Without Hitler, would Germany eventually accept the Versailles borders?
They probably could have gotten some areas back with Gandhi style passive resistance until a referendum was held.
Otherwise, it could have gone either way.
German dissatisfaction with Versailles was much bigger than Hitler, and I can see a more moderate figure using some coercive diplomacy on the neighbors, especially since the British and French were unwilling to respond with military force.
>>674349
While Hitler wasn't the only advocating the abolition of the treaty of Versailles, he and his party were certainly a driving force behind it, so presumbly yes.
>>674362
>Gandhi style passive resistance
literally the worst tactic in history
>>674349
Poland was willing to give Danzig back once they had a port built.
Alsace-Lorraine wasn't coming back, though.
Are you kidding? Hitler get so much power because the Versailers "Treaty". In fact he was the very first chancellor that acceptet some of the borders (Italy and France). He was even the only one who seek negoation with Poland. As a German i say you: Never ever would i acceptet something that incredible stupid and inmoral as the Versailes "Treaty". I would rather see rest of Europe burn, before that would happen.
With the benefit of hindsight, Germany would have been much better off accepting their 1918 Versailles borders, considering everything they lost in 1945. But dindu nuffin Germany, like in 1914, had no sense of perspective, only RAHH RAHH PRUSSIA IST BEST PRUSSIA MUH MILITARISM AND REICH! Should have stopped with getting Austria...
while they might not have accepted it readily the damn treaty was way to lenient
should have gone full A-H on germany
>>674349
Allies should have divided Germany to even smaller states.Germanboos called it harsh, I think Versailles treaty was too lenient for them.
>>674440
It was extremely lenient. Compare it to Brest-Litovks or treaties with other Central Powers: Trianon, Sevres, Saint-Germain, Neuilly-sur-Seine. Germany, the greatest warmonger, emerged unscathed while her more or less willing associates got dismembered. Or to what Germany had in store for the Western allies.
Fucking Anglos, if they didn't take Germany's side at Versailles, there would be no WW2.
>>674440
>blaming Germany for yet another Habsburg fuck up
>>674480
>commit war crimes all over
>only get small bits of your land you conquered barely 50 years ago taken away
way to lenient
Germany should have been allowed to annex Austria, imo
>>674440
how would id be fair if France lose a war and have to paid 1.797.405.490 USD, lose one if thirt of the terrotery and everything above Europe be fair in anyway? And be declared to have start the war.
>>674567
France did lose a war and paid a fuckload of reparations and lost Alsace and Lorraine.
>>674567
How did German reparations in 1918 compare to French reparations in 1870?
Not taking a side just yet.
>>674584
French actually paid theirs while the Germans paid like 5% of theirs.
>>674596
But how did they compare in terms of the amount owed?
>>674572
5.000.000.000 france never the same as 132.000.000.000 German Goldmark.
Elsas Lotherring belongs to Germany. France just conquered id because they want to be safe.
>>674607
Germans did not owe anything because they never intended to pay.
>>674596
Germany actually did pay off their war debt.
>>674610
>Elsas Lotherring belongs to Germany.
I don't know how the Alsatians felt about that, m8.
>>674596
Germany did not just paid money. And terorrotery. They give recourses and 12% of the Export the earnd. And were not allowed to have a zoll. The Damage from the war was a lot smaller than from WW1. And Germany did win his war on his own. Not by having debts to america.
>>674616
After it was reduced to a large degree in 1953, and even then it took several decades.
Do you understand the time value of money? Of course you don't.
>>674427
Gdańsk wasn't part of Poland
Because of WWI, WWII was bound to happen. Germany was burdened with way too much war debt for it not to.
>war
>crimes
come. on.
>>674655
Germany did not pay and never intended to pay. German war reparations payments stopped in the early 20s.
>>674663
Of course they stopped paying in the early 20's They went into fucking hyperinflation mode and the French marched into he Ruhr, killed workers and demanded their payments in Steel. No fucking wonder why the Krauts got sand in their vagina.
