The Law Conscription/National Service

[Malifice]

Perhaps it's not as simple as 'this one trick they don't want you to know about will make your whole country a Nazi!' ?

No, it is that simple.

Remove German Nationalism from the equation. Without it, you literally cannot have WW2 as we know it.

You cant say that about any other cause of WW2 in Europe.

Shoot baby Hitler? German Nationalism has a different leader.

Remove the Treaty of Versailles (or make it much less onerous)? German nationalism can still demand the union of all 'Volk' (Austria, parts of Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Sudentland, parts of Belgium etc), removal of all Jews and non-Germans, and the invasion of the Soviet Union and Poland.

Like, I get that a confluence of the Great Depression and the conditions of the Treaty provided a fertile breeding ground for German Nationalism to flourish, but you cant blame either for the war. That blame lies with German Nationalism.

 

[ferball]

Different world. I talked about this earlier too.


"Need?"
If we were invaded, being threatened with invasion, and could not meet defensive (or pre-emptive) military requirements without it.
Short answer being, right now, we don't need it.

Yeah this is the point. There's probably one candidate for that invasion, maybe two if you assume India becomes belligerent. And realistically conscription won't provide numbers that would make a meaningful difference. Our population is less than 2% of either nation.

 

[Malifice]

Yeah this is the point. There's probably one candidate for that invasion, maybe two if you assume India becomes belligerent. And realistically conscription won't provide numbers that would make a meaningful difference. Our population is less than 2% of either nation.

We have force multipliers though (namely geographical distance and the requirement for naval or aerial respply of any invasion force, plus a highly skilled and technologically advanced fighting force with high morale, defending their homeland).

We could defend Australia alone from a much larger force.

Probably not India or China big though, but their casualties would be huge in proportion to ours.

 

[ferball]

We have force multipliers though (namely geographical distance and the requirement for naval or aerial respply of any invasion force, plus a highly skilled and technologically advanced fighting force with high morale, defending their homeland).

We could defend Australia alone from a much larger force.

Probably not India or China big though, but their casualties would be huge in proportion to ours.

And then they'd have to occupy the place which would present its own problems.

 

[Malifice]

And then they'd have to occupy the place which would present its own problems.

Getting here across the ocean (patrolled by subs, and with the skies covered with Super Hornets and F35's) is the problem.

India's main fighter is the Sukhoi Su-30 with a 3,000km range.

It's 5,500kms from the southern tip of India to the closest part of Australia. Anything valuable located inland and you can add another 1-2000kms on top of that.

Yeah, they have two aircraft carriers (priority number 1 for our submarine force, alongside any troop transports) and can mid air refuel the fighters but it's far from ideal. Our fighters are Stealth fighters, that are hiding behind EW provided by ECWS aircraft, and linked together via AWACS, that would be fully fueled and flying over friendly ground.

We'd look to blow up anything that entered our airspace, and then just look to sink anything that came near our shores.

Any beachhead that lands, then faces the problem of needing constant resupply over the same distance (needing to secure airfields etc) likely without air superiority.

India (and China) could overwhelm us through sheer numbers, but they'd lose a lot of people (and materiel) in the process.

They'd eventually win (without nukes, with them they'd win a lot faster), but in the kind of 'total war' scenario for such a thing to occur, they'd lose millions dead in the process.

And if the Americans involved themselves (and they would) the Indian Navy wouldn't even leave port or they'd be destroyed rather easily, air superiority for Australia is assured, and God help and Indian Special Forces that actually managed to land in Australia to conduct insurgency operations because they're coming up against SASR and the Commandos (plus American SEALS, CAG etc), both of whom are battle hardened after decades of constant deployments.

That's why we ally with the Yanks. That's why we fight with them in wars we don't really give a shit about, in parts of the world, where we don't really have an interest in, and for causes that don't really affect us all the way down here.

