Comments by "Blugale Doh" (@blugaledoh2669) on "How History Works" channel.

@m136dalie Are you sure? Wouldn’t a harsh term arouse more resentment? Unless your harsh term involved dividing up Germany I am not sure those events would have been avoided. We like to focus on Germany but we should also remember that France also had a unhealthy nationalism and anti German sentiment for 40 years after the Franco Prussian war. If we take France example, a harsher term may not avoid a next war.
6
@m136dalie It was not the only way. You creating a false dichotomy which is simply not true.
4
@m136dalie Mate nothing is ever a guarantee. Destroying Germany would only benefit France no one else. It is easy to point at Germany but it is important to remember they were not the only aggressor. The USSR would likely benefit for a lost of a powerful central European countries to spread its own influence.
4
@m136dalie My point still stand. At the time no one would have predicted the holocaust. Even if we applied hindsight, the holocaust was not a inevitability. Secondly, it not as if France was any less destructive or aggressive than Germany. Ask their former colony they feel.
4
@m136dalie I did not say that. What I meant there was other ways to prevent WW2. Contrary to what people think the subsequent rise of Hitler and his expansionism was not a inevitable event.
3
What would happen if the Allies were more harsh?
2
@m136dalie Perhaps, but I wonder if it fair because it seem to be just vindictive. Not to excuse Germany, but Britain and France are no less aggressive than Germany. Conflict between each other would likely have come, in this case Germany was the instigator but in other scenario France and Britain could have been the instigator. Secondly, WW2 was not inevitable after the First World War. If the Nazi or any group like them didn’t came to power it is possible the War would not have come or at least extend more years.
2
@m136dalie Also, are you French?
2