How did he predict WW2?

>Does Germany still exist?
Yes.
>War in twenty years.

>>2684374
Punish a country by taking land, placing massive economic struggles, demobilizing the military in a militaristic country and blame the country for the whole war and you can bet your ass that they will be angry enough to warrant another war.

File: IMG_0741.jpg (52KB, 500x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x480px

>>2684379
Chuckled desu

Germany must be destroyed

>>2684374
Everyone knew WW2 was coming. A lot of people already knew it was coming before or just after WW1 was over, Keynes and GK Chesterton come to mind.

>>2684393
>keynes predicting anything
someone post the mises meme where keynes says no crashes years earlier and then mises say there's a crash the same year the great depression was happening

>>2684413
Touche, however he was spot on about Versailles. It would've been even worse if the French had had their way.

>>2684386
Foch thought versailles wasn't harsh enough.

>>2684536
It wasn't. Versailles was the worst of both worlds in that it wasn't really that harsh but just enough symbolically to fuel a raging revanchism. Should've either went full draconian or just a status quo ante bellum.

>>2684374
He was a big guy

>>2684430
If the French had their way then there wouldn't have been a Germany after WW1.

>>2684562
For (you)

>>2684565
Perhaps we should've listened to the French then

>>2684374
His point was Germany was still too strong for Europe, thus left bank of the Rhine, which is also far more fortifiable against attack.
Germany would exist but just further balkanised so no longer would proddies oppress good Catholics, might have even had a small Jewish state in honour of those who died for their country even though the English offered them the old homeland

Versailles was the worst possible way to end WWI. It wasn't harsh enough to stop Germany from rebuilding their military but it was just harsh enough to make germans want revenge.

>>2684374
Because in twenty years time he knew a new generation would have taken power, and would want revenge for literally everyone fucking their country over

inb4 america gets blamed for europeans chimping out on each other

File: 1492570186313.gif (2MB, 320x165px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x165px

>>2684386

>God forbid the losing side of a war that killed millions suffer consequences

File: Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-11,_Schlachtschiff_'Gneisenau'.jpg (63KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x520px

>>2685115

>It wasn't harsh enough to stop Germany from rebuilding their military

Wrong. The restrictions imposed by Versallies were very strict. The problem is that Britain simply didn't have the balls to enforce them and continuously allowed Hitler to rewrite the terms of surrender to his liking. The biggest examples of this would be the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement which lifted most of that Versallies had placed on the German navy. The new treaty (signed in 1935) allowed Germany to build a new navy to 1/3 tonnage of the British Royal Navy. The German battleships Scharnhorst and Scharnhorst were both laid down later that same. Bismark and Tirpitz, substantially larger ships, both were laid down the very next year in 1936. The justification for all this was that Germany said they needed a larger navy to counter the threat of Soviet Bolshevism, and Britain reluctantly agreed, thinking that Hitler would be make a nice buffer between the USSR and the rest of Europe.

>>2684374
Did Albert Pike?

The moment America refused to join the League of Nations spelled the moment that the peace of versailles couldn't be enforced.

Basically, America joining the war fucked it up because it severely miscalculated the actual power of both sides at the peace conference, but once the peace was in effect, and there was a "right", the Allies didn't have the "might" to back it up.

>>2684388
Bruv that image was cropped like shit

>>2684386
Worked after WW2.

>>2685308
Obviously, Wilson with his 13 articles left Germany too free, whilst also radicalising Japan when they were fine with being an English ally, all because it meant he had to sit next to a black man in peace

>>2685409
>Britain alone is at fault
I guess France really was annexed by Germany

File: 20YearArmistice.jpg (34KB, 540x532px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 540x532px

Germany was a mistake

>>2686596
After WW2 they just gave them a new government and lots of money. It did help that the entire country was already in ruins though.

>>2685377
They went way too overboard they literally wanted to destroy Germany, WW2 would be unjustifiable if France didn't act like a crybaby

File: treary of versailles.png (122KB, 933x900px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 933x900px

>>2687080

>>2687099
>hey you have to pay 132 billion dollars for helping your ally in a war you did not start
>ok we will reduce it since we are totaly not unreasonable and cant stand competition and we will steal your colonys and cripple your navy
>we are totally not trying to destroy you because we are butthurt oven a tiny stretch of land you bet us for fair and square for
>also dont genocide jews committing mas murder is wrong and we have the moral high ground on this topic
>t. Britain and France
allies were a mistake
>people WILL defend this

>>2687149
Germany did start that war, look at a thing called the blank check. Also looked at what happened to all the other central powers, they for the most part were completely dismantled with the exception of Bulgaria, which still lost a lot of its land and also had to pay money.

Germany also only lost non-Germanic land. And if we go by what you posted, "we are butthurt oven a tiny stretch of land you bet us for fair and square for", when they lost the war they should have been not butthurt over losing that land. And Germany got more aid post WW1 than in the Marshall plan. It was only German stupidly that caused that hyper-inflation.

>>2686686

>Britain alone is at fault

It's called the Anglo-German Naval Agreement for a reason. If France were involved it would have been the Franco-German Naval Agreement.

File: 1489773622132.jpg (25KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x386px

>>2684374
It's fucking because it's true

>>2687196
>look at a thing called the blank check
oh yes lets forget
>russia being a fucking moron and supporting a war when they are a step away from a full blown revolt
>france being a fucking baby (as usual) over a war where they got knocked the fuck out and lost a piece of land thats inhabited by both french and germans
>anglos pulling flase flags left and right to get america in the war

>>2687080

>They went way too overboard they literally wanted to destroy Germany

They literally didn't. Of course, the Germans resented it. The losing side of a war ALWAYS is resentful. It's not some special thing that only happened to Germany and only for WW1.

>>2684374
It wasn't difficult to see what was going to happen. Here's the scenario:

Germany is sandwiched between three powers. France, Russia, Italy. Germany's situation in WWI was entirely rational: Russia was industrializing, and France was allied with Russia. It was inevitable that they would be partitioned and destroyed if they did not disable one or both countries quickly.

After WWI, this problem was not only not resolved, it was exacerbated. Germany was still sandwiched between three powers, Russia was still industrializing, and (ostensibly) the powers that had defeated Germany were still allied. As Machiavelli said, you cannot avoid a war, you can only defer it to the advantage of others.

To reiterate this more clearly, if the pressures that are pushing towards a war exist, a war WILL eventually occur. The only way to avoid a war is to remove the pressures. After World War I the pressures were retained or increased. The punitive measures taken against Germany were literally pointless, the idea of "punishing" Germany for the war was idiotic, that does not accomplish anything and it was childish and short-sighted. Germany should either have been partitioned entirely and parceled out to other countries, or given some concessions to relieve its pressures.

After WWII we got both of these. Eastern and Western Germany were partitioned. When did this end? 1990. When was the EU founded? 1993. The EU was essentially giving newly unified Germany what it had always wanted--governorship of Europe and the reduction of potential fronts from 3 to 1. The only enemy Germany has to fear now is Russia. The EU is de-facto the Fourth Reich, an economic, political and (soon) military union that secures 3/4ths of Germany's geopolitical anxieties and thus prevents war.

Foch predicted correctly that Germany as it existed at the time would ALWAYS have impetus to start another war unless it were either dismantled entirely or appeased.

>>2687314
Russia was not supporting a war, it was supporting an allied nation that was receiving outrageous demands from Austria. If Austria compromised on the demands, which would not change much as Serbia agreed to all but one, and worked out a peaceful solution there would be no war. But Germany gave a blank check to Austria and Hindenburg pressing Austria to war(which caused Vienna to ask the famous question "Who rules in Berlin?) which made Austria push demands that they knew that were going to be rejected.

