The Treaty of Versailles
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- This BBC documentary entitled "The Peacemakers" is an in-depth study of the Versailles Treaty of 1919. It provides some fine insight into the process, the politics, the problems and the impact of that infamous settlement. This is ideal for students of this period. Due to a music copyright claim, some sections of the film have been muted. You might also enjoy 'Lloyd George's War' on my channel. Uploaded for educational purposes only.
Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org We have recent history, old history, ancient history, debates, reviews, quizzes and much more. You might even consider contributing something of your own! See you there!
Very well produced. Conceding the Shantung Peninsula to Japan based on conquest and refusing to recognise the Japanese as racially equal (All men are created equal , who said that, written on the walls in Washington) to the Europeans, Wilson with his self determination failed in the first test. Rightly so the Americans rejected the League of Nations which did nothing for Ethiopia which comes to my mind at this time.
@@mohammadsyedhusain9280 Wilson wouldn't have been the only one at the table to think that self determination was only for white people. The attitude would have been as common in Europe as in the US.
John Ries Yeah I’m White, but never understood what that actually implies because there’s varying shades of every color between white and black pigment colors in the human race and how the varying degrees of that can make people hate whole Section of human race.I would consider it insane if people hate difference color puppy’s. It’s confusing how people can hate another human for something as insufficient as the pigment of skin color. It’s mainly just a way of help a groups of people who living in different climates adapted. I don’t understand it, no one can’t choose the group they’re born of anymore than anyone else can. Racism is only used to perpetuate and establish a way of thinking that leads to one group having almost Religious ideologically passed on through Indoctrination.Just to obtain what ever it that group is wanting by exploding and segregating races it’s almost always for summing of monetary value. People are just carrying along propaganda spread hundreds of years ago to justify the absurdly inhumane treatment of any group that wasn’t them. (as define by who god only know) you can easily be defined in a group and just as easily Excluded as well. There’s always that risk so why bother having it at all, there’s no good reason I can think of. Would people like a group that had red hair and using that as the criteria you had to be born with to own humans that happened to not have red hair? Crazy
@@mohammadsyedhusain9280 have you listened to Benjamin H. Freedman's speech?
@@Matt-zv9wpll
"This is not peace, this is an Armistice lasting 20 years," Ferdinand Foch, Allied Commander of the Western Front after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919.
How right he was
This treaty guaranteed that this war was to be resumed.... For the final capitulation of a once economic power that challenged the Marxist revolution declared by kosher kommunists around the mid 1800s........
Just a 20 year ceasefire..
@@josekma1 kosher kommunists, come on, really?
@@Madmen604 ... the same kosher kommunist kriminals (KKK) (the premier racists the world has come to know) now run the USSA and all democracies around the world through usury.... Fact #3
So why the fek sign?
WWI and Versailles still resonate till today in the Middle East
As someone who grew up in the Middle East and still works there, I can tell you everyone agrees the borders created in 1919 are wrong - no one agrees what the 'right' ones are.
The whites had no right to do this
@@swiftallan5094 so why let them?
RUclips Veterinarian and the Americans and Europeans can’t stop stealing from other countries.
@RUclips Veterinarian What a dumb conversation you're both having. Petty arguments like these are what lead to the deaths of millions of innocents. Humans evolved to become superior to every predator in the world and now we are stuck in an unevolved state where we choose to be our own biggest predator. We need to either evolve our souls or go extinct.
Terrific documentary. The thing I love most is the time travel back to 1919 when I view the footage of what the people and the world looked like at that time.
Poorly researched and disappointing, the part about the Middle East is full of lies and misinformation, the fate of Ottoman territories was settled much earlier by a number of secret agreements during the war, the most famous of which is Sykes-Picot agreement and map in 2016. Regarding Iraqi oil, noway that Lloyd-George was bargaining for oil in Versailles conference, since the first Iraqi oil will was discovered in 1928.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Documentary created by the BBC. It is completely bias in favor of England and France. let Wilson .with all the guilt of the failure of the treaty in regard of Germany and middle East. Forget about the hyper inflation in Germany .
Look like a propaganda clip
Yes
@@mogh2603Wikipedia lol
IT was No treaty but a criminal dictate.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Matthew Tippo God if that ain’t the truth
Well they really meant to pave it
Matthew Tippo So are many roads to Boston, Mass.
This one was paved with bad intentions...
It seems the harder they tried the worse the whole thing became.
I now understand why Italy and Japan chose to partner Hitler in WWII
The super-cool logo?
They just make it seem like those countries were evil
Well, regarding Japan the US forced them - in a way
@@martinhumble not in a way. Japan’s choice was to bend over or fight back
@@noticemesenpai69 i unterstand what you mean but its not entirely true . Before the sanctions where introduced the americans wanted to negotiate with Japan but they wanted all .....
I firmly believe there is a direct connection between 1919 and 1939. The animosity between the French and Germany was just too much and the Treaty that was imposed on Germany, by stating that Germany alone was responsible for the war, the imposition of a republican form of government on a country that didn't have a clue what that meant and that over 90% of the Treaty's clauses were directed at Germany alone are just some of the direct links between WW1 and WW2. As the French Marshall Ferdinand Foch stated: "This isn't peace . It's an armistice for 20 years".
