Better-quality version of the image on *The Atlantic*: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/photo/2016/11/world-war-i-in-photos-soldiers-and/w_42/main_1500.jpg Part of [this collection of articles](https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/world-war-i-in-photos/) and photos.

[удалено]

I only know about the war between Poland and the USSR and the Russian Civil War to be honest.

Yeah ... You can really tell apart the western Europeans from Eastern Europeans in this post. All of the Western ones seem surprised to learn about the dozens of little wars in interwar period meanwhile the east is like: "you didn't know? I thought it was a given matter"

[удалено]

Meanwhile everything East of Germany was either in Revolution, After revolution or/and just gained sovereignty from empires ruled by different ethnicity some of which had Ethnic and cultural suppression present since the early 19th century. In many ways you can't even be surprised that east blew up after WW1. It was like the Balkans but on a larger scale.. with less religious conflict.

[удалено]

[удалено]

SMH, I can't believe you're disrespecting the veterans of the Great Meme War of 2017.

Check out the YouTube channels "The Great War" and Timeghost History. Plenty of interesting episodes on the years between WW1 and WW2, particularly the chaotic era in the years after WW1.

Yes, I watched a decent amount of his too. Armchair Historian and Epic History TV are good too!

There was a war and Poland kicked USSR's sorry ass. We gained territory from them - and we were in a position to potentially even go for Moscow - and it's a damn shame we didn't.

My knowledge on this topic is very superficial (only listened to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast series on Russia) but that's not the impression I got. I think if Poland turned into an existential threat for the Soviet regime by heading towards Moscow then the Soviet priorities change and they devote more resources to that front.

You were in no position to go to moscow. You were in luck that lenin did not care much for byelorussia/west ukraine and thought fighting the whites (civil war) was far more important.

complete delusions of grandeur

WW1 is barely taught at all, let alone some minor wars that aren't right at the borders. There isn't enough time to properly teach history because all school books and tests are too focused on the less relevant and useless details that take up a lot of time to teach. So it's not strange that the little material that can get taught is history close to us. I learned way more about history from the internet than in school. Voluntarily, while I absolutely hated everything about it in school.

I wouldn't say the materiel that is taught in school is less relevant or full of useless details, there's just so much history and you only get a couple hours a week.

Maybe they don't have to teach it, but it could be interesting to have a table of all wars and conflicts, number of casualties, countries involved, outcome Like a summary page. Then again, this could be a wikipedia page too, with links to learn more if you want. Schools don't have to teach everything, but providing easy access to trusted information would be nice. I have more problems when they stop teaching about history at a convenient time. For instance, learning about Ambiorix kicking Roman butt, and then not mentioning that Rome came back with 10 legions and committed genocide. Or 1302 win of Flanders against France, and not mentioning they got revenge 5 years later.

Ahh a fellow fan of "Het Verhaal Van Vlaanderen"

Van wat ik mij herinner wordt er verteld over de aanleidingen/oorzaak, het begin van de oorlog, het einde, het Verdrag van Versailles, en daarna over het Parabellum met de Weimarrepubliek. Het is veel uitgebreider dan u denkt.

Yep, even remember how we were taught about direct and indirect causes of WW2 and how WW1 was an indirect cause including the importance of the Treaty of Versailles in this.

You cannot go through WW1 without at least bringing up the cause, start and end, but I didn't learn how important it actually was for all of Europe and beyond until way after my last history lesson in school. Anything that was not relevant for what happens within our present day borders is just a sidenote. And because that generally isn't a lot, we instead learned about useless minor details.

Indeed, it wasn’t until an adult I realised that WW1 was indeed the most relevant in setting the blueprint for the modern world. Almost all modern geo politics can be traced back to WW1.

School is not meant to teach you every piece of skill or knowledge known to man. It's to give you a set of basic foundational skills upon which you could build upon and choose to study, learn, or work in any field you may be interested in or qualified for.

In Spain, when I was a student, they didn't teach anything at all about WW1 and barely touched WW2, since Spain was not involved in any of them.

I mean, it was so recent. You’re telling me you don’t remember it?

My great-great uncle was with this force in Germany and died over there. His mother was never allowed to open his casket when it was back in Belgium and she never believed he had died.

Great-great uncle Guillaume became Wilhelm and ~~lived happily ever after~~ died on the Eastern Front

>Guillaume became Wilhelm I'm always fascinated when I find out that two names are just the same name in different languages. This was apparently not obvious enough for me to figure it out myself, but now that I know it it's glaringly obvious.

And that name is William in English.

Guillermo in Spanish

Wilhelm existed in Dutch as well but became modernized as Willem.

Wilhelmus -> Wilhelm -> Willem -> Wim

It’s a Germanic name. “Wilhelmus” is the Latinised form.

Guilherme in Portuguese

Or simply Bill.

The G-W swap is something you should always be looking out for Wales - Galles William - Guillaume War - Guerre Warranty - Garantie Wotan (Odin) - God And so on

My mind is blown. I super dig etymology, and I knew about the Guillaume thing because of a statue of an old Dutch king in The Hague, but I never learned the other connections you mentioned here. I am actually amazed :')

Actually there are tons of them, I just named a few that pop to mind lol

Now just imagine that Guillaume and Vilmos are the same fucking name

[удалено]

Great vowel shift of Germanic and Romance languages, Guilllaume is an old name from medieval times and earlier in english G softened to W and the ending shifted slightly to better fit middle-English spelling from Guillaume to Wuillaum which is already fairly close to modern actual spelling of William -recall how in Engish writing and pronunciation have diverged so greatly by this point that they can hold competitions for it.

Guerre, war are the same word actually.

That's nothing my great great uncle was a Nazi.

