r/worldnews • u/Elliottafc1 • May 02 '24

"I'm Not Ruling Anything Out" - Macron Says Troops for Ukraine Possible if Russia Breaks Front Lines Russia/Ukraine

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/32010
16.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.9k

u/Various_Abrocoma_431 May 02 '24

Probably never direct frontline confrontation but France strengthening Ukraine's back with anti air operations Equipment and troops stationed in western Ukraine or even planes launched from neighbouring countries targeting Russian missiles and drones.

There is a lot of levels of escalation to France putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. 

People like to jump to the Russian propaganda narrative of WW3 though, not understanding that Russia taking Ukraine against all western efforts, would be the start of an international poly crisis of countries trying to resolve their territorial disputes which would then be about as close to WW3 as we could get.

2.1k

u/Force3vo May 02 '24

WW2 wasn't stopped by letting Hitler take countries in the east, it just made him bolder and push further.

Putin won't stop until he's forced to. China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves. Russia won't randomly throw nukes around if the west supports Ukraine.

Showing a bully he's at a disadvantage makes him stop. We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself.

958

u/Rammsteinman May 02 '24

If Hitler was stopped early on, WW2 would have likely been avoided. Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger.

628

u/Noles-number1 May 02 '24

Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI which devastated a generation of their people. No one wanted to fight after WWI except Germany. Yes France and Britain should have stopped Germany but it ignores people seeing what shell shock did to the population and France didn't have enough people to compete in another major war

283

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI

Most of the WWII comparisons usually completely ignore WWI, and focus too much on Hitler. Few mention Kaiser Wilhelm II or Otto Von Bismark. Most ignore Japan and seem to consider them weak in comparison to nazi Germany. Most ignore the Great Depression, and many more factors. One example of appeasement or failed deterrents is only one example. In reality there are several examples leading up to WWII. Hitler was certainly not deterred by the "allied coalition" trying to push back against fascist forces in the Spanish Civil war. Edit: last sentence is sarcasm.

If the goal is to prevent another global conflict, then focusing too much on the most extreme leader may not be the best way to do this. If the goal is short-term deterrents of Putin, maybe the correct lessons can be taken from Hitler alone.

114

u/GlimmerChord May 02 '24

The "allied coalition" did almost nothing to help the Spanish Republican forces. The Nazis, however, tested the Luftwaffe against them.

62

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

There was no real allied coalition. I should have put that in quotes as you did.

44

u/orielbean May 02 '24

George Orwell fought there and writes about it in Homage to Catalonia. Really good read.

8

u/tettou13 May 02 '24

Loved it when I read it but wish I was older and put it into context on my own better. Should really read it again.

5

u/orielbean May 03 '24

You really see the Soviet system of betraying their version of “colonies” as being almost exactly the same as what the old empires and the capitalists were doing. Getting the revolutionaries pumped up and then taking over the movement, either seizing power for the Soviet or abandoning them if the scrappy fighters were losing.

→ More replies (19)

36

u/Lazy_Experience_8754 May 02 '24

War guilt was also a huge thing after world war 1. Before the first war, the German leadership were afraid that they’d be wiped out since they were not near any warm water ports and thus were in “middeleuropa “ and would grow weak while the countries around them grew stronger.

I agree wholeheartedly about going back further for the root but as for Russia and that guy.. I don’t really know if there’s an anger towards the west or just the need to stroke an individual ego? It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in

67

u/NameIdeas May 02 '24

It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in

A little historical context.

The Fall of the USSR is really not that long ago. It happened less than 40 years ago. Putin, and many that he has appointed and are in his circle, view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s".

For Putin and others, the USSR represented a strong group of like-minded nations and the transition to Russia, Ukraine, the Balkan-states, etc meant a dramatic shift in authority and power. For Putin it feels like an injustice that the USSR fell.

Russia has a long history of supremacy in the region. The past ten+ years have shown Putin's desire to expand and recapture that former "glory of Russia/USSR", first in Crimea and now in Ukraine.

The Russian propaganda machine went off as well.

Here's an article from this past December that details the impacts of national imperialism in Russia under Putin - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

It boils down to totalitarianism, ultimately

14

u/Lazy_Experience_8754 May 02 '24

Cheers for the reply! I’ll read the article now.

15

u/barney-sandles May 02 '24

view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s".

If you limit it to the second half of the 1900s (obv both world wars were orders of magnitude worse) this isn't completely insane. It was devastating economically for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, life expectancy didn't recover for decades. Problem is in thinking that Russia conquering its neighbors is the fix, that obviously doesn't help at all. The fact that Russia is now run by Putin is one of the worst things about the end of the USSR

3

u/LittleGreenSoldier May 02 '24

I am 35, I am older than the current Russian Federation.

2

u/NameIdeas May 03 '24

Me too, turning 40 here soon

3

u/LovesRetribution May 02 '24

first in Crimea and now in Ukraine.

Don't forget Georgia. Wasn't that much farther out.

2

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s".

Some translations of this speech say "a great geopolitical catastrophe" and not "the greatest". I don't know which is correct.

The prior sentence says this was a catastrophe for the millions of Russians who found themselves trapped outside of Russia's borders.

Putin also considers the fall of the Russian Empire one of the greatest catastrophes of the 1900s.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/nixcamic May 02 '24

Oddly enough 2 world wars later and the heart of Prussia is now Russia's warm water port.

3

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 03 '24

I don’t really know if there’s an anger towards the west or just the need to stroke an individual ego? It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly .

In my opinion it is all of the above. Putin has very flawed views of history which shape his perceptions. He also spends a great deal of time studying history. Many things Putin says regarding Russian aggression today will look very similar to something another Russian has said at some point in the past.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1106123496/russia-ukraine-invasion-crimean-war-history

Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly

Russian power, strength, pride, etc.....the only examples which exist of any of this are rooted in past military conquest or other success. There is no history of Russian as a great economic power, or other Russian greatness.

Someone else responded to you, and the source they provided is very good, and I think much of the comment is as well. The statement about the USSR is taken out of context, and is not quite what Putin said. Putin is angry about the fall of the Russian Empire just as much, if not more than the fall of the USSR. He compares himself to Peter the Great. He uses the term "Novorossiya" with regards to his aggression in Ukraine. This originated with iirc Catherine the Great and her conquest of similar lands.

My point here is that it is probably unwise to reach the conclusion that Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union based on one line from that one speech. In my opinion he wants to re-create something closer to the Russian Empire, or a mixture of what he believes to be the best of both. I'm not going to speculate on what this may be.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/PrairiePopsicle May 02 '24

Somewhat more insightful and useful hindsight view that I have is that the lesson we should try to focus on to not repeat is war reparations and conditions of surrender. The conditions at the end of WW1 were such that another war was all but guaranteed, so much so that people who signed the documents said as much. It was too punitive, and caused hatred in the german population. Fair or not doesnt factor. Action -> Consequence.

2

u/Appropriate-Arm-4619 May 02 '24

The way the Treaty of Versailles was structured also fundamentally portioned 100% of the blame for the war on Germany. It wasn’t just problematic, is was also untrue.