We didn't go to Iraq 'to liberate the Iraqi people' or to 'locate WMD's. We did it to protect our national interests going forwards if shit hits the fan back home.

 

[Freomaniac]

But how do they get here? The north of Australia is huge and either incredibly hot and dry or hot and wet. It would be a logistical nightmare to invade thru the top end.

Indonesia has 279 million people. Thats a lot of people.

Their numbers don't count for much if they're stuck across an ocean from us.

Geographical isolation is by far our biggest advantage.

Good Point. Had the Indonesian goverment had half as much Air craft carriers and half the amount of Military Jets the US air force has, Australia would of been screwed.

Also, I am suprised the amount of troops Indonesia has... Only 400,000 troops.

I would of thought they would of had 1 million troops. They wouldnt of been armed with the latest firearms. Probably armed with AK 47 assault rifles.

 

[Episode IV]

Why the hell are you mob talking about India as if they're a potential threat?

 

[Freomaniac]

What the *?

If Peter Dutton or Barnaby Joyce becomes our next Prime Minsiter in 2025, We might as well have Vladimir Putin as our Prime Minister.

I seriously dont see the difference between Putin and any Rupert Murdoch endorsed Liberal Party Leader.

 

[Freomaniac]

What? Are you serious?

He's been an unmitigated disaster for not only the USA, but also Australia and the world (barring Russia).

How was it been an Unmitigated Disaster by the USA and to a Lesser degree Australia? (Barring Russia)

Remember.... It was Democracy That voted Donald Trump in to power as US president. Trump didnt lead a coup to get into power.

Do not blame me that Donald Trump got voted in, Ask the people that voted him in 2016 why they voted him.

I heard the Russian Government played their part in Sabotaging the 2016 US elections to get Trump in. I wont be suprised if that is true.

 

[Rob R]

Indonesia has 279 million people. Thats a lot of people.



Good Point. Had the Indonesian goverment had half as much Air craft carriers and half the amount of Military Jets the US air force has, Australia would of been screwed.

Also, I am suprised the amount of troops Indonesia has... Only 400,000 troops.

I would of thought they would of had 1 million troops. They wouldnt of been armed with the latest firearms. Probably armed with AK 47 assault rifles.

Indonesians and Indians are not aggressive expansionist even when they have relatively extreme leaders unlike China (whose people are not the problem) whose narcisstic leader dreams of building an empire and wants client and puppet states nearby not partners and has total control of his nation (which the Indian and Indonesia people would never accept as a government in their nations).

Shame more people don't point out that Xis claims to historic ownership of land (barring the SCS claims found illegal in court) actually refer to the Mongolian empire that conquered the multiple Chinese states that existed. If he wants to follow history, then he should agree that Mongolia are the rightful owners of China or grant the various Chinese areas their independence (which will happen anyway in the long term)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferball]

Why the hell are you mob talking about India as if they're a potential threat?

Because Modi is a ****en nazi and Hindu nationalism, like any other sort of nationalism has the potential to go in some pretty ugly directions.

 

[ferball]

Indonesia has 279 million people. Thats a lot of people.

Its also closer to a empire than a nation. There are various sepratist movements throughout indonesia. We supported one in East Timor (tho it seems that was only so we could nick their gas.)

I think their military is more focused on holding their country together than expansion. I think Australia still has the capacity to take out Indonesia's parliament with air strikes and they don't really have a defense against it ( but could be wrong about that. It was the case when I was growing up.)

 

[Episode IV]

Because Modi is a *en nazi and Hindu nationalism, like any other sort of nationalism has the potential to go in some pretty ugly directions.

Modi's a Nazi, huh. Those guys are everywhere these days.

Despite what Malifice would have you believe, the circumstances under which Nationalism is a cause for war, more often than not, are the result of a desire to regain territory lost, particularly when ethnicity can be demonstrated, not to gain "new" territory.
"Nationalism" doesn't go in ugly directions of its own accord.

