Why the idea that the Versailles treaty was unfair and lead directly to WW2 is still widely taught ? It's pretty obvious WW2 completly fucked up Germany and the allies caused way more destructions than the Versailles treaty.
Basically one side argues that Versailles was too lenient and didn't contain Germany enough, the other side argues that it was too harsh and directly launched Germany into a crazy national revanchist sentiment.
Either way, it was shit.
>>834211
>Basically one side argues that Versailles was too lenient and didn't contain Germany enough
Who the fuck says this?
>>834249
The French.
>>834249
t. Angry Kraut Boy
Despite what people will tell you, Germany was in no way "just another European country." They were a harsh authoritarian regime hellbent on becoming the dominant power of Europe and were perfectly willing to threaten the balance of power to do so. Germany egged Austria on and was the country most eager for war.
>>834249
good historians
>>834211
The main problem is probably that none enforced it.
>so hitler, i heard you remilitatized the rhineland...
>Ja?
>And we really really don't like that...
>Ja?
>So mayyou please dont?
>Nein.
>oh well, see ya next time.
>>834167
Because it was a Caudine Forks kind of thing: Versailles was punitive enough to piss the hell out of Germany, but not so punitive as to destroy their power forever and keep them from doing something about it.
>>834742
>Wilhelmine Germany
>a harsh authoritarian regime
If I were to describe the Second Reich, it would be "democratizing in spite of itself."
France showed up to Versailles with a shitload of war dead and the plea that WWI was fought on French soil. As a result, they largely got what they wanted. France was well on its way to being a second class power, in terms of birth rate and economy. They felt massively threatened by Germany, and wanted to send them back to the Stone Age. If every single German had died a slow agonizing death the French would declare a national holiday. The French were vehemently insistent that the war debts be repaid, despite knowing full well that there was simply no money with which Germany could comply. They even stationed French troops on German soil when they fell behind in payments. As a result, the German government simply printed more money causing the comical hyperinflation we're all familiar with. This economic collapse was a large reason the German populace was willing to accept the radical ideals of Nazism.
>>834865
>They felt massively threatened by Germany, and wanted to send them back to the Stone Age. If every single German had died a slow agonizing death the French would declare a national holiday.
That's kinda what happened after WW2. Germany suffered from heavy bombardments, was occupied and splitted into two.
So why is the Versailles treaty seen as horrible when clearly, Germany suffered a worse fate after WW2 ?
>>834249
/his/
>>836630
Because hindsight is 20/20 you turbo nerd. When it happened, no one knew where the train was going. They just wanted on it, because sitting around being poor and getting kicked around was too much to bear.
The great war was not even such a terrible war. Peoples psyche from the war was crushed sure, but that made them more militarized, not just the germans but especially the unions in Britain. World War Two was what battered any sort of hope or change to the system, because it would mean your country's elite would be put in kangaroo court and replaced, forced into debt and occupation for the war, and if you're asian nuked.
>>834249
Everyone who knows what they're talking about.
>>834865
France didn't get anything it wanted. France wanted either to undo German unification, or to extend the border with Germany to the Rhine to help defend against further German invasions. Instead it got a promise for some money which was never paid, and the absurd situation of Germany, after having started and lost a world war, coming out of it stronger than ever.
>>834249
tout le monde!
but seriously everyone
Germans are literally the biggest dindus of europe.
t. brit
>take ethnic German land
>carve it out of German borders
>expect Germans to be happy and thankful
People can't be this retarded right?
>>837618
>>take ethnic German land
Yes, Polacks does it.
>>837618
>start wars/ideologies that killed millions of europeans
>hey, muh land; that's unfair!
Krauts everyone.
>>834742
How is that any diffrent from France, Britain Russia, Austro-hungary or any of the small irelevant countries? Are you trying to tell me some countries are allowed to expand and become global powers and some do not?
>>836630
Because of the Marshall Plan
>>837618
> take ethnic French land in the Franco-Prussian war
> carve it out of France borders
> expect Frenchmen to be happy and thankful once you lose WW1 a few decades later
Krauts can't be this retarded right?
>>834249
Versailles was literally ignored by Hitler and nobody did anything about it.
A stronger treaty, and most importantly people acting on it, would have shut down the Krauts before WW2 even began.