I totally agree. For one the idea that Germany was responsible for the war was flawed from the start. Secondly the restrictions on the Armed forces played a huge part in the rise of the Nazis it stripped Germany of its pride. Thirdly the overall penalties were entirely to punitive, They crippled the German economy well before the start of the Great Depression. Hitters rise to power more than likely would not have been possible if the Treaty had actually been about a lasting peace and not extracting a pound of flesh from the Germans.
+Zach Sweet
You complaining about Versailles treaty? You know of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
+Vladimir Eng Brest-Litovsk, and the outcome of the war on the Eastern Front, gave the various peoples (Fins, Lets, Lithuanians, the inhabitants of the Caucasus, the Ukraine, and others) of the Imperialist Russia Empire their first chance of freedom to live life according to own desires, and within own national borders.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
+Ralph Bernhard
Russia lost more land and people in WW1 than Germany!
The Versaille peace treaty give people's Poland and Czechoslovakia chance to be free from Germany Empire, but you still cry like bitches about Versailles treaty.
+Ralph Bernhard
Russia lost more land and people in WW1 than Germany!
The Versaille peace treaty give people's Poland and Czechoslovakia chance to be free from Germany Empire, but you still cry like bitches about Versailles treaty.
This documentary did not change my mind. WWll was and extension of WW1. Wilson was wrong
Agreed
This document should serve a purpose…NEVER kick someone when they’re down. NEVER force someone into a corner.
Actually one should not talk about the signing of a treaty by Germany. The allies still enforced a blockade on Germany. German representatives were forced to sign the treaty or go to war again (which really wasn't possible). Unlike the treaty of Vienna that ended the Napoleanic wars of French Aggression, Germany was not welcomed back into the club but was forced out and made to take the entire blame for the war.
Erich Socker You are avoiding Germany's responsibility. If the allies have carried out a
blockade you omit that the state of war existed between France & its allies & Germany
and its allies.
Didn't Germany violate the neutrality of Belgium in 1914 ? The German Delegates in 1919 in Versailles knew very well what was going to happen there And in addition a choice was offered to the German delegates: signing of the armistice or continuation of the war ! At the armistice of 1918 in Rethondes, the same tone as 1870 had been dictated. That the tone of Winners..
We must remember the Interview of Ferrières on 19 & 20 September 1870, which was calamitous for France. The French Diplomat Favre does not obtain the slightest concession from Chancellor Bismarck who will impose all the conditions: loss of Alsace & Lorraine, War indemnity of 5 Billion gold francs. All this announce the treaty of Frankfurt on May 10, 1871, which confirmed the armistice already established on January 28, 1871 in Versailles.
no one cares, they're all dead lol
@@haydnlangner9847 its all the innocents that did and have subsequently died because of these leaders
Boohoo
@S Rohith Who attack Serbia ? Who declared war to Russian Empire knowing as well France was a truth allied ? Who invaded neutral Belgique knowing as well too, the Great Britain go to war ?
Peacemakers? There were no peacemakers when this horrific document was drawn.
Today deniers of this document are everywhere. I just wonder if we take the salaries of these deniers we will see them loot the streets.
Have you ever read the Treaty of Brest Litovsk? Maybe you've read the Septemberprogramm? No?
@@bolivar2153 Oh you mean the treaty that finally gave independence and self rule to Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and more? The treaty that won them independence from under the BOOT of RUSSIAN AGGRESSION?
That was a great treaty!
@@mamavswild Trouble is, it didn't give independence to those states. They got "independence" when their German occupiers were defeated. All Brest-Litovsk did was to swap their "overlords".
Russia just sucs I feel for anyone living in that hellhole then and now. And yeah they were trying to be peacemakers only ones that think otherwise was the ridiculous germans because their stupid leader started the war in the first place they should learn to deal with that and move on
The piano piece is Erik Satie- Gnossienne 1. Nice upload.
+Norm Kid Thanks, Norm.
+Dr Alan Brown
Thank you Alan. Greeting from Ukraine.
Yeah but Gymnopedie 1 is still No1 ;)
The worst document in the history of the world.... still dealing with the consequences of that....
History in the making, in many senses. They managed to lay the foundations for both the Second World War and later the war in Vietnam, and so also the Korean War with the ongoing conflict, The Cold War, and most following major conflicts since 1918. When will they ever win the peace?
When we humans and our constructions are gone.
@bearjew ,
Not all of it is nonsense. Don't forget who sent Lenin back to Russia and helped the Bolsheviks to come to power.
@Per Spellman
Your forgot the conflict in the middle east
'They' never will, only 'We' can do that.
If human not stop conflict or war, the conflict or war will stop humanity
Dubious excuse: "Wilson was a politician, not an economist". Wilson was a PhD political scientist who may not have understood all of the ins and outs of economic theory, but would have understood the potential for economic factors to influence both voting behavior and political decision making. Keynes was right: it made no sense at all to saddle Germany with reparations it couldn't be expected to pay without crippling its own economy.
