Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Kowani]

If you think Hitler was just going to let Britain stand…

Well, actually, that's a good point. Hitler quite hoped that Germany and Britain, seeing as they were "cousins", would fight on the same side against Communism, or at least that they wouldn't fight each other.

Yeah…I have doubts as to how long he would’ve held on to that idea. You know, with their entire economy and philosophy needing war, and conquering all of the USSR being slightly impossible.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

You seem to be under the impression the Soviets would magically do the banishments upon hearing that the Allies have deemed it okay to sterilize the new niggers of Europe. Stalin was a paranoid dictator, but he wasn’t stupid.

I feel like we've switched places, or at least goalposts. I'm not advocating for this plan, and I, like all other sane humans, can easily recognize that it is completely infeasible. I mean, the first thing I brought up was how the guy wanted to completely sterilize one of Europe's most populous countries in a single month.

Regardless, I don't see why not. How is getting rid of a potentially subversive population from your newly conquered lands something that an autocratic government such as the Soviet Union wouldn't consider? Furthermore, don't try to argue that Stalin was humane. He didn't give a damn about his own people (Georgians or Russians, or even his son), so I don't think he'd have given a damn about some German peasants.

[Benuty]

You seem to be under the impression the Soviets would magically do the banishments upon hearing that the Allies have deemed it okay to sterilize the new niggers of Europe. Stalin was a paranoid dictator, but he wasn’t stupid.

I feel like we've switched places, or at least goalposts. I'm not advocating for this plan, and I, like all other sane humans, can easily recognize that it is completely infeasible. I mean, the first thing I brought up was how the guy wanted to completely sterilize one of Europe's most populous countries in a single month.

Regardless, I don't see why not. How is getting rid of a potentially subversive population from your newly conquered lands something that an autocratic government such as the Soviet Union wouldn't consider? Furthermore, don't try to argue that Stalin was humane. He didn't give a damn about his own people (Georgians or Russians, or even his son), so I don't think he'd have given a damn about some German peasants.

You don’t have to be humane to realize the massive propaganda victory one would gain from becoming the better when it comes to simply treating a group as if they don’t deserve to be sterilized into the void of history.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Who would want to con us? Germany is one of history's biggest losers, at least right now.

Germany was theoretically capable of paying the reparations, but, as history proved, it quickly became impossible due to the political situation. Not to mention that the territories ceded contained Germany's richest farmland and several key sources of coal in both the West and East.

Germans (historians) and their sympathisers. I don't give a damn about Germany's other losses, I'm talking about the Treaty of Versailles.

That is exactly why France intervened by occupying the Ruhr, because Germany was tardy with its debts. And history proved nothing of the sort. Gemany paid only 1/8 of what it owed, was given several reductions and negotiations to ease the burden, and for what? Political stability? Look at Hitler and tell me how that turned out. As for the territories lost, they pale in comparison to Brest-Litovsk. Russia would have lost a third of its population, more than half of its industrial land and almost all of its railways. Cry me a river.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Yeah…I have doubts as to how long he would’ve held on to that idea. You know, with their entire economy and philosophy needing war, and conquering all of the USSR being slightly impossible.

The Battle of the Bulge came about because Hitler thought that if it was successful the Western Allies would be forced to make peace with him and then they would all join hands and repulse the Soviet Union together. He believed that Britain would "see reason" up until the very end.

Even historically, Hitler tried to get Britain to agree to peace until some time after the Fall of France. He showed much more interest in aligning with Britain than he ever did in conquering it.

[Benuty]

The optics in the eyes of the American public would very well cost Truman the election. “Yeah sure I let our administration get involved in genocide while only giving the Japs a slap on the wrist”.

[Kowani]

Yeah…I have doubts as to how long he would’ve held on to that idea. You know, with their entire economy and philosophy needing war, and conquering all of the USSR being slightly impossible.

The Battle of the Bulge came about because Hitler thought that if it was successful the Western Allies would be forced to make peace with him and then they would all join hands and repulse the Soviet Union together. He believed that Britain would "see reason" up until the very end.

Even historically, Hitler tried to get Britain to agree to peace until some time after the Fall of France. He showed much more interest in aligning with Britain than he ever did in conquering it.

I am aware. I speak of a hypothetical in which Britain doesn’t join. Even if you account for the Résistance, without Britain, the Nazis would be able to focus much more force on the Eastern Front-Stalin would’ve had almost no chance. The point, however, is that eventually when the USSR fell, Nazi Germany would’ve needed another foe at some point.

[Jolthig]

To this date Russia is yet to have been successfully destroyed in war on its own turf.

Russia lost WWI.

Also the mongols invading

[Benuty]

Russia lost WWI.

Also the mongols invading

That’s bit unfair since the mongols were pretty good at crushing a lot of people under their boots.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

You don’t have to be humane to realize the massive propaganda victory one would gain from becoming the better when it comes to simply treating a group as if they don’t deserve to be sterilized into the void of history.

I don't think the Soviet Union was the type to care about propaganda victories. Whom would they even be trying to convince? The populations they occupied certainly wouldn't entertain any delusions about the Soviet Union having the moral high ground, and I doubt they'd have any success cultivating a fifth column in the West, the Red Scare aside.
And considering Germany's history with Russia, Stalin might have even been on board with the plan. But this is just wildly speculative.
I think we can agree that Kaufmann was a nut.

That is exactly why France intervened by occupying the Ruhr, because Germany was tardy with its debts. And history proved nothing of the sort. Gemany paid only 1/8 of what it owed, was given several reductions and negotiations to ease the burden,

Precisely because the original terms of the treaty were infeasible.

and for what? Political stability? Look at Hitler and tell me how that turned out.

I'd hate to see how bad it would have become had Germany been forced to pay everything as originally planned.

As for the territories lost, they pale in comparison to Brest-Litovsk. Russia would have lost a third of its population, more than half of its industrial land and almost all of its railways.

Which I wasn't discussing?
Correction, about a quarter of its railways, but you're right about the other statistics.

Cry me a river.

At least I'm not still complaining about the loss of the Colonies to the American Revolution.

[Kowani]

Russia lost WWI.

Also the mongols invading

Russo-Japanese war?

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

I am aware. I speak of a hypothetical in which Britain doesn’t join. Even if you account for the Résistance, without Britain, the Nazis would be able to focus much more force on the Eastern Front-Stalin would’ve had almost no chance. The point, however, is that eventually when the USSR fell, Nazi Germany would’ve needed another foe at some point.

Uh... Why? The whole point of the war in the war in the East was to conquer Lebensraum, which Germany would have had more than enough of after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Other countries were only really targeted because they objected to German conquests.

Germany had no quarrel with Britain.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Precisely because the original terms of the treaty were infeasible.

It was infeasible only because there was no mechanism to make Germany pay. They simply refused to, and while France tried to follow through, they were quite literally stabbed in the back by their erstwhile American and British allies. If Germany had some sense of obligation, they certainly could have paid the reparations. I think what makes it even more shameful is that the French duly paid their reparations after the Franco-Prussian War, whereas Germany acted like a petulant child.

I'd hate to see how bad it would have become had Germany been forced to pay everything as originally planned.

Hypothetical catastrophising is not an excuse for not paying your debts.

Which I wasn't discussing?
Correction, about a quarter of its railways, but you're right about the other statistics.

I was comparing the two treaties in my original statement, hence I brought it up. As for railways, you're quite right. I meant coal production.

At least I'm not still complaining about the loss of the Colonies to the American Revolution.

Not a Brit, so I actually agree with you.

[Benuty]

You don’t have to be humane to realize the massive propaganda victory one would gain from becoming the better when it comes to simply treating a group as if they don’t deserve to be sterilized into the void of history.

I don't think the Soviet Union was the type to care about propaganda victories. Whom would they even be trying to convince? The populations they occupied certainly wouldn't entertain any delusions about the Soviet Union having the moral high ground, and I doubt they'd have any success cultivating a fifth column in the West, the Red Scare aside.
And considering Germany's history with Russia, Stalin might have even been on board with the plan. But this is just wildly speculative.
I think we can agree that Kaufmann was a nut.

That is exactly why France intervened by occupying the Ruhr, because Germany was tardy with its debts. And history proved nothing of the sort. Gemany paid only 1/8 of what it owed, was given several reductions and negotiations to ease the burden,

Precisely because the original terms of the treaty were infeasible.

and for what? Political stability? Look at Hitler and tell me how that turned out.

I'd hate to see how bad it would have become had Germany been forced to pay everything as originally planned.

As for the territories lost, they pale in comparison to Brest-Litovsk. Russia would have lost a third of its population, more than half of its industrial land and almost all of its railways.

Which I wasn't discussing?
Correction, about a quarter of its railways, but you're right about the other statistics.

Cry me a river.

At least I'm not still complaining about the loss of the Colonies to the American Revolution.

While it won't be the population they occupy it will be those that decide not to work with the Americans, British, or French because they went crazy, and aided in a sterilization program. I don't think our chances in the cold war would be as "rosy" as they were in real life. Of course at the end of the day, Kaufmann was just one of many individuals armed with a hate boner for Germany so I agree with you there.

[Novus America]

The Battle of the Bulge came about because Hitler thought that if it was successful the Western Allies would be forced to make peace with him and then they would all join hands and repulse the Soviet Union together. He believed that Britain would "see reason" up until the very end.

Even historically, Hitler tried to get Britain to agree to peace until some time after the Fall of France. He showed much more interest in aligning with Britain than he ever did in conquering it.

I am aware. I speak of a hypothetical in which Britain doesn’t join. Even if you account for the Résistance, without Britain, the Nazis would be able to focus much more force on the Eastern Front-Stalin would’ve had almost no chance. The point, however, is that eventually when the USSR fell, Nazi Germany would’ve needed another foe at some point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweites_Buch
The US was that foe. Hitler hoped the UK would eventually ally with Germany in an epic battle for world domination against the US.

Although admittedly he predicted it would come in the more distant future, after his death.
"England and America will one day have a war with one another, which will be waged with the greatest hatred imaginable. One of the two countries will have to disappear."[102] and "I shall no longer be there to see it, but I rejoice on behalf of the German people at the idea that one day we will see England and Germany marching together against America".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)#Hitler's_plans_for_North_America

It should be noted Hitler thought that fully genociding, colonizing and pillaging Europeans Russia would take decades. And that it was expected this would be a brutal process of continuing warfare.

[The South Falls]

Also the mongols invading

Russo-Japanese war?

Ah, the absolute destruction of belief in the myth of the total superiority and infallibility of the european. There were glimmers of such fallibility in other battles, but the Russo-Japanese war truly solidified this idea in the European mind.

[Cappuccina]

Precisely because the original terms of the treaty were infeasible.

It was infeasible only because there was no mechanism to make Germany pay. They simply refused to, and while France tried to follow through, they were quite literally stabbed in the back by their erstwhile American and British allies. If Germany had some sense of obligation, they certainly could have paid the reparations. I think what makes it even more shameful is that the French duly paid their reparations after the Franco-Prussian War, whereas Germany acted like a petulant child.

I'd hate to see how bad it would have become had Germany been forced to pay everything as originally planned.

Hypothetical catastrophising is not an excuse for not paying your debts.

Which I wasn't discussing?
Correction, about a quarter of its railways, but you're right about the other statistics.

I was comparing the two treaties in my original statement, hence I brought it up. As for railways, you're quite right. I meant coal production.

At least I'm not still complaining about the loss of the Colonies to the American Revolution.

Not a Brit, so I actually agree with you.

I don't blame Germany for not paying "debts" that would continue to cripple their nation further, the Versailles Treaty was completely and utterly unreasonable.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

It was infeasible only because there was no mechanism to make Germany pay. They simply refused to, and while France tried to follow through, they were quite literally stabbed in the back by their erstwhile American and British allies.

