Why was Germany not balkanized after the first world war?
>>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
>>565394
the obsession with power balance enabled germany to rise again desu. Churchill was vindicated in the end.
>>565394
A unified Germany upsets the balance of power because of its vast industrial base, especially when the rest of central Europe was left weak by the dismantling of Austria-Hungary
If Britain really wanted to preserve the balance of power they would have tried to preserve the latter or tried to dismantle the former.
Wasn't the balance of power one of the causes behind the war? Large states allying with each other in order to balance other alliances that led to a world war. I doubt they'd want to recreate that
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.
They even could keep East-Prussia.
>>565315
Because it was impossible in practical terms.
Just look at the occupation of the Rhinelanf, the Entente left 5 years before schedule. Now imagine occupying the entire country for decades.
Also, German nationalism would skyrocket on the notion that the Fatherland only dissapeared because the French invaded and torned it apart.
>>565470
The problem with Versailles was that it was harsh enough to cause resentment but not harsh enough to prevent Germany from seeking revenge
>>565315
>implying Germany isn't already balkanized
>>565490
It is, and it's all their fault.
Nice map, by the way.
>>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.
>>565470
That bit is literally Danish clay though.
>>565513
>negotiated
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.
>>565631
Simply wrong, it wasn't a surrender but a negotiated peace
It was.
They lost a lot of lands that were historically German. And they never reunited with Austria that is so German that the German Emperor used to be from Austria.
>>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
>>565644
>negotiated peace
nigga wat? The Powers imposed Versailles unilaterally upon Germany. The Germans had no choice but to sign it.
>>566036
Yeah, cause Lloyd Goerge could read the future
>>565510
>Austrians
Just like Anglos are the cancer of Europe, Austrians are the cancer of Germany.
>>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)
>>566188
Fair points.
but
>Yeah, cause Lloyd Goerge could read the future
What do you mean by this?
>>566234
Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe, or the Holocaust after WW2 was not foreseeable in 1918. Probably you didn't even mean that, but that's how it reads
>>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
>>567559
And more importantly, what Army?
>>565315
USA said no, that it would only engender greater resentment towards the victors
>>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.
>>569490
America was an irrelevant country that had no say on the matter
Britain is the country that saved Germany from balkanization
>>569522
>America was an irrelevant country that had no say on the matter
America was the most influential country at the time.
>>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
Would France have started a war if it wasn't for the Balkans shit?
>>569542
In 1918?
Are you joking?
It was Britain, then France, then by some margin the US.
>>569594
You are thinking of 1818. Things were rather different in 1918.
Why didnt Bavaria get independence?
>>569623
Britain didn't want Germany dismantled. The Bavarian Revolution, which led to the establishment of a temporary socialist/marxist? state in 1919, probably didn't help either.
>>569623
Would have been eaten up by Austria anyway
>>569623
Because they didn't wanted.
Inb4 Bavarian Soviet Republic.
>>569647
Rather Austria than Germany
>>565490
>romuvafags
>germans
pick one, brother
>>565470
>I mean just compare it to the Hungarian Trianon treaty
Trianon was as fair as it could get. Aint no one's fault Hungarians overstretched like a pancake
>>570243
>Trianon was as fair as it could get.
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.
>>565578
Can you elaborate, I know nothing about Danish clay history.
>>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.
>>569651
That's retarded.
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.
it was
IIRC, France was the only major power who wanted Germany #rekt.
The UK wanted to keep them as a defense against the eastern commie hordes, and the USA objected to the war guilt clause.
>>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