I'm sure it made PLENTY of sense to the corporations who profited off of the situation. It was not enough to make money sending arms to Europe on the Lusitania, and to be making money earning on the payback of today's sum of over 50 BILLION lent to the UK; no, certainly not. They expected to profit from the new situation as they siphoned investments into german industry to prop them up, so that these industries and those who worked for them could survive enough to "repay" the equivalent of 70 million overdrawn accounts and overmaxxed credit cards they inherited, based on an arbitrary sum, which would take an infinite amount of time based on the artificially worthless value of the currency in that country based on a result of the entire loan shark setup. The only way out is to get rich selling vice and smut, and that's exactly what the rich in the "glorious" and "legitimate" Weimar era did. So it was the mega-corps selling basic sh!t and industrialists who appeared to do ok, plus the smut peddlers. Pretty much the modern era situation of the West, minus the EBT/SNAP food stamp cards and social welfare parachute. It's said that France was not doing much better than Germany either, that it like Spain was a few tremors away from falling to the Bolshevik sympathists - even after events like the Red Terror in the Russian Civil War, the Holodomor, the Great Purge, etc. That puts it in perspective. The Paris Peace Conference turned Europe into a dumpster fire that only the ultra-rich could benefit from.
Not much talk how Clemenceau himself in 1916 estimated that British Empire will never recover from this war. During that year Britain first time had to borrow huge sums of loans from USA. So in fact Uncle Sam cleaned the clocks of Europe.
The Allies: *make Germany pay for the war, destroying the economy, rubbing salt in an open wound*
Germany: *starts another world war*
The Allies: *surprised pikachu*
y'all had good intentions but like bruh-
"make Germany pay for the war" No, the reparations were to cover a _fraction_ of the civilian damage done by the deliberate and intentional scorched earth policy pursued by Germany during the war. Should Belgium, neutral at the start of the war, have been forced to pay for the damage done to her and the cost of rebuilding? (Germany had already stripped the country bare and enforced occupation costs on her during the war).
@@bolivar2153 All countries owed. But you cannot bleed something that is already bled utterly dry.
In reality, the ‘reparations’ was French debt owed to the US and Britain, and the allies couldn’t make Germany pay it without forcing them to admit to ‘war guilt’...which is OUTRAGEOUS, when one studies and researches the cause or WWI. There’s was plenty of guilt to go around!
Much of what made the Versailles treaty horrible was the non-tangibles, the psychological damage done to a whole people. They not only lost their lands but lose many of her peoples to France, Poland and Czechoslovakia where many were harassed and mistreated, providing the impetus the later reich would use as justification for going into those terrorists.
Leave a nation with nothing but her pride...
@@mamavswild Germany appealed to Wilson for a peace based on the 14 points. Point 8 : France gets Alsace-Lorraine back.
@@mamavswild you failed to address this point :"Should Belgium, neutral at the start of the war, have been forced to pay for the damage done to her and the cost of rebuilding? (Germany had already stripped the country bare and enforced occupation costs on her during the war)."
@@mamavswild How many times does Article 231 mention "guilt"?
Treaty of Versailles set the platform for the spectre that overshadows us today
@pammens miss For what? For you?
At one point, it is stated that Great Britain hadn't fought a war in Europe in 100 years... between 1815 and 1914, there was one war in Europe in which Great Britain did partake: the Crimean War.
Alex Llöyd That was barely anything. They only fought on the Crimean Area.
YES! And the BOER WAR in South Africa of which Churchill was an officer!
@@xman4un The Boer War wasn't a European conflict.
Halinspark,
The Boers were from Holland therefore European. The British were European. The Germans in Tanganyika were European. If three Europeans were brawling on the Moon it would be a European war. Just my opinion.
*_MIKE, I'D AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THEN WE'D BOTH BE WRONG._*
Wilson, like Lloyd-George, was initially not in favour of reparations on the Germans being too harsh. The French during a lengthy break in the negotiations took him on a lengthy tour of the devastated areas of France and managed to persuade him to change his views. Lloyd-George was unable to convince him afterward that his new approach was a mistake and would lead to future problems. During a later debate, he said to Wilson that, "If the French insisted on bankrupting Germany then the country would collapse leaving the way open to 'any tin-pot leader' that promises to give them back their self-respect and twenty years from now we'll have to do this all over again". He was right, even to the date.
After 1871 France paid and didnt go full nazi. Maybe the Allies should have simply occupied and split Germany in 1919, not in 1945. Could haave prevented an even greater disaster. Nazism takes its roots in German social order, not the money transfers destined to repair French northeast. It is fallacious not to blame the Germans themselves for nazism more than foreigners.
The word “revision” appears in this video several times in its various forms. Makes sense, since this is an attempt at revising fact and trying to convince the audience that Versailles was not a main contribution to the cause of WW 2.
But the Treaty was not the main contributor to WWII, Steve. Versailles was detested by practically every German, but the fulfilment politicians such as Stresemann, and particularly the Locarno Treaty, convinced many people that revision was already under way by 1930. Reparations were cancelled in 1932 at the Lausanne Conference, and Germany paid only 16% of the entire amount. It was Hitler who made Versailles a _casus belli_ and had the Nazis not come to power (by virtue of the Wall Street Crash and not their opposition to Versailles), the Weimar Republic would never have sanctioned war to overturn the territorial changes.