>>674701
the*
>>674701
They went into hyperinflation mode as a result of their policy of trying to avoid payment anyway they can, not the other way around.
>>674349
The war may have happened under the SDP. Genocide would not have.
>>674631
do you know what the Gold Standard is? Back then money was based on Gold. It does not matter what Germany actually in the End compared paid. The 1,7 trillon a metion before were the "debt" in Gold in todays time. Without interests! Thats almost the same number that todays Germany have in debt! Mean by a new Versailers Germany would have to paid 40 Billion (1-2% interest) every year just for the interest! No Goverment in the World would agreed to something as this! Compared to Frances paid this is lauhigbal. When 1871 Germany would make this as France debt.... France would be a third world country today.
>>674440
Versailles was lenient on the German nation but harsh on the German people
>>674815
why leniant? Britain is war mongol number 1 in world history, second is france. Both Countries had much more colonies. Germany did until this time never did anything in crime that is compared metioned. Even when you add the Nazi-Regime to itt. its just a joke compared. Here in the west, everyone is pointig his finger to Germany.. The Rest of the World is different. the big Propaganda you were told is just a lie.
>>674402
It works though.
Truth is that German people couldn't understand why they had to pay so much because they didn't experience the war on their territory; they felt like they hadn't been defeated.
>>674567
but they did declare war.
Also you're talking about what is fair haha.
Yes, what's fair is that when you get defeated you get to repair all the damages you've been doing for only four years, especially if your economy has been flourishing.
>>674928
This is exactly why I approve of people like Arthur Harris and Curtis Lemay.
Sometimes you have to use extreme measures to get your point across.
>>674925
only as part of a carrot and stick approach.
the sticks in gandhi's case were initally the bengali and punjabi youth that were more open to a violent solution, and later the INA scaring the british shitless.
>>674956
Germany had some pretty good carrots and sticks.
The British and French didn't give a shit, so if the Germans asked for a referendum and ethnic Germans marched, it'd probably work.
>>674990
yes, but they had to elect an /r9k/ browser for their leader who wanted his beta uprising.
>>674402
It works if there are media who reports you, and foreign people who empathyse with you
If Hitler stopped at taking over Czechoslovakia and basically held a low profile for the rest of his dictatorship, would there still have been a war?
>>674718
So they never intended to pay back the debt, and they deliberately printed more money so they would have a shitty economy?
Why are we told that they wanted to pay it back and thought printing more money would do the job?
>>675133
Hitler needed gold and cash reserves from defeated nations to avoid defaulting on his debt.
The war economy was a fucking joke
>>674429
You guys are just retards in general
>>675133
Yes, but there wouldn't have been a Nazi Germany. Adolf would have probably died before it collapsed.
I give them to 1950 if they don't go to war. Maybe '54 if they start the war in '48.
>>674662
Some people have morales and dont act like dogs anon
>>674900
>germany dindu niffin
>you cant blame us!!
Oh shut the fuck up and admit your ancestors couldnt do anything right
>>674941
So penalize the losers? Thats disgusting. So when the Nazis had won the war, the holocaust would be ok- Because the winner say so! The Enetane were not victims by an German Empire than would crush them. Would that be that case, By the way: Yes Germany lose both wars (obvisoly) but the first one to the USA and the second one to UdSSR. Germany would have won the war.
The Germans troop did took a lot of Damage too.
>>675159
Stop listening to Adam Tooze please. None of the German sources showed anything close to a war time economy, including Speer, who had no reason to lie.
>>675160
"You guys are just retards in general"
Wich guys do you mean? The Germans? Thats incredible racist.
>>674474
Winner side should fucked up defeated side to the point it would not dare to waging war again, I think a totally destruction or a carthaginian peace would be the best.
