The miscalculation was than allies didn't do a parade in Berlin. This way Germans didn't understand how hard they lost WWI, so reparations seemed unfair. That mistake wasn't repeated on WWII.
However hard they lost, repearations would still seem unfair. They still thought their treatment unfair after WWII and all that parading - it took a decade of "training" to convince the Germans that they were the baddies in WWII (and a hell of a lot were never convinced).
Besides the WWI loss they quickly attributed to "internal traitors" (Jews and leftists in general). Parades wouldn't change that.
>If reparations were seen as a fee for remaining independent country they could be very fair given the alternative.
That would be an ever greater insult. Instead of merely unfair, they'd be seen as both unfair and insulting - and threatening ("Our independency is at their mercy? Fuck them at the first opportunity we get!").
That level of insult seemed to work perfectly for Germany and Japan after WW2. Look how polite they are after occupation and giving away half of the country to Russians.
Well, they didn't really give anything away voluntarily.
They lost a war, and got to suffer that as a consequence under postWW2 arrangments (and that was the light option, more like a slap on the wrist: they were also plans to fully deindustrialize and starve them to death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan ).
And they're building up a liking to fascism and national arrogance again in the last few decades. The Japanese too - which never repented for their attrocities to China either.
The difference between the first and second, is that after the second, the ‘Axis’ states were brought into the global economy. Germany and Japan became famously successful both financially and technologically. The economic growth wasn’t to be sustained in the long run, but it intwined them with global markets. Globalization is arguably the biggest force for peace in the western world, save for nuclear deterrent.
The Treaty of Versailles main problem was that it wasn't really crippling enough to destroy Germany but still enough to hurt. But most of that was at the chaotic early years of the Weimar Republic, which by the 1920s had stabilized the situation with American loans.
It was the effects of the Great Depression and internal politicking that gave power to Hitler. The Nazis hatred wasn't directed to the West that enacted that treaty, it was to the east for the Communists and the "subhuman" minorities.
Germany defaulted on some of the payments and France responded to that by occupying Ruhr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr). That took out a substantial portion of Germany's production capacity, but they were mandated to keep paying the reparations. The German state tried to keep up with that by printing money, triggering hyperinflation and paving way to the Nazi regime.
When you combine that with Germany and Prussia's lack of access to steel it meant nobody could make anything whatsoever. The impact of not being able to import steel and French occupation of the one major remaining steelworks plant in Krupp is one of the handful of reasons why Prussia was dissolved and absorbed into the greater Weimar Republic nine years later. Prussia couldn't handle the debt caused from the two years of no steel and coal at a time where the republic was so poor they were asking the English and Americans for loans they knew they couldn't repay.
You've got the dates mixed up. The era of hyperinflation and the occupation of the Ruhr occurred from 1921 to 1925, after which the "Weimar Golden years" occurred where the NSDAP were a small minority. The Great Depression occurred in 1929, which promptly crashed the German Economy. Unlike in 1921, this time the government chose austerity which caused great hardship and radicalized much into either the NSADP or KPD. The ruling centrists weren't able to govern without support of either, hence they planned to use Hitler as a "puppet" between the President and the Vice Minister. That plan backfired, although it is to note Hindenburg could have fired Hitler at any time.
Afaik, the printed money to continue paying all the wages for the workers in the occupied area, who went on strike, due to the occupation. Don't think they could pay reparations with freshly printed Reichsmark.
Hitler had insisted on meeting in the exactly same rail car, within which the German surrender of WW1 had been signed, to have the French sign their surrender in WW2. If that's not a sign of hate, I don't know what is.
This was more of a gesture towards the aristocracy that was still heavily present in the Army. For some context, the french also insisted that the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was signed in the same place as the 1871 Treaty of Versailles (which was similarly harsh).
I sorta kinda agree. The US should really have returned to isolationism after WWII instead of allying with Western Europe in conspicuous opposition to the USSR. On the other hand, the efforts of the USSR to agitate for communist revolutions in other countries made Western Europe – with weakening influence over its colonies – very nervous.