The History Room so cancelling the treaty that left Germany destitute was the cause? Really? I ain’t buyin’ what you are trying to sell here. Research refutes your claims, categorically.
I’d argue the following had a larger impact:
“In the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the victorious powers (the United States, Great Britain, France, and other allied states) imposed punitive territorial, military, and economic provisions on defeated Germany. In the west, Germany returned Alsace-Lorraine to France. It had been seized by Germany more than 40 years earlier. Further, Belgium received Eupen and Malmedy; the industrial Saar region was placed under the administration of the League of Nations for 15 years; and Denmark received Northern Schleswig. Finally, the Rhineland was demilitarized; that is, no German military forces or fortifications were permitted there. In the east, Poland received parts of West Prussia and Silesia from Germany. In addition, Czechoslovakia received the Hultschin district from Germany; the largely German city of Danzig became a free city under the protection of the League of Nations; and Memel, a small strip of territory in East Prussia along the Baltic Sea, was ultimately placed under Lithuanian control. Outside Europe, Germany lost all its colonies. In sum, Germany forfeited 13 percent of its European territory (more than 27,000 square miles) and one-tenth of its population (between 6.5 and 7 million people).“ encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/map/german-territorial-losses-treaty-of-versailles-1919
@@oasis6767 In my opinion, the immediate and main cause of the Second World War was the blatant siding of Britain and France with Poland for their own dishonest economic reasons. Just as it had been in 1914 with poor little Belgium. Just a threadbare excuse. From 1918 to 1939, Germany (and Austria), with their chaotic economies, were full of Germans fleeing persecution in the ultra-nationalist slavic states created by the Versailles criminals. The situation became acute in 1938 and 1939, when the Czechs sent their army into Sudetenland, and the Polish military dictatorship started a active brutal persecution of the Germans in Upper Silesia and West Prussia (given to the Poles by the Allies) by handing carte blanche to Poland with their Treaty during the Danzig and Corridor crisis. That dithery old twit Chamberlain had the possibility to force compromises in both cases. The Sudetenland injustice was so blatant that even Chamberlain couldn't ignore it, as they had done for 20 years. It is obvious to any child that the aim of Versailles was NOT to create peace, but to cripple Germany economically. The lessons learned in 1918 to 1920 were only belatedly put into practice after 1945, when Stalin had occupied nearly all of Eastern and Central Europe.
@@oasis6767 It was waaaay more than just reparations! It was being forced to admit ‘war guilt’ after being made to believe they were walking into an Armistice not a forced surrender. There was plenty of guilt to go around regarding WWI! Forcing Germany to admit to such an injustice left a giant scar in the National fabric...the treaty did more than just remove lands...it removed the German people from the mainland and placed them inside new nations that were not friendly towards their presence, causing Mistreatment, a mass refugee crisis, and German people trapped on what was now the ‘wrong’ side of the border.
All of this provided the stage that Hilter was able to March on.
this was interesting. i would've like to see a 10 part series on this.
Colonel Charles Wellington Furlong, President Wilson's Document Secretary at Versailles lived our hometown of Scituate MA. He specialized in military intelligence. He was also a world explorer, ethnologist, rodeo competitor, sailing expert, naval historian and nature conservator. When he died in 1967; he was actively lecturing at Dartmouth College in NH where his papers and world travel artifact collection resided to this day.
I disagree. Wilson had noble intentions, but the Brits and the French just were not going to let it happen. And their feelings are understandable too. How do you draw the map of the world after the fall of those Empires without having backlash? It was really Germany trying to get its territory back that started WW2. Surely nobody believed they should have kept what would become Poland and Czechoslovakia?
How could they say Germany started World War i?
It’s an absolute disgrace, especially when you see that the British and French empires got away with their own interests and took more land; the oil fields of Iraq, for example.
There was plenty of ‘guilt’ to go around. I feel insulted on behalf of WWI Germany, in fact.
British anti german discrimination
@@williambeuttel4208 French mainly
The single best book on this subject is Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919. The film documentary and audiobook of the same title are every bit as good as Professor MacMillan's book. That gal sure can break down a piece of history. Way to go, girl.!!.....
yes, her presentation is pretty brilliant
She’s a woman, not a girl.
The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Trianon was not ratified both by the US and Russian Governments. These two countries were major protagonist during the war, and as a result many questions and legal challenges have been raised by other parties concerning the final outcome of the war. Although 100 years have passed on many issues remain unresolved.
This is a Great doc. I have watched many on this topic but its the first time for this one. Its very well done, even the silent parts.ha Keep the Good Stuff coming Dr Brown.
Thank you for uploading and sharing with everyone this very interesting documentary!
Listening to this ... I can't help thinking about quote "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." ... and that it might be true, but it's obviously bending way more slowly than people realize.
If it doesn t bend towards justice during our lifetime of what use is it
One other thing that was on the rise after WW1 was an "Us and Them," mentality. It happened across Continental Europe as new states emerged from the wreckage of empire, but one place where the same thing occurred, but often seems to be forgotten about, was Ireland.