In 1918-19 (and even earlier than that), there were letters flying around, notably between Britain, France and the USA, noting that doing so would inevitably lead to another war. The reduction of Germany's military was mostly a measure to ensure they couldn't do anything about it, not as a safeguard against future German empirical claims in general. Other than that, the warnings (predictions, more accurately) were ignored.
Everyone knew that telling a bunch of Germans they were now Polish, Czechoslovakian or whatever countries were created or recreated after World War One was going to be trouble. Everyone knew that Germany was not solely to blame for it all.
It's all a matter of historical record.

If some Indian leader has dreams of utilising nationalistic sentiment building "Greater India", it'd be a hundred times more likely to involve the reincorporation of Pakistan and Bangladesh, not Australia.
Hypothetically speaking, anyway.

It's staggering that people still can't (or don't want to) see how much of world tension, flashpoints and conflicts are the result of the aftermath of World War One treaty provisions, and I'm not only talking about Versailles here. World War two being the obvious example, then there is Israel, Ukraine, Africa, India/Pakistan... all the results of pieces of paper signed and enforced by France, Britain, Russia and the USA (who had enough land anyway, so went after the money instead).

 

[Malifice]

How was it been an Unmitigated Disaster by the USA and to a Lesser degree Australia? (Barring Russia)

His followers literally attempted to overthrow the US Republic by storming the Capital to overturn a ****ing election!

His trade war with China literally had us dealing with ****ing repeated sanctions and threats from the Chinese, tariffs on tons of Aussie made produce, and the Chinese engaging in a Trade war with us.

I heard the Russian Government played their part in Sabotaging the 2016 US elections to get Trump in.

You heard that did you?

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections with the goals of sabotaging the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States. According to the U.S. intelligence community, the operation—code named Project Lakhta[3][4]—was ordered directly by Russian president Vladimir Putin.[5][6] The 448-page Mueller report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.

The Internet Research Agency (IRA), based in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton. They reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media. Additionally, computer hackers affiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) infiltrated information systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta, and publicly released stolen files and emails through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, and WikiLeaks during the election campaign. Several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign associates, offering business opportunities to the Trump Organization and proffering damaging information on Clinton. Russian government officials have denied involvement in any of the hacks or leaks.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

 

[Malifice]

I seriously dont see the difference between Putin and any Rupert Murdoch endorsed Liberal Party Leader.

Putin literally murders rivals, invades and annexes neighboring States, and rules as a Dictator with zero checks on his power.

There is a vast difference between a democratically elected conservative who abides by the Rule of Law, and a Dictator who literally murders rivals.

 

[Malifice]

Modi's a Nazi, huh. Those guys are everywhere these days.

Despite what Malifice would have you believe, the circumstances under which Nationalism is a cause for war, more often than not, are the result of a desire to regain territory lost, particularly when ethnicity can be demonstrated, not to gain "new" territory.
"Nationalism" doesn't go in ugly directions of its own accord.

Except it was more than just 'regaining lost territory' with the Nazis wasnt it?

''And so, we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre–War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the East. At long last, we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre–War period and shift to the soil policy of the future. But when we speak of new territory in Europe today we must principally think of Russia and the border States subject to her.''

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

He's not talking about 'regaining lost territory' there. He's talking (expressly) about conquering new territory in Russia and the East.

So no, despite your repeated claims to the contrary, Hitler and the Nazis didn't just want to regain lost territory stripped off them in the Treaty of Versailles, they also wanted to annex literally every German speaking neighbor into a 'Greater Germanic Reich' and invade and annex Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and all of European Russia.

Lebensraum - Wikipedia

Honestly, does the above area desired by the Nazis look like 'lost German territory' to you?

That desire and plan to unite Germanic speaking people into one homogenous State and then invade and annex the East (which Hitler clearly enunciated in Mein Kampf) also predates the Treaty of Versailles (Hitler wasnt the first one to come up with the idea).

