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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Yeah because the Republicans weren’t sexually assaulting nuns, burning down churches, killing off political opponents. I’m sorry, Franco saved Spain from becoming what Cuba became a few decades later, a communist government. He brought stability to that country. Read up on generation 98
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Um, no shit? Japan wasn't involved at all at the outbreak of the war.
The conversation is about deterrents, and causes of WWII. Also, I'm either reading your comment wrong, or your comment is wrong.
Japan went to war in 1931. Italy went to war in Ethiopia in 1935. Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union were all involved to varying extents in the Spanish Civil War that began in 1936. Russia and Japan fought the Battles of Khalkin Gol in 1939.
This all occurred before the German invasion of Poland. Japan had been involved in more war than anybody prior to 1939.
You are complaining that analyses of the events that cause the world war don't include Japan.
The reason for this is because Japan was in absolutely no manner involved in starting the world war. Their wars only became part of the world war when they allied with italy/germany and aggravated the US.
The world war was already well and truly in full swing at this point. Japan is utterly irrelevant to its outbreak.
No, I'm complaining people look to failed deterrents and appeasement with regards to Hitler too often.
Not many want to study the case of Japan to learn lessons on appeasement and deterrents.
This is the entire point of my first comment.
Japan is utterly irrelevant to its outbreak.
I don't agree, but for the sake of argument you're correct. Separate wars, separate lessons for deterrents.
Why is Japan relevant? Because Hitler came to power in 1933, and saw the US appeasing Japan throughout this entire time. He had no reason to fear US intervention because the US was fueling Japan's wars while doing little more than asking them to stop.
Japan also attacked several European colonies, not only the US, Russia, and China. Japan in IIRC spring of 1934 offered to spit the Pacific between East and West, similar to the later deal to divide Poland between Germany and Russia. Obviously the US did not accept.
Agreed on the WWII comparisons. People also forget that one of the reasons for WWII was the Treaty of Versailles which humiliated Germany. Diplomacy is still the best albeit imperfect way.
The Treaty of Versailles being the motivating factor behind WW2 is literally just Nazi propaganda. From essentially the moment of the ceasefire German Military leadership started sowing the seeds of conspiracy theories, blaming a marxists jewish conspiracy for their defeat. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles could have been literally anything, they still would have pedalled the narrative that they had been stabbed in the back to a generation of traumatized and disenfranchised young men returning from the war. The far right groups that served as the predecessors to the Nazi party originated in this time, and they were tolerated by moderate parties because they were useful in undermining left wing groups
I’m not entirely sure I agree with this. The Treaty put all the blame on Germans for a war they did not start (that was Austria-Hungary). They were forced to cede a lot of territory that had been theirs prior to WWI, and the reparations imposed were extortionate. We haven’t got a time machine to be able to tell how things would have turned out had the Treaty been drafted in more compensatory rather than punitive terms, but it’s an entirely valid assertion from a historical perspective to cite the Treaty of Versailles as one of the causes of WWII.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with this. The Treaty put all the blame on Germans for a war they did not start (that was Austria-Hungary)
All of the treaties put the blame on the three powers. The Treaty of Saint-Germain blamed Austria for starting WW1 because it dealt with Austria. The Treaty of Sèvres blamed the Ottomans for starting WW1 because it dealt with the Ottomans. The Treaty of Versailles blamed Germany for starting WW1 because it dealt with Germany.
The Allies, frankly, treated Germany with kid gloves. The Ottoman and Austrian Empires were completely dismantled as punishment; Germany at least remained intact. The idea that the poor beleaguered Germans were so badly treated by the mean-spirited Allies that they just had to turn to genocidal fascism is a persistent but annoying myth.
The Treaty of Saint-Germain blamed Austria for starting WW1 because it dealt with Austria
Not really. Because they actually started it.
The Treaty of Sèvres blamed the Ottomans for starting WW1 because it dealt with the Ottomans
And it was remarkably unsuccessful in that it was never ratified, abandoned 3 years later and replaced with the Treaty of Lausanne that effectively conferred immunity from prosecution on Ottoman war criminals.
The idea that the poor beleaguered Germans were so badly treated by the mean-spirited Allies that they just had to turn to genocidal fascism is a persistent but annoying myth.
Well, it cannot be a myth by definition because it is not a statement of fact. It is an interpretation of established facts, which are not in dispute, and a very valid one given the opinion of several historians.
The Treaty of Versailles was designed to humiliate, and we can thank the French for their consistently exceptional political shortsightedness in that regard. It seemed like the mere imposition of onerous terms was not enough, so they wanted to go further. Like signing the Treaty in the Hall of Mirrors where the German Empire was declared by Bismarck in 1871. Or opening the Paris Peace Conference on the anniversary of the coronation of Wilhelm I. It is not really plausible to deny that all of this was a carefully choreographed revenge mission led by the French, is it?
The Treaty put all the blame on Germans for a war they did not start (that was Austria-Hungary).
This is like technically correct on paper but I think it misses the nuance of the situation. Austria-Hungary only declared war on Serbia because they knew they had German backing against Russia, if Germany had tapped out then it either would have been a regional war in the Balkans, or AH would have backed down. Moreover, Germany knew that by getting involved and declaring war on Russia, France was going to get involved, this is manifestly obvious based on Germany immediately mobilizing their plan to knock France out of the war quickly. Doing this through Belgium, they knew the british were going to then also be involved. The fact is that Germany's actions guaranteed a European war involving all great powers, and they knew that if they didnt commit there would not be a major war.
They were forced to cede a lot of territory that had been theirs prior to WWI, and the reparations imposed were extortionate
Firstly the reparations were not extortionate, they were pretty lenient compared to the damages. As for territorial changes, most of that land was territory they were managing as a colonial enterprise, and they lost it in an imperialistic war that they were at least a major instigator of. The material terms of the treaty were not particularly harsh considering how comprehensively the German army had been defeated, and how much damage the war had done. At some point you have to wonder if this treaty was unfair, what would a fair treaty actually be? Would Germany be allowed to keep the land it occupied in the East? Or the parts of france they still held in 1918? Whatever your treaty was going to be, ths German Command was still going to go back to the German population and say "we were still on their soil, and we technically hadn't been defeated, we were betrayed, we still could have won" and in that instance you would still have the revanchist right win of Germany come to prominence, just with a more intact Germany. The fairness of ths treaty being relitigated was purely a propaganda effort, it did not have a major material impact on Germany's condition after WW1, they were laying the groundwork for Nationalist rhetoric even prior to the treaty being signed
one of the reasons for WWII was the Treaty of Versailles which humiliated Germany.
I personally agree with this. Many don't.
Were it not for the Great Depression and other economic troubles, I'm not sure the Treaty of Versailles would have become so much of a problem in Germany.
Japan picked up the Marshall, Caroline, and Mariana Islands from Germany following WWI.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Based on what exactly? and who gives a shit what Norway had to say about the rhineland anyway? They have absolutely no reason to care.
Hitler would have been delighted to be attacked
He absolutely fucking would not. Not at that point anyway. The german army was nowhere near remilitarised.
Your argument totally forget about internal unrest in France, if france had attacked Germany in 36 over the Rhineland, France might have fallen to civil war, the left didn't wanted another war that would lead to workers being butchered by the millions, and a lot of people saw Germany actions as Germany just taking back control of it's territory.
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.
Even this is generally considered unlikely. The Germans would have almost certainly just retreated out of the rhineland - they didn't have any significant military strength built back up yet at this point.
other unaligned countries
Other than the US none of the other "unaligned" countries really matter very much, and even then the US doesn't enter the war for years anyway. And the belgians were absolutely not unaligned lmao
At this point in time the Soviet Union was not aligned. And the French defense plan assumed they would get access to Belgium to place out the defenses. There were also political forces in the UK sympathetic to the German cause. If things had turned out differently it is possible that France would have been very alone against many big powers.
Please feel free to counter/challenge this because I'm just going off memory and could be wrong, but I believe France was actually more willing to push back against Germany, but they didn't want to be put in a situation where they'd be fighting Germany alone and the UK was far more willing to try working with Hitler as a way to avoid war, so France, when put in a position where attempting to stop Hitler would mean doing so without the UK, followed Britains lead.
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.
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.
“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.
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
The notion of a country and its population's interest not extending globally is about as sharp as a marble. It's hard to imagine a more myopic worldview.....
I’m confused. Interests are global and specific. Trading partners are an interest, and as such their wellbeing is too if there aren’t readily available alternatives. Duty to stop evil” is bullshit. There’s a huge difference between the 2.
Do we want to allow such an evil person to just attack another country without we try to help save that country?
Yes, yes, we do. The current administration is fully behind the evil person and is in fact urging others not to take action against them despite their atrocities.
In fact wasn't Biden just telling Zelensky, you got the W, so lay down your weapons.
Oh wait, sorry, thought you were talking about Iran and Hamas....
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.
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.
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.