So it's okay if Germany acts like a baby when getting the fuck knocked out of it when it loses, but god forbid if another country does it. Last I checked but France paid all of its reparations and it was ahead of schedule too. France was asked by Germany just before the war to prove her neutrality to let German troops enter France and dismantle her forts. This forts cost France a 100s of millions of dollars to build if not billions, and their purpose was to prevent a German occupation/slow down an advance. So letting that happen was out of the question.

Britain pulling false flags is something I have no clue what you are talking about in regards of getting America into the war. The closest thing I can think of is the lusitania sinking, where the British denied arms being present on the ship. But this event did not bring America into the war. The Zimmerman telegram was even admitted by Zimmerman publicly as he thought it would not cause any trouble for he once travel on a train in America so he thought he understood America. He also thought since America was not at war with Germany they would not freak out about Germany helping Mexico invade if the US declared war on Germany.

File: s4dTtBy.jpg (86KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 384x313px

>>2687376

>The punitive measures taken against Germany were literally pointless, the idea of "punishing" Germany for the war was idiotic

The only reason that the measures failed to prevent a new war is that Britain simply didn't enforce them, and they allowed Germany to talk their way out of aspects of the treaty too easily. Even if the reparations did go a little over-board, they were well within Germany's ability to pay, and Britain and France demonstrated a willingness to allow for the reparations to be reduced on multiple occasions. The biggest mistake was the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.

>>2687467
Part of Foch's analysis was that expecting the measures to be enforced for the full period was unrealistic. Politics don't end just because you've fought a big war.

Remember what was happening at the time. France was starting to look pretty fucking Red, and the Soviets had already fought a war with Poland (great forgotten conflict of history desu) and Italy was busily going full retard in Africa. With the Soviets looking less and less like a failed state and more and more like the Mongol Horde, something was going to happen eventually.

In light of this, allowing Germany to get back on its feet probably seemed like a good idea. Hitler did solve a lot of problems in the early days, people were calling him the savior of Europe because they thought he was trying to avoid war, not start it. In fact it may well have been a good idea if they had showed a bit more restraint in dealing with him, but hindsight is 20/20.

The war was still essentially inevitable, this time in the form of a Soviet invasion, and probably without American involvement.

>>2687519

>In light of this, allowing Germany to get back on its feet probably seemed like a good idea. Hitler did solve a lot of problems in the early days, people were calling him the savior of Europe because they thought he was trying to avoid war, not start it.

This is all true, they just really under-estimated Hitler's autism. I guess hindsight makes everything look obvious.

>>2684379
But it's been like 50 years since last time

File: 2GERjGS.jpg (50KB, 453x530px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 453x530px

>>2687532
And, in the early days, his rhetoric was almost entirely aimed at people everyone already hated. Communists and Jews. Well no shit, sounds like a great guy, at least he'll keep the KPD from turning Germany red right?

And in fact, they were probably right about that, with rising social strife it's entirely possible that Germany could've turned fucking communist instead of NatSoc. What then? Peter Hitchens said that the great geopolitical game of the last 150 years has been preventing Russia and Germany from allying, because such an event would be the only way to challenge Anglo-American supremacy globally.

Basically the risk of a second world war was worth it to the Eternal Anglo if it removed all chances of Germany turning red. Even once the Soviets started carrying the war, notice how hard the Bongs and the Burgers worked to ensure that Germany was only partitioned instead of consumed entirely by the Soviets. They didn't have to pull Overlord or Market Garden or any of that shit, they could've just sat back and watched the Russians gradually grind their way to Alsace while firebombing Saxony.

>>2687557
Germany Reunified in 1990, so we would've been due for war sometime around 2010 if we hadn't given them the EU (totally believable btw) which has rapidly mutated into de-facto German dominion over most of continental Europe. Turns out the final solution to the German problem was to give them everything they wanted and to let them choke on it. Now the EU is falling apart and everything is turning retarded again because there is no end of history.