Although Ireland had been an integral part of the UK since 1801, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland wasn't treated as an equal in this arrangement by any means. In fact, the same year WW1 broke out, 1914, with the passage of a third Home Rule Bill through Parliament, the previous two having failed to be passed for different reasons, Ireland was on the brink of Civil War by the time WW1 broke out.
While the war was still raging in Europe, while there were many men from Ireland who volunteered to fight for the British, believing that they would be able to return and come back as a fully trained army for Ireland, others stayed in Ireland, feeling that the war in Europe was a perfect distraction to strike against Britain and help Ireland become independent. The result, the Easter Rising, on Easter Monday, April 24th 1916, led to a heavy handed and violent crackdown by Britain in the city the Rising was centred on, Dublin.
The destruction of Dublin, caused by the British shelling the city, left Dublin as the first European city to suffer such destruction since the Napoleonic Wars. And with the subsequent, ruthlessly swift execution of the Rising leaders, public opinion in Ireland shifted from support for Britain and opposing the Rising rebels, to viewing those same leaders as martyrs to the goal of an Irish Republic. The rising leaders that were spared from execution, like Eamon Devalera, came to join a party called Sinn Fein (We Ourselves), reorganising it to match the agenda to form an independent Irish Republic. The result, the 1918 UK General Election, was that Sinn Fein won
an overwhelming majority of Irish seats in Parliament. However, all these newly elected Sinn Fein MP'S refused to take their seats in Westminster, instead meeting at the Mansion House in Dublin, the temporary home of the first Dail.
Long story short, Britain refused to recognise the Dail at first, leading to the Irish War of Independence from 1919 to 21 and with the 1920 Government of Ireland Act as well as the 1921 signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, partitioned Ireland into Northern Ireland and what was initially the Irish Free State. It was in the latter that Civil War broke out in 1922, lasting until 1923
Very good.
Unfortunately for the Irish, their island was in a geographically unfavorable location, so to the master planners Irish freedom was not considered as "worthwhile freedom" in the same way as the 100s of delegates standing outside the doors of Versailles hoping for freedom for their people (incl. for example Ho Chi Minh from Vietnam).
Do you know who benefited from a historically favorable geographical location on the map, so their "freedom" counted more than anybody else's freedom?
@ralphbernhard1757 given the size of their empire, plus the fact that in Versailles they got pretty much everything they wanted, I would say the British (not just for the location of the UK itself, but also outposts like Gibraltar and Cyprus and Malta, meant that they could project their power and protect their interests from multiple directions, such as the Suez Canal)
@@SiVlog1989 You mean the UK/London/British Empire temporarily "won" from the setup the "ear whisperers" (Washington DC/"14 Points") whispered in their ears?
Yes, that is so. But in the long run the geopolitical setup was a disaster for the British Empire.
What I meant with my question was "Poland" (resurrected) as a strategy of power. Ireland was not in the same favorable location on the map (geopolitics), so it was left to fend for itself, whilst Poland was "given freedom" per declaration as consensus of the winners.
Why do you think that was?
Why do you think, even today, that the "freedom" of some, counts for more than the freedom of others?
@@ralphbernhard1757 the British Foreign Secretary, while in Paris with Prime Minister David Lloyd George, overheard the Prime Minister talking about the Middle East in the suite he was based in:
"Mesopotamia...yes, oil, irrigation, we must have Mesopotamia. Palestine...the Holyland, Zionism, we must have Palestine. Syria, huh, what is there in Syria? Let the French have that,"
As for the situation with other countries, it has, for major powers, always been self-interest, how can we secure our interests? Eamon Devalera talked indirectly about that situation in his response to Churchill criticising Ireland declaring itself neutral in WW2:
"Mr Churchill makes it clear, that in certain circumstances he would've violated our neutrality and likely would justify his actions through 'Britain's necessity'... Surely Mr Churchill must see, that like minded actions could be used to justify similar acts of aggression elsewhere and no small nation adjoining a Great Power could ever hope to go its own way in peace... Mr Churchill is proud of Britain's stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he not find it in his heart, the generosity to acknowledge, that there is a small nation that stood alone, not for one year or two, but for 700 years against aggression?"
@@SiVlog1989 Agreed, 100%. The more powerful state implements what it can get away with (often simply greed, often vested, disguised by the "our interests"-apologia), often at the expense of smaller nations and states.
Empires have to be careful though, how they throw their weight and influence around. A bit like the "corporate ladder" on which the ambitious step over heads to get to the top, forgetting that they might meet these again on the way down.
That is what happened to the British Empire, when it was "on the way down" and now discovered all potential alignment/alliance partners had begun to economically or politically line up behind the more powerful American Century (post-WW2), even some of the own dominions.
Versailles was a disaster for Europe, although in the short term in suited the London lordships, because of what they could "get" out of it (colonialism/imperialism) like the barrier zones to protect the Suez Canal (the true grand strategy reasoning behind Sykes-Picot or the Balfour Declaration).
In view of all the changes, and problems already clear long before WW1, it would have been far more beneficial to implement the concept of the Commonwealth of states (say around 1900), regardless of the race or ethnicity of the people or region of the planet, while London still had the economic/financial global upper hand. Power politics always seems to function along the lines of "too little, too late."