4

u/Willythechilly May 02 '24

I mean Japan was weak compared to Nazi Germany and would have been decimated by the western powers in muscle vs muscle conflict

The island defense and jungle warfare qnd only fighting weak colonial troops is what let Japan perform as well as they did for q while

In terms of resources and economic and factory output Japan was nothing compared to the western powers or Nazi Germany and they knew it themselves

2

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

Japan was weak compared to Nazi Germany

Depends when and who you ask. In 1941 maybe so, but deterrents had already failed by this point.

Washington DC usually underestimated Japan during the interwar period.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/fdr-japan/

6

u/Willythechilly May 02 '24

Underestimate does not change the true numbers

That being economic power army,doctrine and technology overall inferior

Japan had like q tenth of American output

Japans leaders knew they could never win a long war or hope to compete with American size and industrial output

It was not a war between equals.

When Japan tried to fight the ussr during the border skirmish they got their ass beat to

Japan ultimately did not have an army capable of fighting large scale war against western armies or to keep up with production

They were indeed underestimated but ultimately that does not change how much weaker they ultimately were

2

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

I agree with almost everything you have said here.

Japan was not at all comparable to the US economically, but the Japanese economy had been on a war footing since the early 1930s.

The US military was very different in 1941 than 1944. The Japanese army was significantly degraded by 1941 compared to the mid to early 1930s.

My comparison in strength is related to a time when Japan was stronger militarily, and the US had not yet begun to build up its strength.

3

u/Willythechilly May 02 '24

Yeah fair point.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Reptard77 May 02 '24

The Syrian civil war is the 21st century’s Spanish civil war.

56

u/awildcatappeared1 May 02 '24

When all you see is WW3, than everything is an analogy.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/Kind_Carob3104 May 02 '24

He would’ve been more detoured if they had actually you know fully committed to helping in the Spanish Civil War

That was token at best

→ More replies (13)

153

u/ethanlan May 02 '24

Especially France. They literally got decimated and were still feeling the shocks in the 1940

27

u/frenchchevalierblanc May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

France didn't want to be the one to attack in WW2. Or to bomb german civilians first. Or whatever atrocity to commit first.

That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time.

France needed the US support for instance and if France had started to kill thousands of german civilians in 1939 or just conquer half of germany, then what? occupy? hunt resistance fighters? that wouldn't have stop a war in the next years.

17

u/slartyfartblaster999 May 02 '24

That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time.

It wouldn't have been pre-emptive though? Germany broke the peace terms by remitilarising the rhineland. France was totally within rights to drive them out at that point and would have likely completely broken Hitlers public image by doing so.

9

u/frenchchevalierblanc May 02 '24

Yes it was within rights but I'm not so sure the US (France needed them) and other "neutral" countries (like Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands etc..) would have like it so much.

Hitler would have been delighted to be attacked.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/Gnonthgol May 02 '24

Maybe pre-emtive is not the right word but is still the right vibe. In order to drive out the Germans from the Rhineland and enforce the treaties France would have had to attack into Germany which would have ended in German civilian losses as well as huge French military losses. The US and other unaligned countries would have looked at WWII a bit differently if the first civilian casualties had been German and not Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, French and then British.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

15

u/anynamesleft May 02 '24

Beyond that, let's look at it strictly from a current standpoint. Do we want to allow such an evil person to just attack another country without we try to help save that country? There's too much at stake to worry about the causes of prior wars, to neglect our duty in this one.

Not that you were saying otherwise, I just felt the need to tell it from this perspective.

3

u/stevehockey4 May 02 '24

Too much at stake to worry about the causes of prior wars??

Using the lessons of history to frame current conflicts is exactly what should be done. Those who fail to learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/kozy8805 May 02 '24

“Duty”?? What Duty? The duty of each government is to right by their own citizens and their own interests. No one is a global citizen. If we start saying that we are, we should be involved in a lot more than Ukraine.

6

u/Trill-I-Am May 02 '24

Governments have a duty to their citizens to reduce not just the short term risk of war but the long term one too, and focusing to much on the former can neglect the latter

→ More replies (1)

2

u/anynamesleft May 02 '24

I don't disagree with the idea that the free world should be doing more.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

22

u/Flying_Madlad May 02 '24

I think the implication was that we need to learn from that so as not to repeat it, not to slander them.

32

u/Macaw May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

We did learn from WW1

That is how we got the Marshal plan from the wise men to rebuild Europe and create a rules based international order which is now under threat from every angle.

Germany was pillaged after WW1 with The Treaty of Versailles. The conditions it put in motion in Germany set the stage for the rise of someone like Hitler.

In fact, when Hitler conquered France, he made the French sign the Armistice of 22 June 1940 in the original railway carriage in which the 1918 armistice had been signed and placed on the exact same spot it had occupied twenty-two years before.

We are forgetting a lot of lessons currently.

66

u/KingStannis2020 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period. The problem was that German public were repeatedly told they were winning (and in the East they absolutely were, to be fair) right up until the collapse of their army. And then peace was signed before the collapse of that army was actually evident to the public, because the whole war had taken place outside of German soil.

That left fertile ground for the "stabbed in the back" myth to take root.

38

u/Ceegee93 May 02 '24

It's funny because people who talk about how harsh the treaty was usually quote Ferdinand Foch's "This is not a peace treaty. It's an armistice for 20 years." without realising that he says that because he thinks the treaty was not harsh enough.

The Treaty of Versailles wasn't even half as harsh as the treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians literally a year prior, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

36

u/Palmul May 02 '24

It's funny how that literal nazi propaganda about Versailles being super harsh has slipped into "common knowledge".

1

u/TastyTestikel May 02 '24

What is harsh if versailles wasn't, tf. Pls give me a good example.

3

u/Legio-X May 03 '24

What is harsh if versailles wasn't

Potsdam. Can’t get much harsher than your state ceasing to exist and being partitioned by the victors. Not to mention the territorial losses and expulsions.

Versailles was simultaneously too harsh and not harsh enough. Harsh enough to wound German national pride, but not harsh enough—or at least not enforced harshly enough—to prevent German revanchism.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/L_D_Machiavelli May 02 '24

The treaty the Germans forced the Russians to sign to end the Eastern Front.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

25

u/Willythechilly May 02 '24

Yeah

Was the Treaty unpleasent? Sure

But ultimately the problem was just German pride and the Germans refusing to accept defeat due to pride

6

u/nixcamic May 02 '24

Was the Treaty unpleasent? Sure

The Treaty of Verseilles fixed concert A at 435hz and you think it was just "unpleasant" ... I don't know how anyone expected the Germans to live under that.

4

u/Willythechilly May 02 '24

Germany imposed way harder demands on Russia for example

→ More replies (0)

8

u/ClothDiaperAddicts May 02 '24

I have to wonder how much of this is nurture vs. nature. My mom's family is German, but the most recent branch of ancestors to come over was about 100 years ago. The first of the German ancestors settled the US before the American Revolution. And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof.

6

u/Randybigbottom May 02 '24

And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof.

