the USSR? Hitler's reason was Lebensraum, which meant: I want an empire, which was rationalized in: Germany must not depend from food imports, especially from overseas.

The same reasons they wanted an Empire in WW1; to acquire an empire to rival the French and British.

[Michele]

The same reasons they wanted an Empire in WW1; to acquire an empire to rival the French and British.

They already had an empire before WWI. They _lost_ an empire in WWI. Surely there might be a lesson there?
Somebody looking at the basic economic figures of 1935 with a cold eye should be able to see what was evident: that Germany was faring quite as well as France, _without_ an empire. Once you add Austria, which admittedly a sane-imperialistic Germany might well consider within its own grasp, that becomes even more evident.

[Admiral Canaris]

Not to mention Bohemia/Moravia. A sane empire without regard for national rights would probably like those industries, too.

[Johnrankins]

They already had an empire before WWI. They _lost_ an empire in WWI. Surely there might be a lesson there?
Somebody looking at the basic economic figures of 1935 with a cold eye should be able to see what was evident: that Germany was faring quite as well as France, _without_ an empire. Once you add Austria, which admittedly a sane-imperialistic Germany might well consider within its own grasp, that becomes even more evident.

Austria would indeed be possible and by itself not likely to start a huge war in Europe.

[Faeelin]

They already had an empire before WWI. They _lost_ an empire in WWI. Surely there might be a lesson there?

Sure; don't lose.

Somebody looking at the basic economic figures of 1935 with a cold eye should be able to see what was evident: that Germany was faring quite as well as France, _without_ an empire. Once you add Austria, which admittedly a sane-imperialistic Germany might well consider within its own grasp, that becomes even more evident.

But Germany was larger and had a larger industrial base; it should be doing better than them. Meanwhile, when the Depression hit, France, Britain, and America jacked up tariffs, shutting Germany out of markets. Clearly it needs an empire as well.

[Wozza]

Sure; don't lose.
.

The classic solution, you don't get ham and eggs, you go and demand double ham and eggs. It's human nature the end of the day.


But Germany was larger and had a larger industrial base; it should be doing better than them. Meanwhile, when the Depression hit, France, Britain, and America jacked up tariffs, shutting Germany out of markets. Clearly it needs an empire as well.

You both have a point, but German grand strategy in the first half of the twentieth century is very circular - like the way their main way of avoiding two front wars seems to be to start them.

Fundamentally though Germany has a grand strategy that, whilst it has a logic, serves the needs of an aristocratic military caste and, through protectionism, economic vested interests.

[Michele]

German grand strategy in the first half of the twentieth century is very circular


Circular, that's what I said. We need to embark in wars of aggression because we need not to import food from overseas, and we need not to import food because our enemies' navies will block the imports, and those navies will be our enemies because we will embark in wars of aggression.


Fundamentally though Germany has a grand strategy that, whilst it has a logic, serves the needs of an aristocratic military caste and, through protectionism, economic vested interests.

Yeah.

[Michele]

Sure; don't lose.



But Germany was larger and had a larger industrial base; it should be doing better than them. Meanwhile, when the Depression hit, France, Britain, and America jacked up tariffs, shutting Germany out of markets. Clearly it needs an empire as well.

What about: don't start?

As to doing better than France and Britain, Germany was indeed going to do better at least than France. Not throwing money down the gun barrels would have helped.

Britain is another kettle of fish because, very interestingly, at the time when Germany (and Italy) decided they needed an empire, Britain decided it did not need one. While there are those who claim and complain that it was WWII that lost Britain its Empire, actually by the 1930 it was no longer the "British Empire". It was the "British Commonwealth and Empire". Places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa were no longer provinces of an empire. The India Act was passed and it provided for independence, with Commonwealth-member status, for India too. This process had started and there would be no turning back.

Both in the German and the Italian examples, the actual case for the need of an empire is difficult to support by cold-eyed economic reasoning. They both wanted an empire because they wanted an empire, not because it would make sense from the economic POV. National prestige (and personal prestige especially in the case of Mussolini), vindication after the WWI defeat, nationalistic motives, racist madness. Those were the reasons.

[Johnrankins]

True enough, colonies actually don't pay off. You have them for the prestige.

[Admiral Canaris]

Depends on the colony. If they have valuable resources, like oil, diamonds or uranium, they can pay off, if it's just a patch of dirt and jungle, then no.

[Michele]

True enough, colonies actually don't pay off. You have them for the prestige.

I said "difficult" in the actual cases at hand. Not impossible in all cases, as Adm. Canaris pointed out. Valuable raw materials are what he mentioned. I could add luxury consumer goods (Do you happen to drink coffee, tea? Do you smoke? Do you use spices? All of those mostly came from colonies for most of history). There's also a nice trade possibility: the natives send you cotton, you work it, and sell them cotton shirts. IOW, they also provide you with a controlled market.
The Italian case I made stands on the basis of what the Italians knew at the time. If you use hindsight, then they should have clung to Libya for dear life, considering that under the sand there was oil.

[Johnrankins]

I said "difficult" in the actual cases at hand. Not impossible in all cases, as Adm. Canaris pointed out. Valuable raw materials are what he mentioned. I could add luxury consumer goods (Do you happen to drink coffee, tea? Do you smoke? Do you use spices? All of those mostly came from colonies for most of history). There's also a nice trade possibility: the natives send you cotton, you work it, and sell them cotton shirts. IOW, they also provide you with a controlled market.
The Italian case I made stands on the basis of what the Italians knew at the time. If you use hindsight, then they should have clung to Libya for dear life, considering that under the sand there was oil.

For the most part they didn't, there are usually exceptions in most things.