But if Russia really wants to stop being a pariah it can just give up its childish posturing, remove its troops from Ukraine and open up its economy, to the benefit of its own people. Sanctions aren’t reparations
Maybe you missed it, but reparations are already being enacted. Just today the EU approved giving Ukraine $3B that Russia's assets deposited in Europe earned this year. And there are talks about giving Ukraine loans that Russia must then repay.
Media murmuring isn't anything legally binding. Russia have plenty of leverage to sue for peace. Namely that this is a war of attrition and Russia has plenty of cannon fodder, exhausting Ukraine in the long run. If it means no more lives lost and the territory returns to pre-war borders, Ukraine would certainly sign without issuing debt.
But the Russian leadership has decided that it wants to usurp territory and be the villian, in full understanding of the consequences. After WWI, Germany had to pay ~550 billion dollars after being turned to rubble. That amount compounded with the depression generated enough unrest and bitterness to give Hitler a willing audience.
They always start with the murmurs to prepare public opinion.
And in any case, I think people really are failing to see the equivalence here, and it's scary. The suggestions to "just stop" (translation: "just lose") are actually serious. You'll have an economically crippled Russia with a wounded collective ego. Perfect setup for a rematch. Just like WW1 to WW2. But the normalizers have the majority opinion on their side at this point, and sadly nobody will stop them from making this tragedy a reality.
So: there really is an equivalence here, and sadly history teaches people nothing. This time they are right, dammit. With any luck, our grandkids will live to discuss how this was the biggest geopolitical miscalculation.
Don't think I have a point? Think about how everyone expected Russians to take to the streets and overthrow Putin back in 2022. The level of delusion is unreal.
> The suggestions to "just stop" (translation: "just lose") are actually serious.
Lose? You mean retreat to their own pre-war borders? To lose would be if they actually had to pay reparations or lost territory of their own. As I said, this would not be how the negotiations play out as Russia has the numbers to keep the war going as long as it wants.
But sure. Tell me what would be lost in Russia ending the war?
> Think about how everyone expected Russians to take to the streets and overthrow Putin back in 2022.
Who is going to try and overthrow the leader who disappears people? Everyone saw what happened to Prigozhin when he dissented. And of course, there are plenty of pro-war nationalists that would take Putin's place should he ever die. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, or how it progresses your narrative of Russia as the victim in the conflict it started – at the economic and human cost to its own people – to take Ukraine territory.
Thank you for an interesting discussion. This is why I have this throwaway: to talk about things beyond the soundbites in the media without worrying about the downvoters.
To play devil's advocate: why doesn't the US stop now? There used to be a Ukraine entirely under Russia's control politically. Now there is a West Ukraine that is entirely dependent on the USA politically, has Black Sea access, has the oldest city in Russian history, has the oil and gas pipelines running through it (and so provides a way to continue to pressure Russia economically), and has a largely pro-West population. What is to be gained (other than pride) by forcing majority Russian-speaking lands that got accidentally attached to an entity named "Ukraine" to be part of this brave new world?
And before you go "but borders", let me point out that the reason behind many wars in Africa were borders that were arbitrarily drawn by the colonizers for their own convenience, and that often split up historically homogeneous tribes, or forced mortal enemies to be "the same country" (Harari has the details).
Finally, about the "who is going to try to overthrow Putin" point. It seems ridiculous now, but this is exactly what the media were selling back in 2022.
This is like saying -- we just have to accept that England belongs to Italy because after all London was once known as Londinium and was one of the most important cities in the Roman Empire.
Hey, Turkey bit off a chunk of Cyprus as late as 1974, and they are US allies. The US itself has presided over redrawing the borders in Serbia in the 90s (and somehow in that case the justification of "an ethnic minority wants a chunk of land" was totally legit).
It was communism that fostered this independence movement of the eastern states, and it was the USSR that drew the arbitrary line soon after the revolution.
> What is to be gained (other than pride) by forcing majority Russian-speaking lands that got accidentally attached to an entity named "Ukraine" to be part of this brave new world?