>>675178
So my ancestor could not do anything right? Hm. I do not know from wich country you are. But at long you are not from China, India or Japan etc.. i would gues my ancestor did do a incredible good job compared. And ibetter than you ancestor did. But i admit since 1991 Germany did a lot of mistakes.
"You cant blame us"
As long you are from Britain and Commomwealth, France, USA or UdSSR. Yes you can not blame us. Compared to your our Nation is holy. Why did you think the not-Nato Nations are so pissed about the Western World? Its because of there double-standardt of the past and present.
exampel:
past: Its okay when you conquer any land and steal ressources. But other nations are not allowed to do so.
-Its ok when you think you are better then the rest of the world, other ones are racist if the think so.
-Its ok when all your Peopel from a nation can live in one country, but other nations are not allowed.
-Its ok to build an Empire, but its not ok when other do it, too.
present: Its ok when you have atomic bombs, other are not allowed do to so.
-Its ok to invade other countries, other nations that do this are the Evil itself.
"germany dindu niffin"
We admitt that we make some big mistakes and crimes in history. But compared to you, its a joke. Last time i check the UK had not shown in there TV the concetrations camps in India every day.
That you do not misunderstood me;
Yeah this thing we do wrong in history;
-Having Colonies.
-Holocaust
-Joining the Nato and EU
Everthing else was in my eyes legit. And i would do it myself.
And you have to think about it, Germany is today also a west-country. That is in my eyes the biggest crime we did so far.
>>675448
So like the Indians? That is calling Genocide kiddie. I am a German, the media explains me every day what a Genocide is. Hitler would call it Propaganda.
So it was also a mistake that Britain did not destroy France in the past, two times. You think after Napoleon the should burn entire France down? If you think so, its fine. Its your (primitive) Opinion. History is told by the winners ;) But its still just half of the story. You miss then half of history.
>>675428
>So penalize the losers? Thats disgusting.
Wow. Did you even think before typing this?
haha, please open a book before talking please
>The Germans troop did took a lot of Damage too.
I'm talking about civilians in German territory
>>675445
>Speer, who had no reason to lie
Aside from self-aggrandisement and self-whitewashing.
Speer is actually proven to be a complete hack on many issues, ranging from him running the economy up to the extent of his knowledge about the Holocaust. Some of the charges against him surfaced when he was still alive and he was hilarious in ways in which he tried to worm out. For example, from his own memoirs it's evident that he was present at the SS meeting at which Himmler delivered the Posen Speech. Speer even mentions that SS officials got drunk after the conference. When this was pointed out to him, he said that he totally left the place before Himmler opened his mouth and he totally mixed that particular conference with another.
These borders are abomination and revanchism is too strong.
>>675535
My blood line has a literal wikipedia page and a statue, schools named after him, "Willi". so its debatable whos ancestor was better
As for the rest, theres Germans and Wehraboos who claim that Germany did nothing wrong, that all the war crimes were justified and what not, thats what im upset about. My country didnt have colonies and concentration camps.
>>675556
Actually, the reason France wasn't completely dismantled (although it did lose almost all territorial gains it made under nappy), was that the war wasn't against France. It was against Napoleon's regime, to put the Bourbons back in power. So, what do you know, the Coalition won, the Bourbons were put back into power.
>(primitive) opinion
This is what happens when we let /int/ leak, folks.
>>674349
Didn't Germany stay Europe's biggest economy even after the treaty?
Well given Germany did engage in the systematic destruction of all industrial capabilities within its occupied territories during WWI, I fail to see how reacting in kind with the destruction of Germany post-war would have been in any way unjustified.
>Germany will never be totally annexed by France
Feels bad
>>674925
Because if Gandhi didn't gain power, the more violent ones would replace him.
>>674624
It's majority German speaking, though.
>>674362
None of the taken areas had a German majority. They even got too much Silesia and East Prussia through shenanigans in referendum. Only thing up to debate was Gdańsk/Danzig and extraterritorial highway through Polish Corridor.