Everyone knew that telling a bunch of Germans they were now Polish, Czechoslovakian or whatever countries were created or recreated after World War One was going to be trouble.

And why is that?

Oh that's right. GERMAN NATIONALISM. Which I keep telling you is the actual cause of WW2.

Not the Treaty of Versailles. That just gave German Nationalism fertile ground within which to grow.

 

[ferball]

Modi's a Nazi, huh. Those guys are everywhere these days.

Hindutva is dodgy as. Some of the people who push it are quite evil. Non psycho Hindus are the ones making comparisons to Nazism.

Modi was responsible for a bloodbath when he was in charge of Gujarat.

If some Indian leader has dreams of utilising nationalistic sentiment building "Greater India", it'd be a hundred times more likely to involve the reincorporation of Pakistan and Bangladesh, not Australia.
Hypothetically speaking, anyway.

Which would mean more blood spilt and two nuclear armed nations at war with each other.

It's staggering that people still can't (or don't want to) see how much of world tension, flashpoints and conflicts are the result of the aftermath of World War One treaty provisions, and I'm not only talking about Versailles here. World War two being the obvious example, then there is Israel, Ukraine, Africa, India/Pakistan... all the results of pieces of paper signed and enforced by France, Britain, Russia and the USA (who had enough land anyway, so went after the money instead).

Causality is not just a linear thing between two events. Multiple events effect multiple other events. The after effects of European colonisalism across the world have had repercussions tho. As did the treaty of Versailles.

I tend to agree with Mal about German Nationalism but the conditions that were around were like a fertile garden bed, not just post ww1 treaties but the depression and economic chaos that came with it as well.

 

[Episode IV]

Except it was more than just 'regaining lost territory' with the Nazis wasnt it?

What has that to do with my general comments on Nationalism?

So no, despite your repeated claims to the contrary, Hitler and the Nazis didn't just want to regain lost territory stripped off them in the Treaty of Versailles, they also wanted to annex literally every German speaking neighbor into a 'Greater Germanic Reich' and invade and annex Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and all of European Russia.

Repeatedly, Malefice? I never even said it once.
I've been talking about World War One and its immediate aftermath, not what the Nazis wanted 15 or 20 years later.
The first time either of us mentioned the Nazis in this thread was when you accused me of being a Nazi apologist.

You're talking about Imperialism, not Nationalism. Even then, the Germans were among the least of the major powers laying claim to everything under the sun that could only fight back with rotten fruit and a few rocks.

While you're on the topic of "German Speaking Neighbors" though... which country did those "German speaking neighbours" belong to before World War One?
Just asking.

Not the Treaty of Versailles. That just gave German Nationalism fertile ground within which to grow.

Which is what I said, right back at the very start. Causality, Malifice. It didn't "just" do that though, at all.
You're then one banging on about German Nationalism being the root of all evil like it sprang like Minerva from the head of Zeus.

Causality is not just a linear thing between two events. Multiple events effect multiple other events. The after effects of European colonisalism across the world have had repercussions tho. As did the treaty of Versailles.

I tend to agree with Mal about German Nationalism but the conditions that were around were like a fertile garden bed, not just post ww1 treaties but the depression and economic chaos that came with it as well.

I think I'm more aware of causality than most, Ferball. I've spent considerable amounts of time and effort trying to get that point across, seemingly to little avail. Perhaps you haven't noticed. It wouldn't be the first time.
That was my argument, not Malefice's.

The treaty of Versailles stripped Germany of a total of roughly 7 million citizens (that's about the entire modern population of Palestine) and nearly 70,000 square Km of territory - most of it Prussian. That's what we call Northern Poland now, for the most part.
That's roughly equal to the UK being forced to give up Ireland - not that the Irish would be overly bothered by that, of course, unless they were begin "given" to someone worse. And maybe, in the case of Germany, that's pretty much exactly what happened.