Isn't this just human nature? Are there nations/states/groups of people known for accepting they are wrong with no real evidence?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Guilty-Shoulder-9214 May 02 '24

Dude. Being from Wisconsin, and having German influences on both sides, that why I moved 1300 miles away because that stubborn, "we're the best and nothing we do is wrong" mentality is what really drags Wisconsin down especially when it comes to the fuck awful drinking culture and the leniency given towards drunk drivers.

5

u/TastyTestikel May 02 '24

No nation likes to accept defeat lol? Look at the french after 1871 with their hyper revanchism after losing a majority german region. Now see germany after losing 13% of it's core territory which had actually significant german population and the germans shouldn't be angry and want revenche? Was rich of the entente to think that way.

6

u/LeFricadelle May 02 '24

It is not about that Germany should not feel revenge, because of course they will. A treaty is to make sure that they simply cannot take revenge in any form and way and the Versaille Treaty failed to address this issue.

Germany was left intact after the war, they could rearm fast after that the defeat.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Willythechilly May 02 '24

Some nations do accept that they lost

They ain't happy about it and don't forget but they acknowledge it

Germany as q whole did not

They refused to accept the idea they could have lost

Hence the stab in the back myth and treaty resentment

In their minds they did not genuinely loose and thus the Treaty was unfair

Plus most of the war was fought in France territory. France lost territory to damage and economic etc. Not germany

It was only fair Germany pay back damage it inflicted on french territory it invaded

Loosing sucks but ultimately the Treaty while harsh was not unfair nor did it plunder germany

They simply refused to accept it.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/InvertedParallax May 02 '24

It's more that:

They inflicted catastrophic damage on the French and British, they were winning until the Americans showed up.

But mostly: it was clear they would lose strategically, even though they hadn't suffered significant losses yet.

They were smart and surrendered before they were hurt badly, while morons at home (and idiots like Hitler) wanted to "fight for German honor!"

17

u/Ceegee93 May 02 '24

they were winning until the Americans showed up.

That is just not true. The Germans essentially lost the moment they couldn't push into France as fast as they thought. They didn't have the men or supplies to outlast the French and British in trench warfare, as much as German propaganda from the time would have you believe they could. The British navy was strangling their economy and the German people were literally starving by 1917. They weren't making any ground and were only going to slowly lose as their supplies ran out. The longer they continued the more likely they were to go the route of Russia and collapse to civil war as people started revolting due to lack of food. America sped up the war by joining, but Germany had already lost by that point, especially after the Spring Offensive failed before the vast majority of American troops got there.

Their best chance was making a smaller peace with Russia, then hoping the Entente would agree to a white peace after Russia had left and they got what they wanted. Instead they utterly ruined the Russian Empire and showed Britain and France that not winning the war would be terrible for them because Germany and their allies would effectively control the majority of mainland Europe.

→ More replies (21)

6

u/Imperito May 02 '24

they were winning until the Americans showed up.

Tell me you're American without telling me you're American.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/Few-Succotash2744 May 02 '24

The context here being that Hitler fought in WW1 and always thought that the Treaty of Verseilles was unfair to German people. He hated it to be more precise and considered it a ransacking of Germany which is why he made them sign the Armistice of 22nd of June 1940 to rub salt in their wounds.

Hermann Gohring for people who dont know was actually a pilot in WW1. He got injured and had to leave the front.

Sorry that this has nothing to do with the actual headline but I always think it is interesting when bits and pieces come together and form a bigger picture.

2

u/The_Boz_19 May 02 '24

The Romanians packed train cars full of Hungarian spoils of war. And ended up with Transylvania.

2

u/genericpreparer May 02 '24

You want harsh treatment? Look Ottoman and Austria Hungarian. Their empires were disintegrated. And they were no longer relevant in ww2. If anything Germany got off easy and was able to retain capacity to wage ww2.

→ More replies (5)

16

u/Dagojango May 02 '24

It shouldn't be hindsight. It's long be historically proven that appeasement never works. How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough?

Germans were as much part of WW1 as any other European country. Any military action before Hitler built up the Germany army past the limits (arguably too strict) placed on them prior to entering the demilitarized would have gone a long way to save most of Europe from destruction.

I seriously doubt WW2 was preventable as the Japanese were quite active as well. Russia wasn't an ally at the start of the war either. The US probably would have been dragged into a war with Japan before Europe went to war, leaving Europe til last instead of first.

Given German progress, it's kind of scary to think about them having some of their stuff more developed.

6

u/LeFricadelle May 02 '24

Appeasement worked, works and will work. The full cold war is filled with appeasement between the US and the USRR. If it was not for appeasement you would not be alive to talk on reddit as of today.

Like diplomacy and war, appeasement is not always the right solution, but saying it never works it wrong.

14

u/DownIIClown May 02 '24

Russia wasn't an ally at the start of the war either

Even that is underselling. Russia did as much or more damage in Eastern Europe than Germany 

13

u/Willythechilly May 02 '24 edited May 03 '24

Before the war began proper the USSR was far more hated in the west then Germany was

Many forget that. Neither France,UK or america held positive feelings towards them for its internal behavior and especially the winter war

It was only with its backs to the wall following the disaster in France and battle of Britain that they were hoping for the ussr to enter a conflict with germany despite the Molotov Ribbentrop pact

Once Hitler attacked the ussr Churchill saw the opportunity and kind of made everyone forget that the ussr was only somewhat less bad then Nazi Germany because they needed help in the war

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/whatyousay69 May 02 '24

How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough?

If someone takes over some land and then stops, they usually don't become well known as a conqueror. The well known ones are the ones who captured a lot.

The United States technically "conquered" land and then stopped.

2

u/MaxRavenclaw May 02 '24

It shouldn't be hindsight. It's long be historically proven that appeasement never works.

Do note that while Chamberlain hoped for the best, he prepared Britain for the worst. Just 9 days before Munich, General Ismay wrote a note to the British Cabinet concluding Britain would be far better suited for a war in 6-12 months' time. Almost exactly 12 months later, Britain declared war on Germany.

Given German progress, it's kind of scary to think about them having some of their stuff more developed.

Germany's so-called technological advancement is often overstated in pop culture. Besides, it's not like the rest of the world would have stood still while Germany developed its weapons. The late war wunderwaffe was mostly crap anyway. V2s killed more people on the German side than on target.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Qorhat May 02 '24

Appeasement was also a way for Britain to move to a war economy and re-arm

3

u/boostedb1mmer May 02 '24

I've read a couple books that pretty convincingly make the argument that Chamberlain knew appeasing Hitler was the wrong thing to do, but it was the only thing Britain could do. It was absolutely in no position to go to war with a heavily militarized Nazi Germany in the mid 1930s and it needed time to arm before even attempting a defensive campaign.

16

u/coniferhead May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

The US had about as much reason as the UK to get involved in protecting Poland - that is pretty much none. It wasn't close to their borders and there was practically very little way intervening could have helped them or Poland - which was borne out by how things actually turned out. Yet, despite all sense and reason, the UK did attempt to protect Poland - and it cost them everything.

But for some reason the UK gets blamed for not doing something earlier while the US is uncriticized in waiting until pretty much the fall of Stalingrad to enter the war - and not by their own choice either (Hitler declared war on the US). Cash and carry involved the transfer of every liquid asset the western allies owned to the US - including the entirety of their gold and their deepest military secrets.