If this really was Russia’s intent they wouldn’t have tried to take the entire country at the outset. And if this is some kind of liberation project for those long suffering Russian speaking minorities, I’m certain those being bombed aren’t welcome of it. There’s no noble intentions behind the inception of this war, but let’s say there was, those intentions seem to have since been contradicted by the human cost which Russia’s leadership has proven insensitive to
Minorities? Reality is a stubborn thing. The numbers: Russians are 71% of the population of Sevastopol, 58% in Crimea, 39% in Donbas (but in Donbas, 97% of people who identified as Russian spoke Russian, whereas only 41% of those who identified as Ukrainian could actually speak Ukrainian). These are 2001 numbers from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine
And who, pray tell, is dropping bombs on these people? (and has been since 2014). Hint: it is not Russia. So they absolutely do welcome the protection and make up the majority of the fighting force currently advancing on West Ukraine. What is actually happening is in effect a civil war.
Edit: to the downvoters: which is it that you disagree with? That a chunk of a population larger than 50% is not a minority, or that people don't generally bomb themselves?
> Russians are 71% of the population of Sevastopol
Strawmanning again. That same census shows 17.3% of Ukraine identifies ethnically (or culturally) as Russian. But instead you want to split hairs.
> 58% in Crimea
Crimea is Russian in the pre-war border, and is irrelevant to this thread.
> whereas only 41% of those who identified as Ukrainian could actually speak Ukrainian
Kind of telling that non-Ukrainian speaking people are identifying as culturally as Ukrainian. It puts further doubt as to how much people inside the pre-war borders wanted to be 'liberated' by being usurped by Russia. Language != culture != nationality != support for annexation
All the same Sevastopol, which is the only majority Russian population in pre-war Ukraine that you mentioned, is not all of Ukraine. Very clearly Russia's play was for the whole country. The kind and noble angle you're presenting of Russia as liberator is either disingenuous, if you're trolling, or delusional, if you're being earnest.
> and make up the majority of the fighting force currently advancing on West Ukraine
Even if that's verifiable, there's no way of knowing how many are fighting by choice. Wouldn't be the first time Russians/USSR sent people to fight 'under pain of death'. And of course they aren't alone in this sort of conduct in war time.
> is dropping bombs on these people?
Both sides. Because of a war—I repeat once again—instigated by Russia. These populations wouldn't be caught in the crossfire of shifting battle fronts, if there was no... err.. battle.
So I'm done here. You aren't arguing in good faith, nor seem to yield to reason. Feel free to have the last reply.
Hey, I made you (and maybe a few other people) go look up those numbers to make sure this Russian troll isn't lying, and think about what they mean. That's already better than the usual "Putin evil, QED".
America has done a good job at nation building in the New Ukraine. They built a new country in Israel's image: ethnocentric and very militarized, with a strong warrior ethos. But you just can't resist adding a Gaza Strip, can you?
I think your timeline is off by about 2 decades. The nightmare period of Russia is not the current time, it's the 90's. That's when they were most wounded and the had the most economic turmoil. And just as you wouldn't have stopped Hitler by appeasing him after he grabbed the power, you won't stop Putin by appeasing him now.
If we are examining the equivalence between Putin and Hitler, and saying (aided by the passage of time so we can actually think calmly) - pressuring Germany was what allowed Hitler to come to power, is it not then true that this period where Russia was wounded and had all the turmoil is what allowed Putin to come to power?
Second question: who did the wounding? Who do you think the average Russian thinks did the wounding?
> is it not then true that this period where Russia was wounded and had all the turmoil is what allowed Putin to come to power?
Sure, that was my point.
> Second question: who did the wounding? Who do you think the average Russian thinks did the wounding?
It's... Hard for me to formulate a strong answer on this, but my impression is that Russia mostly did the wounding itself but the current average Russian probably blames either the reform attempts masking a power grab OR the west and the US for it's toils.
That's my point though: these leaders aren't aliens beamed down to Earth from space. They are the kind of leader a society elects as a sort of Hail Mary last ditch self preservation effort (yes, elects, in that they actually have support and are not usurpers).
As for the second part, let me retell an anecdote. I was once at a party (in the US) with someone who participated in "helping" one of the post-Soviet republics with reforming their industry after perestroika. After too many drinks he began to brag about how "these corrupt businessmen thought they were hot sh... for grabbing all that stuff, little did they know they were just handing it to us". There were a ton of vultures feasting on the USSR's corpse. Now, the fact that it came to that in the first place is absolutely the Soviet leadership's fault.
