It says Ningrisu is specifically springtime thunder- is there anyone who has and sources or more detail on that? Why spring specifically- was there other thunder gods for different seasons?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Exactly what I was thinking. I’ve been reading ‘A Distant Mirror— the calamitous 14th century’ by Barbara Tuchman and had to stop as the parallels were flipping me out.

You could say the "Spanish" Flu (it actually started in the U.S.) is also responsible. At the post WWI negotiations American President Woodrow Wilson was taking a somewhat generous position toward Germany, more in the direction of the Marshall Plan after WWII. French Prime Minister George Clemenceau took a much harsher, perhaps even vindictive, approach. The discussions were stalled, but then Wilson got the Spanish Flu and was knocked out of action, and so Clemenceau prevailed. Lots of circumstances combine...

My opinion is the Allies should have enforced loss of territory but shouldn’t have been as harsh on the economy. Another failure was the unwillingness to uphold the restrictions on rearmament of Germany.
Early on Germany and Hitler would have been unable to resist enforcement of the treaty. France and Germany dithered while the Nazis were becoming a problem.

Today Germany and France are dithering regarding Putin and China

I think most cultures with pantheons had a thunder God, right? Pretty much any type of weather phenomenon usually had an associated God.

Thank you for this

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

It's not just England - I went to an after hours reception in the National Museum of Scotland, and part of that included a tour of the archives - rooms and rooms of artefacts locked away in the basement. Art galleries are the same - hundreds of paintings locked away in basements, rarely being seen by the public. We should use the dialogs that are evolving round the Elgin Marbles and other disputed artefacts to start a re-evaluation of the collections - what we should show, what we should store, what should we re-patriate, and what to do with the surplus.

[removed]

>about how plenty of Germans believed that they'd been stabbed in the back

It depends on how you define 'plenty'. Some thought that, but it was mainly a post-war myth.

>november criminals

Pardon, the who?

>Everything i read says that lots of germans thought that they were winning the war because of propaganda

'Everything' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. What says that, for instance? And, did most Germans believe their own propaganda? In the face of enormous amounts of casualties that were so extensive they couldn't be hidden, food shortages, massive inflation, and so on.

German troops were tired but optimistic after Russian defeat, but this only lasted until around the middle of 1918, when German offensives were exhausted, and they were pushed back almost to their own border. Between March and July alone the Germans took about a million casualties. Their offensives had been bogged down because of German troops stopping to raid French and British supply depots to steal wine, bacon, and white bread, which they had seen little of for four years. Reinforcements sent to replace casualties deserted in large numbers. There were mutinies of entire units who refused to obey orders. Some officers believed the home front, where strikes were common, was responsible for 'corrupting' the troops, and blamed the 'radical left' or 'the Bolsheviks', but it was quite apparent after German offensives ground to a halt that the troops themselves no longer believed the war could be won. The British, interrogating prisoners, found there was a massive drop in the morale of German troops, and that most of them now believed that Germany could not win the war. Straggler collection posts, which Germans set up because of increasing problems with deserters, were busier than ever, and in the last month of the war, were overwhelmed with tens of thousands of soldiers. Surrenders increased in number too, with 385,000 prisonsers taken in four months, which is more prisoners taken than in any single year of the war.

German troops on leave and in letters home told their families quite a lot, and would often be brutally honest. The food supply in Germany in 1917 had been severely cut short, with an official ration of 1,100 calories. Home district commanders warned that the longing for peace was widespread throughout all classes. There were strikes in April 1917 with more than 300,000 workers participating because the bread ration was reduced. The German high command constantly told themselves it was purely political, but strikes were usually around some combination of hours, wages, and food, and typically cutting the hours, increasing wages, or relaxing rationing, did the trick. The populace knew the war was not going well.

[removed]

Incorrect. So you are just gonna ignore all the direct references to the treaty and how Hitler used the treaty to harbor resentment to of the other European powers and and galvanise support for his cause? Do you not wonder *why* Germany was hit comparatively so hard by the Great Depression? Also that isn't even true, hyperinflation was a problem long before the Great Depression, it began in 1921!

That is actual a super cool find.

Versailles is part (a big part - it fuelled German nationalists during the 20’s and 30’s) of the reason for the rise of Nazism but it should be seen in combination with a number of factors. The Weimar Republic was a weak country with a terrible constitution that had clauses built in that would make autocratic government pretty easy to install regardless of whether it was the Nazis or the Communists that got there first. This was fine during the good years when there was a degree of prosperity but the Wall Street Crash obliterated this and left the country vulnerable to extremists. The Nazis had long rejected the terms of Versailles (to be fair so had many Weimar governments who were covertly training an air force in the Soviet Union that was illegal under the terms of the treaty) and managed to convince the public that the economic crisis was in large part due to Versailles.

Worth noting that ‘rolling back’ elements of the treaty such as the reoccupation of the Rhineland, rearmament and the annexation of the Saarland helped to legitimise Hitlers government and provided it cover from any potential coup from the armed forces and the feeling of revenge against the treaty and Germanys perceived humiliation.

[removed]

[removed]

Click the link and you'll find out!

Yes, this is obviously incorrect, the other central powers were blamed as well. And there was certainly enough blame to go around. However, it's not really surprising that this was contentitious (mainly for the central powers, for obvious reasons), because while it is certainly true that Austria-Hungary backed by Germany (or instigated by Germany, depending on interpretations) very much provoked the outbreak of war, it is also true that the Allied powers seemed far from opposed to the idea of fighting a war against the central powers (at least until the full horror of a large scale modern war became apparent).

And while it is technically true that the allies did not solely blame Germany in the peace treaties but included Germany's allies as well, the Allied reply to the German delegation in 1919 certainly seems to put the blame almost eclusively on Germany

[removed]