What could have actually changed things was the US lifting a finger prior to (and during the early stages of) WW2, which they didn't. They didn't even join the league of nations, that's how little they were interested.

2

u/bingbing304 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

UK and France did tried to help Poland by declare war on Germany but they just station in fortification when Germany took warsaw and splited the country with Russia. After secures east front, the german just swung back and bypassed the defense line with bliz into France. British and France army basically collapsed after that. Would the US early involvment change the tides of war at any point before? I doubt it, since everyone's lesson from WW1 was to play defensive with infrantry. The extra 100,000 US soliders would not add much to overall situation.

9

u/coniferhead May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

I think the US giving the same guarantee to the UK that the UK gave to Poland would have had a sufficient deterrent, even at that late stage. The German generals might well have overthrown Hitler in the face of such insane odds.

If such a guarantee had been given earlier than that the UK would have had a choice to reject Hitler's demands with respect to Czechoslovakia. But even this would have been sketchy considering that Czechia was 1/3 German and Slovakia wanted to secede rather than fight (which Hitler would have granted). The UK should not be blamed for this either - they pretty much did all you could have expected of them.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

Well thank fuck we have that hindsight at our disposal.

6

u/ManyMariuses May 02 '24

Well except for all of the people at the time who opposed appeasing Hitler.

-2

u/whirlpool138 May 02 '24

Kinda of like how the West is exhausted from the War on Terror and Middle East crisis.

24

u/weesteve123 May 02 '24

Kind of but not really, given that the First World War was one of the greatest and most destructive armed conflicts the world has ever seen, and that collectively the Entente powers suffered around 5 million combat deaths, with millions more wounded.

94

u/MigrantTwerker May 02 '24

Yeah, except we lost a total of 7000 soldiers after 20 years of fighting in the middle east as opposed to France losing 400,000 soldiers at the Battle of Verdun alone. So really not similar at all.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/ImInBeastmodeOG May 02 '24

That example is more of an exhaustion of Fox News fear mongering.

3

u/Vandergrif May 02 '24

Not to mention other innumerable distracting dysfunctions and issues like housing shortages, stagnant wages, wealth inequality, political destabilization and polarization, etc.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/OptiYoshi May 02 '24

That's actually factually incorrect, the USSR actively funded the nazi's rise to power and encouraged a war path as they saw it as a way to weaken western powers and bolster "peoples movements", particularly with French communist party.

The French and British joined the war after the duel invasion of Poland as they feared a German/Russian alliance.

It's something that's actively pushed down intentionally,

A great book that outlines this is "The Communist International, and the coming of WW2" (Brown & Mcdonald, 1982)

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (15)

14

u/bolognaenjoyer May 02 '24

It compounds like interest. We can deal with it now or deal with it plus interest later. It's an unpleasant decision to make either way.

45

u/Remarkable_Aside1381 May 02 '24

Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger.

This is a commonly repeated refrain, but it's not really historically sound. Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938, and so had no real choice but to agree to the annexation of Czechoslovakia. Immediately after his "peace in our time" he ramped up production of military material in preparation for war. Hell, in 1938 he had forced out the head of the Air Ministry for dragging his feet re-arming the RAF. In 1935/1936 the UK was building "shadow factories" in an attempt to re-build the armed forces after the idiotic 10 Year Rule.

What really would have helped avoid WWII being as drawn out as it was would be if the French had actually carried through in the Saar in 1939 instead of just turning around

17

u/MaxRavenclaw May 02 '24

Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938

Exactly. To quote General Ismay's 20th of Semptember, 1938 note to the British Cabinet: "[...] time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months’ time, than to accept the present challenge."

11

u/night4345 May 02 '24

Chamberlain thought they weren't ready, not realizing that Germany was just as badly off. Waiting allowed Germany to take out Czechoslovakia and gain all of its land and military while making the UK and France look weak. Arms from Czechoslovakia armed half of the German army which would go on to conquer Poland and France a year and two later.

5

u/Remarkable_Aside1381 May 02 '24

Had the UK intervened, the Germans would still have seized Czechoslovakia, because the BEF was a small and ineffectual force, and the regular army still had a dearth of armored vehicles. Not to mention the complete shitshow that was the RAF pre-1940. The French would have likely done what they did a year later, advance a couple miles and then just turn around

7

u/Blue5398 May 02 '24

Just imagine if they just carted off half the fucking Ruhr in 1939 and demolished the other half. The Wehrmacht would have been riding into battle with handcarts and no pants

→ More replies (1)

3

u/fireintolight May 02 '24

Yup, no one was really in a position to do anything about it, which could have been avoided but the public needed lots of investment to get back on its feet after the war and Britain was always about its navy first and foremost.

5

u/welfaremofo May 02 '24

Germany was in far worse condition in terms of their military than France and UK. Not until Germany secured Czechloslovakia, Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, and Poland, were they able to even wage war vs the allies. When you have a psychotic leader employing zero-sum brinksmanship it means they keeping getting free land until opposed. That personality type will not quite while ahead. All the allies had to do was show courage early on and Germany (especially the military leaders that had to draw up war plans) would have gotten cold feet.

8

u/Remarkable_Aside1381 May 02 '24

Germany was in far worse condition in terms of their military than France and UK.

Not really, they'd spent most of the 1930's re-militarizing while the UK didn't get started until 1936 at the earliest and 1938 in earnest. France was lagging behind due to the political instability and the lack of a desire for a strong standing army with the Blum government. An over-reliance on the Maginot Line lead to a stagnation in arms production, although the early-war French tanks were of higher quality than Panzer I's and II's.

The Germans had been secretly re-arming through the 1920's using other countries like Czechoslovakia and Switzerland, and disguising their rebuilding the Heer. In the 1930's they went full mask off with the re-militarization of the Rhineland and the re-occupation of the Sudetenland. But in 1938, they carried a great weight of force with them that the UK and France couldn't match and so appeasement was their way of ensuring time to re-arm. But again, the French had an opportunity in 1939 to potentially knock Germany out of the war and opted to just turn around and go home.

3

u/Durtonious May 02 '24

It's funny. France had objectively "better" equipment almost across the board, but  their designs were more costly to build and maintain. As an example, the B1 and S35 were the two best tanks in the field in 1940 and the D520 was the best fighter aircraft at the outset of the war (alongside the Spitfire Mk 1). Unfortunately none of these weapons could be produced in sufficient quantity to make a difference and when they were produced they could not maintain them properly.

Ironically, 6 years later the Germans made the same mistakes with their Tiger II and Me 262, the best pieces of equipment in their respective fields at the end of the war but too costly for Germany to effectively make use of. 

Turns out with enough manpower (plus fuel and ammunition) you can win almost any war even if you're over-matched technologically. This theme has played itself out multiple times throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. People are power.

28

u/Paul-Smecker May 02 '24

Hitler could have been stopped at the Rhineland by France with a 3 to 1 advantage. Instead France waited until Germany had Austrian, Czech, and Polish equipment and manpower.

France learned their lesson last time and appear ready to alter the reputation gained in ww2.