And it is also ultimately the current Russian leadership's fault that Victoria Nuland even got around to handing out those cookies 10 years ago.
US should return to isolationism now. It never was an actual superpower. It just convincingly played one from a distance. Nearly every US engagement in recent times just shown how inapt US is at effecting anything anywhere through military action. US getting directly involved in Ukraine will just clearly show vast scale of US military incompetence to China and anyone who could still have any doubts.
This is nonsense. The US advising Ukraine and supplying s limited amount of weapons has allowed them to hold out against Russia when they were supposed to collapse in a week. If anything, this war has shown Russia to be a paper tiger. They're literally resorting to WW2 era tanks at this point.
Keep in mind that Russia and the US are both nuclear powers, so that complicates things as neither Putin, Biden, or Zelensky want nukes being thrown around.
Between the US's actually functioning carriers, F-22s, modern tanks, and finally functional JSFs...I don't think Russia's untrained cannon fodder being supplied by civilian vans is going to win out.
That being said, the democratic countries in Eastern europe are tiny and most have a very small military presence. Without NATO, Russia could conceivably storm into those countries.
I don't think there is a good answer here. Either let Putin steamroll a chunk of Europe or spend a ton of additional taxpayer dollars. A little googling suggests the U.S. support for Ukraine is 1.5% of our federal budget, which is crazy high if you think about it.
Isolationism has its benefits and drawbacks of course.
> A little googling suggests the U.S. support for Ukraine is 1.5% of our federal budget, which is crazy high if you think about it.
Isn't it surprising how little this mountain of money achieves? It just slows down Russia at the unsustainable cost of Ukrainian lives.
Maybe US budget is so huge for other reasons than their military prowess? Maybe everything US does is just vastly overpriced for its value? Could American military be even more overpriced than American healtcare?
I'm just saying it's a ton of money. We didn't just donate a few billion and call it quits.
I think part of this is viewed as an ongoing expense where we're constantly giving someone weapons (Israel, Ukraine, whoever) in order to keep the Defense industry in business. It is a roundabout way to give our tax dollars to Raytheon and other firms without directly giving it to them.
Slowing down Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives is a decision for them to make. You might feel differently if your country was being invaded. The US citizen should get a vote though if they're paying through taxes and inflation.
Overpriced? Almost certainly. Government isn't efficient. It's run much more efficiently than Russia or China though where much of the funding is siphoned off due to corruption. We don't appear to have that problem at least, although the Pentagon constantly failing audits is suspicious and something we do need to look into.
I could only find older expression of this sentiment towards Findland but I heard about it recently too, just didn't pinpoint the source and I can't find it now:
I thought it was obvious. Hey, someone downvoted me for it so they must have understood (that, or they reflexively downvote anything they don't understand).
If you aren't adding to the discussion (e.g., by being obtuse) that's reason enough for a downvote. And underneath it all you're quite brashly making a false equivalence.
You conflated WW1 and WW2 and yet give me lectures on style and judge whether the equivalence is false or not? There's a word for that. I don't think I am the one being brash here.
Now you’re strawmanning. Once I knew the argument you were making (which honestly wasn’t clear to me), the overall critique was correct and justifiable, but for one minor error (namely, Germany being in rubble after WW1). Just so you know, I didn’t downvote you.
The only miscalculation in WWI was that there wasn't allied parade in Berlin so Germans didn't understand how hard they lost. So reparations seemed like unfair backroom deal. This mistake wasn't repeated in WWII.
In case of today's Russia, Ukrainian parade in NATO equipment on the Red Square should teach Russians clearly how hard they lost so their ambitions are crushed.
You do realize that this is exactly why Russia keeps fighting? From the Russian perspective, the collective West has taken its nice mask off and will stop nothing short of what you are describing.
Yeah. And they are gonna fight to the bitter end. Nice mask goes off because Putin forcibly pulled it off. Remilitarized Europe won't get calmly mothballed. There will be a NATO parade on Red Square. If not in 3 years then in 20 when soldiers that Europe trains now reach middle age, positions of influence and feel like their lives weren't good because they were robbed of an easy win against Russia.
Putin started this because he thought Europe got defanged and is no longer a monster it used to be. But its demons were only asleep and Putin just woke up all of them.