The same seems to be happening to those steering the future of the American Century. The intention to control and dominate everything, eventually leads a false allocation of the means, and to losing everything. I think Friedrich the Great said something along those lines ("Who tries to defend everything, defends nothing").
Thank you so much for uploading this!!!!
The french were sending troops in to hassle people on the street when the germans were late in paying their war debts, she never mentions this, it would really provoke ethnic radicalism for sure.
Plus Belgium
They marched into the Ruhr in 1923 and enslaved men and women off the street. Even Britain balked at that and called it a ‘French act of military aggression’.
The French more than anyone set the stage for the rise of Hilter.
I don’t think there is any coincidence that this took place in the same year of hilter’s Munich Putsch, or in the subsequent light sentence he received.
@@mamavswild "The French more than anyone set the stage for the rise of Hilter . y the
Post-war haggling by financiers and politicians fixed German reparations at an annual fee of 132 billion gold marks. This was about one quarter of Germany's total 1921 exports. When Germany was unable to make these crushing payments, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr to take by force what could not be obtained voluntarily. In 1924 the Allies appointed a committee of bankers (headed by American banker Charles G. Dawes) to develop a program of reparations payments. The resulting Dawes Plan was, according to Georgetown University Professor of International Relations Carroll Quigley, "largely a J.P. Morgan
@@mamavswild good point. Hitters putsch was partly due to German anger at their old enemy France marching into the Ruhr
@@abdirahmanidris290 The Putsch failed miserably, obtaining no popular support anywhere. There may have been anger against the occupation, but there was little support for Hitler and Ludendorff at that time. On the plus side, 16 Nazi's met their end. If only the German's had been better shots ...
As for the light sentence he received, he'd been up before that Judge before and knew him to be sympathetic to the Nazi cause. He really didn't take any gamble when he began his monologue in the court, neither was it a surprise when the Judge happily allowed him to do so. A minimum sentence was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
The Treaty of Versailles should be a standing lesson to the world, and a warning what not to do....but has it been???
No, not at all. Dont give so much power to a few idiot people who think they knlw whats good flr the world. Like the paris climate deal or globalization.
no it hasn't
ruclips.net/video/cQsIIgxBFzk/видео.html
These individuals are hardly historians. Let's omit the fact that in between the Armistace and Versailles, France, England and the US blockaded Germany, and literally starved 800,000 civilians to death. Did they genuinely believe that this would be forgotten? Secondly, with respect to England and the US , the slave trade had ended only 50 years earlier. It is difficult to view them as moral leaders in that context. Again, history swept asunder. Lastly, the assertion that the borders were redrawn "of necessity " is laughable. England in particular had predetermined new borders in order to lure otherwise neutral powers into the war on the side of the British. In fact, the redrawn borders would prove the bloodiest battlegrounds for the next century.
Yes ted, you need to remember that the British Empire was the most murderous organisation ever in human history, killing at least 110 million people.
Slavery as an institution ended in 1865, the slave trade ended in the beginning of the 1800s in America I believe. Just saying.
A well-done documentary... Watching from Bellflower, California, USA 🇺🇸😎🇬🇧
Wow! What a documentary! Top. I learned many things. Very well explained.
Hello everyone! Due to a music copyright claim, and some slight subsequent editing, this film may now contain short sections of silent footage. Regards - Alan.
+Dr Alan Brown The silences seem to correspond to the moments Germany is making its case in Versaille. Is this a real correlation for political reasons?
It's a good document historically. I appreciate getting some more insight into this event.
thanks for the upload :)
otto skorzeny It's amazing that anyone can blame Jews. Let's recall that Britain and France negotiated the terms of Versaille, not Israel. There was no Jewish state at the time, nor would they have been involved if they were. The Jews of Europe weren't a factor in the war anymore than the Hindus.
Alan A How about black, white, Hindu, Jewish, and Chinese bankers, oil barons, and weapons manufacturers: and capitalists. Embrace diversity! Your missing the economic story and the essential and obvious sources of division, war, and environmental collapse.
Jeff Moore You mean to say you don't know that Jewish Bankers controlled much of the European Economy during those times?
The perfect example of a treaty is just a piece of paper
One point not mentioned was what the US got in treaty regarding the German Overseas Territories. The US got the Marianas, the Marshall Islands, Samoa and a couple of others while the British also took some other Pacific islands belonging to Germany.. This makes sense since the US had taken Spain to the laundry in 1898 and got the Philippines.
Actually Japan took the Marshall islands, the Carolines and the Northern Marianas not the US, who took Guam which is the southernmost of the Marianas.
And Japan got the former German colonies in China. The Chi es walked out in 1919 and never signed. By 1926, Russia was exporting weapons and Communism to China.
Learning is occurring. Thanks y’all for a history lesson
My great-great-uncle was sent there ahead of Wilson to try and get the"victors" to be conciliatory towards the "losers", warning that if they did not, Germany would have No choice but to go to war again, my uncle, George Creel often finished with "... the next war would be in about 20 years.."
65 days off isn't bad.
Treaty of Versailles taught lessons need be learned how being so hardish punish any nation.
After WWII was Germany punished much more and only after that they became a relatively peaceful nation.