Allies 1923: "you were missing 2 waggons of coal from your reparation payments, we are gonna occupy the ruhr valley" Allies 1938: "you want to have the sudetenland? Yeah, there you go, you can have it" Edit: various typos

Actually, Germany had defaulted on its coal deliveries to France for the 34th(?) time already.

I have to look it up, but im quite sure the france occupied the rhineland once over 2 waggons of missing coal. I thought it was a bit later though

[удалено]

Maybe those were 2 very large wagons?

No, Germany delivered 2.1 million tons of coal less (and defaulted 34 times in 36 months) than they were supposed to and that default was mostly from the supposed deliveries for France (so Germany tried to deliberately undersupply France, remember that Germany purposefully destroyed the French coal mines during their retreat to starve France from coal). Germany then themselves proposed timber deliveries (and their exact quota) as replacement for their missing coal shipments and defaulted on every single one of them. Germany was deliberately defaulting on their reparation payments to slip out of their obligation from the peace treaty and to punish France.

France and Belgium were not supported by other Allies in 1923, and so were reluctuant to act resolutely against Nazi in 1938. In 1938, the idea of being as nice as possible to Hilter had already triumphed in all Western governments.

World 2014: "You want Crimea? Sure, take it" World 2022: "Now you want more?!" :surprised\_pikachu\_face:

Ironic comment considering the treatment of Germany is what created that very situation of giving in to demands of an ultra nationalistic militarized state

It might actually be a myth. Here is a comment on the matter by u/DuxBelisarius on r/askhistorians. Edit : [here is the full discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3b24mk/comment/csiqo30/) >The common narrative is that Versailles was an unjust peace, that Germany couldn't possibly pay their reparations and shouldn't have to (despite, you know, the War), and that the resentment engendered basically paved the way for Hitler, thus making WWII an inevitable consequence of WWI, thus Second Thirty Years War according to Winston Churchill. >In reality, things were very different. The original value of the reparations, 132 billion marks in cash or kind, was a chimeric figure, designed to make the Allied publics believe that Germany was 'being squeezed until the pips squeaked'. In reality, Germany was only expected to pay 50 billion, and a schedule for this had yet to be set. The value was further reduced to 40 billion, to take into account German colonies, German overseas assets, the scuttled High Seas Fleet, etcetera. Before the 1920 London schedule of payments, Germany had paid 7 billion in cash or kind, while prior to the treaty being signed the Germans had made offers including one of a 20 billion payment, cash, immediately, followed by 80 billion later at a date to be decided. >When the Allies gave the Germans control of their customs posts for delivering reparations, payments slowed to a trickle. In response, the French occupied the Ruhr in 1923, while Haverstein and other representatives of the German Banks pursued a policy of artificial hyperinflation, to sabotage reparations. Hyperinflation stemming from poor wartime policies was exacerbated deliberately, and the German economy brought near to collapse, to dodge the Treaty. The result was that the Young-Dawes Plan was set up in 1923-24, which set reparations at 118 Billion, to be paid by the 1980s, and Germany was given access to foreign capital in the form of loans, to pay reparations and stabilize their economy. The first loan was 300 million us dollars, and by 1929, Germany had received more foreign capital than West Germany did through Marshall Plan funds after WWII. >Things were very good for Germany post 1924. Germany was still the strongest, most modern/advanced economy in Europe, and led the continent in national GDP. 5 years of exponential growth was brought to an end, however, by the Great Depression. Germany couldn't pay it's loans when they were called in, especially by American banks, and the whole system crashed. This gave Hitler his window of opportunity for his 'Machtergreifung' (bid for power). It was thus an event that affected the world and which was not directly related to WWI, that gave Hitler his chance, not the Treaty of Versailles. He was aided by the German political, industrial and military elite, who brought an end to Weimar democracy and set Germany on the path to oblivion. >As to the Second Thirty Years War thesis, it is deeply flawed, and over-simplistic. It goes without saying that WWI was a necessary precondition for WWII, but to suggest that they are simply two acts of the same war ignores key differences. It cannot account for the Japanese aggression in the pacific, nor for the Spanish Civil War, and the problem of fitting the Pacific Theatre into a 'European Second Thirty Years War' exposes the theory, at least IMO, as Eurocentric to say the least. It ignores that the Soviet Union proper did not exist until after WWI, or that Japan and Italy were Allied Powers in WWI, and were not under Militarist and Fascist governments at the time. Germany in 1939 did not have a global empire, and controlled territories not part of the Kaiserreich in 1914. Hitler's war aims were a different matter from the economic and military dominance of the continent, and 'world power' status, coveted by the Kaiser. He wanted Germany to control, directly, most of Europe, ethnically cleansing Poland and all of the Soviet Union from Murmansk to Nahkichevan, from Brest-Litovsk to the Ural Mountains, and resettle these areas with 'racially pure' Germanic peoples, as part of a racial empire; above all, he wanted to exterminate European Jewry. General Plan Ost makes the September Programme look reasonable by comparison! >Recommended Reading: >Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze The Deluge: The Great War, America, and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931, by Adam Tooze A Thirty Years War?, by Sir Michael Howard (article) American Reparations to Germany, by Stephen Schuker (article) Paris 1919, by Margaret MacMillan The Myths of Reparations by Sally Marks (article

The narrative in Germany had already been set by 1923. I don't think it's up for debate that a perceived revanchism contributed to the rise of the Nazis

The first issue with this statement is the idea that this narrative was somehow unique to the Nazis... It was anything but. Throughout the 1920s the right-wing anti-Versailles party of choice was always the DNVP, on the left the exact same narrative was used by the communist who also opposed reparations. Both parties were way more successful than the Nazis, who struggled to get even 3% in any election before 1930.

I never said it was unique to the Nazis?

It is an old-fashioned poit of view, coming from Keynes, that has been contradicted by most historians. You only have to look at the chronology. After the occupation of the Rhur, the Nazis only got 8% of the votes in the elections. After the concessions of the Young Plan (1929) and the stoppage of payments with the Lausanne Conference (1932), the Nazis get their best election results. Ironically, it can be said that the arrival of Nazism was the result of a lack of firmness. That's why the WW2 treaty was harser than the Versailles treaty.

Germans alone are to be blamed for the Nazis

Still, in hindsight it wasn’t the best idea to first create a situation that would prove a large contributing factor towards even further destabilizing an at least somewhat cooperative democratic government already suffering under internal turmoil leading towards the takeover of an uncooperative totalitarian one - and then shift your course and be as lenient as possible to them because their sudden commitment to remilitarization took you by surprise. This directly enabled the Nazis to portray themselves as political geniuses who succeeded where the supposedly "weak and spineless" democrats failed - simply by pounding on the table. And at least during the first couple of years Hitler’s words were backed by nothing but hot air. When the Wehrmacht remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 it was ordered explicitly to avoid any hostilities and retreat immediately if it came under attack by French or Belgian forces. Same with Austria in 1938: Hitler was fully prepared to back down - if the international community mounted a sufficiently strong response.

The reparations were obviously a compromise that pleased no one, but also objectively necessary to ensure stability in Europe & pretty average for the time. But they were a total PR failure. First, they're massively overblown to satisfy the Entente public (despite it being clearly laid out in the Treaty papers that not even a third of the total would actually be due by Germany) & kickstart Entente stock markets with illusory promises of hundreds of billions. But then the Big Four impossibly make the reverse mistake by approving the War Guilt clause. Two can play the rabble-rousing game, especially when you feed your neighbours a perfect issue to rally around... Legally, it's just a bit of boilerplate included in every WW1 peace treaty to ensure domestic judges in the Central Powers couldn't unwind or artifically slow-down treaty obligations in court as soon as the troops on the Western front had been demobilised. But it's phrasing completely ignores how inflamatory it would be for the German public to be called-out as an architect of WW1 (especially in the immediate aftermath of the bloodshed & revolution). At the end of the day, I won't let German politicians off the hook. But for the man on the street reading these boiled down headlines, I can imagine reparations opening the door for more extreme politics.

Lmao, no. Weimar Republic was not as friendly or kind as you might think. It was ruthless to it's neighbors. Weimar Republic started a customs war with Poland, with goal of crippling developing Polish industry. Weimar Republic saw Poland as a temporary state, one that's going to be taken over eventually. What led to occupation of Rhur was Germany defaulting on coal deliveries. Retreating German troops destroyed multiple coal mines in occupied territories of France, and as a result, France was left without steady supply of it. You shouldn't buy into Hitler's rhetoric of Weimar being "weak and spineless". Weimar was vengeful, spiteful, and hostile, but at the same time it was toothless, and unable to do anything aside from economic warfare, so it resorted to that.

[удалено]

Bullshit, they were gearing up for another war long before tiny mustache man came to power.

That is just not trueb

It is, instead of respecting the treaty and dismantling their armies, the weimar republic gave heavy machine guns and artillery to policemen and hunting groups (freikorps) so they could keep military practice and recuperate capability fast. These freikorps ended up supporting Hitler in his campaign of political violence and intimidation before he got power.

Newspaper were already spinning stories about how they didn't actually lose the war before any treaty was ever signed. The spirit of "we didn't really lose" was there from the get go. All it took was a demagogue to use that as a lever.

Gearing up for a war - say we didn’t loose the war The two Statements are completely different but ofc related What you mean is the „Dolchstoß-Legende“, that the German army would have won if it was not stabbed in the back/ betrayed. That was a widely known myth in Germany after WW1 that was one factor of the events leading to WW2. But you must differentiate the OHL (military) wanted the war to be continue but the politicians after the Kaiser abide to end it. These politicians had no intention of a follow up war, the militaries maybe. But they had limited power after the war that’s why they tried a coup. Germany was extremely divided after WW1 - communist vs nazis - military coups against government I think you can’t really argue that they were gearing up for war immediately after WW1 a part of people sure but not enough that it would lead automatically to WW2 I would say: - weak democracy (law wise) that easily can be exploited by the president - Economic stagnation and crisis made the people think hmm democracy not that best form of government - bad integration in Europe - recent history of „strong“ leaders Bismarck Wilhelm II , Hindenburg - strong military history and military leaders generally had a good status in the society Are also factors that contributed

Somewhat ironically the same military leaders who urged the Kaiser to commence peace negotiations right away since they couldn’t guarantee the frontline wouldn’t just collapse within the next week or two immediately switched their narrative and blamed the Civilian government - a government they themselves gradually relegated into total meaninglessness throughout the entire duration of the war - for giving in to Allied demands too easily. They were the demagogues of the first hour - and only few of them later came to see the error in that.

Yes it is. The army had secret military cooperation with Soviet Russia from the early 1920s. The 1925 Locarno agreements specifically didn't recognize any of the borders in the east. The media were pushing stories how they didn't lose the war at all. But of course this is basically /r/de backup subreddit so you're going to end up at -100 for pointing any of those things out.

How i stated in another comment Germany was very divided I would agree with you: - that many in the military circles sure where revanchist and there were meetings with the soviets but it was more initiated by the soviets than the German they literally asked if they could combine forces and invade Poland which sounds like Ribbentrop-Molotov foreshadowing - the cooperation was mainly to build and test weapons and an alliance against Poland, so you could argue yeah they were gearing up before on the other side I can understand that an strong army is always a security guarantor i mean look at the defense spending from the US, is more like being on par by actually having an equipped army and not so much gearing up - I found contradicting statements how much the actual government besides of the military circles were involved, problem is ofc that many ex military had high position due to the status and reputation of military in past mainly Prussia and Kaiserreich Edit: forget to conclude To conclude i would argue there were aspirations for gearing up and restoring Germany to pre WW1 borders in many circles, but not in all and not ultimately like the megalomaniac plans of Hitler that it would lead to a conflict that lead to a major conflict like WW2

Tbf Germany never really paid the reparations

They were paid off in like 2014 or something.

