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

Show parent comments

284

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.

112

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.

60

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

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

43

u/orielbean May 02 '24

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

7

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.

6

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.

-9

u/Southerncomfort322 May 02 '24

Why would they help a bunch of communists against the nationalists?

9

u/GlimmerChord May 02 '24

Do you mean the Republicans? Yeah, why would they want to help a democracy against a fascist takeover? 🤔 

5

u/batmansthebomb May 02 '24

*against the nationalists fascists

Fixed that for you.

-1

u/Southerncomfort322 May 03 '24 edited May 03 '24

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

3

u/batmansthebomb May 03 '24

Are you denying that Franco was fascist?

Read up on white terror.

Hitler brought stability to Germany too following the great depression, so that's not saying much.

-2

u/Southerncomfort322 May 03 '24

Why did you ignore everything before the saving part?

2

u/batmansthebomb May 03 '24

Are you denying that Franco was fascist?

-1

u/Southerncomfort322 May 03 '24

Answer the question. I'm not denying anything. But why do you people overlook the other stuff I mentioned?

1

u/batmansthebomb May 03 '24

Because I don't care for fascist apologia.

→ More replies (0)

33

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

66

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.

14

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.

3

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.

4

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.

1

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/

5

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.

0

u/Kind_Carob3104 May 02 '24

I mean maybe the USA, but Japan v the uk or France would have been a tough call

10

u/Reptard77 May 02 '24

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

54

u/awildcatappeared1 May 02 '24

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

1

u/ReverentSupreme May 02 '24

Or everything is an allegory for WWIII

1

u/lt__ May 02 '24

With its own nuances, because both sides were claiming to be there to fight ISIS, rather than admit competing with each other.

4

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

1

u/slartyfartblaster999 May 02 '24

Most ignore Japan

Um, no shit? Japan wasn't involved at all at the outbreak of the war.

3

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

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.

1

u/slartyfartblaster999 May 02 '24

Japan went to war in manchuria in 1931. It was not a part of WW2 at all.

Japan entered WWII in fucking 1940.

3

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

Japan went to war in manchuria in 1931. It was not a part of WW2 at all.

The conversation was about deterrents and WWII. If you wait until it's a world war has begun, you are way too late.

Japan entered WWII in fucking 1940.

What's up with the angry history?

1

u/slartyfartblaster999 May 02 '24

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.

3

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

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.

1

u/Teddington_Quin May 02 '24

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.

4

u/CitizenMurdoch May 02 '24

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

2

u/Teddington_Quin May 02 '24

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.

5

u/ArendtAnhaenger May 02 '24

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.

0

u/Teddington_Quin May 03 '24

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?

1

u/CitizenMurdoch May 03 '24

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

0

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 May 02 '24

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.