>>2687573
>They didn't have to pull Overlord or Market Garden or any of that shit, they could've just sat back and watched the Russians gradually grind their way to Alsace while firebombing Saxony.

They opened a second front specifically at Stalin's insistence you goddamned retard.

>>2687581
They were asked to, but I am not convinced it was necessary. The Germans were looking pretty hosed for manpower anyway, the war could not have ended well for them even if the Western allies had pulled out entirely. You'll notice that none of the Sovietaboos ever bring up Stalin's pleading for help when they talk about US, Canadian and South American contributions to the war. They could've won, but it would have been Pyrrhic, and probably reversed in the following years by an Anglo-French-American coalition.

In light of the risks, though, it was easier to walk through France and simply partition the country.

Population of France in 1939: 42 million

Population of Germany in 1939: 87 million

From the time of the unification France was only being kept alive by its alliances.

France was the one who had the real dog in the fight for keeping Germany down, and with the USA comfortably back in isolationism and Britain showing no interest in putting up for another fight, France didn't have the strength to hold them themselves.

It's almost as if retards love to fight and the bourgies love to spend the blood of the proles they rule over.

Pretty sad, desu.

File: Albert_Pike_-_Brady-Handy.jpg (2MB, 2805x3200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2805x3200px

>>2684374
>How did he predict WW2?
that's nothing kid
watch this

>>2687099
Wasn't the Great Depression a direct result of WW1?

>>2687639

This. People like to think that war is a tragedy, but it's just the inevitable outcome of human impulses and competition for limited resources.

>>2687727
No, it was caused by a market crash in 1929. Stock prices dropped hard as people over-invested in too many stocks driving prices up, so when the stocks dropped to there actual price, bursting the bubble, losts of money was lost.

>>2687790
>>2687727
And the 1920's were called the roaring 20s as there was a ton of economic growth. The dust bowl also contributed to that whole issue. So no World War 1 was not directly responsible for it, and perhaps not at all, as there were so many other issue that caused it that are not connect to the war at all.

>>2687790
The stock market crash did not 'cause' the great depression.
>>2687804
>And the 1920's were called the roaring 20s as there was a ton of economic growth.
World Trade didn't reach its 1914 levels until just before WW2.

>>2687804
Well the Great Depression in Europe was extremely connected to Germany's Versailles payments, as the Fed in the USA was printing money to loan to Germany for them to pay to Britain and the Allies in order to make their payments. Once the depression hit that all had to stop. Germany suddenly had to find money to make those payments that actually existed somewhere, leading to an immense rise in resentment of the financiers at a time when 30% of the country was out of work.

>>2687844
Going to need citations on those as from want I found is increased wealth in the 1920's until the market crash. The global GDP increased and was higher in 1920's(expect 1929) than pre-1914. I know there is a difference between world trade and GDP, but people were earning more wealth than before. Again there is a reason why it was called the roaring 20's.

With the market crash, it was said to be the start I will give that perhaps not the cause. If you would like to state what caused it I would be happy to read that.

>>2687899
I misspoke, Global Trade increased past its 1914 level in the 1920s, European Trade didn't recover to its pre-WW1 levels until AFTER WW2.
From "World trade, 1800-1938: a new data-set" http://www.ehes.org/EHES_93.pdf

>A visual inspection suggests that before 1913 exports of all continents grew in parallel, whilst in the interwar years trends diverged. Exports from Africa, Asia and Oceania continued to grow throughout the period, with little or no effect from the Great Depression, exports from America grew in the 1920s well above the 1913 level but were hit severely by the depression and on the eve of World War Two they were back to the 1929 level. European exports lagged badly: in 1929, they had barely recovered from the war (and the Russian revolution) they fell by a third until 1933 and remained low until the war.