Are you referring specifically to the Ruhr Occupation, or to the subject in general? If the former, I don't believe Britain did anything more than protest politely, and if the latter, favoring less harsh reparation policies doesn't equate to stabbing the French in the back.

If Germany had some sense of obligation, they certainly could have paid the reparations. I think what makes it even more shameful is that the French duly paid their reparations after the Franco-Prussian War, whereas Germany acted like a petulant child.

Well, the French only paid the indemnity because Prussian troops were quite literally forcing them to, as they occupied France until it was paid.
Anyway, Germany didn't even have enough money to meet the first payment, which is why they started printing more money and taking out loans, which, of course, only made the problem worse.
You have to give the Weimar government some, er, pity credit at the very least. They didn't simply refuse to pay reparations out of defiance.

Hypothetical catastrophising is not an excuse for not paying your debts.

How is not having enough money for an excuse? If the Allies wanted those reparations, they would've had to recreate the Occupation of the Ruhr on a nationwide basis.

I was comparing the two treaties in my original statement, hence I brought it up. As for railways, you're quite right. I meant coal production.

I agree that Brest-Litovsk was harsh. But so was Versailles.

[The South Falls]

It was infeasible only because there was no mechanism to make Germany pay. They simply refused to, and while France tried to follow through, they were quite literally stabbed in the back by their erstwhile American and British allies. If Germany had some sense of obligation, they certainly could have paid the reparations. I think what makes it even more shameful is that the French duly paid their reparations after the Franco-Prussian War, whereas Germany acted like a petulant child.

Hypothetical catastrophising is not an excuse for not paying your debts.

I was comparing the two treaties in my original statement, hence I brought it up. As for railways, you're quite right. I meant coal production.

Not a Brit, so I actually agree with you.

I don't blame Germany for not paying "debts" that would continue to cripple their nation further, the Versailles Treaty was completely and utterly unreasonable.

No nation would want to. The only reason that they originally obliged was due to the threat of imminent invasion and reoccupation. When that possibility was removed from reality, the threat had no backing, and therefore Germany ceased payment.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Are you referring specifically to the Ruhr Occupation, or to the subject in general? If the former, I don't believe Britain did anything more than protest politely, and if the latter, favoring less harsh reparation policies doesn't equate to stabbing the French in the back.

Pressuring France into making concessions and then adopting the Dawes Plan is hardly "protesting politely". And my characterisation of the whole debacle as a stab in the back is wholly accurate. The French steel industry was impaired while the Germans profited, an advantage in steel production carried into WW2.

Well, the French only paid the indemnity because Prussian troops were quite literally forcing them to, as they occupied France until it was paid.

Which just goes to what needed to have occurred in Germany. Alas, Germany got off far too lightly, thanks to Anglo-American badgering.

Anyway, Germany didn't even have enough money to meet the first payment, which is why they started printing more money and taking out loans, which, of course, only made the problem worse.
You have to give the Weimar government some, er, pity credit at the very least. They didn't simply refuse to pay reparations out of defiance.

I'd refer you to an article by historian Sally Marks, "Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany and the Versailles Treaty, 1918-1921". Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but it dissects the myth that Germany simply could not pay. Regardless, even the Allies recognised Germany's coal and timber defaults were in bad faith (hence the Ruhr occupation, something France did not initially want). One would have to be wilfully blind to see Germany's refusal pay as anything less than flagrant disregard for the Treaty of Versailles.

How is not having enough money for an excuse? If the Allies wanted those reparations, they would've had to recreate the Occupation of the Ruhr on a nationwide basis.

It's no excuse at all, especially because it was engineered by the German government. I quote;
"Germany’s tax rates [in the 1920s] were abnormally low and remained so….There were lavish social subsidies, unmatched by the victors."
When the Ruhr was occupied, rather than pay reparations, the German government continued to pay striking workers.

I agree that Brest-Litovsk was harsh. But so was Versailles.

The harshness of Versailles is a myth. I don't know your politics, but I imagine it's convenient for you to cling to this idea that Germany was bullied by the Western powers (even as the Anglosphere constantly gave Germany a pass).

[Cappuccina]

Are you referring specifically to the Ruhr Occupation, or to the subject in general? If the former, I don't believe Britain did anything more than protest politely, and if the latter, favoring less harsh reparation policies doesn't equate to stabbing the French in the back.

Pressuring France into making concessions and then adopting the Dawes Plan is hardly "protesting politely". And my characterisation of the whole debacle as a stab in the back is wholly accurate. The French steel industry was impaired while the Germans profited, an advantage in steel production carried into WW2.

Well, the French only paid the indemnity because Prussian troops were quite literally forcing them to, as they occupied France until it was paid.

Which just goes to what needed to have occurred in Germany. Alas, Germany got off far too lightly, thanks to Anglo-American badgering.

Anyway, Germany didn't even have enough money to meet the first payment, which is why they started printing more money and taking out loans, which, of course, only made the problem worse.
You have to give the Weimar government some, er, pity credit at the very least. They didn't simply refuse to pay reparations out of defiance.

I'd refer you to an article by historian Sally Marks, "Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany and the Versailles Treaty, 1918-1921". Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but it dissects the myth that Germany simply could not pay. Regardless, even the Allies recognised Germany's coal and timber defaults were in bad faith (hence the Ruhr occupation, something France did not initially want). One would have to be wilfully blind to see Germany's refusal pay as anything less than flagrant disregard for the Treaty of Versailles.

How is not having enough money for an excuse? If the Allies wanted those reparations, they would've had to recreate the Occupation of the Ruhr on a nationwide basis.

It's no excuse at all, especially because it was engineered by the German government. I quote;
"Germany’s tax rates [in the 1920s] were abnormally low and remained so….There were lavish social subsidies, unmatched by the victors."
When the Ruhr was occupied, rather than pay reparations, the German government continued to pay striking workers.

I agree that Brest-Litovsk was harsh. But so was Versailles.

The harshness of Versailles is a myth. I don't know your politics, but I imagine it's convenient for you to cling to this idea that Germany was bullied by the Western powers (even as the Anglosphere constantly gave Germany a pass).

So you're crying about Germany not cooperating with a treaty designed to meet the foreign policy goals of the victors? Germany was likewise pursuing it's own interests, and that didn't include payment. Whether the treaty was "fair" or not (it wasn't btw), the treaty did place blame on Germany for the entire war, which is ridiculous.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

So you're crying about Germany not cooperating with a treaty designed to meet the foreign policy goals of the victors? Germany was likewise pursuing it's own interests, and that didn't include payment. Whether the treaty was "fair" or not (it wasn't btw), the treaty did place blame on Germany for the entire war, which is ridiculous.

More so at the misconceptions surrounding the treaty. Simply stating "it wasn't fair" is not convincing nor accurate.

That's not what Article 231 says. It says that Germany and its allies were responsible for damage caused by Germany and its allies because of aggression caused by Germany and its allies. And it is absolutely correct. Germany made the choice of invading France and Belgium, and the idea that it is somehow not responsible for the devastation of French and Belgian territory, as well as the economic costs of fighting the war, is just blatant apologia. Germany did not solely cause the war, and that's not what the article says. Germany however, is certainly responsible for a large amount of destruction.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Pressuring France into making concessions and then adopting the Dawes Plan is hardly "protesting politely".

Either way, the Dawes Plan seems a much better alternative than the French simply continuing to occupy Germany's foremost center of industry and thus ensure Germany's spiral into bankruptcy.

And my characterisation of the whole debacle as a stab in the back is wholly accurate. The French steel industry was impaired while the Germans profited, an advantage in steel production carried into WW2.

While there were longterm effects such as this, you can't argue that they were forseen. The Brits and Americans weren't intentionally helping Germany rearm at the expense of France, they were attempting to defuse a situation which was causing nationwide suffering and hardship and which was leading to war.
It wasn't a stab in the back, it was a moderation which defused tensions in both countries.

Which just goes to what needed to have occurred in Germany.