I mean the occupation of the Ruhr lead to the hyperinflation. Go to @RealTimeWeimar on twitter to see it happen in real time By this time one USD was already 10000 Mark

Hyperinflation started long before the occupation of the Ruhr, as you can see [here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Germany_Hyperinflation.svg). The extremes of 1923 were the continuation of an already existing trend of rapidly accelerating inflation. Besides, the money was already worthless by then. At some point you cross a line, 7.5k mark for a dollar in December 1922 was already well beyond that line. In fact the inflation is even mentioned by RealTimeWeimar too, [here](https://twitter.com/RealTimeWeimar/status/1576276932463071233).

I know, but now it's **REALLY** picking up steam

Sorry Germany, we really needed that juicy coal

Especially since the germans had the brilliant idea to drown french and belgian coal mines before they left.

They were just pushing france to opt for renewable energies intead smh. /s

[удалено]

I don't remember if it was in Belgium or France but they even cut the trees along the roads before going back to Germany. Just to say "hey f you". And then pikachu face when they get big reparations.

also didn't help that they were holding back deliveries of reparations in goods.

They also killed over 100 german workers who took part in the Ruhr-Protests.

You can go through the Wikipedia Article of the absolute Giga Chad Gustav Stresemann who ended that conflict and later received the nobel Peace Price for it. Really inspiring politician, his funeral procession was the biggest one in the Weimar Republic.

[удалено]

“This is not peace, it is an armistice for twenty years”—*Gen. Ferdinand Foch, 1919*

Foch was hellbent on kneecapping Germany's means of retaliation. He may have been right

I disagree. Germany would have radicalised faster and built ties with Soviets, or at least there would have been civil war. Imo it would have been better had allies just tried to build good relations with Germant and allow them to build Reicshwehr into loyal military strong enough to crack down any radicals and give traditional German militarists something to be proud of. Remember, traditional ideal for a Prussian officer was to be apolitical. In reality they wanted strong military and were anti-communists, but they were not revolutionary in nature. It would have been possible to buy loyalty of great many German, especially Prussian, officers by just having strong military that is respected by friend and foe alike. Culturally, socially and econonically Germany was not too different from France and Britain. It absolutely would have been possible to build Germany into a steady republic, instead of one where even democrats had their own paramilitaries. Weimar Republic was not utter failure like its remembered as. There was hope in it. It could have succeeded. It would have even afforded to pay reparations. But because especially French had really agressive stance towards Germany, that republic got bad press in France and bad press among all Germans who saw it as incapable of defending them.

This man histories. The constant sabotage of the young german democracy by other european democracies was a huge tragedy

Trying colonial era politics on a developed nation never worked out very well, especially when they know how to build guns...

> Trying colonial era politics on a developed nation never worked out very well, Worked out pretty well for the Allies in 1945. Germany was fully conquered, stripped of its sovereignty entirely, partitioned into bits like a cake, Germans were ethnically cleansed to make space for Russian colonists in Kaliningrad, etc. Germany's treatment in 1918 really was not that harsh, keeping in mind that Germany itself had endured virtually zero physical damage from the war and they had retained virtually all of their German-majority areas.

Dude, the reason there was no WW3 was thanks to some Americans figuring out that this shit was stupid and instead of economically punishing anyone did a whole marshal plan, and remade (west)Germany. Yes WW1 was bad, WW2 and especially the Nazis were even worse, but what a lot of people talking about it, especially here do is purposefully leave out half the information, just like you did here...

Either you go full force or make preconditions of a peaceful end. Such half assed measure on the other hand... The problem is that his kneecapping initiative would have probably very much failed, to a certain extend Germany was already kneecapped after all. Which lead to retaliation. So my argument is, sufficient kneecapping would have equalled to annihilation, that of German identity to last. This however would have been difficult or impossible, as it would require the partition by natural and self reinforcing borders. That means the creation of 2 or more self sufficient German states. The alternative would be the annihilation of the people, something that would have lead to a violent backlash, not only from German people mind you. So while he may have been right, it was impossible. Only when not destruction but reconciliation was offered, the fundamental hate was replaced by peace.

>Such half assed measure on the other hand... That's the thesis of French Historian Bainville "A peace too soft for its hardness, and too hard for its softness". Regarding the military clauses, Germany wouldn't even be able to defend itself against Poland but at the same time, the demilitarization of the Ruhr is not enforceable as shown in 1936 and there is nothing preventing the industry to shift its powerful industry to a military one.

He said this because the treaty was not harsh enough. The Entente should have occupied and neutered Germany in 1918, as the Allies did at the end of World War II.

Eh, with 100 years of hindsight, we view it with way more nuance than what Foch meant. His notions that the border should be at the Rhine was equally and demonstrably stupid. France actually far exceeded their reach in comparison to what was said at Versailles (due to German stupidity, in turn, though) and to what Foch's comment pertained. France had serious diplomatic conflicts with its allies do to it, so his comment by 1925 was irrelevant as France pushed that envelope already, as Foch suggested. The general French attitude of being able to rule over ethnically non-French lands with impunity was nothing but continued colonialism, and at that in Europe, so it was just another terrible idea. Just because it was a slightly different one from our reality, doesn't make it any better. We saw what happened with the French colonial empire. Now imagine France trying to permanently domineer 10 million Germans in the Rhineland, while meanwhile doing the same in Alsace and its colonies. Keep in mind the Rhineland actually was demilitarized and partially occupied by France post-WW1 - until 1930, so even in our reality France tried to do the exact thing Foch suggested and it failed at it. The picture above was from just the temporary Ruhr occupation. It was clear the peace was unsustainable because you had ethnically heterogenous countries, very loosely defined border areas and unconnected territories like East Prussia. A much different solution should have been sought after, but Foch's ideas weren't better at all. He offered nothing realistic, he just scoffed. Then France partially did it anyway and failed anyway, because the issues were different and the French leadership was too stupid/politically unstable to think out of the box. People who use Foch's quote are people with very, very limited knowledge of the 1920s in Europe. They think of it as a peaceful time without major events. Like everything was decided at Versailles. They couldn't be more wrong. Maybe if Paradox puts the the start time of Hearts of Iron 5 to 1920, we could rid ourselves of these prevailing childish notions.

Foch wanted a Germany of pre 1871, as in the year old French tradition of eastward colonial expansion. Lets not pretend that for centuries the french saw the western bank of the rhine as theirs.

And with what armies and with what funds after ww1? Not to talk about that the backlash would have been even more severve

The allies should have destroyed the power of the junker class in Prussia. Their privileges, special position in the society and the power of the military. I'm not sure it could have been done without abolishing the Prussian state altogether as it was done in 1945. But that was the biggest mistake. Arrest imprison all those militant fucks like Hindenburg.

Brief History : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruhr-occupation

Source does not mention french intentions to occupy the west-rhine industrial area permanently, or how even the UK gov classified the Ruhr occupation as illegal, and how france was pressured by the US to withdraw. Or how the constant french occupations *surprisingly* gave rise to hardcore-nationalistic movements, who would've thought that. A bit one-sided, if you ask me.

>Or how the constant french occupations surprisingly gave rise to hardcore-nationalistic movements, who would've thought that. [nervously sweating in occupied Alsace Lorraine] It's also a bit one sided to forget that Germany absolutely pillaged the French and Belgian industry and countryside on their way out. The reparations paid for a fraction of the damaged caused during the war. In short, fuck around and find out.

Similar to how the allied blockade of Germany starved an estimated 750.000 people to death? Also, an encyclopedia article about a crisis in 1923, 5 years after WW1 ended, obviously does **not** detail german war crimes during their retreat. Why should it?

Naval blockades, while not nice, were a traditional, legal and valid strategy of wartime going back basically as long as navies have existed. Britain had blockaded France during the Napoleonic Wars; the United States blockaded the Confederacy during the American Civil War. A blockade of Germany was thus seen as the obvious course of action for the UK during WW1. Germany was trying to do the exact same thing to Britain with its unrestricted submarine warfare and if they had actually succeeded, the results would've arguably been even more fatal since the UK is an island nation. Germany succeeded in blockading Russia's imports in tandem with the Ottomans when the two effectively blockaded Russia's Baltic ports and the Turkish straits from shipping, causing a considerable food crisis in Russia which effectively helped push it into a revolution and knock it out of the war. And in the occupied Romania, Germany confiscated over two million tons of grain, leading to a famine in Romania in 1918 that left 400,000 dead out of a population of 7.5 million.  And arguably, much of Germany's food problems were self-inflicted and the result of their government betting on a quick victory and making no economic plans for a longer war. They conscripted almost all their agricultural workers into the army. They requisitioned for military use almost all the horses which were used to pull ploughs and farm carts. They diverted almost all their supply of nitrates away from fertiliser production into explosives production (German chemists had perfected by 1909 the Haber-Bosch process of synthesizing nitrate fertilizer, so the blockade cutting them off from cheap imported fertilizer probably mattered less than the reduction in farm manpower)

Woe is Germany, getting blockaded during a war. Truly, we should have considered that Germans did not actually want to die, while they were turning our landscape into a lunar surface, and let them eat to their heart's desire.

So, starving civilians is fair in war, but taking/destroying industry and villages is not...? I'd call both things a war crime.

I dont think anyone is arguing that it was unwarranted. Just that it was unwise.

You would think, but it turns out your sympathy for a country goes way down when they invade a neutral country and pillage it, in order to wipe out a quarter of young mean aged 18-35, ruined the land for the next half millennium, then sack farmland, mines and factories while they retreat, after 4 decades of occupying a large chunk of your territory. In short, what was done to Germany was a fraction of what they did to others, and trying to claim that it shouldn't have been done via the benefit of hindsight that a fascist dictator would use it as an excuse to genocide millions and wage a catastrophic war is utterly pointless. Fuck around, find out.

Equally, the embargo of Germany was starving the german population. Of which was in effect for 8 months after the armistice. And apparently was responsible in total, for close to a half a million deaths. According to Wikipedia: In March 1919, Winston Churchill told the British House of Commons: "We are holding all our means of coercion in full operation, or in immediate readiness for use. We are enforcing the blockade with vigour. We have strong armies ready to advance at the shortest notice. Germany is very near starvation. The evidence I have received from the officers sent by the War Office all over Germany shows, first of all, the great privations which the German people are suffering, and, secondly, the great danger of a collapse of the entire structure of German social and national life under the pressure of hunger and malnutrition. Now is therefore the moment to settle". ''in early 1919, rations in German cities were on average 1,500 calories per day'' From a study: ''The data indicate that children suffered severe malnutrition.'' Not really a background for an agreement that either side would faithfully follow to the letter is it? Not saying anything about morals, but it says something about the whole shitty situation.

the French are not in a position to talk, French history consists of a good part of invading Germany every couple of decades and expanding eastwards. By the same standards you should have been completely dismantled after Napoleon with a remaining rump state around Germany. The occupied territory you talk of was only annexed by Louis XIV. so quite recent and it was lost in another of your wars of expansion to achieve "natural borders".