>>2687883
The Great Depression was not caused by Germany's Versailles payments or more precisely the loans they had to take. As stated already a lot of Germany's financial issues were self inflicted. So it was not the Versailles payments that caused it, but silly monetary policy from the Germans.

I presume your point is when America asked for payments right away from Germany, which she refused and thus caused panic worsening the depression. America did this as they already had the crash, which most cite as the start of the Great Depression. I will agree this helped increase the effects of the depression in the other countries, but they would still feel effects from such a large crash in one of the world's largest economies in the world.

I highly doubt anyone saw this bubble burst in 1919, or any of the event that help create such event from happening.

>>2687636
You mean 67 million for Germaany?

>>2687948
>but they would still feel effects from such a large crash
The stock market recovered most of its lost value in the months after the crash and hardly any Americans owned stock. The "Crash" did not have anything to do with the massive economic disruption stemming from WW1. Sanctions, inflation from the huge outpouring of spending during the war, the transitioning from a war economy back to a peacetime economy and a 'begger thy neighbor' approach to economic policy in the wake of the war were much bigger factors in the cause of the Great Depression than the speculation on Wall Street.

>>2687917
Thanks for the link anon, going to read it. But, before I do I would like to respond to the European growth. It might have been from the various wars in Eastern Europe. The Russian Empire was no more, and the Soviet Union just came out of a civil war, and some foreign wars, such as with poland. New nations came in to being in the east from the remains of war torn empires, such as the baltic states and Poland. Soviets I would image did very little trading with capitalist countries, Poland needed to rebuild and had to invest tons into military as it was sandwiched between Germany and USSR. So a lot of Europe I image was removed from the global market because of that thus lowering European trade.

File: The Crash.gif (5KB, 402x290px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 402x290px

>>2687984
True most Americans did not own stock, but banks and investors did. This people misfortune caused a domino effect in the economy. Investors lost cash and so did the companies they invest in. This meant companies had to cut losses and fired people. Banks(the major issue here) invest tons into the stock market. So they lost tons of cash, so when people went to the banks, the banks did not have their cash. The crash caused the run on the banks as people wanted to have their money back before they lost it all. Many banks failed as a result of this and thus many people lost their savings. They could now no longer afford other goods and so other companies lost profit, thus to save money cut expenses by firing people, or downright closing their business. This result would then create an terrible cycle. So it does not require most Americans to have stock but an institution that affects most if not all American to invest in stock and have a crash.

Also if you look at the stock market, it did not recover, it kept dropping.

>>2684577
That would've lead to radical german elements fucking Europe up to reform their state. Definitely not good.

>>2684386
They should have listened to the 14 points.

>>2688111

Honestly, if Hitler had just kept his turbo-autism in check, everything would have turned out fine. People need to stop blaming external factors for the Nazis chimping out after they basically got everything they wanted.

>>2688045
That massive drop is because of The Great Depression which was caused, among other things, by those factors I mentioned. The crash is a convenient narrative starting point for telling the story of the Great Depression, but it is not the cause. Again, those bank runs happened well after the crash as you can see how the stock market recovered in the months afterwards.

It was obvious as fuck. The Germans would have never settled with the symbolic insult that was the treaty of Versailles and that's where the problem lies: The treaty was harsh enough to make the Germans become austistically obsessed with revenge but not harsh enough to make them too weak to act on that desire.

>>2688338

The biggest problem with Versallies was the forced democratization of Germany. Ironically enough, this democratization is what gave Hitler and the Nazis a pathway to power. Of course, nobody could have known that at the time.....

>>2687376
why are they flooding europe with angry muslims? its just weird to think about when you call it the forth reich

The Weimar Republic didn't deserve getting taken over by Nazis ;_;. The first few years were certainly shaky,but once Stresemann came into power Germany actually started to recover and normalize until the Great Depression fucked everything up.

>>2688482
Weimar sucked it should have been taken by the Nazis or the commies.