@@dturtleneck Illusory truth effect or Truthiness: A tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity.
[Wiki: List of Cognitive Biases]
Marshall Plan.
Margret McMillian's books are wonderful. Filled with little fun stories. Also very informative. Those interested in the Treaty of Versailles, her book: "Paris 1919", is a must read.
robert moore Homer Simpson says books are jerks
World war ii was caused by British cruelty against Germany at the treaty of Versailles
The French were the cruellest and WW2 happened because of many other reasons
I think their emboldening of the polish state something to do with it
That's right blame us Brits; as always...
How about blaming the nation that started the war in the first place...
Quite frankly, we should have kept out of WW1. Germany would have won, WW2 and Hitler never would have happened, neither Stalin for that matter....how about that idea? Lol
*axis countries* : this treaty will ensure stabilty in the region, right?
*the allied power* :
well yes, but actually no
During, WWI it was the Central Powers
My maternal grandfather was in the US Army honor guard at the signing of the treaty. He was French-Dutch decent that spoke English, French and German. My mom has a picture of the the honor guard, but you can't distinguish him from the rest of the soldiers.
I just love these know all historians who attempt to rewrite history. They should lose themselves because there were those who could see a future war emerging at the time of the treaty. One fellow said "We shall have to fight this war all over again in 25 years time [out by just 5 years] & the other fellow who said "I wouldn't sign if I were them because it gives them NO HOPE whatsoever!" So pardon me Madame Historian, there were those back then who saw the trouble that lay ahead!!!
Correct.
There was a multitude of voices condemning the treaty at the time, and saw it for what it was.
A mere "tool" for European empires, which wanted to rule the world...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreconcilables
In the US, it was first and foremost the Irreconcilables in the US Senate, who didn't want the USA to become a pawn of foreign powers.
The new League of Nations was understood as a stage for old Europe, and their old ways...
@@ralphbernhard1757 Agreed!! The Versailles treaty was so horrific, it set the stage not just for the rise of Hilter and WWII, but also the Korea war, the Vietnam war. The Chinese civil war, the lack of stability and wars of the middle east, the Balkan wars of the 1990’s...and probably more wars to come in the future!
Well done in uploading this.
A peace treaty should be meant to keep peace, not force an innocent country into taking guilt for what you have done so you can flaunt your military might.
"Innocent country"? Do you even realize what you said there?
@@arnold3768 You proved my point: Everyone thinks Germany is the bad guy since the treaty forced Germany to accept war guilt.
@@aperson8473 first of all, Germany wasn't solely blamed for the war, all Central Powers had to take responsability for it.
That being said, let me ask you a few things:
Who encouraged Austria-Hungary to wage war with Serbia?
Who declared war on both Russia and France?
Who invaded into France through *neutral* Luxembourg and Belgium and commited atrocities on civilians there?
@@arnold3768 Who enslaved a fourth of the world? Who shot the duke? Who sent a list of demands to Serbia before resorting to war?
@@aperson8473 oh, so you're saying that only the British enslaved nations but germans didn't, and they were liberators of those enslaved nations? Interesting.
And just because the archduke is shot, doesn't mean you have to wage war for it. And A-H only dared to send the demands (which were intentionally made to be hard to agree with) after Germany guaranteed austrians their support.
So please stop calling the aggressor of the war "innocent". Germany entered into this war 100% on its own will and lost. But instead of paying up their war debts and helping rebuild the countries they had ravaged, you germans started another war, which you again lost.
Sad faces and jolly bottoms, that's the best description of the British by a Frenchman ever to have been uttered aloud. 😅😆
I guess that frenchman wasn t in the front lines of any of the 30 wars the french have fought in the last 300 years
Hello Alan, I ve been busy watching Mafia videos. Now, I m ready to go back to history class. TY 4 your educational materials. It educational and fun. Take care, sir. Felix in NYC 2018.
Thanks Felix! Good luck with your studies! Regards - Alan.
Thank you again Alan for all your wonderful work. What I find astounding is the so-called big threes treatment of Italy. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the allies promise to restore the land on the border that was taken from Italy in the first place if they would join the allies? This seems to say Wilson alone refused. My understanding is Italy could have very well joined the central powers in this conflict which may have been cause for not delivering what was promised after it was over. I do believe it was a major factor in Italy becoming the German allies in WW 2.
Not really, they "agreed" to give Italy large territories along the Adriatic sea in Albania and Croatia that was colonies of Venice once, but had not belonged to them since the late middle ages, and had never been part of the Italian state, nor shared their culture or language. There was nothing nationalistic in the Italian requests, only pure imperialism. They were in the end given two large areas Istria and Sudtirol, one was entirely Slovenian, while the other had a large Austrian majority population,.
As far as Italian language and culture was concerned, the Italan state already had all the area they could legitimately claim. The UK did anyway have a "thing" for promising the same teritories to several parties at the same time during the war to gain allies, they just needed to win the war, and they would worry about sorting out that mess later. In the middle east most prominently, they offered Palestine to both jewish and muslim rebels to gain their support, and they made many mutually contradictory promises to states in the Balkans as well.