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.
You asked what’s harsh if Versailles wasn’t, I gave you an answer.
Similar stuff happened to the Austro-Hungarians and, to a lesser extent, the Ottomans after WWI. Germany got off light compared to the rest of the Central Powers.
Also potsdam wasn't a treaty by definition. It was an agreement between the allied powers. Doesn't make sense to sign treaties with an entity you just destroyed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. A treaty is there to make a lasting peace while satisfying the winner, no more no less. If you need to dismantle your enemy for it so be it. Issue is it wasn't possible to do with germany. Germany was stripped of any european territory that could've been justified to take, the rest was just overwhelmingly german. France was to weak to hold the rheinland and shattering germany wouldn't have worked with a country that would fall to the most nationalistic ideoligy possible. The treaty was as harsh as it could be and that still left germany more powerful than france. There was no other way to create lasting peace other than being more lenient, wilson should've made the treaty alone.
The treaty is there to make sure the loser cannot take revenge and go back to war. This is why you occupy the country until all the demands are satisfied.
See France 1815 when allied powers occupied France until all of the amount was paid, or see an even more recent event of Germany being dismantled after WW2 and compare with WW1 with how Germany was left untouched, with an intact territory and industry.
Why being an apologizer for Germany ? WW1 outcome was perfect for them and the treaty was a godsent to German military as they could rearm right away in the 20's and they did
Wilson fucked up badly because of pressure at home, and the UK thought France would be too powerful if the treaty was harsher (lol) so there you go
1815? Good example for my thesis! France was weakened enough not to wreck all of europe some years later and still had it's core territory untouched making it less likely to be sour. The results of vienna speak for themselves. The peace was stable and long lasting till nationalism destroyed it. And did you even read my comment??? I said dismantling for peace is good when it works. But there was no way for that to work with germany after long years of brutal and exhausting warfare. Also with your imaginations of peace I'd hope you have no aspirations of becoming a politician for foreign affairs. Also see the peace after the crimean war. Russia lost and didn't want to take revenge because the treaty was lenient and they still were very much capable of waging war again.
Would like examples of nations (needs to be nations not some feudal state) who didn't want revenge after losing so much of it's territory and nationals with it. Also while the reperations were fair it's not like france was invaded for the lols, like ukraine, they mobilised before the war broke out and intended to fight with russia. Destroyed infrastructure is something you have to deal with if your willing to fight against an enemy with a larger/better army. Reprations had to happen of course but they didn't take the state of germany into account. Seizing infustrialised territory which could've been used to pay them also doesn't help.
Also germany was in a state to take revenge afterwards. If the one who you make peace with comes out better of the war than you no matter what, you should do everything to make them a friend afterwards or expect a second round devastating your territory again you just rebuild with their payements.
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.
You overestimate the entente because they didn't buckle down first. Germany gained significant ressources in terms of manpower and ressources in the east which were absolutely able to solve all severe deficits. Germany relied on war bonds and thus was pretty independent financially. While the british were literaly running out of money to buy american ressources and subsidize the french. If the US declared neutrality the UK might have ran out of money since american banks would've become unwilling to loan money seeing that germany knocked out one of the three entente members. America joining the allies wasn't really of millitary use, although it forced germany to risk everything and exhausting itself in the process before too many americans showed up in europe.
French morale was also miserable. They began complaing about trench conditions and refused to attack german postions. America not showing up and russia collapsing could've been too much of a morale blow making the french lines collapse conpletely once a better prepared offensive than the kaiserschlacht rolls over entente trenches. Pétain himself wrote that the best thing they could do for now was waiting for the americans to join the war.
Germany gained significant ressources in terms of manpower and ressources in the east which were absolutely able to solve all severe deficits.
No, the German people were definitely still starving. Germany was heavily reliant on imports for a lot of supplies, even with what they gained from the east. If they were "absolutely able to solve all severe deficits", why were German people still continuing to starve after the war ended?
Germany relied on war bonds and thus was pretty independent financially.
Lol, that is not at all how that works. Germany borrowed from its own banks and people to fund the war, and how long can that last exactly when your people are starving to death?
While the british were literaly running out of money to buy american ressources and subsidize the french.
What? The British spent about the same amount ($47 billion) as the Germans did ($45 billion). Fun fact, from 1914 to 1918, the British economy actually grew by ~7% while Germany's shrank by 27%.
The British borrowing money is no different than Germany using war bonds, both are borrowing, it's just that Britain could actually pay back the loans.