>>2684386
>"Massive"

No, it's the fact that those sanctions were mostly symbolical that led to Germany automatically fixing its shit and turning back into the number one power in Europe shortly after the war.

Versailles didn't go far enough.

>>2688056
Can't be worse than WW2.

Dividing Germany and keeping every independent state in check would have been far better than what we actually got.

>>2688586
Best art, best entertainment, high standard of living, very good social policies, modernization.

It was great.

>>2688611
Who keeps them in check?

>>2688654
In theory, it should've been the League of Nations. In practice, France and Britain.

Divide and conquer was the way to go, not hoping Germany would just forget what happened and forgo seeking revenge.

>>2688703
What if the German states decide to spite Europe by joining the Soviets?

File: What should have been.png (844KB, 938x852px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 938x852px

>>2688703
I'll leave this here.

>>2687622
>Allies pull entirely out of the war
>The red army starves from lack of lend lease food
>Zhukov has brilliant plan,eat the dead people.
>We are back on schedule for Berlin boys.

I hate when people insist the Russians could ever win the war on their own.
Russia could not logistically have kept grinding forward without allied aid.

>>2688776
They're welcome to try.

It's not like the Germans didn't hold extreme grudges towards the Russians as well, and vice-versa. Germans wouldn't cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Progressively erode German identity, have them identify with their primary region instead, Germany was a mistake in any case.

>>2688777
>Germans keeps Holstein but loose eastern Prussia.

>>2688794
Chris Clark, Australian born British historian and author of works such as Iron Kingdom: The rise and downfall of Prussia and a good chunk of his peers have always felt this, and that Germany was the downfall of the enlightened, military state of Prussia and not the other way around. It's all a bit too ambitious, even know the country could easily be divided multiple ways and peoples lives would hardly change.

i.e give Bavaria to Austria, split East and West, kick Saarland back into France where it belongs etc

>>2688794
Well all they have to do is pick one group and only one group to hate like the British. And be willing to ally with anyone else. Basically forgive and forget all grudges and teach everyone that England is the root of all evil. And have all the German states be willing to submit to France or Russia if they will destroy Britain.

File: quote-one-day-the-great-european-war-will-come-out-of-some-damned-foolish-thing-in-the-balkans-otto-von-bismarck-303800.jpg (51KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 850x400px

>>2684374
I think Bismark predicting world War 1 is more impressive myself.

>>2688777
>>2688703
it would've been reunification in 20 years and WW2 only delayed by about a decade.

you can't turn the clock back on nationalism much like the Congress of Vienna couldn't turn the clock back on liberalism, nor could you tell the ~11 mil war vets to go back to a country that no longer exists

/his/ fanaticism is funny but I worry about how much you retards will try and meme this stuff for serious.

>>2688871
>this
>a meme

It worked after WW2, mate.

Nationalism wouldn't have been suppressed, its source would have been altered. Vets aren't coming back to whatever regions they were from, and should they try anything, you slap further sanctions on them and occupy them.

German identity was still extremely young at the time, it wasn't something that couldn't be broken.

>>2687376
>The punitive measures taken against Germany were literally pointless, the idea of "punishing" Germany for the war was idiotic, that does not accomplish anything and it was childish and short-sighted.
I'm pretty sure the Entente leaders recognized this. If it were any previous era in history, the outcomes you talk about would have happened. However, the World War as a total war that mobilized the entirety of the Entente's civilian populations. As the war became longer and the deaths piled up, the French and British publics became more determined to fight until the end, so that the sacrifice of so many lives was not in vein. Therefore, when the war ended, the Entente publics demanded that their leaders punish Germany at Versailles. To do anything else would have been political suicide.

>>2687196
France gave Russia a blank cheque as well you stupid fuck.

>>2688927
Russia was not looking to start an offensive war.

>>2687519
>France was starting to look pretty fucking Red
lol...what? the french government was pretty conservative during the interwar period, except during the brief interlude of the popular front.