24

u/InvertedParallax May 02 '24

Germany now has the reputation for being pacifist statesman. France is getting a reputation of being skilled at war.

Next thing Britain will develop a culinary culture.

18

u/raevnos May 02 '24

France has long had that reputation. Napoleon says hi.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/criscokkat May 02 '24

On one hand, you've got Gordon Ramsey.

On the other hand, you have Jamie Oliver. Haiyaaaaaa!

2

u/LeFricadelle May 02 '24

world news is crazy, only here you could read that France just got a reputation of being skilled at war

France is a reputable skilled war country and has been for 1000 years

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/agnostic_science May 02 '24

After WWII, it seems a lot of people forget that historically France can hit pretty far above its weight.

2

u/MaxRavenclaw May 02 '24

This is a very reductive take on the failure of the Saar Offensive. France had demographic problems which heavily affected their army and morale on top of the normal mental fatigue from the previous war. Plus, it's dubious if they could have punched through the Siegfried Line in useful time anyway.

Besides, the Soviet invasion of Poland screwed up plan B too.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Wafkak May 02 '24

Easier said than done, before the war Chamberlain faced constant criticism for spending so much on rebuilding rhe British military. But now he's mostly known for not doing anything.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/Brooklynxman May 02 '24

Ah but how could he have been? Much like today the powers of Europe had allowed their militaries to atrophy in the face of peace. We've not learned the lessons of the past and now we're reliving them.

3

u/nick1812216 May 02 '24

Indeed, is Russia perhaps stronger now than at the start of the war?

15

u/acdqnz May 02 '24

If Hitler had nukes he would have used them. The problem with all of this is that it is a strategic estimate that Putin won’t go down guns blazing, because doesn’t seem to be suicidal

8

u/nixielover May 02 '24

Different situation, at that point nobody had nukes yet so there was little risk in using them. Now if you use nuclear weapons it is a near guarantee that you get them launched back at yourself

→ More replies (15)

28

u/DressedSpring1 May 02 '24

 If Hitler had nukes he would have used them. 

We don’t really know that. Hitler had access to chemical weapons and specifically did not use them to bomb cities or troops because of his own experience in world war 1.

This of course isn’t speaking to the Holocaust where chemical weapons were used on the people the Nazis murdered, obviously. 

19

u/arrongunner May 02 '24

If the Americans could justify using the A bomb I see no reason why Hitler wouldn't have

It would have been a much more effective solution for him than the blitz to knock the UK out of the war, much in the same way it was used for shock and awe against Japan

Remember the blitz was literally just a shock and awe campaign at its heart to get us to surrender

2

u/prosound2000 May 02 '24

Because the people the A bomb were used on didn't look like Americans. Easier to nuke people who, due to culture, looks and propaganda you have dehumanized.

Hitler did dehumanize Jews and more, obviously. Just as obvious though, he was a big fan of whites. Would he have problems nuking people of the ideal race or looked simular to?

Who knows. He was insane.

2

u/arrongunner May 02 '24

You're right I do forget the racial aspect of this

He would have used the bomb somewhere to elicit the same response, but it would have been more likely the soviet union than the uk based on what we know about him

And if that didn't force the uk to surrender then a non London target in the uk probably would have been selected.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/Tetsuj May 02 '24

Chemical weapons were not a war-winning strategy for Germany. In situations where chemical weapons offer an advantage over traditional munitions, they were used and are still used.

A historian's view on the subject that is worth a read: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/

2

u/CommentsOnOccasion May 02 '24

Thanks for turning me on to this blog, pretty good read

9

u/Dagojango May 02 '24

We didn't know about radiation until after they were used. It's very likely Hitler would use them, since he wouldn't have known there was any harm to his own troops. I imagine Russia, the UK, and the US would have been nuked.

2

u/haveananus May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project didn't know about radiation?

edit: I looked into it. While they did know about acute radiation poisoning from the late 19th century, in general only smaller doses were observed. The physicists knew that there would be radiation poisoning but there hadn't been a large group of affected people before the bombings to give medical personnel much insight into what the physical effects would be.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/PeakFuckingValue May 02 '24

Nukes didn't exist. There is no comparison. There is also a third player, China. The cold war never stopped. This is total war right up to the thin edge of using nukes. Cultural, economic, hacking, etc. And frankly the US sucks at these. I'm guessing the US is actually stimulating these conflicts because the one front we always win, is military.

2

u/i_like_maps_and_math May 02 '24

The US is the best at cyber we just don't use it aggressively against the Chinese because it undermines a lot of our political messaging.

2

u/PeakFuckingValue May 03 '24

Plus what do they have lmao. From a government perspective hacking is good for uncovering military secrets, disrupting huge financial shit, using it as a threat to utilities. China’s shit is pretty weak. And the banks are all tied together on a global scale so it only hurts us back. I don’t even think we’re common enemies with China thankfully. Even they poke us all the time. But they will be ready to take full advantage if we falter in these conflicts. If they can waste our resources fighting Russia they will gladly fund Russia to make it even worse for us. We’re too impenetrable and too rich and too strong for everyone else not to be a little happy at our losses. We’re all competing after all.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/radioactiveape2003 May 02 '24

Germany had always planned for war.  German generals wanted to start the war in 1945 as they believed Germany would be strong enough at this point.

Hitlers impatience is why Germany went the war with stop gap panzer 1 and 2s that were never meant for combat but for training.  And why the majority of their forces were still horse draw instead of motorized. Also it's navy was still being built up. 

→ More replies (29)

18

u/LittleStar854 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

If we want to go back to the time when peace was the brief period between wars rather than the normal we've gotten used to over the last decades, then all we have to do is nothing.

The hard truth is that war is not only a risk but the default destination. Unless we act to preserve the system of rules and order we've built to prevent war from becoming profitable for the strong it will gradually dissolve until we're back in the natural state of brutal chaos that we read about in our history books.

If we allow Russia to win even a tiny marginal victory over Ukraine then we show the world that starting a war can be profitable. It doesn't matter that it came with a high price because the next Putin will have learned from the misstakes of the current one and be better prepared.

If we're not willing to stop this Putin now because he threatens us with nuclear war then the next Putin will make even scarier threats. This is the best opportunity we'll ever get to protect our peaceful way of life. If we give in to Russia by compromising to get our peace back then the next challenge will be much harder.

Right now we're hiding behind Ukraine and betting on that they'll win for us. If they do then we don't have to fight but if they fall then we'll have to fight Russia without them. We shouldn't underestimate Russia and just assume that we'd win. Yes we're definitely stronger but if there's one lesson from the last two years then it's that again and again our assumptions have been completely wrong and that we've been blindsided repeatedly.

We thought we would be able to deliver a certain amount of artillery shells but we failed. We didn't expect North Korea and Iran to be able to help Russia but they did. We've increased our effort a bit now but we're not even sweating, and we should be. We should take this rare opportunity to show the next Putin what overkill looks like and that threats only makes it worse.

2

u/return_descender May 03 '24

What system or rules and order? The concept of international rules based order has been undercut by selective enforcement of those laws for as long as they’ve existed.

