>Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
>the Renaissance ruined Western art
>the Normans were French, both genetically and culturally, but the Franks were Belgian
ITT: unpopular facts
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
>Belgian
Flemish/Dutch
>the Renaissance ruined Western art
Cringe contrarian take
>Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
Everyone know that.
No, not Dutch. Just Flemish.
Dutch live significantly north of the Frankish homeland and are basically assimilated Frisians.
>No, not Dutch. Just Flemish.
Belgian then, franks were in Wallonia
Clovis was from Wallonia, Charles Martel was from Wallonia, Pepin the Short was from Wallonia
Being born in wallonia doesn't make one a Walloon. They were Germanic and thus more related to the flemish.
>Being born in wallonia doesn't make one a Walloon. They were Germanic and thus more related to the flemish.
Fucking. Bull. Shit
There is nothing such as a "walloon" the way you think there is, some kind of anthropological creature devoid of something called "Germanic", whatever that means.
Clovis and Charles Martel belong to the blood and soil and history of Wallonia, deal with it.
You are using the typical flemish sophism of stripping away Wallonia from its own history.
The people you believe to be "Walloons" are Germanic. Walloons is a cultural term not a "racial" term.
Walloon comes from the Germanic root walhaz meaning Celt or Roman. Same as Wales, Wallachia, or Gaul. You'll never be Germanic.
you don't know what you are talking about
at first I thought you were flemish trying to push an agenda, now I feel that you are a new worlder like Canadian or Australian, that's the level of retardedness of your post
"Walloon" is a word that refers to the romanized inhabitants of the low countries
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Walloon
>Borrowed from French wallon, from Frankish *walh, from Proto-Germanic *walhaz (“foreigner”).
>Cognate to Welsh/Wales, the second part of Cornwall, and first part of walnut, as well as Gaul and Wallachia.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/walh
>foreigner, non-Germanic person (a Celt, later also a Roman)
The word "Walloon" which is used in the modern sense since 1866 has anything to do with some mythical tribe of Roman time. Those are romantic cultural creation from the 19th century.
Romans had VERY little genetic impact in Belgium if any. The franks were RomanIZED.
There is no tribe called "Walloon".
Belgium was inhabited by a Celtic tribe, the Belgae, which was Romanized along with the rest of Gaul. They're the ones who Franks/Flemish called Walloons. And one of their descendants is now larping as Germanic on LULZ.
Those are modern cultural terms based on language groups. The real larp is thinking those groups relate uniformly to mythical tribes like "Franks" "Belgae" etc...
There is very little genetic difference between "walloons" and "flemish"
There is very little generic difference between Gauls and Franks. But one group conquered and cucked the other.
Culture is more important than you make it out to be. Walloons are lazy Latin commies while Flemish are industrious Germanics.
Paul is false apostle and Christianity is a false religion. Its very unpopular, but very very true.
>Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
Pretty sure that’s an established fact
>the Renaissance ruined Western art
How? Sounds like contrarian retardation to me
>the Normans were French, both genetically and culturally
That’s only unpopular among some really ignorant and delusional anglos whose sole reasoning is “france bad”
>but the Franks were Belgian
The original franks (merovingians) couldn’t be belgian for the same reason they couldn’t be french, these ethnicites did not exist before them as they created them. But yeah they came from a region that’s nowadays Belgium
>the Renaissance ruined Western art
the reformation ruined western art
would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
The only reason the US joined was because English and French were going to lose and wouldn't be able to repay the massive debts they had incurred to the US.
Germany didn't have access to this as the UK blockaded them.
the US joined because it thought they would lose
with the power of hindsight we know that the central powers were on the brink of collapse and that Germany didn't have what it takes to push on to Paris, the British blocakde would have certainly starved them
>with the power of hindsight we know that the central powers were on the brink of collapse and that Germany didn't have what it takes to push on to Paris
The french were going to break a lot earlier than the Germans, it was only U.S involvement and even the idea of US assistance that stopped a complete french collapse.
disproven meme, the mutinies of 1917 were about preventing further pointless offensives, the French were all too ready to hold the line as shown by the utter failure that was the Kaiserschlacht
>Kaiserschlacht
An offensive prompted by US involvement.
a failed offensive regardless that showed the limits of German operative capabilities
it was a repeat of 1914 where outstretched German lines of communications prevented them from mounting a major offensive
except this time the French and British were prepared and the only thing Germany got out of it were a few useless acres of land and a Pyrrhic victory
plus Austria-Hungary was far closer to collapse than any other power involved, you're delusional if you think Germany had any way to hold on with its southern flank open to offensives while it was being starved by the British
if the Americans hadn't joined their defeat wouldn't be as complete and they'd probably be forced into a lenient peace, but it would be a defeat regardless
Except they wouldn't have done the retarded offensive and had the advantage on the western front. Fact is without US involvement the allies would collapse first. The mutinies themselves by the French included complaints of US troops not arriving quickly enough.
No they wouldn't. Time was against Germany, France wasn't being starved by a blockade.
Keep in mind that the offensive was done after troops returned from the East. More troops didn't fix Germany's operational problems, ferrying and supplying troops even a few kilometres into France was a far more difficult endeavour due to the state of railways in northeastern France.
The blockade is overplayed. Without US involvement the blockade didn't mean anything. With the collapse of Russia the Germans were taking their food. However with US involvement they couldn't outlast the French and British.
The Germans had more men, more guns, and a major victory on the eastern front. Without America there is zero chance Germany suffers the loss it does. At worst it suffers a middling status quo agreement.
European Enlightenment thought derived heavily from American* intellectuals
*yes, native American
>Renaissance ruined Western art
How can you even say that?
>MMT is correct
Absent US finance and supply, the war would have petered out after a year or so, and Germany would keep the conquered clay. Millions of deaths averted.
capitalism is the most peaceful economic system
The middle east was much better off under the ottoman empire
is that an unpopular opinion? i think most people agree with that
>Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
We live in the timeline where we were denied JFC Fuller’s Plan 1919.
>"... every available bombing machine should concentrate on the various supply and road centres. The signal communication should not be destroyed, for it is important that the confusion resulting from the dual attack carried out by the Medium D tanks and aeroplanes should be circulated by the enemy. Bad news confuses, confusion stimulates panic … (then) a carefully mounted artillery, tank and infantry attack should be launched, the objective of which is the zone of the enemy's guns: namely the secondary tactical zone some 10,000 yards deep."[1]
>"so does an army depend for its power on the will of its Commander and his Staff: cut that will off and the army will be paralyzed." He proposed using Medium D tanks "to disorganise the enemy’s Command in rear of the entrenched zone."
Imagine it: Dunkirk in 1919, with the Germans cut off off and surrounded on the shores of Belgium. They had nothing to counter this.
would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
If the Allies decided to fight to the death, but they probably would have agreed to a negotiated peace. Breaking through the German lines would have been almost unthinkable meaning the only option was to starve Germany out and they had domestic issues of their own to contend with. If Germany did nothing but keep their gains in the east then it would have been a major victory for them.
>>the Renaissance ruined Western art
Retarded contrarian take. No idea what your reasoning is but it's something completely indefensible.
>>the Normans were French, both genetically and culturally, but the Franks were Belgian
Normans being French is fine, but Belgian is a national identity that barely exists even today and applying it to medieval Europe is an obscene anachronism, even more so than people who claim Charlemagne to be French or German.
what is this? someone who knows something about history on LULZ? what a rare event