Why did Germany recover so quickly after WW1 while France became

>>1834039


They didn't. Germany was stronger vis a vis her three main European adversaries (Britian which includes her colonies, France, and Russia/USSR) in WW1 than she was in WW2.

>>1834039
jesus christ bulgaria mobilized a million people

>>1834039
By being niggers and not paying their debts.

Because Germany told the Rothschild Banks to fuck off.

>>1834039
(((France)))

>>1834039
Germany started the war and took the French by surprize, leading to the battlefields being located in France
Then they surrendered like pussies as soon as the front approched their territory

Basically, Germany was left untouched, and since Versaille was very lenient, they had no reason to be crippled

I thought the Russians were hit much harder than that.

It can be debated on multiple fronts.
France did industrially and economically narrow the gap with Germany in the 1920s. This was - partially - because of reparations, but French economic policy during the ending part of the decade was also efficient, while the Germans suffered from internal domestic problems that undermined their economy during the decade. They blamed this on reparations, and reparations did have an impact indirectly during some periods, but the Germans actually gained money by getting huge loans from the Americans and then not repaying them. More importantly was that Germany suffered in competitiveness, since the standard of living had to be propped up to artificially high levels for workers, and the government was incapable of doing much in a society that was even more stalemated than France. Germans also suffered from losing territory of course. Since the French industrial base got wiped out - purposefully by the Germans, as an example they flooded and destroyed French coal mines at the end of the war - they could also rebuild it, and so their plants were new and inefficient compared to German ones which were worn out and old. So in economic terms, the French during the 1920s, while not surpassing the Germans, did a lot to narrow the gap between them and Germany.

During the 1930s, this shifted, as the French response to the depression was deflation and they didn't devalue their currency, and they stagnated throughout the decade; no real collapse like the Americans-British-Germans, but no real recovery either, and continuing economic decline. The Germans didn't devalue either, but they did a program of export subsidies and machinations to enable exports to keep going, but far more important than that was their massive re-armament and public spending boom. This was not sustainable in any way, but it ended with them taking over other nations and plundering them, like a massive ponzi scheme. Germany thus surpassed France again.

But there was more than just economic, and I'd probably argue that the demographic aspects were more important. Germany was growing rapidly in population, while France had been an early demographic transitioned, the earliest one ever (by the time of WW2 it was the oldest society in the world iirc). France actually lost population, in peace time, during the 1890s and 1930s. Thus, while France and Germany sustained marginally similar casualties in percentage terms, the French somewhat more, that hurt a lot more for France, since their population wasn't growing. France was thus hurt more by the war, and it felt a lot harder. There was also a higher percentage of the population mobilized by France during WW1, so there were fewer children in the late 1930s when they came of age to be soldiers, therefor meaning the French soldiers who passed through the training in the late 1930s were even further smaller in size compared to the Germans relatively. Since this was about the period when the French switched to two-year conscription in response to the Germans reinstating it, the impact was proportionally even worse, since the French soldiers during most of the 1920s and early 1930s, when they had larger numbers of people, only got 1 year of training, which meant they were less effective. There was also less training for French soldiers in the 1930s overall, since France was unwilling to bankrupt itself economically. So, the morale and population effects were worse for France. When France mobilized for war, they did mobilize an army that wasn't too numerically inferior to the Germans, but they could only do it by using older and less fit soldiers, while just going to war was harder since the feeling of loss from WW1 was more profound due to greater proportional losses and that being magnified by French demographic issues.

>>1834134
New and efficient compared to the German ones*