>>674349
The German problem is the distant consequence of massive fuck-ups the Great Powers did since the Thirty Years War or probably older. They were at fault, but the other Great Powers' hands weren't clean either.
Don't forget too that the interwar Polish government were massive assholes too, persecuting minorities, etc.; chauvinistic and borderline fascists. Anti-Germanism was rampant during and after WWI.
>>676155
We'll give you Danzig if you gib some of Silesia and leave us alone during your conquest boner tour
>Don't forget too that the interwar Polish government were massive assholes too, persecuting minorities, etc.; chauvinistic and borderline fascists. Anti-Germanism was rampant during and after WWI.
Yee, part of it was the country was just born again and they felt the need to imprison anyone who was an opponent to a free Polan (Ukies, Commies), another part of it was the Germans wern't onboard with a independent Poland, and neither was Lenin
>>674495
>you conquered barely 50 years
Danzig was theirs for like two hundred by this point, and iirc Lorraine always had a German majority.
>>676155
>Polish education
>>674629
Let's not forget it had to deal with a shitload of badly disfigured veterans as well. In 1919, over 1 Million Germans were dying from starvation caused by the ongoing British blockade.
>>674565
Intersting point: South-Tyrol was annexed by Italy, despite muh selfdetermination of nations.
>>676223
Danzig had 99% German majority. There isn't a single German city today that is anywhere near as German as Danzig 1939.
>>675556
The big difference is that, you know, Napoleon and France did somewhat modernized Europe, abolished feudal rights, gave the Napoleonic code, gave the Poles a real state. A lot of european leaders, like Alexander I admired France.
Compare that with the way Germany acted under Hitler, there is a big difference.
>>674362
>They probably could have gotten some areas back with Gandhi style passive resistance until a referendum was held.
Referendums happened and they've either lost or had to give up after uprisings.
No they wouldn't. Germans already started building the propaganda of "we dindu nothin' everybody wanted war it just escalated" so the revanchism was likely there.
British were too conservative in what they did to Germany, it should've been balkanised or partitioned.
>>674480
Habsburgs wanted a compromise after Serbia refused the ultimatum because of one single point but Germans pressured them on keeping it as it was originally.
French retreated soldiers from borderzone, Russians haven't started mobilisation yet, British tried to settle down the issue.
>>674567
France paid more of their reparations after 1871 than Germany did after 1918.
>>676310
>France paid more of their reparations after 1871 than Germany did after 1918.
And the war of 1870 actually took place in France, so the French were invaded, got their capital bombed and had to pay war reparations to Germany.
>>676319
Yeah, people seem to not realise that "red zone" still exist in France. After almost 100 years.
>>674349
No. It was only a matter of time for Germany to come out on top.
>>676310
There was no financial crisis and WW1 hid Germany much harder financially so the situation is incomparable.
In the end, the reparations of 1871 didn't cripple France as much.
>Habsburgs wanted a compromise after Serbia refused the ultimatum because of one single point but Germans pressured them on keeping it as it was originally.
No, this is nonsense. Germany wanted for Austria to march in fast, kick ass, take names and get things done before the other powers could react. And it would have all worked out, had the Austrian soldiers not been at home for harvest, which delayed the whole thing by months and gave the other powers time to mobilise.
It was still a fucking retarded idea to go to war over Serbia. Russia should have never backed the Serbian terrorists and France is as much at fault for backing Russia in that one.
>>676343
Oh please so the nation declaring war on someone is not at fault but the other nation deciding to honor their alliance is?
And lets not forget it was Germany who decided to invade and utterly try to destroy a neutral country out of convenience, they have zero moral highground in WWI
>>676343
1870's were the time of economic slow-down.