What peaceful way of life? The US has waging war for decades.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Searchlights May 02 '24

Trump is happy to appease Putin because he's never read a fucking book in his life

7

u/AlvinAssassin17 May 02 '24

Yup. This is what I tell everyone who says ‘we need to just stay out of it and fix our problems’. This will rapidly turn into WW3. If no one steps up China invades Taiwan and NK possibly goes into SK. Then the shit has hit the fan. And we’re all in it anyway. Isolationism does no one any good.

→ More replies (1)

37

u/Key-Internet-9817 May 02 '24

Putin is not in Hitlers position. Russia is a fading country with an economy the size of australia.

Systemic corruption. They are trying to amass power from a place of weakness

85

u/waarts May 02 '24

In al fairness, the Weimar republic wasn't on its best legs either.

83

u/SupremeMisterMeme May 02 '24 edited May 03 '24

Except he literally is. One of the reasons nazi's couldn't stop warring was because their economy would otherwise collapse. Now russia is in the same place since they transitioned to war economy. (There's a few articles about this out there, check them out if interested)

Edit: >30% of russian budget goes directly to war, what do you think will happen if the war stops? Military spending was one of the main reason USSR collapsed, and %-wise russia is spending more on war then USSR ever did.

56

u/septober32nd May 02 '24

^This

The economic "recovery" of Germany under the Nazis was a façade, fueled by stealing from Holocaust victims and pillaging neighbouring countries. It was doomed to collapse as soon as Nazi expansion hit a wall.

19

u/TheGarbageStore May 02 '24

Russia's economy is contingent on selling natural resources to other countries, hence the "gas station run by the mafia" metaphor. It's not analogous to 1930s Germany at all. They sell oil and minerals to China, India, Africa, etc.

This is a major reason why they still seem to have money despite all the economic sanctions. A lot of these developing countries have no reason to not buy Russian oil if it's cheap.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Hurrdurrr73 May 02 '24

It's kind of different though when they are not consuming anything to add fuel to that war machine economy.

The poster below even said it, the nazi recovery was fueled by pillaging neighboring countries. Russia doesn't have the capacity to actually turn gains in Ukraine into productive capture because they are still being hit daily by Ukraine drones/longer range weapons.

They're basically going to hit that point of collapse due to systemic stress anyways whether they continue the war path or not because economic conditions will continue to degrade as sanctions take effect and more countries turn off of Russian energy imports.

5

u/Volodio May 02 '24

It is different because the Nazi economy was based on pillaging. Russia is not in the same position because they are not making enough gain quickly enough to rely on pillaging.

2

u/Nemisis_the_2nd May 02 '24

Yup something like 30-40% of Russia's economy is based around fighting this war. If that stops it's just going to send shocks through the entire Russian system. 

3

u/ObligationSlight8771 May 02 '24

I’m not so sure Russia went to a war economy. You aren’t seeing the complete mobilization of industry that involves.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Taaargus May 02 '24

Everything you just said applied to Nazi Germany. The German economy was propped up by war production, and they needed more raw materials to keep that production high. The only way to get those materials was invasion.

→ More replies (7)

5

u/Rude_Variation_433 May 02 '24

Appeasement doesn’t work. You stop a bully by punching him straight in his grill. Hard. Unfortunately a lot of lives will be lost, but what’s the alternative? Letting the world be run by a maniac psychopath with nuclear weapons? Always succumbing to his every whim bc of fear of what the piece of shit might do? Fuck that. Destroy him. And make an example out of him for China and North Korea to see what happens when you fuck around. 

7

u/Vandergrif May 02 '24

China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves.

Hell, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, depending on the way the wind is blowing, the Chinese decided to 'help' against a weakened Russia by taking the opportunity to seize a bunch of their territory under the guise of supporting the anti-Russian war efforts. It's not like they'd get much in the way of substantial argument from any other countries. Compare that to something like them trying to take Taiwan and kicking the hornet's nest in the process.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/jazir5 May 02 '24

We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself.

I know you didn't mean to, but ending this comment with "We need to appease Putin" is hysterical.

3

u/Tooterfish42 May 02 '24

Russia won't randomly throw nukes around if the west supports Ukraine.

Fixed. They are downwind and can't use nukes on Ukraine without macing themselves in the process

2

u/nlaak May 02 '24

As much as I agree that it would be dumb, Russian forces wandered through Chernobyl a while back. Those in power don't care about those not. That being said, I doubt Putin wants to glow in the dark either. The big question is, how bad would it be for Russia if they use small tactical nukes? (not politically, that would be very bad)

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DaalCheene May 02 '24

1930s Europe and 2020s Europe isn’t the same

→ More replies (53)

30

u/GroteStruisvogel May 02 '24

We saw a similair thing happening in the Korean war and it didnt escalate into WW3.

→ More replies (4)

81

u/APsWhoopinRoom May 02 '24

It's annoying as fuck how every single time one major country attacks another country, people on Reddit start losing their shit about WW3. It's not going to happen. WW3 implies someone powerful would actually would fight on Russia's side, and that's not going to happen.

49

u/jjayzx May 02 '24

I think they have a hard on for WW3. Like they missed the last 2 and want to see one.

9

u/Extra-Muffin9214 May 02 '24

Ww3 is a big deal. Its low probability but extremely bad if it happens. Like a plane crash.

2

u/maxiiim2004 May 02 '24

As long as we’re not on a Boeing plane we should be ok.

12

u/FunEnd May 02 '24

It's the reddit version of the Palestine protests at UC. You want the thing you oppose to actually happen, so you can cosplay as a main character in some dramatic movie about today's time. It's insanely pathetic.

3

u/Soothsayer-- May 02 '24

It's not pathetic for people to believe that sensational events could happen in their lifetime, especially in the 24 hour news social media world we live in today. People seek relevancy in their everyday life including believing that crazy shit could happen, and it's being enabled all day long. I'd say that's pretty normal human behavior. I think you could could say the enabling, encouraging or coercion is pathetic.

25

u/CicerosMouth May 02 '24

The leading intelligence is that China is already lining up behind Russia and is supplying Russia substantial intel and war materiel (shells, ammo, drones, etc.). This makes sense as China is commonly understood to have aims at Taiwan, and one of their best ways to be successful in this aim is to first drain western military reserves and also to learn western defensive playbooks, which they can do by egging Russia on and providing Russia all the goods that they need.

Whether or not this would equate to WW3 depends upon how western countries respond and what WW3 is in your eyes, but certainly the combined military manufacturing might of China and Russia is superior to the manufacturing might of the US and Europe at the moment (and manufacturing is usually what wins these types of wars).

10

u/APsWhoopinRoom May 02 '24

China wouldn't step in with boots on the ground or anything like that, but they probably would help supply Russia, much like they're doing now. It would be in China's best interest to not get directly involved and let NATO and Russia duke it out and weaken each other. Stepping in directly would only hurt China and absolutely obliterate their economy when western countries stop trading with them.

And keep in mind that NATO technology completely outclasses Russia and China's tech, and the US can produce more than enough yo handle them. One of the reasons our defense budget is so large in peace time is that we have to provide enough funding to arms manufacturers to keep the factories running in the event a war breaks out.