When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland he did so with an army 1/100th the size of the French Army, and they stood there and watched because the French didn't want to instigate something.
>>837668
What do you mean actions have consequences?
Stop being germanophobic, bigot.
>>834167
Germs are crybabies, everyone knows that.
>>834167
???
Just because WW2 fucked up Germany more, doesn't mean Versailles didn't fuck it up enough to cause WW2
Making the Germans pay an INSANE level of reparations was basically labelling the war as Germany's fault. Whether this is true or not, and most scholars would disagree with this now, it definitely is not a way to achieve peace, as it would clearly give the Germans a chip on their soldier and make them feel persecuted. It would give them reason to start another war.
If Germany didn't have crippling reparations to pay, didn't have the rhineland occupied, and didn't morally have to accept guilt for starting the war, then maybe the wall st crash wouldn't have crippled the Germany economy as badly and the Weimar republic might have survived.
Versailles really was more of a 20 year armistice than a peacemaking treaty. Versailles being too harsh was the lesson learned and applied after WW2.
>It's pretty obvious WW2 completly fucked up Germany and the allies caused way more destructions than the Versailles treaty.
Yeah but you're comparing actual warfare to the peace treaty that came afterwards. Instead of comparing WW2 you should be comparing what the allies did after the war to Germany. They competed to make their respective half of Germany as prosperous as possible because of the emerging cold war. No stupid reparations, rather they did the opposite and pumped billions of dollars into west Germany to get their economy (and the country as a whole) up and running again and make sure it was stable so liberal democracy could blossom and endure. I'd say it was a runaway success. It also helps that Germany was so utterly destroyed, whereas after WW1 the narrative took hold that they could have won the war but they were betrayed. There was no room for anything except the truth that militarism/fascism and aggression had utterly destroyed their country.
I'm interested in this school of thought that Versailles should have been far harsher and it would have stopped WW2. I've never read this before, someone please explain how it would work.
>>837750
>Making the Germans pay an INSANE level of reparations
less as a %age of GDP than the Franco-Prussian War reparations, and they didn't make them pay it at all. The Germans didn't pay the reparations in full
>Versailles being too harsh was the lesson learned and applied after WW2
what? The country was literally split in two and its eastern border was moved 100 miles westward.
>I've never read this before, someone please explain how it would work.
literally common sense. Making Versailles harsher (or actually enforcing it for that matter) would have meant Germany would not have re-armed and if they did try anything they'd have been bitch slapped
>>834295
No, we don't. Maybe in the fifties and in you fantasy, but it's widely taught today as "Germany was blamed for the whole WWI, and had to pay colossal reparations"
It's pointed as utterly unfair.
So, va te faire foutre.
>>837764
No, harsh treaty is bad. They should have deposed the monarch, took back alsace-lorranie and occupy the Rheinland. The main reason France was pissed was because of the border province. Give it back and kick the guy who started it out of power, would have solved the willy problem while also securing that the Germans won't get pissed. But hey that would have never happened because MUH REVANCHISM
>>837820
>No, harsh treaty is bad.
Top kek m8. During 4 years, german invaded all the north west of France, leaving only ruins and causing free destruction like the bombardment of the Reims cathedral.
The reparation asked in the versaille treaty didn't even cover all the damage caused. All we earned with this treaty despite we were the winner was the return of our own region stolen by Prussia.
If Anglo and USA had listened France and let us annex Rhénanie and dismantled Germany, WWII would have never occurred. But they prefered Versaille treaty. So blame Anglo if you want but not France.
>>837835
>Germany has the sole responsibility for WW1
Are you serious?
>>834211
That's not the problem. The problem is that it wasn't enforced when the Weimar and Hitler ignored it. The Allies did not punish them quickly when they chimped out.
>>837750
> It's OK when German do it: The Post: The Movie: The Game
>>837840
Hes probably French so yes. He probably also thinks France is the ultimate force of good in the world.
>>837847
>Its OK when France does.
>>837840
>The german was a poor victim of alliance system
Fuck off. Destroying Belgium and delcaring war to almost everybody make them one of the reason of the WWI bloodbath.
You guys are over complicating this.
The treaty of Versailles being harsh/not harsh was not the problem. The problem was that the victorious powers (UK, France and the USA) did not enforce the treaty either way.