The difference is that French had good reason to want reparations
>>676358
Austria had all right in the world to demand investigating who murdered their Archduke. No country in the world would have tolerated terrorists who murdered their heir to the throne to keep on operating in their direct vicinity. Russia backing Serbia in resisting the Austrian demands out of pan-slavic ambition in an attempt to regain face after losing so pitifully against the Japanese, fanned the fires, and France - a republic - backing Russia, the most totalitarian of Monarchies that were still around, out of revanchism didn't help either.
In the end it was a fucking retarded idea and it definitely was not worth it.
>>676362
Let's not forget how Germany destroyed medieval castles, juste because they could
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Coucy
>In March 1917 the retreating German army on the order given by general Erich Ludendorff destroyed the keep and the 4 towers. It is not known whether this act had some military purpose or was merely an act of wanton destruction. The destruction caused so much public outrage that in April 1917 the ruins were declared "a memorial to barbarity"
And also how they bombed the Reims cathedral on purpose. Germans deserve everything bad that happened to them in WW2.
>>676321
>>676362
>according to the Sécurité Civile agency in charge, at the current rate no fewer than 700 more years will be needed to completely clean the area. Some experiments conducted in 2005–06 discovered up to 300 shells/10,000 m2 in the top 15 cm of soil in the worst areas.
>Some areas remain off limits (for example two small pieces of land close to Ypres and Woëvre) where 99% of all plants still die as arsenic can amount up to 17% of some soil samples (Bausinger, Bonnaire, and Preuß, 2007).
>>676365
>No country in the world would have tolerated terrorists who murdered their heir to the throne to keep on operating in their direct vicinity.
Serbia arrested and convicted those terrorists.
>Russia backing Serbia in resisting the Austrian demands
They weren't even mobilised, the "Russia backing Serbia" is result of international treaties.
> France - a republic - backing Russia, the most totalitarian of Monarchies that were still around
It was defensive alliance meant to protect them from German invasion which... oh dear it happened!
>>676371
>Serbia arrested and convicted those terrorists.
And Austria quite understandably felt that wasn't enough and wanted to do investigations of their own.
>They weren't even mobilised, the "Russia backing Serbia" is result of international treaties.
Serbia was assured of Russian support, who in turn were certain of French support. Otherwise Serbia would have never dared resist the Austrian demand.
>It was defensive alliance meant to protect them from German invasion which... oh dear it happened!
It happened because Russia mobilised near the German border and France wouldn't declare themselves neutral. If you pose a threat then you shouldn't be surprised that you get attacked.
>>676365
19th century saw a rather large number of royals and high government officials assasinated, although usually by social movements rather than national ones.
Starting a world war over that shit was unprecedented.
Generally, no one even liked Franz that much, especially not Hotzendorf, he just wanted some dick waving and killing and used it as an excuse.
Also, I can't understand how people don't take into consideration that Serbia accepted all but one point (a point that would violate their sovereignity and constitution) of the ultimatum for actions done by a non-official, rogue organisation.
All but one point to an ultimatum by the very country that looked to gobble up yugoslav and serbian lands for the past 50 years at least. The Serbs were very considerate imo.
>>676367
and in 1914 the Germans burned down the library of the Leuven university deliberately destroying over 330,000 books, many of which dated back to medieval times again without justification or sufficient provocation.
>>676376
>It happened because Russia mobilised near the German border
As a response for German mobilisation
>and France wouldn't declare themselves neutral.
Breaking treaties is Germany's domain.
>>676376
>France wouldn't declare themselves neutral
Because nation's declaring themselves neutral mattered even in the slightest to WW1 era germany right?
>>676377
>All but one point to an ultimatum by the very country that looked to gobble up yugoslav and serbian lands for the past 50 years at least. The Serbs were very considerate imo.
Perhaps they were, but it apparently wasn't enough. It was a delicate manner.
>>676381
And what target would the German army violate French neutrality in order to attack, smartass?
>>676384
Eventually the French themselves given that the outcome would be France's major ally being defeated and incapable of waging war?
