That seems reasonable until considering that he went a bit mental in the end -ordering destruction which which would have increased Germany's suffering post-war. Again, thankfully, saner heads prevailed. However he clearly was not worried about retribution at that point so could have ordered the use of chemical weapons if so inclined. It is an interesting point though that Churchill failed to appreciate the danger of such escalation. Indeed, it was he who began general civilian bombing following a mistake by German pilots who missed their military target.
Err, I meant Churchill infamously advocated.
JTsyo
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2007
- 12,043
- 1,136
- 126
Well there was the highly effective Maginot line /sarcasm
As the saying goes: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
The Nazi's werent interested in building a bomb as much as providing a power plant for their sub fleets that allowed them to stay submerged forever. Disesal subs required surfacing to recharge the batteries. While this happened their subs were very vulnerable to attack.
AMCRambler
Diamond Member
- Jan 23, 2001
- 7,715
- 31
- 91
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
The Germans were not advancing in any areas by the time the ceasefire was reached. The Summer Offensive had ground to a horrible, horrible hault, casualties were on the rise, and the gains made by the German Army during the summer had been basically negated. The myth of being "stabbed in the back" gained a lot of traction in Germany simply because most German citizens saw their army marching back into the country under their own power. The reality was that the German Army was in the midst of a collapse.
Welp, I think the general notion was there would be a negotiated peace with honour rather than the imposition of such punitive measures by France et alli. In the revisionist victor's version of events, it is commonly overlooked that France was actually eager for war in revenge for their previous defeat. Likewise, Germany attempted peace in December 1916 but the UK essentially refused anything but unconditional surrender which could only lead to escalation and indeed drawing in the USA (to Old Blighty's benefit).
Lets just say WWI laid the groundwork for a lot of shitty things in the 20th century. If anything is learned from it, it should be that imposing unrealistic sanctions on a defeated enemy and fucking people in the ass post war will lead to ones own demise down the road.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
No doubt France was looking to get even for their humiliating defeat and subsequent declaration of the German Empire in Paris in 1871. There was no way, however, that Britain and France would have reached a settlement with Germany during 1916. Though Germany had unprecendented success in the opening stages of the war, the Entente had held steady from 1914 onward and, though they'd suffered a lot of casualties, new tactics and technology actually was tipping the war in their favor. Hence, any sort of peace treaty in 1916 was impossible -- Germany held all the cards and the Entente believed that, in the long term they could win (especially with the expected entry of the United States).
Agreed. Though Hitler's rise was highly improbable, the Treaty of Versailles created an environment conducive to another European war.
The Treaty is also a good example of looking at the greater good, IMO. Even though hindsight is 20/20, anybody could have seen that Versailles really did nothing to satisfy Germany's initial reasons for stirring the pot in 1914. If anything, the treaty left Germany even more desperate than before. Her only Great Power ally had collapsed, the country was split, there were no guaranteed or clear access to the oceans, and Germany still lay between Russia and France. Clearly, not all of those problems have a solution, but treaty Germany like a second-class country was definitely not the best idea.
Some would argue that WWI and WWII were really just the same war, with a long cease fire in the middle.
On a much larger scale, I've always been fond of the statment that "Everything since the fall of the Roman Empire led up to WWII, and everything that has happened since WWII is a direct result of it." I probably fudged the wording a little bit but thats the jist of it, and if you look at every conflict since WWII, you can draw implications all the way back to WWII.
On a much larger scale, I've always been fond of the statment that "Everything since the fall of the Roman Empire led up to WWII, and everything that has happened since WWII is a direct result of it." I probably fudged the wording a little bit but thats the jist of it, and if you look at every conflict since WWII, you can draw implications all the way back to WWII.
The essential foolishness was in futiley attempting to keep the center of Europe weak for the benefit of existing empires -particularly since it was destined to become an industrial power house, if you will. Britain had dominated the world for hundreds of years but with industrialization and the transition to coal and then oil powered iron ships, competition was open anew.
Interestingly, as the game unfolded Britain nearly aligned with Germany against France which would have been historically consistent. But as it was, checking Germany as a rival primarily meant starting a naval arms race rather than accept a balance of power where Britain conceded anything (including spheres of influence in the traditional imperial/colonial manner). In that light, France was the lesser threat yet supposed a sufficient ally to guarantee the status quo. Fail.
that analogy really holds alot of sway considering that at the time germany was the richest and most industrialized country in the wordl, as well as one of the most populous, but keep being afraid of the dudes with the camels and homemade bombs pls thx
first thing that comes to mind is the rise of republican vs democrat hatred that has been on the rise over the last 8-12 years.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,808
- 6,362
- 126
One major reason for the "Appeasement" was that the victors of WWI had come to realize that the restrictions placed on Germany were too harsh to begin with. So you had a bad combo of one side feeling guilty about the harshness and wanting to lessen it, but ultimately not really doing anything about. Then you had the bitter Germans as a result of that harshness and the manipulative/charismatic Hitler with bitterness and plans of his own.
The Treaty of Versailles set the stage.
The Treaty of Versailles set the stage.
Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time it probably didn't seem like a threat. He had to be doing something right if every major power tolerated his actions.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter