War in Ukraine

[LouderVol]

Bismarck knew exactly what he was doing. It was a brilliant move really, get your enemy to declare war so you can galvanize your populace who just saw you steam role the Austrian empire 4 years earlier, and continue the long-term plan of uniting what you consider 'German lands'.

View attachment 695157

Franco-German War | History, Causes, & Results | Britannica

Franco-German War (July 19, 1870–May 10, 1871), war in which a coalition of German states led by Prussia defeated France. The war marked the end of French hegemony in continental Europe and resulted in the creation of a unified Germany. Superior numbers, organization, and mobility contributed to...

www.britannica.com

The US financial boost for Britain to keep being able to fund both themselves and France during WW1, and US material supply, had far more impact than our direct military involvement.
It's somewhat irrelevant anyway, given that the opinions of Germany at the time were the prevailing factor in France's attitude toward them at the end of WW1, and the fact that the great depression hit as the Germany economy had finally started rebounding at the end of the 1920s, which was also when French and German relations had begun to thaw.

the US also manipulated telegrams (Zimmerman) to push towards war, so I am not seeing the distinction you are making with that.

and your second paragraph agrees with my strategy. trade/sanctions instead of direct military involvement.

 

[lukeneyland]

Wow, that's some serious revisionist history.

Is this really what you tell yourself to maintain the levels of cognitive dissonance required to exist with your world outlook?

You do realize that Germany has invaded France twice in less than 50 years at the end and if WW1 right?

The US entering the war and helping turn the tide had zero impact on France's demands of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.

In the end and, we didn't even ratify the treaty ourselves.

Wrong. France started the Franco-Prussian war. Bismarck baited them into it but France was the technical aggressor. They just got whipped so bad we forget that. It’s pretty lazy to pin WW1 on the Germans as well. The French knew what their commitment to Russia entailed and welcomed it. None of that is relevant to my original post but you are so wrong I felt the need to say it. You really don’t think that France knowing they had US man power in their corner at a time when both them and the Germans had been bled white emboldened the French to impose a more punitive treaty? So I return to my original position . Had the German empire survived WW1 do you really think Nazis would have emerged?

 

[volbound1700]

Wrong. France started the Franco-Prussian war. Bismarck baited them into it but France was the technical aggressor. They just got whipped so bad we forget that. It’s pretty lazy to pin WW1 on the Germans as well. The French knew what their commitment to Russia entailed and welcomed it. None of that is relevant to my original post but you are so wrong I felt the need to say it. You really don’t think that France knowing they had US man power in their corner at a time when both them and the Germans had been bled white emboldened the French to impose a more punitive treaty? So I return to my original position . Had the German empire survived WW1 do you really think Nazis would have emerged?

Technically you are correct but you are leaving a lot out of it.

The real origins of France vs. Germany rest in Alsace-Lorraine. A region that is actually more German but is a part of France today. Louis XIV claimed it in the early 1700s as a buffer between France and the HRE/Austria. Prussia took it after the Franco-Prussian War and France hated that, especially considering the prestige loss. France was vowed and determined for revenge so they recruited allies included Russia and formed the Entente.

However, Germany wasn't necessarily a good guy either and it mostly related to having one of the worse rulers in history in Wilhelm II. Bismarck kept Germany stable but eventually had to step down. Wilhelm II had an inferiority complex and gave in to a lot of war hawks. He built a navy threatening the UK, aggressively threatened countries throughout both Europe and Asia, and even threatened war with the United States in 1913. The guy just couldn't get along with anyone. Wilhelm II basically pushed Europe to the brink of WW1. Without him ruling Germany, who knows what could have happened.

I will state that things would have turned out better for a lot of Europeans but would probably be more bleak for the rest of the world. USA would have still grown a lot stronger but would have likely stayed isolationist unless some other conflict pulled us onto the world stage.

Interestingly, the Hapsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, and others likely retain their powers and De-colonization never happens.

 

[lukeneyland]

we were the world's strongest economy because we were so isolated from the fighting. not because we got involved in the fighting of WW2. our economy was cranking up bigly before 1941 just supplying weapons. it was literally because of the destruction of WW2, mostly on our part, that our economy lead the world. funny that our destructive nature wasn't brought up in your reasoning.

and you are flailing at the same myopic world, we must do everything, or else we are doing nothing. the alternative was more than just the single outcome we see today, or WW3. we could have easily set up NATO to just be a united Europe. we should have done the same thing once the Iron Curtain fell. set up another alliance of old soviet territories, and just like we could have been left out of NATO, Russia would have been left out of the new "Warsaw Pact". each side got a buffer from the rest, strong alliances big enough where Russia would never mess with them, and it wouldn't have needed our lives in wars all over the world. that is just one possible alternative your imagination is too small to consider.

worried about the Chinese? Do the same thing. unify nations over there into another separate alliance, without our direct involvement.

Us fighting Russia over Ukraine makes it more likely that China invades Taiwan.
Us fighting China over Taiwan makes it more likely that NK invades SK. if you defend everything, you defend nothing.
the entangling alliances we are currently part of, are just as complicated as the ones that started WW1. plenty of options out there that don't require us to demilitarize.

we didn't need the new version of imperliam via alliances to ensure a more peaceful future. common sense natural alliances with nations that actually share borders, and problems, makes far more sense than Argentina or Australia being part of our invasion of Iraq.

I love how people somehow forget what a bellicose nation France was in this period of time. Obviously Bismarck fooled them but I don’t think he’d have risked war with France without an adequate excuse.

 

[lukeneyland]

Technically you are correct but you are leaving a lot out of it.

The real origins of France vs. Germany rest in Alsace-Lorraine. A region that is actually more German but is a part of France today. Louis XIV claimed it in the early 1700s as a buffer between France and the HRE/Austria. Prussia took it after the Franco-Prussian War and France hated that, especially considering the prestige loss. France was vowed and determined for revenge so they recruited allies included Russia and formed the Entente.

However, Germany wasn't necessarily a good guy either and it mostly related to having one of the worse rulers in history in Wilhelm II. Bismarck kept Germany stable but eventually had to step down. Wilhelm II had an inferiority complex and gave in to a lot of war hawks. He built a navy threatening the UK, aggressively threatened countries throughout both Europe and Asia, and even threatened war with the United States in 1913. The guy just couldn't get along with anyone. Wilhelm II basically pushed Europe to the brink of WW1. Without him ruling Germany, who knows what could have happened.

I will state that things would have turned out better for a lot of Europeans but would probably be more bleak for the rest of the world. USA would have still grown a lot stronger but would have likely stayed isolationist unless some other conflict pulled us onto the world stage.

Interestingly, the Hapsburgs, Romanovs, Ottomans, and others likely retain their powers and De-colonization never happens.

If the Romanovs and Ottomans maintained their power we’d likely not have Islamic terror hitting us or Europe either. So much of that started with the Commies meddling in the Middle East and the creation of the modern state of Israel. I’m not so sure decolonization was a universal good thing

 

[volbound1700]

If the Romanovs and Ottomans maintained their power we’d likely not have Islamic terror hitting us or Europe either. So much of that started with the Commies meddling in the Middle East and the creation of the modern state of Israel. I’m not so sure decolonization was a universal good thing

Terrorism would have likely come but yeah it wouldn't be on us, it would be on the Czars and Sultans of those Empires.

It is such a massive change in history that it would be hard to quantify. By 1900, WW1 was inevitable so even if the assassination in Sarajevo had not happened, something else would have sparked it. Morocco in 1911 almost started it.

However, take Wilhelm II out of the equation, things could have been highly different.