>this Germany Dindu Nuffin deu gud boyz ITT
holy shit
also
>muh WW1 muh Versailles caused muh WW2 and muh Hitler
mindnumbing and mindboggling
people literally glossing over twenty years of political, economic development and world altering events such as the great depression
>>676376
>Serbia was assured of Russian support
Serbia was told by Russia to ACCEPT the ultimatum.
>>676379
Russia had no business mobilising in the first place and backing a nation that was perceived as to be protecting terrorists.
>Breaking treaties is Germany's domain.
If your partner is doing something retarded you might want to reconsider whether it's a good idea to honour your treaty.
Do you honestly think WW1 was worth it?
France lost more men than in any war before. 40,000 men butchered by German steep angle artillery in a single day in the Ardennes. The Russian Tsar lost his throne, his life, his family, the Monarchy was ended. Communists took over all of Eastern Europe. The British Empire lost their predominance in the world, the US started to take over.
Yeah, I'm certain giving in to the demand to let Austria investigate would have had much worse consequences.
>>676387
This is not true, Germany has literally NEVER pursued a policy of warmongering in their entire history.
>>676393
LOL
gb2/pol/ :^)
>>676391
>Russia had no business mobilising in the first place
see
>>676379
>Breaking treaties is Germany's domain.
>>676391
>If your partner is doing something retarded you might want to reconsider whether it's a good idea to honour your treaty.
That partner was key part of French defensive strategies.
>Do you honestly think WW1 was worth it?
In 1914 nobody knew how it would fare.
>>676387
And why exactly would Germany attack France if France was neutral? You know Germany's primary geopolitical conflict was with Russia, correct? Springing from the anxiety over Russia's rapid industrialization, leading to the inevitable Russian eclipsing of German capacity?
>>676402
>And why exactly would Germany attack France if France was neutral
Geopolitics. While they were centred around Russia, France was also considered as a part of this puzzle(as a colonial power)
>>676401
>In 1914 nobody knew how it would fare.
Utter nonsense.
The Elder von Moltke - far from a tree hugging hippie - warned years before that the next major war in Europe would be the last.
>>676391
>russia had no business backing a nation in the balkans, the prime target of their imperial ambition, countering other powers' imperial ambitions in 1914
herp derp, serbs should've given Hotzendorf a lolipop and said "sowy I weawy mean it"
>>676406
>serbs should've given Hotzendorf a lolipop and said "sowy I weawy mean it"
Yes, that's exactly what they should have done.
>>676404
>The Elder von Moltke - far from a tree hugging hippie - warned years before that the next major war in Europe would be the last.
And he was wrong.
>>676402
so the french, diplomatically isolated in the years before ww1 and without any support should a repeat of 1870 happen, should have just abandoned their alliance with russia - an alliance the germans themselves made possible, and an alliance specifically aimed at protecting each other against a german threat? the french and the russians were worried about a belligerent germany and turned to each other for protection, and your reaction to that would be to... dissolve those ties in face of this exact german belligerence
brilliant
>>676391
>ww1
>commies took over all of eastern europe
nope, go read a booke other than "99 ways to practice onanism with uncle Klause and the wehrmacht"
>>676409
The consequences of WW1 were lasting enough; not to mention that WW2 was pretty much the strategic continuation of WW1.
>>676411
>should a repeat of 1870 happen
So the Franco-Russian alliance was built in case France declared war against a German state trying to consolidate power amongst other German states?
>>676414
>the strategic continuation of WW1
what does that even mean
>>676412
So you're under the impression that without WW1 Lenin could have taken over Russia? Lenin was funded by Germany. He was handed millions of Reichsmark in gold.
>>676419
no, the outcome of 1870 obviously, which saw France soundly defeated and in a bad shape
>>676420
It means what it says: the strategic goals remained largely the same.
>>676414
>WW2 was pretty much the strategic continuation of WW1.
That's stretching it.
Then you have Yugoslavia and Ukraine(currently ongoing), by some definitions also Georgia(2008).