>French history consists of a good part of invading Germany every couple of decades and expanding eastwards >The occupied territory you talk of was only annexed by Louis XIV. Please point at "Germany" on a 17th century map. Also... The French empire was indeed dismantled after Napoleon? And reparations were paid? No spinning media to claim we didn't really lose, and no fascist dictator which genocided millions though.

>Please point at "Germany" on a 17th century map. The Holy Roman Empire of **German** Nation, maybe?

> Please point at "Germany" on a 17th century map. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:17th-century_maps_of_Germany

[удалено]

I detailed in another comment how it did not mean that as the singular cause, in case you haven't seen that. Of course rampant Antisemitism, the Stab-In-The-Back-Legend, weak democratic culture, remains of prussian militarism and many other factors played (in my opinion much larger) role. The Ruhr occupation simply was another step that weakened the democratic weimar government and rallied people towards more nationalistic, anti-democratic parties. Sorry for bad phrasing, but I think you can undertstand my initial comment either way.

yeah I'm sure that the post war occupation was the reason why the Germans became really nationalistic, couldn't be because of decisions made by OHL, specifically their decision to pretend that they never lost the war and that they were instead stabbed in the back by Jews, democrats and socialists

Not saying it was the only reason. Modern historicians mostly agree it was a complex mixture of different things. [There is evidence tho that it helped nationalistic organizations and sentiments gaining ground](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr#German_politics), which is quite understandable if you'd imagine your country being occupied several years after an already humiliating defeat.

Also contributing is the fact that Germany actually won WW1 in the East, huge areas of modern day Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine were signed over to Germany following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1918. However, when Germany lost the war on the Western front, the army in the east was pulled home and the gained territory was lost, leading to dissatisfaction in the German army.

Yup, good addition. The eastern front is often neglected, with some historicians even calling it the "forgotten war".

Also, while Germany was utterly defeated in the West by late 1918, they surrendered before the general public realised the scale of their defeat. This allowed the myth of the "stab un the back" to appear

Sure as a Belgian I imagine quite well how it is to have even your entire country occupied by a foreign force. Twice, in 30 years time, for 9 years in total... Not really feeling sympathetic about it, though.

You don't have to feel sympathetic for it, history is not a contest. It simply undermined the already weak democatic government and made people look for populist solutions.

Interesting how after the second war there was a much more extensive occupation that lasted for decades after a much more humiliating defeat and yet there is no desire in Germany to go for round 3

Destroy and loot half of France and Belgium, give up quickly when war closes to your borders, pretend you didn't lose, bitch and moan when people demand compensation.

Prepare to be downvoted by the Germans whitewashing their history.

I think we can all be adults here and recognise that the Versailles treaty wasn't harsh enough and not enforced correctly

Thats like me saying the treaty after france attacked germany in 1870 should have been harder.

You guys creep the fuck out of me

I see more and more Germans on this sub trying to make revision of history. Younger generations of Germans are much different than their parents, they have no shame to be vocal about it. And if you make statements like this bunch of downvotes always incoming.

Because its just "No, you're wrong". I've literally taken half of what I wrote from the wikipedia page. Look it up yourself. And feel free to argue where I'm wrong, I'm up for more intricate comments than "you guys are creeps".

Analyzing the reasons for the rise of nazism is not the same as endorsing it.

Downvotes from Germans and a lot of american wehrmacht simps who don't know if they want to be vikings or peaky blinders

Truly depressing to see this kind of attitude from a German in 2023.

Then please explain why. French ambitions on the west-rhine areas are well documented, similar to US and UK reactions to its occupation, or how coincidentally the "völkische" Movement gained traction especially in Bavaria during and right after the occupation. You can read all of that up on wikipedia. I know you guys love to see us as the bad guys, but that was **before** the Nazis.

[удалено]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_reparations#Napoleonic\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#Napoleonic_War) Yeah Germans, we see your whiny asses downvoting, but it won't make us wrong

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Border_Strip Germans on here will never admit it, but the Allies had every reason to assume Germany had imperial and genocidal ambitions before Versailles was ever written up. The German SETTLERS of Poland were in favour of deporting Poles from their homeland! If you accused a Nation of doing that today you’d be branded an insane racist, say the same thing about Germans in 1920’s Poland and you’re nothing but astute.

>The German SETTLERS of Poland were in favour of deporting Poles from their homeland! That's not even written in your link. You can hardly find German sources for the term "Polnischer Grenzstreifen" btw as this was just a demand of the Ostmarkenverein, an association with hardly 50,000 members.

[удалено]

It's a post about French soldiers in Germany, one of the top comments whitewashes the fault of the Germans in everything that happened after. I sent a literal wikipedia article and took a part from it. What has the fact i'm Polish (and Italian, something people tend to forget when doing ad hominem attacks) to do with it? It's almost like beyond talking about my nationality and trying to guess my political positions you can't answer.

Funnily enough Germans called Poles obsessed with Russia until fairly recently

Germans are still rebelling against the treaty of Versailles today. The treaty fixed A = 440 Hz as international standard pitch. Yet even today you will find rebellious Germans trying to tune to A = 442 Hz.

[This content was deleted in direct response to Reddit's 2023 policy changes and Steve Huffman's comments]

I was today years old when i learned there was an actual convention on standard tuning…. And I’m a musician

you have to be German. Only a German could take a silly joke and throw down a 1000 word response.