All the leaders and important people of WWI should be executed or assassinated for the mess they made. I can't believe they got away with that. So much jingoistic shills all over the nations.
>>837750
>I'm interested in this school of thought that Versailles should have been far harsher and it would have stopped WW2. I've never read this before, someone please explain how it would work.
And yet you quoted Foch:
"This is not a peace, it's an armistice for 20 years"
- Marshall Foch in 1919. Who obviously meant the treaty was a joke, and far too lenient.
>make them feel persecuted
top kek
Reminder that France had to pay massive reparations in 1815 and in 1871 (despite the second one of those wars taking place entirely in France).
Reminder that unlike France which actually paid those reparations, Germany never paid more than a tiny fraction, and the German debt was cancelled in its entirety in 1932.
Reminder that neither the 1920s inflation crisis nor the 1930s depression had anything to do with reparations.
Reminder that WW1 completely destroyed the industrial heartland of France and Belgium, while leaving Germany completely untouched.
Reminder that Germany started the war and committed countless atrocities.
>>837840
>>837851
>Germany dindu nuffin!
>>837856
>Ignoring the last 100 years of academic thought and development so you can revert to the simple ignoramus "THEY STARTED IT" mantra
>>837872
Not seeing how any of this, even if I agreed with all of it, makes Versailles any better as a peace treaty. I mean, it failed. Miserably. The evidence is there, it's called the Second World War.
>>837879
We all learned the same thing in school Anon. "Nobody is responsible, or rather everyone is exactly equally responsible, the only culprit is evil nationalism. Don't blame the Germans, they're totally innocent, only blame nationalism, and all hail the EU."
Too bad reality isn't always what you wish it was.
>>837881
Oh, I see. You're a kipper. Everything makes sense now. Of course, the modern historical consensus is an EU conspiracy to destroy the righteous and honourable British Westminster parliamentary sovereignty!
>>837874
>France has never declared war on another country only for the reason they want more land and profits
Wow I never realised France were such good people. Germany sure is evil for declaring war on such a good and noble race as the French. How are those French colonies doing anyway?
Im sure glad we have the French reminding us that ww1 wasnt started by bunch of imperialistic assholes either trying to keep their lands and power or gaining their own. Instead the whole situation was compleatly black and white where one side was in the wrong and the other in the right. Sure is weird how suddenly history turned from gray to black and white. Oh well.
>>837888
woops
>>837874
That pic is correct, but lets not forget that the overarching political climate at that time made everyone want to go to war for God, King and Country™.
Because you know, dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
>>837880
Of course it failed. Where did you see me saying it didn't? It was an awful treaty because it let Germany off with a slap on the wrist after it destroyed Europe, and let it come out of the war in a much stronger position than it had entered it.
Of course the worst part wasn't the treaty itself but the refusal from France and Britain to even enforce the pathetic joke that it was, because even then everyone was going "omg we were so harsh on the poor Germans at Versailles, asking them if they wouldn't mind helping to pay for rebuilding some of the shit they destroyed, we should cut Herr Hitler some slack".
>>837890
Don't forget that things like the security dilemma and international relations theory doesn't exist. Nope, it's all a simple answer. Who wants nuance when you can keep things nice and easy to understand?
>>836630
because unlike post WWI Europe, Western Post WWII Europe essentially had the USA bankrolling everybody's rebuilding efforts.
>>834865
>This economic collapse was a large reason the German populace was willing to accept the radical ideals of Nazism.
>hyperinflation was in 1922
>Nazi takeover was in 1933
hmmm...you're missing something like a decade of history in your analysis
>>837889
I don't even know what a kipper's supposed to be.
>>837890
>nobody is responsible for anything
>everyone and everything is exactly the same
>>837892
Not everywhere. It's true the atmosphere in Britain was rather enthusiastic about war, but not so much in France aside from a minority of revanchists. French diplomacy did everything it could to prevent war, and I don't think you can fault Britain either since it only entered after Germany had violated Belgium's neutrality.
>>837894
>Germany... it destroyed Europe... it come out of the war in a much stronger position than it had entered it
>>837902
>kipper
>UKIPPER
>UKIP supporter
I took your unprovoked and random attack on the EU and similarly weird implied defence of nationalism as a sign I was arguing with a loony UKIP type person
>>836630
Because that's what you have to do. After WW2 Germany was partitioned, occupied, and lost its sovereignty. The following generation grew up learning that the Nazis were evil and that losing the war was a good thing.
What kind of idiot thinks Versailles was too lenient? Do they really think something like the Morgenthau plan is what should have been done?
>>837891
eternal german. never forget
ITT:
>FRANCE DINDU NUFFIN IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE!!!!1!
>/his/
>>834865
>As a result, the German government simply printed more money causing the comical hyperinflation we're all familiar with. This economic collapse was a large reason the German populace was willing to accept the radical ideals of Nazism.
No. Haven't we had this exact same thread like yesterday? You are literally ignoring the GREAT DEPRESSION! You know, the number one cause of Hitler's rise? The nazis were pretty much a non-entity during the time of the harshest economic problems tied to the Great War aftermath. Economic problems which were largely their own fault, by the way. The much vaunted reparations were cancelled before Hitler took power. And Germany was entirely capable of paying them had they acted in good faith. Etc. etc.
>>837908
Yeah, WW2, the Holocaust, and tens of millions of deaths sure seem like a much better choice, clearly Versailles wasn't too lenient at all!
>>837912
No, I don't believe in the conspiracy that some kind of intra-governmental European reconciliation policy secretly infiltrated academia and historians for the last 60 years have been forced by secret EU cabals to write papers diminishing German culpability for WW1.
>>837902
>nobody is responsible for anything
>everyone and everything is exactly the same
Yes? And? If you want an example of Brits alone on what kind of pieces of shit they were just read up on the Irish. The imbeciles try to put a positive spin on starving their own people for crying out loud.
>>834865
- France cancelled the German debt entirely in 1932.
- By then Germany hadn't even paid a tenth of the reparations.
- The German inflation crisis in the 20s happened because unlike France and Britain which financed their war effort using war bonds, Germany financed it with debt.
- None of this has anything to do with the Great Depression in the 30s which is when the Nazis were elected, and which affected everyone else as well.
>>837922
Just because someone else was idiotic too doesn't mean you're not an idiot yourself.
>>837908
The treaty saw Germany give up territories largely consisting of non-German majorities. The majority of the country was left untouched, the country did not break into constituent parts like Austria-Hungary. Germany was not subject to occupation - unlike after the P-R war. Reparations - not indemnities like the Germans extracted from France, but reparations for four years of damage caused to France's industrial heartland - were imposed on it, which they were entirely capable of paying, yet Germany did not pay them. Germany remained the highest GDP on the continent. It did not lose its key industrial and resource areas - like they had done to Russia with the B-L treaty. The consequent blatant breaking of the treaty was basically ignored by the allies until pretty much the outbreak of the second war.
Seeing as it was not harsher than the B-L treaty, nor the result of the P-R war, nor what happened to A-H, its key component of reparations was pretty much ignored and then cancelled outright, and its anti-military measures were not enforced, I can certainly see why the treaty would be called relatively lenient.
>>837922
>The imbeciles try to put a positive spin on starving their own people for crying out loud.
the English don't consider the rest of the isles to be Their People
>>837918
>Historical consensus since the 1940s has been that Versailles was far too harsh, lesson learned from WW2 when they poured money into the country and didn't force it to pay back any money since it had already suffered enough
>Hmmm yes obviously Versailles was too lenient and that's why WW2 happened, they should have just destroyed Germany entirely because that would have been possible and gone perfectly
I'm getting sick of this retarded anti-academic establishment shit, why are you fucks so contrarian
>>837651
Not him but kinda yeah. Remember that Austria-Hungary's annexiation of Bosnia is a precipitating factor in starting WWI and was widely condemned by the great powers. But none of them liked to see expansion by any European country (insert eternal Anglo meme here)
Germany happened to be the most brazen about it but if Spain had pulled the same nonsense it would probably be balkanized to hell due to the skullfucking the rest of Europe would have given them
>>837928
>France cancelled the German debt entirely in 1932.
Because Germany was re-militarising and France was trying to appease it desperately, showing that the reparations were a bad idea
>Germany hadn't even paid a tenth
Once again showing how insane the reparations were, that it would have taken a hundred years to do it, no wonder this gave the Germans grievance
>>837920
Biut diminishing the culpability of Germany for WW1 is literally what has been happening pretty much from the moment the war had ended. See Herwig's Clio Deceived.