>>676419
>in case France declared war against a German state
No, the treaty stated that it was in case of defensive war, Germany(or other power) would have to declare it.
>>676426
>>in case France declared war against a German state
>No, the treaty stated that it was in case of defensive war, Germany(or other power) would have to declare it.
Ah, you're talking about 1870, ignore it.
>>676257
More like 95%, which includes bilinguals who were almost entirely of Polish extraction or from mixed marriages. There were also some Polish towns within the Danzig Free City, like Peckel or Zoppot, the latter being a fashionable resort for the Polish rich. Although I agree, in 1939 Danzig was overwhelmingly German, which is precisely why Poland was willing to let it go on good terms, but not when Hitler used it as a blatant excuse to start a war.
It was however a different matter in 1918. There was much more Pole within the city back then. The number of Poles fell due to immigration, since the city authorities were openly hostile to them.
>>676422
Lenin was able to take over Russia because Socialist-Revolutionaries believed him that he will stop building totalitarian state once civil war is over.
>>676422
under the same reasoning had germany been destroyed as a state WWII would have never happened either
so germany should indeed have been split up in small states about equal in power and importance to say the low countries
>>676422
No, you are ostensibly under the impression anything east of the Oder and Wien is "eastern european communismland."
Other than that, the revolution in Russia didn't happen because of reichsmarks, but it did happen because of the war.
>>676435
>No, you are ostensibly under the impression anything east of the Oder and Wien is "eastern european communismland."
>it is not
Easteer poooreopean go home faggot we don't want your commie bullshit
>>676381
If they were a World power like France Yes it would...
>>676431
And he was only able to reach anyone because he could turn his small scale gazette Pravda into a major newspaper with funds from the German Empire. Not to mention that the socio-economic situation caused by the war made him seem a whole lot more popular than he was before.
>>674650
Danzig was a Free City but basically a Polish puppet
>>676441
So, what about the Petrograd soviet, Mensheviks, Cadets, the rural soviets, the Social Revolutionaries and so on?
As I've said, go read a book.
>>676434
>under the same reasoning had germany been destroyed as a state WWII would have never happened either
Possible, but it should be considered that Hitler didn't take over from Berlin, he took over from Munich. It's well possible that he could have done the same to a singular German state and then continue taking over one after another. With military intervention he could have been possibly stopped, but that's another story.
>>676451
The point remains that Lenin was the leading revolutionary and the conditions for him taking over were provided by WW1.
>>676454
And what part of that point is "Communism took over all of Eastern Europe?"
>>676453
If Hitler had started with just say Bavaria instead of all of Germany I could easily see various nations intervene military a lot sooner given the lower cost of starting a war.
>>676435
>Other than that, the revolution in Russia didn't happen because of reichsmarks, but it did happen because of the war.
Lenin was recruited by the German Social Democratic Party. Their agent Alexander Parvus met him in Switzerland, they provided an armoured train for him, a ferry to Sweden, and handed him a whole lot of money with the goal of bringing Russia to its knees through revolution.
This wasn't the first time the German Empire did this. They also did it in Ireland, where they funded an uprising. They did it in Ukraine, Poland, Finnland where they supported nationalist ambitions.
So, am I the only one who sees the ascention of NSDAP as almost directly related to the Great Depression and only consequentially related to revanschism and Versailles?
I mean, the SPD and KPD together got more votes than NSDAP in '33, without the internal schism and Stalin's hijinks, imo Weimar could have just as easily turned commie rather than nazi.
I feel that this is even reflected in today's european (and to an extent USA's) political spectrum, with both far right wing and commie ideologies becoming much more popular after the 2008 depression and the resulting greecednebt and nonresulting immigrant crises.
>>676461
Hitler wasn't immediately perceived as a threat either.
>>676243
Good argument m8, I think you really pointed out mistakes in my line of thought, you are an Ubermensch, just like your World War record shows.