I brought this up because you seemed to be implying that France had maintained its national honor whereas Germany had not. But Bismarck had to force the French practically at gunpoint to pay the indemnity. This somewhat correlates to the Occupation of the Ruhr, except that the Third Republic was able to easily pay the reparations and Prussia didn't have to extract crude resources as a substitute for currency; the French economic situation wasn't nearly as dire as Weimar Germany's.

Alas, Germany got off far too lightly, thanks to Anglo-American badgering.

Had they been pressed any further they wouldn't have been able to pay for anything.

I'd refer you to an article by historian Sally Marks, "Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany and the Versailles Treaty, 1918-1921". Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but it dissects the myth that Germany simply could not pay. Regardless, even the Allies recognised Germany's coal and timber defaults were in bad faith (hence the Ruhr occupation, something France did not initially want). One would have to be wilfully blind to see Germany's refusal pay as anything less than flagrant disregard for the Treaty of Versailles.

And there are many historians who concur that the reparations were unwarranted, as well as those who would readily point out that Germany did attempt to pay the reparations for as long as it could, putting immense strain on the German economy.

It's no excuse at all, especially because it was engineered by the German government. I quote;
"Germany’s tax rates [in the 1920s] were abnormally low and remained so….There were lavish social subsidies, unmatched by the victors."

The reason Germany did not raise its tax rates was because of public sentiment. The German public was absolutely apoplectic at the thought of the Treaty of Versailles, and paying extra taxes that would just be handed to their enemies was something they would not stand for. It was far easier for the German government to take out loans.

When the Ruhr was occupied, rather than pay reparations, the German government continued to pay striking workers.

That's misleading. The Occupation of the Ruhr was seen as a national disgrace in Germany, and so the German government encouraged passive resistance to what they considered an egregious offense. They then provided for the industrial workers who were refusing to work for the French.
The French were extracting the reparations straight from the source, anyway.

The harshness of Versailles is a myth.

The fact that its reparation plans had to completely replaced not once, but twice, speaks volumes.

And I will preempt one counterargument by saying, that no, it wasn't revised as part of an Anglo-American conspiracy to revive German militarism at the expense of the French, it was revised in order to defuse a political and economic time-bomb.

I don't know your politics, but I imagine it's convenient for you to cling to this idea that Germany was bullied by the Western powers (even as the Anglosphere constantly gave Germany a pass).

Why would my politics hinge on the socio-economic effects over a few years of a peace treaty enacted one-hundred years ago in a different country and continent than my own?

This stems from my pedantry, not my political views.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm extremely hurt ya'll talked about the World Wars and geopolitics without me.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

-snip

I'm not fond of quote spirals, so I'll respond by broadly answering your points. Firstly, I don't believe the Anglo-Americans had malicious intent by renegotiating reparations to be more forgiving, I just think that it was misguided, especially with the benefit of hindsight. They gave Germany a grace period to build up its industry, while the reliance on foreign loans resulted in an economic crisis and slide into radicalism. So the initial goal of helping keep Germany stable and integrated into the European economy failed miserably.

As for whether Germany could pay reparations, I'm afraid we're at an impasse. I subscribe to the view of economists and historians such as Etienne Mantoux and Sally Marks. Even A.J.P. Taylor, who accused the treaty of Versailles of having no moral validity, agreed that Mantoux had debunked Keyne's arguments that Germany could not afford reparations. And most modern historians generally agree, regardless of their opinions on reparations as being payable or not, that Germany's immediate economic troubles were not caused by reparations, but war debt and generous social benefits for veterans. Austria, for example, suffered similar hyperinflation without accompanying reparations (because the peacemakers realised Austria couldn't afford them).

As for France, they were able to pay nearly as much as Germany (from 1919-32) in two years, with an economy twice as small. These reparations were intended to cripple France for thirty years, but the French Republic borrowed from its citizens and introduced necessary reforms to get the job done. While I concede that paying reparations would have been politically suicidal for the German government, I don't think that's a legitimate excuse not to pay. If you owe a debt, you can't just refuse to pay it because your family would get pissed off. But of course, without a clear mechanism for enforcement, Germany got off rather lightly. That mistake was not made the second time.