versailles was too harsh

> versailles was too harsh
> but brest-litovsk was totally okay
What are some other cases of historical hypocrisy?

Brest-Litovsk was reversed within a year, no shit it isn't considered as significant as Versailles. Also, Communists are subhuman filth who deserved to be utterly annihilated, not just to lose a bit of clay.

The Eternal Kraut has the mental facilities of a spoiled rotten child. He is entitled to everything but responsible for nothing. In victory he takes all he can without regard for the interests of others or even himself, in defeat he cries that he is being victimized.

Versailles was amazingly lax given what Germany had just put the continent through. The Congress of Vienna was far harsher and every German state was supportive of that.

Did Russia loose any colonies oversea?

Brest-Litovsk had nothing to do with fighting communism. Quite the opposite, it was a huge boon to the Bolsheviks and turned the tide of the Russian Civil War in their favor. If the Germans wanted to, they could have marched on Petrograd and handed it to the Whites of Yudenich who were quite close to the city. This would have been extremely decisive and a disastrous defeat for the Bolsheviks at a time when the Whites were making gains. Instead, they agreed to halt operations against the Bolsheviks and Lenin was now allowed to send the bulk of his forces against the Whites. The territorial "losses" of the agreement were juvenile, nobody who knew anything of the era expected German-backed monarchies to last more than a year or so regardless of the result of the greater war. The Bolsheviks knew this, and they very much saw the land concessions as a temporary farce in exchange for peace. Only the Germans were dumb enough to think they accomplished anything besides giving Lenin victory.

The only foreign power that cooperated better with the Soviets were the Turks, and at least they had the excuse of having to throw off an Allied occupation

Germany were the ones who installed communism in Russia, ensured its victory, then cried like babies about it for the next 30 years

russia didn't have any colonies overseas

But the rise of Bolshevism in the long run did undo Russia, since Russia lost all the western provinces upon the fall of the Soviet Union. Had the whites won, they probably would have kept a stronger nationalistic leash on the outlying territories, rather than this ephemeral "Union."

Your argument might have held weight in the 40s or 50s, but now that we can look upon the whole century in retrospect, it wasn't the treaty necessarily, but the rise of Bolshevism itself that undid Russia. The gains made by the Soviets in Eastern and Central Europe turned out to be non-permanent, and the entire European communist bloc has ceased to exist.

It seems that communism was just one of those flavor of the century movements, that contemporaries freak out about much more than later historians. It goes into the pile of spectacular and now safely quaint empires, such as the Timurids, or the empire of Alexander. Honestly you can stop beating this dead horse.

Had the whites won, Russia would have remained an irrelevant backwater, and perhaps would be simply torn apart by nationalist movements.

But we can only judge events based on what did happen, not what did not happen.

>"Had the whites won, they probably would have kept a stronger nationalistic leash on the outlying territories, rather than this ephemeral "Union.""
Two posts later:
>"But we can only judge events based on what did happen, not what did not happen."

>he still doesn't know that Bolsheviks were German collaborators

>The Congress of Vienna was far harsher

Either bait or extreme historical ignorance

>The territorial "losses" of the agreement were juvenile, nobody who knew anything of the era expected German-backed monarchies to last more than a year or so regardless of the result of the greater war.

Had the Germans won in the West they could have permanently contained Soviet Russia in the East. In the meantime, the peace freed up German troops for the Western front. Obviously, with the German defeat and total withdrawal from the East the Bolsheviks were able to capture the Ukraine, this was also foreseen by the Germans.

It was harsher, just not on the French.

Ex. Poland (duchy of Warsaw) got annexed by Russia and Prussia.

The Russians walked away from Vienna the biggest winners.

gorlice and caporetto are wrongly place on this map
is this bait or what

What does Poland have to do with it? It's about France which got a very favorable peace in 1815, basically status quo bellum ante.

Oh I'm another user, and yea, France got a slap on the wrist. It's the French allies who got bent over a barrel.

>russia lost more land than germany ever had

France still had some capacity to make war, Germany did not
Also balance of powers was hot back then

>France still had some capacity to make war
Not really
>Also balance of powers was hot back then
that doesn't change the fact that the peace of 1815 was pretty light

Didn't say that it wasn't pretty light, also I believe that they wanted to reverse history back to the good old days before the crazy revolution, so they thought a bourbon france would be the solution

>move Finnish, Baltic, Polish, and Ukrainian ethnicities out of a Communist regime
>put them under a Conservative one
>unfair

>other user explains how it has nothing to do with communism
>go on ranting about communism anyway
Are you autistic by any chance? Do you feel the need to express your hatred for communism in every thread?

Better Red tham dead son

Switch those two around and you're good

They were forced to be nice or else we would have go to war again, but they bared their teeths infront of the weak Poland


G*rms are hypocritical scums

>Brest-Litovsk was reversed within a year,
only ukraine got recovered, bessarabia, poland, and the baltic states wouldn't come under russian influence or occupation for another two decades

The main point of that post was the fall of the soviet union, that one sentence was just to add an interesting observation. The reply was a one sentence wonder which bases its entire argument on that one speculation. How are you even literate?

You failed basic reading comprehension. The exact words used were "Brest Litovsk had nothing to do with fighting communism." This is an altogether different statement than "Brest Litovsk had nothing (at all) to do with communism." If you actually read the damn post you would realize he is making the case that B.L. benefited communism.

DO IT AGAIN

>Nazis genocided the Jews
>but it's okay for Jews to genocide the Palestinians

BOMBER HARRIS

>be Bulgarian
>Russian cucks make 3rd of March our national holiday
>when I wish someone "Happy holiday" I actually mean Brest-Litovsk

>nazis bad
>commies swell guys

eh meant op

Lenin could take Constantinople if he supported Entente until the end, what a pussy.

Because one of the Bolshevik slogans was "peace", Lenin wanted immediate peace with the G*rmans.

The pact triggered Trotsky a lot though.

Versailles wasn't even that harsh. It would've been far worse if the frogs had gotten their hands on it. For some inane reason people blame the British and the Americans even though it was DLG who was a soft touch.

The Entente supported the White army.

Say a country have a fight with a major power and in civil war in same time and won.
Germans could ask anything than commies will give it to they.

>implying they wouldn't have been way better off in the German Empire than in Soviet Russia

>gommunist Constantinople

Even in the hand of turks it's better.