>>565315 It was. People just dont realize it, because most of the territory it lost was territory it had only recently gained - from France earlier, and from Russia in the same war, since there was a separate treaty. Germany won much land from Russia, then lost that land, and some of its own, when the final treaty was made.
All of Poland was German land, taken from Germany.
>>565315 Because The French didn't have the ability to force it on their own and No Way the British Would have approved it Despite the Germanphobia that the British had they still were pragamatic enough to keep "keeping The Balance of Power" as the goal, Only Idiots like Churchill wanted British Foriegn Policy to be about Macho feels
Why do people always say that the treaty of Versialles was too unfair? I mean just compare it to the Hungarian Trianon treaty, where they lost 30% of their ethnic population and 2/3 of their former land, Germany got away easy.
>>565470 It wasn't "unfair" but it was terrible negotiated by the german side. Its not like Germany was totaly destroyed or something, it lost its opportunity to win but was still able to keep on fighting for like another 4 years.
They werent allowed negotiation, though. They capitulated unconditionally, their army was demobilized and their fleet and big guns destroyed. They were bullied into accepting terms after that, when they hadnt an army and the french had.
>>565502 wat.? Russia DID advance into Europe aka Cold War or to take earlier examples, Prussian appeasement in the form of Polish partition. And had Russia not collapsed in WWI it also would have wrangled concessions from Entente and got parts of Eastern Europe or even the Bosporous like it really wanted. Germany always loses. Its a shit. As long as Germany is cucked by Holocaust guilt and we dont have a strong East-Central European state akin to Polish Lithuania or Austro Hungary in their primes, Russia can muscle its way into Europe. As it is now, though, US is the protector of Europe from Russia since WWII
>>566086 >implying Clemencau explicitly wanted to detach Bavaria from the new German state. When French troops occupied the Ruhr, the French intended to set up a Rhenish state, issuing a "rhenish mark" and holding elections for Rhenish politicians. In other words, people envisioned a divided Germany, it's just not what Britain wanted. Lloyd George was concerned that a dismantled Germany would mean French hegemony on the mainland. A strong Germany was a FRENCH deterrent, not a Russian one. Brits didn't want another Napoleon
>>566151 I did not imply the opposite, in fact I agree with the concerns about France. You seem to be implying, however, that policymakers can only have one concern at all, something which I frankly don't understand. The British longed to go back to some sort of Splendid Isolation once again (obviously impossible), and for that they wanted to prevent: - a strong France - a resented Germany - the expansion of Bolshevism (which was a great possibility in 1918-1922 considering Germany, Hungary, Italy, etc)
>>565513 >it lost its opportunity to win but was still able to keep on fighting for like another 4 years. what? with what supplies? with what manpower? with what homefront? they were utterly, absolutely done in 1918, that is why they wanted an armistice
>>565315 Britain opposed it, fearing France would be too strong And since Britain and France were the only two countries that mattered back then, a compromise was decided between France's vision (Germany ceases to exist) and Britain's vision (Germany not punished). This compromise was Versailles.
>>566151 The British fearing French Hegemony was vaild when one realises that The French still hated the "Anglo Saxxons" and wanted to replace them as the Superpower of the world They only Teamed up with them because Russia and Prussia were getting too strong
>>565513 >was still able to keep on fighting for like another 4 years. Germany was finished. People were living on sub-1000 calorie per day. Military had lost all morale. Its allies were defeated, and now it faced a second front opening up from the Balkans.
>>569522 let me rephrase. Each of the major powers had different aims for the immediate postwar powers. Britain's primary goal was to restrict any more growth of the german navy. France wanted complete balkanization, to make it impossible for Germany to wage war in any capacity whatsoever. USA didn't want to be dragged into any more European Wars. Neither Britain or USA would agree to the balkanization of Germany after WWI that France wanted
>>569647 >>569651 Why do you think this? Bavaria was a viable state for hundreds of years until the German Empire. Bavarians had always fended off Habsburg (i.e. Austrian) intrigue successfully and vice-versa.
Literally around 2 million people were cut off right next to the borders. South-Slovakia, North-vojvodina, I'm not talking about all of the lost land, only the countless cities which were RIGHT NEXT TO THE BORDERS, and were cut off just because of railwaylines or "natural borders".
Arad, Nagyvárad, Komárom, Szabadka, Kassa etc. were all cities just cut off because of greed, they all had, some of them even still have hungarian majority.
>>565315 "Germany" was not really a solid thing during the first WW. Prussia was still the dominant state calling the shots in the geography that would become Germany later.
While there was a great and wide spread appeal to the idea of German unity through a single state among what could be called ethnic Germans; (which Prussia encouraged and precipitated with its earlier dramatic military scuffles with Austria and later France as choreographed by Bismark) the foundation of so called "German unity" was still being invented both by philosophers and statesmen but it had its strongest expression in a celebration of the German soldiery as somehow better in every way than any given comparison.
When the only thing uniting a people is an agreement that in a scrape they have each others backs no matter the enemy because they are bound to win due to their common and inherently superior fill in the blank, balkanization into mutually self hating district states is both impracticable and inconceivable.
The Germans were wracked with internal chaos at the conclusion of the war, but they were not defeated militarily in the way they were in the second World War. It would not have been possible to force them to balkanize unless they had agreed to it themselves, or unless the war had gone on until there was a total victory.
>>571569 >but they were not defeated militarily in the way they were in the second World War. It would not have been possible to force them to balkanize unless they had agreed to it themselves, or unless the war had gone on until there was a total victory. they most certainly could have been - they were absolutely defeated militarily, but yes the allies did not drive into germany and did not occupy the entire country - because they did not need or want to do not approach the issue backwards in that it "would not have been possible to force them to balkanize" - it most certainly would if that is what the allies had wanted, such was the scale of the allied success in the west at the end of 1918, and the terrible state of germany both on the frontlines and the homefront
Thread replies: 54 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 441183
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.