>>676457
The part where it ended up taking over all of Eastern Europe. Not immediately after WW1 of course, but without WW1 it certainly wouldn't have been in the position to do so later.
>>676462
Lenin was just one small cog in the entire thing.
One part of one party. Ultimately, they prevailed, but it wasn't a clear thing in 1917.
The seeds of the social revolution were planted in 1861.
Also, what is 1905.
I mean, it's like saying the french revolution wouldn't happen without Danton or some bullshit like that.
>>676467
however if he had to rapidly unite germany before engaging in outward expansion he would have likely been perceived as a threat much sooner
heck its likely he might not have even pursued any goals outside of the reunification of germany given the amount of problems that'd bring
>>676474
It's still interesting that the guy recruited by the German Empire came out on top.
>>676472
clearly, you are a master of shifting goalposts.
Fine, I won't bother you anymore if you want to just casually spout generalisations.
>>676477
Quite possible. I'm just saying that there are too many factors at play. In any case, it wouldn't have been completely impossible for him to re-unify Germany. I do agree however that the likelihood of WW2 happening would have been much smaller - especially if some sort of national narrative was installed, e.g. blaming WW1 on the monarchy and making use of German regionalism.
>>676480
It's perfectly valid to say that Communism took over Eastern Europe and it's perfectly valid to say that it was able to do so due to WW1.
>>676483
it's also perfectly valid to say "Without Theodosius' victory at Frigidus, there wouldn't have been a 30 years war"
Is it relevant? No.
It wasn't clear that communism would take over eastern europe in 1918 and it wasn't clear that that would happen in 1941.
Hell, you could argue commies won in Yugoslavia simply because of Churchill's decision to fund them in '42.
So, your broad generalisation just showed your ignorance on the matter, but instead of manning up and admitting it, you had to drag me into this stupid back-and-forth, shifting goalposts left and right.
>>676446
And was making top dollar on it, since it was within Polish customs zone without having any customs.
The irony is that transferring Danzig to Germany would ruin the city economically. The free trade zone would be gone and Poland would no longer use thethe Danzig seaport. Danzig /Gdańsk sole economic reason for existence lies in servicing the Vistula basin.
>>675535
>So my ancestor could not do anything right?
They produced you, didn't they?
>>676491
It was the conditions created by WW1 and the German intervention in the form of funding Lenin which resulted in the rise of Communism in Russia and which was the cornerstone of their later expansion. This remains a fact. You on the other hand are fleeing into minor details in regards to whether or not Commies could have taken over this or that Eastern European shithole by this or that year.
>>675995
Let me guess, you're a Murrican with Cherokee ancestry who's also related to British and French Royalty?
>>675535
Disregard that, I suck cocks.
>>674624
My grand mother is Alsatian and I she doesn't really like Germany
>>675556
The difference here is that France, after the Revolution, wasn't the agressor but the attacked one.
>>676454
Lenin and Trotsky became "leading revolutionaries" after Russia signed peace treaty.
>>676144
But they didn't want to be a part of Germany.
AFAIK, they either identify as French or Alsatian.
>blaming germany for the war
>forbidding austria from joining
>isolating them on the international stage
Get rid of that, and I think Versailles would've been alright, especially if it was actually enforced.
>>677567
>>blaming germany for the war
Germany wasn't blamed for the war in the treaty. It was made liable for the damage it wrecked. But they soon started to twist and spin in order to portray themselves as the victims.
>>677567
>>isolating them on the international stage
Germany wasn't isolated. It chose to do so.
>>676469
>>677734
Same person.
>Germans
>Germany
How can one nation be so autistic?
>>677834
A for effort, you fucking autist
>>677834
>that pola/k/ self roasting lad banter
based
>using it as a serious reaction image to you getting bodied
kys tßh fäm
>>675159
Why do people still believe this myth?
>>676144
Absolutely not
>>676367
>list of cathedrals and castles blow up be the French in Germany.exe couldn't load because too large