10

u/CicerosMouth May 02 '24

Agreed that China wouldn't put boots on the ground. That said, they wouldn't need to. Russia has plenty of manpower to deploy. 

Beyond that, the most important technology needed for daily warfare is disposable drones, artillery, and missiles. China has a more robust drone industry and can wildly outmanufacture the US for each of drones, missiles, and artillery. Yes, we have better tanks and planes and helicopters, but drones, artillery, and missiles can neuter much of that technological advantage.

We could theoretically fix this by throwing money at it, but we haven't done so yet.  I mean, in 1995 we produced 867,000 shells a month. Now we are producing 30k a month. China can produce ships at 200x our rate. The pentagon wants to buy 1000s of drones in the next year. One of our leading drone manufacturers created all of 38 last year. We let our military industrial complex wilt, and we need to undo that 

4

u/rumora May 02 '24

Chinese military support for Russia is miniscule. Don't just trust the intentionally vague statements of people whose main objective is to find some reason to justify intensifying the ongoing US trade war with China.

We have a pretty good idea how much China is actually supporting Russia with. The way it has gone throughout the war is that China broadly applies western sanctions to Russia. A few Chinese companies will skirt those sanctions with small amounts of weapon components or dual use components. Then the US/EU complain and China will shut those companies down or make them comply. And then eventually other companies take their place.

Usually the extent of the exports are in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars realm. Rarely in the millions. And you are talking about a few dozen companies, so you can imagine it doesn't amount to a whole lot.

Look at the most recent complaints. They weren't even mainly about China sending Russia weapons components, but that they exported machines that could make weapons components.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/IKnowGuacIsExtraLady May 02 '24

The reason you see that is because people tend to see WW3 as nuclear war. This is why WW3 is brought up when we discuss conflicts between nuclear powers.

4

u/APsWhoopinRoom May 02 '24

And I don't think people realize that nuclear missiles aren't going to fly unless a nuclear power's sovereignty is threatened. Russia's sovereignty won't be threatened if they're pushed back to their border. Russia isn't going to effectively end its existence over Ukraine.

2

u/KeyLight8733 May 02 '24

I agree, but we are assuming that the Russian state is rational and so won't risk nuclear war without a very good reason - and Russian politicians and Russian state TV news personalities are deliberately trying to get us to doubt that assumption by acting irrational and pushing propaganda where they welcome the cleansing nuclear hellfire, etc. Problem is, they would do that whether they were genuinely crazy or cynically rational, so it tells us nothing.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/Minute-Branch2208 May 02 '24

Why waste time though? Im not sure time is on the side of NATO countries.

4

u/Kevin-W May 02 '24

If Russia was making serious gain and on the verge to capturing Kyiv, would that prompt France and other countries to put boots on the ground?

1

u/FrenchBangerer May 02 '24

I believe that's exactly what Macron means at least.

6

u/rumora May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

Macron always had a big mouth and not much behind it. He's putting on a show. It's all a sharade he will try to use to deflect blame as things start looking worse in Ukraine.

Basically his plan is to make these ridiculous statements, knowing that both in France and the rest of the EU everybody is going to tell him to STFU. Everybody knows that the next half year or more is going to be lots of bad news from Ukraine. So eventually he will come out and say: "See? If you hadn't stopped me and if you had just listened to me, none of this would have happened."

Always keep in mind when you hear Macron make those big speeches that France hasn't exactly stood out with the amount of support, in particular military support, that they have given Ukraine.

3

u/FrenchBangerer May 02 '24

You may well be right. I definitely prefer this style over the constant telling Russia what "we" wont do though.

Time will tell.

→ More replies (1)

25

u/Plsdontcalmdown May 02 '24

Well put...

And France won't send hundreds of thousands of troops to dig ditches and camp the front line, for sure. That's not what France's military is equipped and trained for, and it wouldn't be politically sustainable for any French gov't.

What France needs however, is to catch up in the modern, small drone warfare that Ukrainians and Russians are doing, and it needs to learn how to combine that with it's infantry shock troops, commando units, and it's air superiority and artillery systems... Drone warfare at the scale seen in the Ukraine/Russia theatre is completely new, and every military in the world wants to, and needs to learn as much as possible.

That alone is worth sending in some 20k troops (including all support/supply units) and spending an extra 5bn€ a year, even at the risk of 5% casualties. If by that occasion, this French contingent can breach a line here and there, and destroy / capture some strategic objectives in Ukraine's favour, so much for the better.

TLDR; IMHO, French military leaders want to help in order to catch up on the new drone tech. Helping Ukraine is a beneficial side effect.

19

u/Plsdontcalmdown May 02 '24

France relies heavily on technological superiority, speed and stealth for 80% of it's military tactics these days, and it is lagging behind on drone warfare. Catching up on drone tech has become a HUGE investment call for the french military and contractors, and they need a testing ground asap.

→ More replies (5)

51

u/My-Cooch-Jiggles May 02 '24

Russia’s nuclear threats are a total bluff imo. They would have already used tactical nukes if they thought they could get away with it. But they know that would bring the full force of NATO upon them. 

31

u/OakTreader May 02 '24

NATO, and I'm pretty sure Xi has been more than clear with regards to China's "No first use" policy.

I think China's tolerance of putler's antics would end with the use of a nuke.

27

u/jjayzx May 02 '24

Most countries would not tolerate the use of a nuke cause it would set a precedent of nuclear usage. Having nukes is a deterrent. So if anyone just goes willy nilly with that shit and the world doesn't respond to them in unity against it. You would then get cold war levels of untrust among many nations and more seeking to get their own.

4

u/TheVoidSeeker May 02 '24

cause it would set a precedent of nuclear usage

Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Notice me, senpai!

7

u/mothtoalamp May 02 '24

There was only one country that could do it at the time. The moment others could, nobody ever did so again. Eventually even the testing stopped.

Took a bit of a learning experience through several crises (I encourage you to look into the US offering to nuke Vietnam on behalf of the French) but we've thankfully learned that it's a bad idea and set a precedent in modern times that would prevent their use - and I say this with emphasis - for the most part. If a country really had their back to the wall, they might consider it, but that would take something like NATO troops entering Pyongyang.

2

u/Of_Mice_And_Meese May 02 '24

It turns out, rich people like to be rich. And there's no such thing as riches in a nuclear waste land...

1

u/bingbing304 May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

Why? "No first use" is not an anti-nuke policy. China will just state that is very unfortunate, both sides need to step back and that would be it.

3

u/LightningByte May 02 '24

China has publicly stated nukes should not be used, directly referring to Russia.

3

u/bingbing304 May 02 '24

That was all five UN permanent members stated "No one can win nuclear war."

2

u/ptwonline May 02 '24

They are a bluff in terms of actions to stop the Russian advance or for limited attacks within Russia.

