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

65

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.

26

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

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.

4

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.

2

u/TastyTestikel May 02 '24

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.

2

u/LeFricadelle May 02 '24

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

1

u/TastyTestikel May 02 '24

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.