>the Soviets had already fought a war with Poland (great forgotten conflict of history desu)
most people forgot about this i'm pretty sure

>Italy was busily going full retard in Africa.
Yes, but what I'm not really understanding what your argument is. If you're implying that Germany would be a counterweight to Italy thats a foolish idea. and anyway mussolini invaded ethiopia in 1936

>people were calling him the savior of Europe because they thought he was trying to avoid war, not start it.
where are you getting this from?

>In fact it may well have been a good idea if they had showed a bit more restraint in dealing with him, but hindsight is 20/20.
lmao, are you serious? restraint is EXACTLY the word to describe France and Britain's policy toward Germany in the 1930s.

>The war was still essentially inevitable, this time in the form of a Soviet invasion
Stalin didn't feel prepared to invade Europe even on the eve of Barbarossa.

>>2688610
>fixing its shit and becoming powerful in Europe

They were basically just a Vassal state of the League of Nations who made money off of speculation in US markets.They really weren't that impressive even after they ended hyperinflation.

>>2687790
no cause between the stock market crash and the depression has ever been found

>>2688359
>was the forced democratization of Germany.
have you ever heard of the german revolution of 1918?

File: U0F0vK4.jpg (35KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1280x720px

>>2688056
How could there be any radical German elements if there aren't any...Germans?

>>2688902
>After WW2
>With a soviet empire and a giant wall segregating the two halves

This is pathetic and you are grasping for the thinnest straws.

File: 10-2-2008-4-28-2010-stock-market3.jpg (45KB, 812x439px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 812x439px

>>2688322
No, it was the banking system that was the critical failure that caused the great depression. Sure loans added to the whole collapse but did not cause it. There is reasons why banking was given such huge reforms during the new deal. Banks were no longer able to buy stock(as that was why this whole issue started) and could only buy real estate(because that can't ever lose value right and crash right?). Banks were forced to grantee a set amount of cash as well if in case it failed.

It looked like the stock market was going to recover but anxiety of the public and speculation on the stock market made it collapse again. Banks still lost billions from the first fall, meaning that could not grant all their clients cash back. Look at that graph the peak after the fall is still less than before, thus the banks were still in the negative.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/banking_panics_1930_31 read that and see how the depression was caused by a banking failure. The banks did not have cash and that's what killed them. They lent out too much and failure of one bank caused people to panic and rush to their own bank to pull out their own money. This caused a chain reaction of failed banks.

2008 also saw quick recovery in the stock market, but that did not stop the financial disaster caused by its fall. Having the market fall but that much and stay low for a few months than has a small rise does not remove people's anxiety. So when they heard rumors that confirmed their anxiety and ran for the banks. Just because the stocks rose a little does not mean recovery as the market is volatile.

>>2689072
>baking panic of 1930/31
>stockmarket crash was in october of 1929

My argument from the beginning is that the Crash on Wall Street did not cause the Great Depression, the Crash was indicative of certain currents within the economy that would ultimately culminate in the Great Depression, but it wasn't the cause.

Instead of discussing Weimar everybody talks about punishing Germany more for WW1

>>2688927
As the other guy said Russia was only coming to aid an ally of theirs, in hopes that Austria to not rely on war. France also would have only came to aid if Russia was at war with Germany, not Austria so it's not like Germany pushing Austria into aggressive action like declaring war on Serbia. Look at what Hindenburg was doing in Berlin and his messages to Vienna, he wanted the war. Serbia even with the support of Russia gave into all the demands but one(which would have removed their sovereignty pretty much) and then said that they were willing to have a conference over that last point to come to a compromise that both sides could agree on.

