Why was France treated so leniently after the fall of Napoleon in 1815...

To be fair Austria started the war with Serbia. Both of these nations deserved not to exist.

Eh, starting a fight with some small Balkan shithole hardly warrants the completely destruction of a 500-year-old empire.

>You know what, you may have attempted to destroy all of us and plunged Europe into total war for a decade, but just give back what you took and pay for the destruction you caused and we're good
yeah definitely not lenient at all

That 500 year old empire cause the collapse of several empires, a global recession, mass death in a short amount years, and its actions lead to even worst disaster 21 years later when one of its citizens acts retarded.

No . You cannot defend Serbia or Austria they literally for a fact fucked up our world.

The republic was called out by Austians not the allies

Austria started a small regional conflict, Germany and Russia made it a world war.

That's how treaties usually work, user. Money and territory. Besides, their goal wasn't in punishing France as a whole but to crush Napoleon as an illegitimate revolutionary upstart and to restore the old regime. In this they succeeded.

>muh empire is old so that makes everything alright, don't hurt me
Pathetic.

He doesn't understand balance of power politics

>what is belgium

are you serious?

Difference is nobody wanted to be part of the multicultural shithole that was austro-hungary, unlike germany which was a homogenic state

Talleyrand playing off each member of the coalition on each other
the biggest question was on the Kingdom of Saxony,Prussia and Russia wanted to annex parts of it while Austria and Britain kept the status quo
They were close on having another war with French,Austria and UK going against Russia and Prussia

>They were close on having another war with French,Austria and UK going against Russia and Prussia

lmfao, what retards. Just come out of 23 years of constant warfare with France and want to start it all up again.

bigger question is why didn´t they do the same to Germany after ww1

>Belgium
>1815

Two key reasons. First, the wars were as much about crushing the revolution as anything else. Restoring the monarchy was hoped would lead to a more reasonable France.
Second, the Austrians wanted a strong France as a balance against Russia. If France was weak, it was believed there would be little capable of balancing the Russian behemoth.
Biggest mistake was giving Prussia all that sexy Rhineland, but they didn’t it to balance France so it’s understandable.

upcoin.com/?ID=4b1a0f0c

And lead to mega-WW2? Versailles is directly responsible for the war

Brainlet, the idea is to be so harsh that they can never recover. Versailles was harsh enough to make them hate but not harsh enough to break them.

1919 was entirely different as compared to 1815

Your right it was. And Versailles was the easy solution. If we had done what the French had wanted, Germany would of been dissolved permanently.

Because muh balance of power. That didn't happen after WW1 (suck it germany) and obviously led to WW2

Austria-Hungary dismantled itself, it fell apart after they were penetrated by the allies on two fronts

what was harsh about them is not allowing austria to unite with germany and giving so much hungarian land to the states around it

pic related is a much more fair division of territory

Because of talleyrand

forgot pic

something like this, if they were less harsh on the citizenry and were instead more restrictive on the military of the defeated nations, it couldve prevented ww2

>France is treated leniently by Prussia and Austria in 1815
>France chimps out and tries to eviscerate Germany in 1919, leading to WW2
Why are frogs so retarded?

>crush France post 1815
>Germany's power skyrockets as they're now uncontested in western Europe
What could go wrong?

>if they were less harsh on the citizenry and were instead more restrictive on the military of the defeated nations, it couldve prevented ww2
This.
>hey Germany, remember how we said you can't have tanks or other heavy weapons anymore?
>it's okay if you develop and test them in other countries though

Look at what happened when you put extremely hard terms against a country
>Treaty of Versaille

If they wouldn've been less harsh WW2 would've nevver happened as well

U r a fool, we should have destroyed Germany when we had the chance.

Amerimutt detected

>conveniently forgot the gap in 1871 and 1918

Were you thinking of something like this OP?

The biggest joke is that all the smaller states that supported Napoleon had to accept huge territory losses, while France just had to give back the shit it annexed. For example Denmarkt had to give Norway to Sweden, despite it belonging to Norway since 50 years. Or Kingdom Saxony, which remained allied to Napoleon for the longest of all german states - it had to give up roughly 2/3 of its territory.

At the end of the day, France got off easy because Austria, Prussia and Russia were more interested in restructuring central and eastern Europe, and also occupying France would have cost loads of money. So basically it remained untouched because the three continental powers had other priorities, and UK wanted to keep France intact to keep the balance of power on the continent.

After WW1, the things lay differently. France's sole objective was to weaken Germany as much as they can, and Russia and England kind of agreed to that.

>Serbia does nothing wrong
>Assassin is a Bosnian Serb who fought for Yugoslavia, and was not supported by the official Serbian government
>Still the Serbian government agrees to every single Austrian demand except one which would literally take away its sovereignty
>Austria still chimps out and attacks Serbia
>Somehow Serbia is to blame
Yeah no, the KuK was fucking obsessed with ruling over the Balkans and this was just pretense. Read about the region's history sometime, Serbia and Austria nearly got into a shooting war multiple times in the previous ten years because Austria wanted to turn it into a satellite. The assassination was just a casus belli.

This, don't underestimate Talleyrand, that slippery dick fucker.

I still blame him for poisoning Napoleon's potential alliance with the Tzar and scuppering the potential for a new east and west Roman empire divide

France got creamed hard during WW1. Prussia's and Austria's losses during the coalition wars can't really compare

Why did Denmark(-Norway) support Napoleon?

the victorious powers wanted the status quo to return because republicanism was making them shit their pants in fear. the peace worked out pretty damn well, not to be majorly interrupted until crimean/franco-prussian 50 years later

Wojack pictures should be a bannable offense.

That's not how the world works. If they had listened to the french there wouldn't be a Germany to start world wars.

Misspelling a word as easy as Wojak should get you banned from all the blue boards forever.

Lol dude they all got fucked in the ass like 30 years later in the GLORIOUS revolutions of 1848

Because initially, it wasn't a war "against France", but against the Revolution (and it's products like Napoleon)

The goal of the coalition (a bunch of monarchs) was always to restore their Boubons friends, not to erase France

Pic related, the French monarchy was among the allies

>You know what, you may have attempted to destroy all of us and plunged Europe into total war for a decade

That's not how it happened
Just because Napoleonic France was better at war and thus ended up conquering its enemies doesnt mean it's them who started the war

It's Russia and Britain that forced the Krauts to treat France "nicely" after Napoleon
Prussians wanted to execute Napoleon and fuck up France

history is not like eu4 you muppet

stop calling people muppets its childish
use mug or melt instead, much better

1871 was also less harsh on France. The reparations were lower than Versailles and there were no military restrictions placed on it.

Yeah right the entire opposite that happened with Germany in Versaille which actually had to pay much much less than the trouble and death it caused

>Prussians wanted to execute Napoleon and fuck up France
considering all the shit Napoleon pulled there's literally nothing wrong with that

Napoleon caused way more death and destruction to the Russians and Austrians than he did to the Prussians.

They were in a position where if they didn't act harshly their own citizens would be upset, you can't sacrifice millions of lives and then say "we won, we don't need compensation." It would be political suicide and would have caused Russian levels of unrest in Britain and France. If they treated Germany less harshly WW2 would probably have started earlier before Britain and France had recovered, the only way to avert WW2 is complete partition or an occupation similar to post WW2 Germany with economic assistance, something that couldn't be achieved.