Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "The Spectator" channel.

@susannamarker2582 Well said.
5
@susannamarker2582 Then we disagree on the former point. Had the allies not diverged on enforcing the treaty, Hitler would have had no literal ammunition [nor armaments of any worth] to sustain a war with. It's worth remembering that compared to the treaty the Germans tried to force on the Russians in 1917, or what German terms for a peace with the allies would have been, or indeed what was enforced on the Austrians, Hungarians & Bulgarians... that Germany got off lightly. (not a pleasent point for sure, but demonstrable fact all the same; a bit like the Diplomatic Blank Cheque Germany gave Austro-Hungary in 1914 was a key factor in the start of the war) Russia is different though. We can't enforce a treaty at gunpoint even if we wanted to (and even if we could; it would be a bloodbath), so negotiation is objectively the best alternative.
4
Compared to the bloodbath that most Soviet operations against the Germans in WWII were like... definitely restrained. (some of the stuff they got up to then probably would get me shadow-banned if I elaborated) Compared to the Red Army's role in crushing the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 too, it's been relatively restrained. The longer it goes on though... the more brutal it'll become, as both sides get more desperate, in the face of declining treasure and manpower.
4
^ Meh. If Russia's objective was "completely destroying" The Ukraine, they would have done so already. (the FOAB for instance would be seeing much more use)
3
@susannamarker2582 It's also worth noting that having a chip in one's shoulder means nothing if you lack the ability to do anything about it. The French for instance are still rather salty about losing the Seven Years War to the British, and aided rebels in 1776 partially in retribution to it... but never got back what they'd lost, as they knew they couldn't. Indeed French possessions in the Americas only declined after the Seven Years War. (even Napoleon failed to reverse that, despite seriously trying in places like [what's now] Haiti) Similar thing with Spain: losing not only their empire but their status as a 1st rate geopolitical power post-Napoleonic Wars grated... but they were unsuccessful in doing anything to reverse it, thus eventually had to accept their lesser place in the world. Germany too would have had to accept such a fact, sooner or later, had they been denied any oppotunity to rearm, or faced with force on their first attempt at land grabbing. Again: not comparable to Russia though, as they have native Oil, H Bombs, and more besides.
3
Or is it? The term Fog of War is thus for a reason.
2
Yup. Weak leaders with only one-stage thinking, elected at-all largely due to low voter turnouts and gerrymandering, have a history of leading their respective nations to disaster... and the Russians know that . The Liberal-Democratic world smashed the Axis in WWII (economically, industrially & militarily) because it managed to [for the most part] work together in common cause... we're now facing the possibility of a reverse outcome, if our especially sub-par leaders carry on this way.
2
@susannamarker2582 While I hold the contrasting conclusion that Germany would have still had an anti-semitic chip on its shoulder for losing WWI (even the Weimar Republic had plans for a 2nd war and made steps toward rearmament) had it not faced such a treaty imposition, as it was failure of the allied powers to have a united front re' enforcing the treaty on Germany in the interwar period (only France & Belgium were hardline, while the UK & US were hesitant) that allowed Germany to resurge as a threat country at all; I do agree on the point that Russia will need to be negotiated with on some level, to prevent this coming up again. Germany after all had no native oil deposits nor nuclear weapons, while Russia has both in abundance; making the equation different.
2
@susannamarker2582 Well people tend to focus on the NSDAP getting into power as the key detail in Germany rearming... yet the Communists had similar ambitions, and Weimar Germany had already been putting some of its US loans into rearming. (case in point the secret Tank, Aircraft & Submarine development pacts with third party countries like the USSR, and a certain class of overgunned Cruisers) Germany only got enough arms to be a threat again though, because the countries supposed to enforce the treaty were so divided: • The French favoured a hard line, and did where they could. • The British were less & less eager to be firm on Germany (until being blindsighted in 1938), and opposed French measures in the '20's. • The USA pretty much did nothing after the early '20's , favouring isolationism. • Italy did basically nothing, as only Austria remaining seperate from Germany really mattered to them. (until Hitler won Mussolini over to letting that happen) • Russia was by then communist and thus was shunned by most, and had no baring on the treaty. • Belgium wanted Germany kept weak but also didn't want to be on bad relations... plus had no teeth to enforce anything. • Romania had not had any real say at the peace talks and thus was external to it all, was more concerned with Hungary, and had gained a lot from Bulgaria. ...which all led to a weak front re' German rearmament and re-expansionism; despite Germany being relatively weak for most of the interwar period re' Oil supplies and actual fighting power.
1
^×3 Weak answer, as they aren't, and they won't. (as ""destroying [the] ukraine"" would require thermonuclear hellfire... an approach beneficial to no-one)
1
@blazer4999 True. The Germans - and their collaborators - gave the Soviets many a ligit' reason for brutality. Though the latter had been a hallmark of the USSR since its inception, it only increased in scope and regularity in response to the Germans. That said: war can make even the most typically benign countries act brutally: the fact that German prisoners were sometimes shot out of hand by the British during WWI for instance. (albeit because the Germans had been doing it too, and just generally setting the precident for brutality)
1
@andylewis7360 Was referring more to economic "treasure", as wars tend to rely on the strength of each side's war chest... and tend to end if one or more sides have run out / have nobody left to lend to them.
1