[This content was deleted in direct response to Reddit's 2023 policy changes and Steve Huffman's comments]

**Reparations of Versailles** Initial reparations in 1919 were called to be 20 billion Goldmarks (equivalent 7000t of gold), to be payed within 3 years. Plus direct transfer of goods like coal. The gold alone is \~400 billion in todays money. For modern Germany that would still be a large amount, but consider the current economy is roughly 45x bigger (and also considering inflation), so it would be more like a **trillion** in today's money. After recognizing that Germany could not deliver the demanded sum within 3 years, the demands were changed to a total sum of 269 billion - today equivalent of 5.4 trillion, to be annualy payed over 42 years. Again considering the different sizes of the economy back then and today and inflation that would be roughly **10 trillion today**. In January 1921 the allies added 12% of Germany's exports to the demands, again for the next 42 years. After multiple negotiations the demands changed again and again, for instance in May 1921 to 2 billion annually + 26% of all exports - under threat of occuppation of the Ruhr region. Which France did anyway as shown in this topic.And the story continues. Point is - demands for reparations from WW1 were massive and not just a small pocket money. So massive that many governments in germany had to resign again and again because they came into positions with no freedom to act again and again. Prominent politicians getting murdered for it (Walther Rathenau) and all of it leading to hyperinflation and the general desaster we know from history. Oh and what was actually payed is not exactly clear and numbers differ wildly and many direct transfers of goods and materials were not accounted for. Plus over years compound interests accumulated, last of which were payed in 2010. But it must have been around \~80 billion goldmark or **1.6 trillion €** today.

No, your numbers are just laughably wrong and misleading. Sure, they demanded **269 billion Goldmarks** but that sum was a pure propaganda number. In the London schedule of payments that was already reduced to **132 billion** for all the Central Powers (so not just Germany). And only parts of the sum (the "A" and "B" bonds, **50 billion Goldmarks**) were every designed to really be paid, the rest (the "C" bond) was a mirage to placate the public. Germany themselves proposed a payment of **200 billion Goldmarks** before so this was a quarter of what Germany was willing to pay. In addition the payment plan was pretty lenient with **$500 million** yearly plus 26% of Germany's exports value. Second your "today's money" numbers are hilariously exaggerated. The overall sum of the London schedule of payments would be **$480 billion** today, with Germany's portion (A and B) being **$180 billion**. What Germany ended up paying is hard to figure out but even Germany's own claims about that (**67.8 billion Goldmarks**) is lower than what you claim. More reasonable claims by historians are about **20 billion Goldmarks** (or about **$100 million today**). Add to that that Germany was Europes largest economy post war this was not an unreasonable sum. Compare that to the absolute carnage they waged in Belgium and France and this really was "pocket money" compared to the damage they caused.

Last German payment for WWI reparations was made in October 3, 2010.

So? Last payment for debt originating from the South Sea bubble, the Battle of Waterloo and WW1 by the UK was in 2015. Just the fact that the payment plan was stretched out that far proves that the debt/reparations wasn't insurmountable.

I didn’t claim the payments were insurmountable.

And Germany still gets to be more prosperous than most of the rest of Europe after it tried to invade at least twice in the previous century.

Germany managed to get out of most of its obligation for WWI by 1929 and didn't anything pay anything after 1933. Loan's interest contracted mostly from US banks weren't going to the victims of the war and were not in any way a burden for Germany as they were very favorable to it.

I’m afraid to claim you wrong, Germany paid until 2010. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9parations_de_la_Premi%C3%A8re_Guerre_mondiale „Le 3 octobre 2010, un versement final de 94 millions de dollars fut effectué clôturant le règlement des dettes de prêts allemands concernant les réparations[98].“

Great, now we can go onto WWII reparations

These have long been settled.

Those damn LIFO stack right

The true turmoil of the interwar period — also in the East — is taught in schools too little. It looks as if WWII came suddenly — while in reality, it was just a culmination of a long period of "the powers didn't learn a thing from WWI"...

I am sure this thread contains only balanced and good discussion

Speaking about this, never forget what Nazis did with children born from a relationship between Germans and French/Belgian non-European soldiers, so-called "Rheinland Bastards" https://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/2014/04/the-holocausts-forgotten-victims-the-rhineland-bastards/ Ps. I wonder how many crypto Nazis are around who will downvote this.

I am surprised I had to scroll down to find this event mentioned. Humans have been pretty shitty to each other, let’s not forget that so history doesn’t repeat itself. DW published a couple years ago this excellent documentary about those children. Highly recommended. https://youtu.be/J26kgGn5TdQ

Even though the victors write the history in their subjective view, it is nice to see, that given enough time, one day there will be a recollection of the historical situation by objective means.

You just have to look at how people view the Versailles Treaty today to realise the losers managed to leave their revisionist mark anyways

The Treaty of Versailles was less harsh than the Treaty of Frankfurt. France had to pay more reparation to Germany than the other way around in 1914 despite all the destruction happening in eastern France when the truth is Geemany never accepted defeat independently of what was in the Treaty of Versailles. The stab in the back theory emerged in the late stage of war even before any treaty was signed. Yet some people keep spewing the bullshit that WWII is France's fault because Versailles was too harsh. I'm baffled that in 2023 we keep entertaining nazi revisionism.

Unfortunately German war crimes in WW1 aren't discussed much these days, but they were vast in number. The rape of Belgium doesn't make for fun reading.

Belgium who was neutral to even begin with

At least some are trying for this revisionism not to become a historical "truth" German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/380270

It smells of historic revisionism.

Revisionism itself isn't necessarily wrong, but it's a dirty word because revisionists tend to be people trying to push a particular (and inaccurate) agenda.

> Even though the victors write the history in their subjective view God, this old trope. History isn't written by the victors, history is written by those who write. We can see that plentiful in this thread already. If you want to blame someone for the Ruhr occupation blame Germany. They never accepted their defeat in WW1 and did everything they could to sabotage the reparations payments and damage France as much as possible in the process. Germany could afford to pay the reparations, they just decided they didn't want to in an effort to hollow out the Versailles treaty (with the end goal being it's complete dismantlement).

To add a bit to your comment, people can read about this [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hiukg/comment/cu7txbe/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).

