undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyyyk2y ago0 comments

* WW1 Western front was mostly on French soil, completely burnt out to the point there are exclusion zones even a century later.

* France was bled white, moreso than Germany. German population was higher.

* Germany won its eastern front, so France couldn't rely on as strong allies next time.

* The noted strength of German industry (mostly unaffected by that war).

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

protomolecule2y ago· 1 in thread

"France couldn't rely on as strong allies next time"

On the other hand Austria-Hungary wasn't there either.

But okay, what would've motivated German people to go along with the elites and "seek revision and likely its [Germany's] original WW1 aims" if the Versailles treaty were softer on the country and the economic situation were better?

And, by the way, thank you for the lecture)

yyykOP2y ago

>Austria-Hungary wasn't there either.

That's a bad trade if the alternative is the Russian Empire. Besides, in the lead to WW2, Germany also got Italy, Austria and Czechoslovakia, an assist from the USSR - while France got Poland.

>what would've motivated German people to go along with the elites

It's not that hard for elites to motivate their own people. WW1 was itself insane after all.

---

There isn't that much disagreement. Everyone agrees that the treaty left Germany dissatisfied. What the 'be softer on Germany' people miss is that the German elite didn't change by that much and that Germany wasn't so weak. By 1922 you had memos with ideas like "Poland's existence is intolerable". The problem with Versailles was the bad strategic architecture more than its not-quiet-hardness.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse