>>514137659
>minmaxing tiny territory
Is how wealthy places usually happen, Switzerland, Benelux, Singapore, as well as metropolises like London, Paris, Hong Kong, etc. Meanwhile giant landmasses under one political regime and relying on resource extraction over giant areas like Russia or Brazil have always remained shithole.
Nazi politico-economic doctrine based on owning vast agricultural lands is genuinely retarded (as I mean retarded as stupid but also as late, this sort of thinking was already discredited in the second half of the 18th century).
Germany after the war was contained in narrower borders than before (especially considered the ethnic cleansing of German enclaves in the east) yet became much richer than before and certainly much richer than what hitler could have done sending endless agricultural and coal mining colonies over the eastern half of Europe.
>making mad bank simply colonizing shit and splitting up the rest of the planet between them
Most colonies were a money sink done for White man's burden and other ideological nonsense. All of our non-dominion (Canada, Australia, SA) oversea land was a net money sink. The entire French colonial empire was aside from one region in Vietnam. The Dutch empire in the east Indies was somehow worse. We were suddenly able to afford welfare state bullshit AFTER starting decolonisation because the budget for it got shifted.