Germany was significantly worse off in 1919 than 1914 and in 1946 than 1939. I would rather say Germany became better off in spite of both wars...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Germany was significantly worse off in 1919 than 1914 and in 1946 than 1939. I would rather say Germany became better off in spite of both wars...
I too have trouble grasping the notion that getting your economy devastated, your country ruined, your territory shrunk, and a significant chunk of your male population killed off/made invalids for life, your country divided, and your woman raped is somehow better than these things not happening.
I think the onus is on you to show how Germany was better off, then.
For a starter Germany got rid of the Nazis(the people who caused the miserey you mentioned) and at least West Germany got rid of the dictatorships and enjoyed the longest peace period in its history within a stable economy.
So yes, I dont want the Germany of 1939 back and think we are significantly better of today. I dunno why it sounds ridiculous to you.
For the sake of argument, I'll agree about WWII.
But how was Germany better off in 1920-1933 than in was in 1900-1914?
While they played their cards moderately well the Weimar Republic got its chances to expand their sphere of influence into territories formerly belonging to the Russian Empire.
Furthermore their wargoal of 1914: check if possible roll back the Russian expansion... that one they achieved quite well.
Think about the expansion of the EU in 2004... the main benefactor: Germany, since it is located in the proximity of those areas.
Well thats debatable of course. It got hyperinflation,poverty and radicalism on one side. Democracy,a boom in art and expression and liberal values on the other. I didnt worked out but was a good try.
Much preferable to Germany wining WW1 imo even if it fell on its face.
So it traded actual territory in those states (I am assuming you are talking about Poland, the Baltics here) for a much looser "influence", and that is somehow a plus?
Germany was in a trade war with Poland for much of the latter's existence. Hardly worth losing Silesia.
The Baltics are insignificant geopolitically, and in open territorial conflict with Germany in the case of Lithuania.
Generally the position of Germany is bad if there is a war (two-front war) but good if there is a peace (can build economic ties whichever partner they want). And while in 1920-1933 they failed to capitalize grossly on the small Eastern European states, the potential was there. As the real history has shown they managed to coerce those states into outright annexation or unequal partnerships.
I'd hardly call Wilhelmite Germany undemocratic. Less democratic than France, for example, but overall, acceptable.
That boom in art has its roots either in earlier Germany (Bauhuas, and its Werkbund predecessor), or in the war itself (surrealist German films).
Bottom line:
I don't find "now you can vote for the SPD and the parliament will be dysfunctional, opposed to 1912 where you could vote for the SPD and the parliament was dysfunctional" and "Das Cabinet des Dr Caligari" to be worth a million dead germans, but YMMV.
After 1933, when the German government went from being Wiemar ineffectual to being Nazis. Not exactly a great argument for Weimar.
You are somehow assuming my argument is a lost war was good for Germany.The more lost wars the merrier ? thats not what I am saying.
Of course no ww1 would be prefarable or at least very likely preferable but it happened. I prefer a Germany who lost this war over a Germany who won this.
Your assumption is naive that a winning Germany who won ww1 which was basically a military Dictatorship in 1917 would have fallen back to a 1912 modus operandi. Also your 1912 modus operandi was a major cause for the slaughter in the first place.
Last edited:
Having a terminal ill Stresemann kinda reduced the effectiveness of the German government.
Weimar didnt create the Nazis. It failed to contain them.Which is sad but a difference.
Remaining a military dicatorship is highly unlikely, given that:
- people do not like turnip that much
- the military part of the military-industry complex needs a good reason to justify why the industrialist part got no power
- Ludendorff is lazy and will be fed a daily administration of a peacetime Germany
Yes.
Grafins whole argument reads like the Sonderweg of the Sonderweg, where there is one, and only one, trajectory for Germany to take.
Though I do believe that Germany after WW1 found itself in a situation like Japan after WW2. Militarily defeated, yet part of their wargoals achieved (stop and roll back Russia / break the colonial system) and their strong opponents with closed markets are replaced by weak successor states remained to be economically or (in the 30s) militarily dominated.
Sadly I lack your knowledge of alternate history.
I know however something about the societies/structures which spawned those wars and I stick with that Germany (other countries too) is better off without them.YMMV
Yes, maybe ww1 is a less clear case than ww2 but considering you entered the discussion of accusing me approving mass murder and rape we at least accomplished something. And if only debunking your strawman.
Last edited:
Possible but I have a hard time to believe they suddenly establish democracy and a liberal society or at least try it. At best they go back to the pre war Wilhelmine level which caused the problem or at least heavil contributed to it.
Alot of it depends hwoever when and how Germany would win that war. 1914 is much preferable to 1918 (I assume)