This train of thought was only made more prominent by the continent revisiting the horrors of war some years later, and the subsequent need to at least partially rehabilitate Germany into Western European sphere. It was not until the 60s and the opening of German archives when this misguided skewing of history was challenged - see Fischer's work which while not without its issues, sparked a renewed research into the issue which led into the decades of the above obfuscation being slowly peeled away.
>>837937
If all you're able to do is switch your brain off and parrot the mantra you were taught in elementary school while refusing to even look at the massive evidence against it, why do you even bother discussing anything?
A severe lack of academic sources used in every First World War debate on /his/.
People just pull this crap from absolutely nowhere or just use Wikipedia. This makes the whole thread absolute pointless as the garbage people spout is just hilarious.
If you want an informed opinion on the outbreak of war, refer to the two books below.
Joll, J. & Martel, G. The Origins of the First World War (London: Pearson, 2007 [1984])
Steiner, Z. & Neilson, K. Britain and the Origins of the First World War (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 [1977])
>>837937
>Historical consensus since the 1940s has been that Versailles was far too harsh
you are lying on the internet
>>837949
Isn't it a bit asinine to blame germany for the whole war when the first shots were fired by Serbia and Austria-Hungary?
>>837920
The EU does subsidize the academy though, but I think it was a recent phenomenon. I don't know if there's an attempt to revise Germany's faults.
>>837948
Germany was entirely capable of paying the reparations without major damage to its economy.
See Sally Marks' Myths of Reparations, it is free on jstor I believe.
>>837939
Learn to read, I said your suggestion that academia and historians have been forced by some higher force to diminish German culpability for WW1 without anyone realising is what was secret
What a hysterical and ludicrous notion. If your world view relies on things like that you should probably have a serious self-examination
Whoever loses, America won for sure.
>>837957
>Isn't it a bit asinine to blame germany for the whole war
Who is blaming Germany for the whole war?
Certainly not the treaty of Versailles, and certainly not historical consensus.
They do have a large degree of responsibility in creating the conflict however.
>>837948
Germany wasn't re-militarising in 1932 you idiot. Just stop pretending you know anything about the subject.
>how insane the reparations were
The reparations were a total of 20 billion in today's euros. For comparison, Merkel's refugee policy cost about 50 billion so far.
>>837950
WAKE UP SHEEPLE
>>837969
Amazing post, why don't you show yourself out.
>>837962
Anon, what you describe is literally what had been happening to some degree after the war. Please refer to works mentioned in >>837949 especially Clio Deceived.
Basically starting immediately following their defeat, Germany started a propaganda machine aimed at doing exactly that, at improving their image in an attempt to lessen their culpability in starting the war. They suppressed academia which did not fit their viewpoint, they disseminated their own version of events etc.
>>837957
Nobody is blaming Germany for the war between Serbia and Austria. But maybe you can see how a war between Serbia and Austria would be different from World War I.
I should be taking the internet less seriously, I am genuinely upset at some of the "popular history" being regurgitated about WW1.
>>837962
Yes because academia has never ever been in any way political or influenced by any sort of political thought, clearly an absurd concept.
Indecision seems to be the ultimate culprit.
anyway, can anyone tell me about this guy argument? He's famous for being lenient toward dem Jerries. Already read the summary of 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace' in wiki.
>>838000
Keynes was pretty based, wasn't he?
>>834167
Versailles was France's revenge.
But after WW2 it began the cold war, and USA had to compete against CCCP. The Marshall plan helped a lot to lift the Germans again.
>>838012
>maybe pay this fine, or don't, whatever, other than that just carry on as before
Some revenge.
>>838000
You know what's funny/sad about Keynes?
He gets paraded around as this mythical prophetic figure who totally knew what Versailles would mean yadda yadda.
Except... his vision was basically of a Germany enslaved and ruined and the rest of the continent being dragged down as a result. Iron and coal production dropping, German economy unable to prop up anything well into the thirties, yadda yadda, stuff like that.
I.e. things that LITERALLY DID NOT HAPPEN. Resource production went UP! German economy GREW - in fact, after handling the hyperinflation, it did so DURING the short time they were paying at least some of the reparations! The Germans managed to spend MORE on rearmament than they would have on the reparations!