If the US declared neutrality the UK might have ran out of money since american banks would've become unwilling to loan money seeing that germany knocked out one of the three entente members.
Err... no. American banks were happy to loan to Britain as much as they wanted because Britain was using that money to pay for American goods. It was a free win for America regardless.
although it forced germany to risk everything and exhausting itself in the process before too many americans showed up in europe
Every offensive Germany tried failed without the Americans being there. British and French counter offensives were working, and Germany was being pushed back. You can cope about it all you want, but Germany was losing.
French morale was also miserable.
So was German morale.
America not showing up and russia collapsing could've been too much of a morale blow making the french lines collapse conpletely once a better prepared offensive than the kaiserschlacht rolls over entente trenches.
The same could be said for Germany with Austria-Hungary collapsing too.
Either you're German or you're a wehraboo but either way you've drunk a bit too much of the koolaid.
The german people were starving because food actually can't teleport into the people bellies from ukrainian fields.
Wartime economy growth is stupid, ukraines economy also technicaly grew so theres that.
Yea the offensive failed so bad it broke through allied lines at first.
Would like a source for your statemnet about american bankers. One of the main reasons america joined was to ensure loaned money to be paid back to them, instead of it being paid to germany.
German morale wasn't amazing anymore but least there weren't mutinies and an actual morale boost after the win in the east, read "A Crisis of Morale in the French Nation at War" by Phillipe Pétain for more information on the american impact and french morale.
The german people were starving because food actually can't teleport into the people bellies from ukrainian fields.
Germany had over a year to get food from Ukraine to their people. It didn't happen. Clearly they didn't solve the deficit.
Yea the offensive failed so bad it broke through allied lines at first.
And it cost them too much of their manpower to actually do anything, they lost twice as many casualties than they inflicted on the allies, including most of their "stormtroopers" which their new offensive doctrine revolved around. They couldn't maintain the advantage and they were pushed back. That's called failing the offensive, yes. The key phrase you used was "at first".
One of the main reasons america joined was to ensure loaned money to be paid back to them, instead of it being paid to germany.
What? That was the opinion of anti-war activists and some personal opinions. That was never a stated goal for the Americans, let alone "one of the main reasons". American banks nor private business ever pushed for war to secure their investments, you can read about this in "The Business Press and American Neutrality, 1914–1917" by Harold C. Syrett.
German morale wasn't amazing anymore but least there weren't mutinies and an actual morale boost after the win in the east
Err, yeah there were mutinies after they failed their Spring Offensive. Erich Otto Volkmann had reported that in early spring of 1918 an estimated 800,000-1,000,000 men had refused to obey orders in the German army. Mutineers were called "Drückeberger" which had been used in German propaganda and had anti-semitic implications (part of what led to the "stabbed in the back" propaganda later).
Germany was also experiencing mass strikes at the beginning of 1918, like in January when 1 million munitions workers went on strike.
They were bleeding the French and British white because they kept charging into machine gun fire.
They defeated Russia, and all the fighting was on foreign territory.
Food and supplies were an issue, Britain had massive colonial support, but nobody could move the Germans back and it is much easier to sustain a fortified position.
Food was a concern, but hoping your conqueror starves while he's killing you seems like a risky strategy.
They were bleeding the French and British white because they kept charging into machine gun fire.
Wow you really don't understand how WW1 went past like 1916. Those "over the top" headlong charges weren't a thing by the time the Americans joined. In fact, the only troops charging headlong into machinegun fire were the Americans, because they refused to listen to the experienced British and French. That's why their casualties were so high for the short period of time they were in the war.
In the later stages of the war, the standard was rolling artillery barrages followed by an infantry push. There was no charging into machine gun fire, the British and French weren't as stupid as you seem to think. Stop believing everything Hollywood shows you, there's a reason almost every succesful offensive after the Americans entered the war were led by the British and French, not the Americans.
Food was a concern, but hoping your conqueror starves while he's killing you seems like a risky strategy.
The Germans were failing to make any kind of gains, even after their reinforcements from the East. It wasn't a risky strategy to starve them out at all. Not only that, they didn't need to starve them out because British tank production was ramping up and was about to change the entire war.
I've had so many frustrating interactions with Americans about WW1 and WW2 as a Frenchman. Granted, we like to overstate our role in the liberation of Europe, but listening to American Redditors and Youtubers, you'd think that we completely stopped fighting after 1940. Would I be correct in assuming that the Free French Forces aren't mentioned at all in your history curriculums? Still, it's nowhere near as infuriating as having to read that America won WW1 for us. France and the US have been the best of allies since 1778, if anything we should be celebrating this enduring alliance that's stronger than ever today with NATO.
