Worst thing was,that almost everybody belived that they could win quickly.
I do not undarstandt how they could be so delusional after 1905 war showed what HMG are doing to infrantry.
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Worst thing was,that almost everybody belived that they could win quickly.
I do not undarstandt how they could be so delusional after 1905 war showed what HMG are doing to infrantry.
WW1 was inevitable. The peace deal that caused WW2 was not.
DarthOne
☦️
On a related note, who the hell thought that was a good idea?! Much less giving over half of Europe to the Soviets?!
Typhonis
Well-known member
FDR for some odd reason and Churchill went for it
Well,for european generals cyvil war was something fought among bunch of cyvillians,so they could belive that they,genius generals,would do better.
But 1905 have no excuses,becouse Russia get beaten there.European superpower.
Yes.They either should let germans take Europe,or made partition among free German states,France,Poland,Czech and occupy prussia.
But,they choosed somethink between.
As @Typhonis said.It was in USA interest to destroy soviets under any pretext and rule over World alone - but they always/with exception of Reagan/ wanted co-rule world with them instead.
Strange and suicidal - soviets would kill them if they could.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The treaty of Versailles was not responsible for WWII.
The appeasement politics of the 1930's were.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
The Treaty of Versailles made it inevitable that there would be another war. There was no world where Germany could actually stay a nation and also abide by the treaty. Demanding payments that would be ruinous for the pre-war nation and stripping that nation of much of it's capacity to pay alone ensured that Germany would either die or revolt.
The appeasement politics of the 1930's did what the nations engaging in them needed them to, they delayed the war until at least SOME of the Allied Powers were in a position to actually fight.
And that is why germans should again become nations,like before prussian conqest.There was no World wars till then.
You all seem to forget Versailles also screwed over the Japanese, who had contributed a lot of efforts to dealing with German/Central Power forces in the Far East, and were effectively stiffed at the negotiating table because Woodrow Wilson and some allied leaders still saw Japanese as 'lesser' than 'proper' European nations.
If we hadn't stiffed Japan at Versilles, and showed them European imperial powers only respect those who can threaten them, it's very unlikely they would have gone on their imperial adventures that lead to Pearl Harbor becoming their plan.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
So kind of like what Germany did to France after Franco-Prussian war. And bit more gentle than what Germany forced on Russia/USSR and planned on forcing on France.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
You can make that argument I guess, it's fallacious whataboutism and also factually wrong but you can make that argument.
Not really, the payments that Germany demanded from France after the Franco-Prussian War were identical, to the cent and accounting for inflation, to those payments extorted out of the German princedoms by Napoleon. The various treaties and such that ended the Napoleonic Wars had France indemnifying everybody *but* the German princedoms for those extractions.
True.Add how USA made them widraw from Syberia in 1923 - and then gave it to soviets.Taking gold stolen from russian church for military materials.
If Japan was treated honestly,they would not start building empire.
Chess commentator fired for ‘sexist’ comments (VIDEO)
Belarus-born grandmaster Ilya Smirin has been fired from his role as a chess commentator for making demeaning comments about women
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You've been reading revisionist histories, apparently.
The reparations made continuing political tension inevitable. It was not at all necessary for those tensions to escalate to war.
At the start of the 1930's, it was not Germany that held the whip hand militarily, it was the allied powers. Germany was still near-completely disarmed, as per the treaty. It took years of the Germans continuously and egregiously breaking the treaty before they were well enough armed that the allies couldn't have rolled over them in a couple of weeks.
It was the lack of will to fight.
The Allied leaders were so terrified of a repeat of the Great War, that their spinelessness ensured that it would not simply be repeated, but be much worse than the first time around. If they'd acted decisively when the rump German army marched into the demilitarized zone, that would have been the end of it, right there.
IIRC, historical documents have been recovered proving that if the Allies had acted then, the German military and civilian leadership were ready to seize Hitler and hand him over as a scapegoat in exchange for renewing the peace. It was the allies continuous favor to not just enforce the treaty, but outright endorse Hitler violating it, that was key in destroying any chance of him being thrown out of office in the 1930's.
If Germany won WW1, we'd be better off more likely than not.
Eye for an eye and all that. Had Prussia instead chosen to shatter France into tiny pieces and colonized, as @ATP keeps jerking himself off to, the north coast from the channel down to Paris, there might have been no WW1 to begin with.
EDIT: Sorry for doublepost. Will fix later.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Oh, really now?
What exactly do you base that idea on? Do you have anything beyond 'What we have right now sucks'?
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
So, about chess. I had to explain this to someone once.
Chess has two leagues. A woman's league which is open to only women, and an open league, which is open to everyone.
Of course, this person thought this was ridiculous. Chess is a mental game, no physicality to create a gap. If the open league is open to all, why does the woman's league exist? Money. The answer is money.
Women chess players tend to top out at 2400 elo. Men chess players tend to top out at 2700 elo. That's actually a ridiculously huge gap. While there have been a number of women who've had 2600-2700+ elo across the years, they're more the exceptions that prove the rule.
So these 2400 woman grandmasters want to 1) actually have a chance at being winners and 2) make money by playing chess. The 'average' top female chess players cannot compete with the top percentage of the open league. So they don't.
And that's why the women's league exists despite the open league being as non-sexist as possible.
Chess is absolutely for women, it's a game. Competing at chess? I mean, they have to have their own league in order to have a chance at winning. Belarusian Israeli Chess Commentator might not be wrong.
Chess has two leagues. A woman's league which is open to only women, and an open league, which is open to everyone.
Of course, this person thought this was ridiculous. Chess is a mental game, no physicality to create a gap. If the open league is open to all, why does the woman's league exist? Money. The answer is money.
Women chess players tend to top out at 2400 elo. Men chess players tend to top out at 2700 elo. That's actually a ridiculously huge gap. While there have been a number of women who've had 2600-2700+ elo across the years, they're more the exceptions that prove the rule.
So these 2400 woman grandmasters want to 1) actually have a chance at being winners and 2) make money by playing chess. The 'average' top female chess players cannot compete with the top percentage of the open league. So they don't.
And that's why the women's league exists despite the open league being as non-sexist as possible.
Chess is absolutely for women, it's a game. Competing at chess? I mean, they have to have their own league in order to have a chance at winning. Belarusian Israeli Chess Commentator might not be wrong.