Meanwhile France said it would only aid Russia if Germany was going to war with it not Austria. France was also not really paying much attention to the whole incident, as multiple high ranking public officials had been assassinated recently and did not spark wars(US had 2 presidents assassinated, France had one or two killed as well, Russia had a Tzar assassinated, Italy had officials assassinated as well, and all of these were in the past 50 years). France was also far more interested in the murder of an editor of a newspaper was shot by Henriette Caillaux. She did not mean to kill him but frighten him by showing him a gun. It worked but he dived to the ground when she shot the ground to scare him. This killed him, and this whole incident captured the public's attention. Basically she did this to prevent Calmette from spreading rumors about her Husband. So France had no real part in escalating the war, but also did nothing to stop it. The book "A world undone" by G. Meyer has more detail on this.

>>2689106
Okay, I think I see what you mean, the forces behind the market crash is what you are talking about.

I would say that the crash did cause and marks the start of the Great Depression as for what it did to banking. The market crash was caused by certain currents in the economy, such as too much credit. These currents ended up causing the crash, as they crash needed to come from somewhere, which then caused the Great Depression. I do not know how much this view differs from your own.

I would also like you to expand on what you thought these factors were as from what I read and infer you mean, giving and taking of loans by individuals and nations from each other, Sanctions I would infer as tariffs unless you are talking about the USSR, inflation only brings to mind the stock market and Germany(which was self-inflicted had had nothing to do with the war), and I think I get what you mean by transferring back into the peace economy as nations did not do it as well as after WW2. I know a lot of vets were screwed after the war and that there was little social programs for those returning. So I would like you to give the factors and what you mean by them as well as an example or two to clarify it even more.

>people debating the reasons for the great depression

Just like all other modern economic disasters, it was caused by poor government policies. Much of it was due to the pants-on-head retarded measures taken by Hoover and FDR to try to end it quicker, which of course made it significantly worse than it would have been otherwise. The market crash and all that is irrelevant. Market crashes and recessions happened all the time. It's only when government get necessarily involved and try to solve problems that true catastrophes occur.

Here's a hint: if you think the 2008 financial crisis was caused by anything else but government policy, you are not qualified to talk about the great depression.

>>2687080
They didn't go overboard. They had 2 choice: make a big, dreamy peace with the Germans, or punish and humiliate them completely.

They did neither: Germans lost land, and had to pay for decades, but they were still functional and very strong. They lost enough land to trigger hard natsionalism, but not enough to make them irrelevant. They should had just balkanised it, like they did with Austria (and Hungary).
Hell, that was the solution after ww2.

>>2688902
>Nationalism wouldn't have been suppressed, its source would have been altered

It wasn't suppressed in France or Britain, and even after 40 years the 2 Germany unified, just like how Vietnam unified, and Korea will unify sooner or later.

I also think balkanisation could had been the solution, and they should had reawakened Bavarian, Silesian and Prussian natsionalism, these were very alive before the Great War, most Germans were still Prussians or Bavarians first and Germans second.

File: 6bc7e305df3b8a2b2a8a43fbcc71ea6c.jpg (62KB, 423x640px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 423x640px

>>2684374

Germany should have been turned into an allied protectorate and purged

>>2689227
The Great Depression wasn't just an American phenomenon you twit

>>2687557
>what is EU?

>>2689550
>Hell, that was the solution after ww2
It wasn't though. Germany was never balkanized and would have fully reunified in '47 were it not for France or in '49 were it not for the Soviet Union.

>>2690396
This german independent state meme needs to stop right now
>implying most people around you wouldent identify closer to their home state other then the country as a whole
take a look at places like texas and the deep south and in the united kingdom
a lot of people in texas identify as texan first and american second
the untied kingdom is a country that is composed of three countrys that hate one another
honestly ripping states apart is not the right way to do this

>>2688902
>German identity was still extremely young at the time, it wasn't something that couldn't be broken.

This is true. Even during the war there were already major rifts between Bavaria and the rest of Germany.

>>2690427
Not a war? I mean i'm no fan but it's pretty clear from all angles that the EU isn't a war, especially when you can leave at any time with the only downside being the benefits you got as member of the club.

>>2686680
obviously, nothing else has anything to do with anything