https://x.com/alt_historian/status/1759417056443711640
Believing Weimar Germany was a horrible place is like believing the Treaty of Versailles was overly harsh for Germany.
— The Alternate Historian (@alt_historian) February 19, 2024
It's Nazi propaganda.
Why was the germ simply not enslaved after tho?:
Americoids need not talk. This is eurotrash business:
HOW DOES THIS EFFECT YOU CHUD?:
Other:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I really hate when people compare something to weimar germany. Somewhat because its misleading - by most metrics weimar germany was leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else, because germany was by far the most powerful and advanced nation in Europe.
But because it seriously misses why weimar collapsed - it never obtained any kind of stability or elected government with legitimacy, forcing leaders to set dangerous precedents basically from day 1 to pass any kind of law or respond to disaster or the great depression.
Weimar germany is a fantastic example of what happens when a country has no democratic norms and breaks them repeatedly during a political struggle.
The conservatives never stopped trying to rip the country apart, bitter over the monarchy collapsing. The liberals never took the right wing threat seriously, and the commies were more than happy to let the rightoids take power under the idea it'd set off a pendulum movement and usher them into power.
Weimar was unlike any modern example, had weimar had a stable government or any democratic norms at all it would have easily resisted the nazis.
Blaming the treaty is reductionist at best, the treaty was a useful propaganda tool but it ignores the larger instability.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
were they tho
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Id say yes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
of course you would. everything you say is wrong and the opposite is what's actual reality.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Just ignore the general degeneracy and child prots
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't know who to go with here, Keynes or Pizzashill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Believe it or not, Keynes is even more r-slurred than Pizza
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I started reading a Keynes biography on a whim and couldn't finish it because hoo boy was that guy a strag.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The issue with economists when they try to review history is they put too much focus on economics, for obvious reasons, and miss the larger picture.
No expert on nazism or fascism in general thinks it's a movement primarily driven by economics. Hitler viewed racial conflict as the mover of history, which is radically different than every other ideology which tends to view economics as the primary mover of history.
Richard Evans says Germany was dominated by a "primacy of politics" and talks about how even marxist historians started admitting this around the 1960s. Economics is useful for analyzing history of course, but unless you have an understanding of the broader context it's pointless.
The 3rd reich trilogy is a really good deep dive into the entire build up to nazism and the history of Weimar Germany. It's incredibly detailed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You should go with richard evans and robert paxton, 2 actual experts on the topic and not, you know, an economist.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Nobody would have said this in 1939 except actual Nazis. Britain and the Netherlands were on a completely different level. In France they actually had cars and shit. Czechoslovakia was probably more high tech but too small.
Germany beating France in 1940 was totally unexpected by everyone (including Hitler).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Literally everyone would have said that, germany was pretty clearly the most powerful nation in europe.
Or maybe its historian hindsight, but it seemed pretty obvious.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Not true at all, Germany was powerful because it was the largest of rich countries (in Europe), but in GDP per capita France was IIRC 20% and Britain 50% higher. Interwar Germany was a mix of advanced industrial parts with world leading science and corporations, and poor agricultural east full of farmers needing extra jobs because of their insufficient land.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"If the Weimar Republic was something else, it would have been a completely different country."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Chaos can breed greatness and shitty things at the same time, remove the chaos and you could easily get nothing interesting
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Germoney did have democratic norms you couldn't go for a mile without stumbling upon city states ruling themselves under the HRE. (Free and Imperial Cities
, Hanseatic Leagues and Kleinstaaterai 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinstaaterei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_imperial_city
!nooticers
!historychads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If you want to assert your rights in the Holy Roman Empire, play classic 1992 RPG Darklands.
Make sure to build up Speech (Common) skill, local reputation, and fame.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Your Pulitzer is in the mail
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
WE HAVE TO JAIL ORANGE MAN AND HIT HIM WITH 90+ CHARGES
even though jailing past presidents and leading candidates of the major opposing party cant reasonably be called a norm in the us
Oh dangerous precidents
!friendsofpizzashill we got a live one
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I dont know, i feel like letting a president openly break the law and shit all over the system and our norms is more dangerous than jailing him for the crimes he is clearly guilty of.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Would you mind listing the best item that you believe he is clearly guilty of? I actually don't want a full list I just want your best item which is his worst violation
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Hes blatantly guilty of soliciting election fraud in ga. Blatanly guilty of fraud for intentionally and knowingly inflating the value of properties in ny.
Hes blatantly guilty of the campaign finance violations. Idk how anyone could even argue against these without very tortured reasoning.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Pick one. Whats your best shot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Soliciting fraud in Ga.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
All right let's break it down into the details. What was the specific Act I'm assuming the ratzenberger(spelling?) phone call
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Thank you for your response I'm a little busy right now but I'll try to come back a little bit later and write something that at least demonstrates equal effort
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
That's cool. But it was actually rimming and drag queens that did it in.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yeah the treaty definitely didn't help but I'd be surprised if any nation was doing good after coming out of ww1.
France was ruined, the British empire was basically donezo after the war (they just didn't know it yet). Germany was the worst off given that they lost the darn war. Plus they had just barely formed as a country like 50 years prior.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Idk about making it harsher either, the idea of France getting even more control of Germany and being bigger pricks probably wouldn't have made Germany 2 turn out any better. Basically as bad as the holocaust
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The French were seething so badly they derived a whole state ideology focused on revenge lmao "revanchism"
!chuds why isn't there kino art made about sigmamaxxing leverage for conquest today?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Russia has taken this crown
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Weren't the frogs seething hard because the
declared himself emperor in Versailes after BTFOing them in the franco-prussian war
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
china does it as well for things they have not yet owned, so its hecking valid.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context