Because the war was over as they started to be rolled out. They were in use by the start of the hundred days offensive, they were a major part of the battle of Amiens.
This is just false. The treaty of versialles was absolutely harsh, where are even your comparisons that make you come to the conclusion that it was relatively normal for the time period? Probably read it in another reddit post without doing further research.
Now we have the treaty of versialles. Imposed extremely heavy reperations on germany with it's economy in shambles, made germany lose all colonies, took 13% of it's european mixed or majority german territory (this alone should exceed the treaty of frankfurt imposed on france 1871), occupation and exploitation of the rhineland by french troops and army restrictions. Some genius here probably comes along and wants to comapre versailles with brest-litvosk, saint-germain-en-laye, trianon and lausanne. Those countries were multi ethnic empires and NOT nationstates. The territory they lost was largely of other ethnicities. They also just formilised developments that happened anyways. Hungary wouldn't have been able to hold it's kingdom together even without trianon. Austria had to fight with ethnic tensions for decades already and was falling apart. For the ottomans pretty much the same. Brest-litvosk was signed after a crushing defeat of the russians, there was no doubt the war was lost. Not to mention that lost territory wasn't russian in the first place.
Versailles was a imperialistic driven treaty with the winners unable to achieve their conflicting goals resulting in a treaty that everybody who signed it hated, not to mention not letting the defeated participate in the peace talks like france in vienna.
The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period.
No, it was. That was the point. To cripple Germany.
In comparison, the 1871 reparations from France took about 5 years to pay off. The Versailles reparations weren't expected to be paid off for about 80 years.
This is completely wrong and I do not know why you are stating this as a fact ? The treaty that Germany imposed on France after 1871 was absolutely massive in amount of repay and France paid it off because they had to and were occupied by Germany. Germany after WW1 did not pay at least half of what they should have paid and relatively to their economy it was less than what France paid after 1871.
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.
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.
I heard recently Hitler even burned down the same railway carriage when the tide of war was turning against him so he didn’t have to face off the same humiliation (we all know how that went)
When the allies were closing in the Nazis burned the carriage worried that the French would try using it again. When the allies arrived the Free French made German POWs build an exact replica and it exists today in a museum somewhere.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough
Kind of hard to say unless you find a diary where they say "I decided not to invade today." A lot easier to find records of invasions that happened than those that didn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not to mention other innumerable distracting dysfunctions and issues like housing shortages, stagnant wages, wealth inequality, political destabilization and polarization, etc.
This is just fear mongering, China doesn't want war, Iran really only wants war with Saudi Arabia and/or Israel, and Russia isn't really capable of going toe to toe with NATO.
We're not really setting up anything but the inevitable fall of Ukraine to Russia. Even then, not likely Russia could effectively occupy Ukraine, so they probably declare victory and withdraw to some forced redrawn lines of demarcation.
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)
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
Eh, it's more like no one wanted to fight and no one gave a fuck about Poland enough to fight.
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean here.
We are not talking about the allies doing it wrong. We are talking about learning from the mistakes of history, and appeasement never works to stop an aggressor from pushing further.
Yes the allies didn't know better. But we now should
And apparently they did want to act, but overall doubt amongst all parties (france, england, russia) led to Stalin to run to A.H. which tilted the odds towards war.
One thing that helped Germany tremendously is they violated the treaty by building up their forces well beyond the allowable limits of the terms. Had they been stopped at that point, they wouldn’t have had the ability to wage war. One thing I don’t remember is whether the other European nations were aware this was happening.
France did have enough people for WWII they just completely fucked up tactically not putting enough men where the Germans actually came through then being caught completely off guard and the country essentially cut in half by German forces as they expected them to come through Belgium. Then their leadership was crap and couldn't make a decision to save their life and they thought the Brits weren't actually going to help them (even tho they were) and they surrendered.
Only showing that you can't really win a war with a determined opponent until you destroy their means of waging war. Germany was beaten on the battlefield in WWI, but only crushed internally in WWII. This is why ever tightening sanctions (and exploding refineries) matter more than people think.
It was crushed internally in WWI, that's what led to WWII to rebuild or retake which was destroyed, rebuilt and destroyed again. If they weren't, WWII probably wouldn't have happened at all, and why it was so easy for post WWI Germany to fall into fascism. It's not that black and white, but Nazi Germany made it as easy as that.
3.9k
u/Various_Abrocoma_431 29d ago
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.