When the history books refer to Germany "ceding territory to Poland", they sort of leave out the bit where Poland had to be created to cede territory to. It didn't exist at the time, and hadn't for centuries.
Same goes for Czechoslovakia. It had to be created so that they could force Germany to cede territory to it.

Ukraine didn't exist as a nation until the Germans forced Brest-Litovsk on Russia. The allies sort of forgot to give it back to their erstwhile "ally" after the war because... well, they were about to invade Russia anyway.
Australians did too, did you know?
Australian White Russians. Not many of them, to be sure, but when they sang "Australia will be there" there were more than a few places we were that weren't on the original agenda.

The situation of the port of Danzig came up (created as a "Free City")because the allies knew what they were doing, and they knew it was going to lead to another war. The Citizens of Danzig were German, and wanted to remain so. They were quite vocal about it. S was most of Prussia, but no one cared what the people wanted.
We have discussions and the letters on record as a matter of history.

Language is a tricky thing - nearly every historic account of Versailles will refer to events affecting the region as Germany "ceding territory to Poland". But the allies had to recreate Poland as it was (sort of) in the late 1700's to do it. There was no Poland. They created a semi-new country to give German territory to. Bit more complicated than that, of course, but that's pretty much what it amounted to.
And then, 20 years later, they could go to war because Germany invaded Poland. So did Russia. There was an agreement you see, but nobody talks about that much, because Russia were on our side... sort of. Maybe not at the time, but later. Sort of.
Same sort of thing happened in Czechoslovakia. You see Czechoslovakia on a map before 1919?
The Sudetenland was a part of Czechoslovakia because the allies created Czechoslovakia and needed some dirt to give to it.

Germany were forced to accede with those terms due to article 231, which states
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

Modern historians are sort of divided on the issue, nowadays. Most of the Western ones are still prepared to go along with that story, but others not so much. The first nation to mobilise for war in 1914 was Russia, which led Germany to send several telegrams to England and France asking what they'd do if the Russians invaded, but Britain and France didn't bother to respond.

They sort of sat there silently... waiting. Knowing that Germany would either have to make the first move, or potentially be attacked by several neighbours at once and be forced to fight on their own territory.

Germany thought that was a bit iffy, realised that if they waited for Russia to attack first (which it appeared the were going to, and very shortly) they'd need to knock France out very quickly to avoid fighting on two fronts - a situation which occurred again 20 years alter. Germany probably overestimated Russia's military capability at the time and thought they were much more of a threat than they really were, but then its not like that hasn't occurred before or since. Right?

Not much to be gained from blaming Serbia or Austria-Hungary, so Germany it is.

Fck that, Jack, says Germany. Bugger waiting for you to attack us and invade our territory, we'll fight on yours. Big mistake including Belgium in the "yours" (and being incredibly nasty to Belgians in the process), but it was either that or go through France's frontline defences - which they couldn't do.
Britain and France say "haha, gotcha!"... and that's where the fight started. Damn near where it ended, too, 40 miles from Paris. Close thing, until the Marne.

So they dig some trenches, and everyone settles in for the long haul. Britain thinks a blockade is in order (not just sanctions - a full blockade. They made it clear that Merchant shipping would be targeted regardless of origin if it was deemed to be going to Germany, which sort of put most merchant ships off a bit and they decided it was probably best to not go to Germany). Germany goes "no fair, we got no navy... hmm. Submarines?" and then proceeds to do pretty much the same thing to Britain from underwater. Unfortunately, an American ship or two gets in the way (interesting side note, there was ammunition and the like on the Lusitania. They found the wreck. Sort of puts the whole "human shields" thing in context doesn't it - along with the observation that everyone, as usual, was lying), and America comes charging in like an AFL substitute to rack up the possessions late in the game when everyone else was buggered, and make a claim for best on ground... collecting a nice fat match fee in the process.

At the end, everyone (the winners, at any rate) said to Germany "it's all your fault", to which Germany replied "no, not really" and the allies said "it is, or we're going to invade you... choose". France being particularly belligerent about it all.

The German African colonies (all three of them) end up being divided among Britain and France to add to their considerably more than three (each)... not liberated.
Australia, at the insistence of the "pestiferous varmint" Hughes, ended up with New Guinea, a former German colony. That's how we justified sending conscripts overseas a couple of decades later. Australian territory, you see.

There were other treaties, too. Sykes-Picot (Britain, France 1916) made the Middle East what it is today. Let's completely ignore all ethnic and religious considerations and just... draw a few lines here and there. There you go, lads. Peace in our time. Oh, and we're thinking of making a new country, too, but... hang on, we'll get back to that, some of our earlier efforts are falling apart, have to go deal with something, get back to you in a few years. Bloody Germans and their Nationalism. Bloody empire building, what are those Germans thinking. All this time and effort we put in drawing lines on maps and blaming Germany for it, and what do we get for our efforts? They want it back. Inconsiderate bastards.

Any of this sound familiar in the modern world? No? Just "German Nationalism"?
This has been quite a long post, but I'm acutely aware of everything I left out. A lot, that is.

Alright then. Sure. Just German nationalism.

Just German Nationalism.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

No, it is that simple.

Remove German Nationalism from the equation. Without it, you literally cannot have WW2 as we know it.

You cant say that about any other cause of WW2 in Europe.

Shoot baby Hitler? German Nationalism has a different leader.

Remove the Treaty of Versailles (or make it much less onerous)? German nationalism can still demand the union of all 'Volk' (Austria, parts of Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Sudentland, parts of Belgium etc), removal of all Jews and non-Germans, and the invasion of the Soviet Union and Poland.

Like, I get that a confluence of the Great Depression and the conditions of the Treaty provided a fertile breeding ground for German Nationalism to flourish, but you cant blame either for the war. That blame lies with German Nationalism.

what a facile analysis.

Nationalism is the scourge of humanity, be it in the Germany Menzies so admired in the late 30s or here when the country votes in war criminals like Howard.

In the 20s Germany was on its knees well before the depression. Yep there was nationalism with loons from the bring the Kaiser back traditionalists through to Hitlers SA. Only the communists and to a lesser extent the social democrats during the Weimar days ran some sort of pan humanity line.

 

[barreness]

For those people saying we shouldn't have tried to stop the Russians (and Chinese) in Vietnam and Korea, do you also think we should sit back and let them annex Ukraine and cease support for the Ukrainians as well?

Grand Uncle Horace

The other Uncle Ho might have something to say about that

 

[ferball]

The other Uncle Ho might have something to say about that

There are letters on line that supposedly Ho wrote to Truman asking for US support in kicking the French out of Vietnam after ww2. In them he claims he admired the US and wants a free market democratic state in Vietnam to emulate the US. he asks for US support because the French surrendered to Japan while the local Vietnamese fought them thru the whole war.

The US didn't support him and were at war with him a couple of decades later.

 

[barreness]

There are letters on line that supposedly Ho wrote to Truman asking for US support in kicking the French out of Vietnam after ww2. In them he claims he admired the US and wants a free market democratic state in Vietnam to emulate the US. he asks for US support because the French surrendered to Japan while the local Vietnamese fought them thru the whole war.

The US didn't support him and were at war with him a couple of decades later.

Yep, might have been a ploy though lol

Imagine claiming the Vietnamese were just a proxy after managing to defeat the French, US, and Chinese invasions in a few decades

 

[barreness]

And free Cambodia from pol pot, cause I know people always claim him as a commie

 

[Malifice]

While you're on the topic of "German Speaking Neighbors" though... which country did those "German speaking neighbours" belong to before World War One?

The majority came from the Austria Hungarian Empire. So NOT Germany.

The second highest number came from Poland. And yes I know the Prussians had annexed that land previously and (immediately prior to WW1) it was part of Germany, but it was Polish before that.

