Third reich without ww2

[DAMIENEVIL]

I am just curious what do you think would have been the long term effects in Europe and in Germany if Hitler had of died from what ever in 1939 after destroying the Munich treaty but before launching ww2

I do know they basically economically needed the war to survive and had created an economy based upon conquest but was there a way to back down from this But keep going with the programs they had running and Turning germany into what they did want without going to war.

I do know they wanted the living space and all that stuff. But I was wondering what it would have been like without it being expansionist beyond what they could get out of treaties.

[The Red]

Well after breaking Munich its unlikely they'll have good relations with the west for the next couple of years so if Nazism survives they might collapse in the 40's USSR style.

[bobbis14]

Well the German economy would have collapsed for one, hitler designed it for war; his re-armament and big government ideals made war sort of inevitable

[DAMIENEVIL]

but why would they collapse due to having basically an nice economic pact with the rest of eastern Europe to sell things to? And then other places as well?

[bobbis14]

Originally Posted by DAMIENEVIL

but why would they collapse due to having basically an nice economic pact with the rest of eastern Europe to sell things to? And then other places as well?

Because the Third Reich did not have a consumer based economy

[The Red]

Originally Posted by DAMIENEVIL

but why would they collapse due to having basically an nice economic pact with the rest of eastern Europe to sell things to? And then other places as well?

Because your average guy wants to buy food,clothes and stuf for his house not Panzers,Howitzers and Messcherschmits.

[DAMIENEVIL]

I know this but they did have a nice military based economy and the rest of eastern europe could have used more advanced weaponry. Which they could have kept selling weaponry to them and to other countries as well Spain Italy Japan South America Etc etc etc

[bobbis14]

Originally Posted by DAMIENEVIL

I know this but they did have a nice military based economy and the rest of eastern europe could have used more advanced weaponry. Which they could have kept selling weaponry to them and to other countries as well Spain Italy Japan South America Etc etc etc

They have no need for the weapons without a war, they had competely re-armed you realise they would become like N.Korea is now which just isnt sustainable

[DAMIENEVIL]

ah but one does not need a war for governments to buy their stuff just say it will help protect you against the Soviet Union for eastern Europe re build your forces for Franco re vamp your forces for Mussolini and I am sure there is alot of countries in South America that would have a use for better weaponry and stuff. Also I am sure japan could have a better use for tanks and things like this.

[The Red]

Thing is who can they really sell them to?

Poland,France and Britian would refuse to buy large amounts of military equipment from a country that has decieved and humiliated them. Spain can not afford to buy anything due to their wrecked economy. Japan wouldn't see any need to buy equipment when they're doing so well on their own. China also can't afford to buy massive amounts of equipment. The USSR would refuse to have any dealings with a 'peaceful' fascist ermany and the Italians had the belief that they could accomplish their aims on thier own.

There go all the main countries who are undergoing reamerment.

[altamiro]

The entire financing of rearmaments as well as the building programs (to relieve the high unemployment) was based on expensive short-term internal loans that had to be paid off by some kind of loot. Whether this loot were to be achieved without open warfare (a la CSR occupation) or by conquest, it was bitterly needed. Hitler made the war pay for itself and more, at least in it´s first stages (Poland, France, Belgium, Denmark). Once the loot source (mainly gold from the foreign central banks) dried up, the ecnomic collapse of the regime was just a question of time. The only alternative would be to rebuild Germany along North Korea lines - which was not possible even for Nazis.

[Volksgrenadier2006]

Originally Posted by The Red

Thing is who can they really sell them to?

Poland,France and Britian would refuse to buy large amounts of military equipment from a country that has decieved and humiliated them. Spain can not afford to buy anything due to their wrecked economy. Japan wouldn't see any need to buy equipment when they're doing so well on their own. China also can't afford to buy massive amounts of equipment. The USSR would refuse to have any dealings with a 'peaceful' fascist ermany and the Italians had the belief that they could accomplish their aims on thier own.

There go all the main countries who are undergoing reamerment.

Even if those countries could buy weaponry from Germany, you still can't run the entire German economy on it for a long time.

You just need to include something that made the German economy not so dependent on war and weaponry production.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Volksgrenadier2006

Even if those countries could buy weaponry from Germany, you still can't run the entire German economy on it for a long time.

You just need to include something that made the German economy not so dependent on war and weaponry production.

Yes but it takes a long time for your economy to switch from military to consumer.

[DAMIENEVIL]

I agree it does but then just switch to making cars are stuff which uses the same heavy industry.

I want a nazi Germany but one without Hitler in Charge anymore but without goring ending up in Charge

I was wondering what they would end up doing if they dont go to war but keep the rest of their thinking there.

would they kill off the jews in germany or just force them to emmigrate would they work on their projects for long term power Ie ICBMs and without ww2 could they have figured out their errors in the long run for nukes what would happen long term with a Nazi germany but a non violently expansionistic one.

