Why fight France a third time when you can ensure she is broke enough to be neutered? They thought they had done that after the last war, but France recovered far quicker than they thought possible and became a major threat again, using Russia against Germany, so better to ensure she doesn't become and even bigger, angrier threat again. Kind of like how France tried to artificially permanently cripple Germany after WW1.
There are two fundamental differences here. One, last time I checked, French troops never captured Berlin. Nor did they win the Franco-Prussian War. There was a perception in France (and not entirely misplaced) that they needed to neuter Germany to have a chance at beating them. This leads into B. Germany is fundamentally a stronger state than France. They have more industry, more population, a better military, etc. The reverse is not true.
wiking said:
Also by neutering France they can ensure that they have no western flank to worry about if Russia rises again and no British army can be landed to use against them (given that they control the Baltics and the Ottomans the Black Sea). If France is done as a threat they don't have to worry about her.
You mean like the War that Germany just finished winning? The root of the problem in German eyes is Russia, which was just viewed as too big and too close.
The whole point of attacking France first was so that Germany could get France out of the way so it could focus on what they figured would be the main threat, Russia. It was a wartime maneuver, not a political one.
wiking said:
The thing is the mindset of the era is that force is all that matters; you can't beat people into liking you or toadying up to you, especially not one as large and relatively powerful as France with a history of dominance in Europe that they cannot seem to let go of, so its better to beat them into submission. Its like the Machiavelli idea its better to be feared then loved; take what you need from France to ensure your ascent and remove their ability to resist. Germany isn't going to occupy them forever, just long enough to take a pound of flesh, ensure the frontier is demilitarized, and the treaty is complied with. Laming France significantly keeps them viable as a market, especially once they have military restrictions and can focus on non-military spending, while it prevents them from becoming a threat again.
Totally agree. It's not going to be a key German strategy to earn French support, but merely because they will impose a relatively lenient peace (I hope I'm not being too confusing with 'relatively'. It's still going to be fairly harsh, with many restrictions and concessions, but not nearly as much as Germany would want against Russia.) might be enough to get French people to decide that they had fought and lost enough wars with Germany.
wiking said:
Britain and Russia are effectively untouchable, so its best to eliminate the threat from the one enemy that you can get your hands on, especially as they were organizing the Entente against Germany in the first place and financing the Russian threat. Now that's not possible and up to the rivals in St. Petersburg and London to play nice without the Parisian middle men facilitating the alliance.
Britain untouchable? Certainly. But Germany would be in a unique position in this 1915. They would finally have Russia isolated, with her allies beaten and half a continent allied with Germany to bring her down. In this scenario, they've already made limited gains against Russia, and there's no reason to assume they wouldn't make more as time goes on.
The logic of 'We need to make sure they can't challenge us again in war' doesn't just apply to France. In fact, it applies much better to Russia, who has been growing in power for years.. The philosophy of the day was that this era of Great Powers would give rise to only a few Superpowers, and every Great Power was desperate to make sure their's would be one of these few. If Germany was to have the continental hegemony they'd like, they'd need to weaken Russia. Otherwise they'll just be back for more in a decade or two, with France and Britain possibly in tow.
It wouldn't be France Germany would be worried about looking for revenge. It would be Russia. This would reflect itself onto peace negotiations.