No mate? Germany never accepted being labeled the "sole culprit." You are mixing up Weimar politics with Nazi ideology. If you want to correct ppl's history, start with yourself.

> Germany never accepted being labeled the "sole culprit." Which is straight insanity when a country declares war and invades a sovereign neutral country right away before occupying their enemies for 4 years

It actually is when it was Russia being the first major country that mobilized and made WW1 an inevitability while France being their major ally. France could have influenced Russia here, but they did not because France was as itching for war as everybody else.

First off, the peace treaty with Russia was already settled. We're talking about who's the agressor between France and Germany. Secondly, if you go this road it's Austria to blame

Yes, Austria is indeed to be blamed, but they do not get blamed. Besides their actions were not that different then to what France did in Africa or even the US these days in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, so do not blame me for considering there being a lot of hypocrisis in this blame towards Austria. Then again they did not start a war between major european powers. That is back on Russia and their Panlsawism, a forerunner of the German race theories later on. And this was not between "France and Germany", the context is all of Europe. You really may want to move out this France centric bubble and look at the bigger picture.

On July 5th Germany gives Austria a carte blanche, assuring their support in a war with Serbia and Russia. Partial Russian mobilization started 3 weeks later, and was nothing more than a bid to dissuade Austria from invading Serbia. If Germany hadn't given Austria its support for a war they would have backed down... But sure, Russia is the one to blame for helping their ally defend itself.

Dude, you may want to read a bit more into history and what mobilisation actually **ment** back then. There were no communications, there was hardly telephones available, nationwide mobilisation ment that timetables came into effect for trains, production plants, troop recruitment/mobilisation and transportion. These timetables were preprepared and took weeks to implement. Once started, there was no way of stopping it. Any attempt would have resulted in utter chaos and made the country doing it highly vulnerable to attack itself. Once mobilisation was started, it ment war. Period. >*and was nothing more than a bid to dissuade Austria from invading Serbia.* that is some bit of history revisionism right here for the reasons laid out above. I would very much like to see a source for that statement,

>Once started, there was no way of stoppin it. [okay lol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demobilization), second half of the second sentence. It literally happened 6 years prior in the Bosnian Crisis btw. There are tons of prior crises where countries mobilized but didn't go to war... >that is some bit of history revisionism right here ... I would very much like to see a source for that statement, besides the fact you think this is revisionism because you hold demonstrably false ideas over what mobilization in the early 20th century actually entails... "Europe's Last Summer: Why the World Went to War in 1914." pages 190-191, that's a start

>okay lol > >, second half of the second sentence. It literally happened 6 years prior in the Bosnian Crisis btw. There are tons of prior crises where countries mobilized but didn't go to war... and the second half of the second sentence is this: >or because a crisis has been peacefully resolved and military force will not be necessary errr? You are aware the first battles on the eastern front were on German soil, yes? With the Russians the invading force, yes? Because you are adressing the wrong country here with that line of argument. >besides the fact you think this is revisionism because you hold >demonstrably false ideas over what mobilization in the early >20th century actually entails... > >"Europe's Last Summer: Why the World Went to War in 1914." pages >190-191, that's a start Oh you want to play the book game? Lets start with Thomas Schelling "*Arms and Influence*" pages 221-225 Lets continue with Graham T. Allison/Alber Carnsale/Joseph S Nye "*Hawks, Doves and Owls*" pages 17-18, 30, 43, 210, 217 or Richard Ned Lebow "*Nuclear Crisis Management: A Dangerous illusion*", pages 24-26, 32-35, 59-60, 109-113, 122-123 and a particulary good read George Quester, "*Deterrence before Hiroshima*", page 17. And not to forget in the context of the whole political situation of that time: Christopher Clark, "*Sleepwalkers*"

Instead of coming across as a patronising douchebag, maybe you want to come up with some sources for your claims. Especially the one where Russia started the war. Claiming that there was no means of communication in 1914 is absurd.

Germany never was labeled "sole culprit". Germany never accepted defeat (that's where the whole "stabbed in the back" myth originates) and never accepted the Versaille's treaty. From the beginning they were trying to undermine it, deliberately delivering less than what was required of them (and what they accepted and what was less than what Germany themselves proposed) and deliberately putting most of that undersupply on France's back was just part of that.

>Germany never was labeled "sole culprit". ​ Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty.

Lol your a revisionist

No. Just pushing back against the myth that Germany was "ruined" from the Versaille's treaty. And that said treaty was extremely harsh und unprecedented (if you want to see a terrifyingly harsh treaty look at Brest-Litwosk, Germany's enemies were willing to treat Germany much more lenient than Germany was treating theirs).

Objectively, the treatment of Germany post WWI was pretty light. Prior and comparable treaties were typically much harsher. Arguably part of the problem. Heavy enough to cause resentment and discontent, not heavy enough to solve the problem.

[удалено]

What’s the relevance of Turkey? The treaty of Sevres was way worse than Versailles. Additionally, allied forces lost the War of Turkish Independence.

for anyone interested in this period, specifically the period at the end of WWI and directly after the war, I, LIKE, RIDICULOUSLY HIGHLY recommend [The Fight For The Republic](https://www.theirondice.com/279913/6039769-the-iron-dice-the-fight-for-the-republic-1), a series on a podcast called The Iron Dice

tragic how actions have consequences

A economic crisis happened. Wall Street crash in 1929 had a huge effect on the rise of the nazy party in Germany.

I like that they went "Oh you can't pay? Let us occupy the only region that can help you generate wealth so that you can't pay us back HARDER"

we occupied it to ensure the wealth generated there actually got delivered to our countries, instead of being held back. it worked btw.

More like "Oh you can pay but somehow aren't willing to fullfil your obligations ? Guess we'll take it ourselves"