I know you cant do this with hitler that is why I said get rid of him.

[Blue Max]

Damien.

You can't eat guns. And guns tend to be a REALLY CRAPPY investment unless you are going to use them.

When you spend a tax dollar, you often get something back for it later. Schools, Roads, R&D, Paying down government debt, even paying for a tax cut. These things lead to more tax dollars down the line, and it makes a lot of sense for governments to spend monies on these things.

While I have nothing against the people who serve in uniform, guns are essentially throwing money away. Yes, Germany created Jobs by building weapons, but what happens after those weapons are built? These Weapons aren't a source of money; they aren't going to help balance the budget. Selling weapons might be attractive, but who is going to buy them? Italy would refuse, small nations might go for it, but even if they do Germany is still saddled with a huge amount of guns and very little butter.

Mind you, this is all happening in the great depression. Germany has litterally cheated its people out of future payoffs and is printing bonds like mad to pay for weapons--there is no economic sanity behind all of this, and that's why Germany is litterally on expand or die.

Germany's economic situation demands either more revenue or serious cuts. And a National Socialist Junta is probably not going to aim for the cuts. Figure the fortunes of Hjamar Schacht, one of the great minds of the German Economic Picture--was stripped of his power in 1939. I should not need to tell you that National Socialism, minus territorial expansion, has little hope of paying the bills.

[DAMIENEVIL]

The Soviet Union did the same thing and held on till the 1990s

And the Nazi were creating guns and butter.

[Blue Max]

Originally Posted by DAMIENEVIL

The Soviet Union did the same thing and held on till the 1990s

And the Nazi were creating guns and butter.

The Soviet Union actually did NOT do the same thing, it pushed heavy industry for decades, before going into an arms race that killed it.

Really, the Soviets were throwing something like 2/3rds of their GDP into military spending and it broke them. The Soviets didn't have strict accounting to get the expenses on paper, but that doesn't stop economic scarcity at all.

The Nazis, of course, were not polar, they didn't shut down their schools to pay for more weapons. But by and large they were rearming at a breakneck pace and their economy was going far too many guns. They paid for this with bold deficit spending, but their credit rating was already running out--and then Germany hits the wall. You can't cheat scarcity, just like you can't cheat physics.

In layman's terms, Suppose Germany has $100 in tax revenues. What Germany was doing was:

$80 in Weapons, $40 in Butter.

Now, all nations have some power to borrow and to push above their resources for a short time, but unless Germany annexes Poland or something else, they can't keep paying $120 when they only take in $100. So, what winds up happening is:

$67 in weapons, $33 in Butter. And then the people get pissed because this means heavy cuts to social services. That is, a very simple explanation of what happens here.

Nazi Germany's spending plans were more insane than the Soviet Union's; they'll hit the wall within a single year of Hitler's death.

[August Akuma]

Originally Posted by DAMIENEVIL

I am just curious what do you think would have been the long term effects in Europe and in Germany if Hitler had of died from what ever in 1939 after destroying the Munich treaty but before launching ww2

I do know they basically economically needed the war to survive and had created an economy based upon conquest but was there a way to back down from this But keep going with the programs they had running and Turning germany into what they did want without going to war.

I do know they wanted the living space and all that stuff. But I was wondering what it would have been like without it being expansionist beyond what they could get out of treaties.

By 1939, war was going to happen. Period. Germany had too many weapons and too much insanity in its government not too.

[Arachnid]

I agree by Summer of 1939 there were three possibilities war as per otl, no war and major economic crisis or the Western Allies hand over Eastern Europe to the Nazi's which give them enough loot to keep on going till 1941.

[Geekhis Khan]

Think of it as a nation-wide military ponze scheme: buy weapons, use weapons to conquer, steal riches from conquered nations, buy more weapons, use weapons to conquer...call it a pwnze scheme.

It's also a political ponze scheme: get the people worked up in a nationalist, militarist fervor, reward the fervor with conquest so that they're willing to overlook the whole "secret police are rummaging through my underwear drawer and my neighbors just vanished in the night" thing, work up a military fervor...you see the pattern?

Eventually you'll over-extend (see: Russia) and the system collapses.

In order for Nazism to survive it'll need to change directions politically and economically. Conceivably, if Hitler's whacked at the end of 38, we can assume Goering takes over (IIRC the "chosen successor" at that point). He could, perhaps, use Czech $$ to pay off the build up so far and then set up a standard right wing autocracy and some sort of autarchic oligarchic consumerist state, but this will only delay the inevitable collapse. This will require serious political power and maneuvering; there will be a major push for war and plenty of rivals and he'd be hard pressed to successfully take and hold the Danzig corridor (sort of a "requirement" politically) without eliciting WWII anyway.