Comments by "Crocfighter .132" (@crocfighter.1322) on "What Was Life Like For The Average Person in Weimar Germany? - How History Works" video.

@m136dalie West Germany was not occupied for 40 years and East Germany is the definition of a ruined country that even today hasn't caught up with the western regions. A stable, democratic government is what Germany needed then and got after WW2. Draining their currency reserves and causing hyper-inflation was the opposite of what brought peace. The Marshall plan, enormous foreign investment, brought peace. The entire retributive attitude of the French in Versailles was what made it unworkable and almost ruined Potsdam. It was only America threatening to take away France's occupied regions that stopped them from wreaking yet more retributive havoc in Germany. Versailles never could have matched the program of rebuilding that took place after WW2, mostly because no one could pay for it. Peace was not achieved through occupation or reparations which were the only tools anyone was willing to use in Versailles.
3
@m136dalie Britain never would have let France dominate Europe in such a way. Allowing the counterweight of central Europe to become a French vassal while Russia imploded would have weakened the British Empire's position on the world stage and left the Mediterranean and thus the jugular of the Empire (Suez Canal) open to French influence. That is a return to Napoleonic levels of French dominance, and we all know how happy that would make the British. German nationalist groups likely would have found a surprising number of lost British supply ships full of guns if that happened. A protracted guerilla war in Germany would turn popular opinion against France and set the stage for an Anglo-German alliance to counter Soviet and French influence. You can't bully a nation into submission. It just doesn't work. The Americans can't even do it to random dictatorships with practically no military. A customs union between Germany the Benelux and France would be your best bet. Make the economies interdependent and war becomes unthinkable.
3
@m136dalie Versailles tried to "destroy Germany's ability to wage war" but the unfortunate fact of human nature is that 100 people in a forest is also a battalion armed with spears. There was no way any power (except Germany itself) could have de-fanged Germany enough to prevent a return to war-fighting capabilities for any length of time. This was not the USA and Friends unilaterally tearing into some underdeveloped country with a fraction of Team America's population. France and Britain couldn't enforce Versailles, let alone a more restrictive treaty. World War One did as much damage to the victors (sans USA) as it did to Germany. The Entente lost Russia forever as a result, and revolutions were a very real danger to everyone in the post-war years. The fault in Versailles lay in considering Germany the Great Power rather than the people living in it. Freeing Poland and limits on German recruitment and procurement for a while would have angered the population less than occupying the industrial heartland in the west of Germany (and kind of wrecking it in the process). All you really need to do is keep the peace until the Great Depression anyway. After that, throw together some (equal) economic treaties between the French and German republics similar to the Eurozone and make sure to fill your children's history books with the evils of monarchs and how Hans and Pierre can be friends (free international movement of people for all classes would help) and boom. WW1 was just the straw that broke the people's back with regards to monarchy, and now we are all friends!! Retributive treaties just say that you should make sure you are dictating terms next time.
1
@m136dalie 20 years later the Allies had advanced into Germany until they met the Soviets. Short of physically occupying all of Germany with their armies, the French couldn't have done a WW2. There is no way the British would have let the French effectively take over one of the largest industries in the world, and also no way they would waste their military occupying a partition after the High Seas Fleet had been dealt with. The Americans certainly wouldn't have been on board with occupying a newly founded republic and the Russians were in a civil war. There is no power at the end of WW1 that could or would commit to such an action.
1
@m136dalie I simply don't think Germany's actions in WW1 justified such a response. Really the only reason we still have this discussion is because of the Nazis, which no one at the time could have predicted. At the end of the day, invading Belgium was the only aggressive move made by Germany, everything else was a result of the alliances of the time. I am not even sure if splitting off the southern areas would have worked. German nationalism was very strong at the time and I suspect a "their backyard" appeasement approach would have been taken to reunification by the Entente anyway. The English and American stance was not a blunder in my opinion. The German navy (the reason the UK was worried) was destroyed, the monarch was removed from power and Poland was freed making the Americans happy. There was no reason to fear German rearmament when you are on the other side of the sea and worried about the Soviets spreading their revolution.
1
@m136dalie "There was no reason to fear German rearmament *when you are on the other side of the sea and worried about the Soviets spreading their revolution*." I did not say France should not have been afraid of rearmament. Germany was always going to be a scary neighbour if you had hostile relations, which is why I mentioned non-military solutions in my original comment. Germany and France today have no reason to go to war and so neither needs to worry about it. Retributive treaties just tell the loser to make sure they write the terms next time.
1
@m136dalie And then France and the Soviet Union go to war anyway, Japan still tries its hand at Empire and you have only changed the sides of WW2 not stopped it. All the Great Powers with the possible exception of the USA were too bellicose for any peace to last. As long as the solution to war was to make physically stop someone from fighting, peace would never be an option. Even the Cold War required diplomacy in the age of MAD. And it not pleasing Britain would make it impossible. Britain and the USA dug France out of its own grave, there is no way France could impose such a peace and no reason the Anglo-Sphere should have let them. A real attempt to normalize peaceful relations is what was necessary, not a harsher treaty. As I said before, retributive treaties are an incentive to win, not for peace.
1