And you still havent explained the fact that 'reclaiming lost land' wasnt what it was all about. It was also about territorial expansion to the East, annexing Russia and Eastern Europe, land that had nothing to do with Germany.

Which is what I said, right back at the very start. Causality, Malifice. It didn't "just" do that though, at all.

You can discuss causality all you want. I agree the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles (and the effects of the Great Depression) were causative factors in the rise of the Nazis and Hitler.

It provided fertile ground for the real culprit to grow, and that culprit was German Nationalism.

Remove German Nationalism from the picture, and you don't get WW2 in Europe. It simply doesnt happen.

 

[Episode IV]

The majority came from the Austria Hungarian Empire. So NOT Germany.

I didn't say they did, Malifice. I asked you.

The Austria-Hungarian Empire was an ally. That got carved up too. Austria ended up fighting alongside the Germans again in WW2.
Shocked to be sitting here.

After World War One and as a result of Versailles, The Austria-Hungarian Empire became something... smaller.
Yes, many of the German speaking (ethnically German, for the most part) people of that empire became something else too. Austria, they called it. The ones who weren't, they called Hungary, and a few others. They tried to amalgamate the Balkan states into larger entities too... they made up another place and called it "Yugoslavia". Didn't that work out well.

But when the figure of 7 million people and 70 thousand square km of land is being mentioned, it is not the land ceded from Austria-Hungary, is it. No. That is the number of people and the amount of land ceded by Germany. The majority of whom came from Prussia.
There was Alsace-Lorraine as well (different and complicated story there), the Sudetenland, etc. but as I said, post lengths get a bit long when I try to mention everything. I'm leaving out far more than I'm mentioning.

The second highest number came from Poland. And yes I know the Prussians had annexed that land previously and (immediately prior to WW1) it was part of Germany, but it was Polish before that.

Poland, Malifice, did not exist.
Czechoslovakia, Malifice, did not exist.

Polish before that? Sure. Back in the 1700's. Fairly long and storied history. There have been a fair few of those sorts of places. Bit silly to magically will it back into being so that you've got some land to put Germans on, though, particularly when those Germans don't really want to be Polish.

Of course at this point we could get into the subject of ethnicity clashing with nationality, and I've made my views (not only mine) fairly clear on what happens when you try to draw lines on a map creating countries containing several different ethnicities, but again things will get even more complicated.

And you still havent explained the fact that 'reclaiming lost land' wasnt what it was all about. It was also about territorial expansion to the East, annexing Russia and Eastern Europe, land that had nothing to do with Germany.

I don't need to. For the second time, Versailles leading to the rise of the Nazis has little to do with what the Nazis did or wanted do 20 years later. I'm talking about how they got there, not what they did.
The Nazis are the effect, Malifice, not the cause.

You can discuss causality all you want.

Sure, and no one really listens. True.
Most would rather just accept some more simplistic explanation that fits with their own personal prejudices than understand anything at all. Provide some buzzwords, as it were. Nationalism, Communism, Nazism, Colonialism, Whataboutism... words alluding to implied conclusions. Means no one really has to think much.

Which is one reason why we're still doing the same things and making the same mistakes now.

I agree the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles (and the effects of the Great Depression) were causative factors in the rise of the Nazis and Hitler.

It provided fertile ground for the real culprit to grow, and that culprit was German Nationalism.

Remove German Nationalism from the picture, and you don't get WW2 in Europe. It simply doesnt happen.

You could remove French Nationalism from the picture and it "simply doesn't happen". You could remove Russian Nationalism and it "simply doesn't happen". You could remove British Nationalism and it... oh never mind.

What happens if, rather than being belligerent and blaming just one country for a war that was pretty much everyone's fault, they instead agree on universal culpability, sign a treaty that says "yeah, we all screwed the pooch on that one, how about we just never do that again and .. oh, I dunno, form a European Union instead or something"?

You know, like they did after the second one.
Slightly better results, you think?