In fact already in the 40s he was already BTFO by Mantoux's Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes. Ferguson, Marks, Evans, Peukert etc. the list of people whose research tramples Keynes into the dust goes on and on.
>>834249
Anyone with common sense
Look at how the much harsher peace imposed by Americans and Soviets after WW2 worked compared to the half assed Versaille that was barely ever enforced at all
Here's the BBC's stance on Versailles
For all the naziboos who accuse everyone with a brain in this thread to be French
>>838062
I absolutely adore the modern British take on WW1 in education and historiography. From a country which was hit the hardest with all the Prussiaboo propaganda, Keynes, Blackadders, Butcher Haig, Lions led by Donkeys memery, they have turned things around admirably. The skewed popular perception still persists but hopefully that too will pass.
>>837948
>1932
>remilitarizing
Get a load of this pleb
>>837854
Start shit get hit.
>>834742
That was every major European power at the time you fucktard.
>>837931
France regularly occupying the Ruhrpott wasn't exactly something deescalating
People dont give the public education system enough credit.
My history teacher from Junior year had us each in separate groups map out the pros and cons of Versailles and then discuss them in class.
Versailles wasnt the worst thing to happen to Europe. It also wasnt the best treaty that could have come out of that situation. Ergo,
>Still widely taught
Is not a factual statement. If the student chooses to disregard the pros that were taught as well, its the students fault not the educational system.
>>837892
>That pic is correct
Actually, it conveniently leaves out that Germany sent an ultimatum to France to declare themselves neutral.
>>834742
Wilhelminic Germany was actually pretty liberal in many regards.
>>837881
Inferior people should be ruled by their betters and given that Germany even after losing two world wars is still the top-dog in Europe, it would be only wise to finally submit.
>>837900
the great depression in 1929 was the real nail in the coffin though, Nazis start making serious electoral gains after that
>>837968
because the Germany economy in 1918, after it had just exhausted itself in WWI is just as powerful as it is today at the centre of the EU right?
>>834211
>>834249
Versailles has always reminded me of the Battle of the Caudine Forks, where the Romans were trapped, and the Samnites had the Romans completely at their mercy. The leader of the Samnites asked his wise father for advice on what to do with the Romans, and he said to either let them all go in a magnanimous act of generosity, this would delay war for the longest time, or to ruthlessly kill their entire legion, which would delay war for half the time. The Samnite leader, Gaius Pontius, refused this advice, and instead made the Roman soldiers march under a yoke, a terrible humiliation, which only increased the hatred of the Romans, and ultimately led to more conflict.
I think the treaty of Versailles is akin to making the defeated soldiers pass under the yoke, and that it either should have been much harsher or much more lenient.
>>834755
/thread
>>838631
He implied that the collapse was the hyperinflation
>>837840
B L A N K C H E C K
>>838536
... by surrendering their border forts.
>>837890
>Germany totally wanted peace guys they are not to be blamed for anything
>>838536
lel, the German ultimatum demanded that France give them three cities.
>>834249
Clemenceau, quite often and quite vocally. As well as basically everything right-wing from 1918 to 1940.
>>839825
>Yes, I think giving the Russians MORE land in Europe is a great idea.
No one can be this dumb
>>837937
The current consensus is that the Fischer Thesis more or less holds. Germany caused WWI.
>>834167
Versailles treaty was too lenient for Germanboo, when you beat a mad nigga, you must make sure it's severed enough so that he could never strike back to you again. Which it's failed miserably...
The Divided of Germany to eastern and western block after 1945 is what the Allies amend for their mistake in previous War
>>840642
Russia has always needed a sphere of influence desu. Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia, and now Putin's Russia have always felt strategically insecure. Ultimately they keep germany in check and are generally less keen on throwing their weight around europe
>>838432
I loved teachers that did stuff like that.
I remember in 8th grade we formed groups and roleplayed Hamas, the PLO, etc and had a debate beween the teams set at the end of WWII about how much Palestinian land should be set aside to form Israel, if any.
"The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet".
The only thing the German understands is being beaten into submission. The incredible clemency they were given at Versailles only encouraged their delusions of superiority and of "unfairly" losing the war. Post-WW2 was much better since it focused on breaking the Germans, but even that was only temporary.
>>840930
Theyll feel secure once their borders hit the atlantic id imagine.
>>839825
It's not that hard to predict the next outcome