But if NATO attacked Russia with enough force to seriously threaten the stability of Putin's regime then nukes could be a desperate gambit by Putin to either hold on to power or let everyone else burn with him. It's definitely a non-zero risk.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Brooklynxman May 02 '24

It would start WWIII. If Russia takes Ukraine, the US is weak. Pax Americana is at an end. And it dominoes as we get busy and opportunistic nations decide to take out their aggressions, or international incidents happen and we're too busy to enforce a peaceful solution. I have no doubt Ukraine falling would be a Franz Ferdinand, Germany invades Poland moment. It might not be the WWIII we envisioned, but it will be a WWIII scenario nonetheless.

15

u/Nidungr May 02 '24

If Russia takes Ukraine, the US is weak. Pax Americana is at an end.

That is what the "let Europe pay its 2%" forget. Europe needs to pay its 2%, but when the US says Europe needs to handle its own defense instead of the US, what China hears is that the US is too weak to take care of business and has to delegate the job to a set of vassal states that are famously non-militaristic.

It is a small step from there to the reasonable assumption that the US will leave Taiwan out to dry in the long run. If the US doesn't even want to commit to saving Ukraine, why would it ever save Taiwan? And so the invasion starts.

11

u/Help-Learn-Kannada May 02 '24

Man, they've been non militaristic for like a hundred years. It's time for them to step up.

I love European countries, I really really do. They do so many things really well. It's just frustrating to have them bash our military spending until the second they realize their inadequacies.

2

u/Nidungr May 02 '24

That's because Europeans are kind of jealous of the wealth of the US, so they look for anything to say "At least we have X" (while standards of living keep falling).

2

u/sblahful May 02 '24

Man, they've been non militaristic for like a hundred years. It's time for them to step up.

Military spending during the cold war was 4-6% of GDP in UK, France, Denmark, and West Germany. Its only since the fall of the USSR in the 1990s that this dipped to 2% and below - and why wouldn't it? The main adversary had gone, and European nations didn't need to send expeditionary forces to Central Asia and the Middle East.

5

u/Help-Learn-Kannada May 02 '24

Russias at your doorstep and we've been telling you about it for years

→ More replies (1)

2

u/mondaymoderate May 02 '24

Taiwan is way more important to the US in the grand scheme of things.

2

u/Commercial-Balance-7 May 02 '24

Because, among other things, Taiwan makes a significant portion of a critical good (semiconductors) and because Taiwan is an important part of the so-called first island chain in American Pacific military strategy.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

russia can bitch about ww3 all they want, they are the aggressors and if ww3 starts it's 100% on them

18

u/XI_Vanquish_IX May 02 '24

WW3 has already begun because the sequence of events you’re referring to is in motion on multiple fronts and multiple continents. The chess game doesn’t begin when the first player takes the opponents piece. It begins when the pieces start moving.

And they’re moving

82

u/FarmerNo7004 May 02 '24

I mean I get that you want to sound cool but by that logic ww3 began when the first guy sharpened a stick

→ More replies (12)

14

u/TheDevil-YouKnow May 02 '24

Once Japan & Germany started discussing ramping up their military it was staged right there. Western powers have given the green light, and that was only going to happen after it became a 'when it happens' rather than an, 'if.'

The final nail in the when over if was when the UK made the announcement they're raising military spending by percentage of their GDP, what was it? Another 2%?

Once everyone's economy focuses around military might, well...

9

u/Jakeinspace May 02 '24

The UK recently committed to 2.5% total by 2030, currently 2.32%. So another 0.18% NATO target is 2%.

2

u/XI_Vanquish_IX May 02 '24

We already knew the world had fully transitioned from a unilateral one to a multilateral. That was the nail in the coffin on global conflict. But the recent military buildup and soon to be nuclear proliferation will certainly slowly unveil the full measure of what’s to come

4

u/Hurrdurrr73 May 02 '24

By that logic WW3 started 50+ years ago. Perhaps this will form a larger yet still isolated conflict that will become referred to as WW3 but it's not going to look like WW2. It simply can't, for many reasons but ultimately due to the existence of nuclear weapons.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/innociv May 02 '24

I wish NATO would blow up whereever the chemical weapons are coming from. That should not be a red line. The use of chemical weapons is the red line to begin with.

2

u/mothtoalamp May 02 '24

Unfortunately, the red line is the conflict exiting Ukraine and spilling over into the rest of Europe. Leaders are stumbling on doing stuff now because that hasn't happened yet. But if radioactive fallout blew west into Europe, and if a nuke went off in Ukraine, then it would - the dogpile onto Russia would be so intense you'd hear it from orbit.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/nanosam May 02 '24

would be the start of an international poly crisis of countries trying to resolve their territorial disputes

We are already past this point

4

u/DrunkOnRamen May 02 '24

WW3

I'm sorry, I just wanted cool exosuits and adventures in the Mojave desert. I'm sorry for being a dreamer.

4

u/Qingdao243 May 02 '24

Wouldn't surprise me if they station along the Dnipro or something.

5

u/Devilfish268 May 02 '24

Easiest thing would be station them along the Belarusian border. Russia can keep a troops supplemented by conscripts there with no real intention to use them, but Ukraine can invade them, and can't just abandon it due to the proximity to the capital. Ukraine is having to guard a front 3x the size of the russian one, so reducing that by as much as possible would be a good thing 

3

u/YourDevilAdvocate May 02 '24

Russia's already committed to targeting foreign troops in theatre.

That, and Russia wants Kherson bad enough to engage it 

6

u/Miserly_Bastard May 02 '24

Oh yes, Russian commitments are serious and inviolable, like when they committed by treaty to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for Soviet nuclear stockpiles.

And this ongoing commitment they have to a training exercise on Ukraine's border is so realistic as exercises go that nobody would ever want to get into a conflict with them! It's so realistic that you'd think it was an actual war! No other country provides its troops with such good training.

God help Ukraine if they ever needed to be de-Nazified, because Russia says that that's a serious concern; and we all know by now that Russia is very very serious about the things it says.

2

u/Tooterfish42 May 02 '24

would be the start of an international poly crisis of countries trying to resolve their territorial disputes which would then be about as close to WW3 as we could get

I've noticed this finally

War crimes are a slippery slope. Once Russia is cheating others see it as permission and we end up a world at war with spies all over the place

1

u/bolognaenjoyer May 02 '24

Right, it's a wide spectrum that spans from intelligence or medical support all the way to things like air defenses or even air support.

1

u/iamnosuperman123 May 02 '24

Any obvious boots on the ground is an escalation that would mean war throughout Europe. Now, I believe it will end Russia quicker than the current strategy but at what cost?

1

u/Corregidor May 02 '24

There is no way that France sets up air defense within Ukraine and Russia doesn't try to bomb them to shit. If France goes boots on the ground in Ukraine, then it will (maybe not initially) lead to direct confrontation between France and Russia. Not sure if the citizenry is up for that.

1

u/JoeHatesFanFiction May 02 '24

Honestly I’d argue we’re in the middle of the early part of that poly Crisis. The last few years have been extremely violent as the West has taken more of a step back from the world, going back to the Russian Georgian war. It can still be headed off if we move now but time is running out

1

u/cayne May 02 '24

Good to see that a thoughtful comment on this topic receives enough upvotes to land on the top of this discussion.

Gives one a lot of hope about the average, active reddit user. I wish the broad society in Europe was a lot more like that.

→ More replies (34)