Italy also received a chunk of southern Austria full of German-speaking ethnic Austrians that is known outside of Italy as South Tyrol (The Italians call it Alto Adige). Germany annexed it after Italy changed sides during World War II but it was restored to Italy rather than Austria afterwards (despite the fact that Austria was officially considered a victim of Nazi aggression during the war and commemorated as such by a US postage stamp). FYI, Italy was supposed to be an ally of Germany and Austria-Hungary but decided it would could more if it came into the war on the Allies' side instead -- and did so in 1915.
Italy was bought off - always! It was promised Libya.
Fun fact-- america didnt like the treaty as we thought it was unfair to germany. "Dont kick a man when hes down" we said.
The British were worried about overheated French vengeance and what it would mean for the world as well.
That was the right view. The French view almost guaranteed a right wing fascist leader. That is precisely why France was not invited to the Potsdam conference. The US, Britain and Russia were too concerned that France would repeat its 1919 behavior.
@@mamavswild yeah easy to talk for the British! They didm’t have 4 years of the ww1 fought on their soil like FRANCE JUST WENT THROUGH. 1.4 million soldiers french soldiers died and 4,000,000 were injured. GTFO
Why all the gaps ? There are several places where the narration and the subtitles completely cut out. Too much substance perhaps ? Why no mention of the world's involvement in the Russian Civil War ?
The gaps are caused by editing out soundtrack music, jmon. With some films we are faced with a stark choice - either mute the music to avoid copyright infringement or take the video down. Regards, Alan.
At 12.34, there is a short film of soldiers going over the top. This was shot during the First World War, but nowhere near the front lines. it was shot behind the lines and is very inaccurate - there are no ladders and no fire step. It was part of a film shown in British cinemas called 'The Battle of the Somme' shot in 1916 and it was meant to give the British public an idea of what it was like on the battle front. The film was a great success, watched by about 20 million people in Britain in the first six weeks of exhibition and distributed in eighteen other countries.
Love the Erik Satie in the background!
Actually a very absorbing and convincing documentary. Lessons for today's world?
dont let the you know whos do this again.
Wilson and DLG might have been "liberal", but political liberalism should not be confused with social justice or equality.
For both, it was not about either.
It was about the superiority of the own system.
For DLG (and the French of course too) is was the continued rule of empires.
For Wilson it was about eclipsing "empires" with a new system, *their system* , which was corporate capitalism.
For Wilson, the Treaty of Versailles was about "creating a better world" which would lead to a decline of European imperialist empires, by propagating values which would ultimately lead to the overthrow (from the bottom up) of empires by the inhabitants of those empires.
The Europeans obviously saw through this plan, and wanted a League of Nations which would serve their interests, not lead to THEIR demise in the long run.
Obviously, the nations in these empires struggling for self-determination, which could point at actual signed documents, would have had a much easier path to freedom.
At Versailles a struggle took place between "the old" (European imperialism) and "the new" (American imperialism).
Roosevelt eventually achieved that under pressure during WW2 (Atlantic Charter), because in a world of ever-increasing, more widely distributed wealth and education, "the old" didn't stand a chance.
A "Re-Upload"?
They did an Excellent Job with "The De-Nationalization" of Germay and It's People
+donben91 Yes, it is a re-upload, donben, but not by choice. If a film has a certain number of views, any editing now requires it to be saved as a 'new video', so my apologies! Regards - Alan.
I bet a lawyer thought of that
Germany and its people. In english
How apt to have the great-granddaughter of Prime Minister Lloyd-George, Professor Margaret Macmillan, to host this documentary.
I agree far too biased and ignoring facts in her opening statement.
@@bobbyburnstein8 She's actually very critical of many of his choices/decisions in her books.
dumbest treaty ever.
and it cost them all the empires in the end, no one won
A dumb solution to a dumb war!
"Germany must pay a toll of 6.6 billion US Dollars in order to aid French recovery from the Great War"(Massively Paraphrased) That's Germany paying for a war started by Austria and their involvement in it was due to Russian involvement in the war between Serbia and Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Maybe, but you are making the assumption that they would actually have treated the war in the same way we did, and given no fighting took place on German soil, they likely wouldn't have made them as harsh and even if they were, rather than giving them to the 4th Country to entre the war (which Germany was) they most likely would have gone to Serbia, For it was their General "The Bee" who hired Princip to Assassinate Franz Ferdinand.
Even if this was the case, in my opinion, the terms would still have gone to the wrong country, which for me would have been Austro-Hungry for it was they by whom Serbian Bosnia was invaded in 1908 which set in course the events that would eventually led to World War twice, the of Communism and Fascism, Cold War, and even conflicts as recent as the last Chechnian War.
How so ?
"we have dressed in our bests, and prepared to go down with the ship! ................ah but we would like a brandy?" - some smart man
Take the brandy. The ship will leave the tip. For a few seconds
From the introduction:
"The trouble with hindsight is that you know how the story ends..."
Which is actually incorrect. In 1919 there were hundreds who actually *predicted* "how the story *would* end", each with own motivations. From the advocates of "eternal war" like Foch ("armistice for 20 years") to those stating that there was better way of doing things, like Keynes.
Right or wrong?
Irrelevant, because we know how the story ended.
And that story started with a little corporal, infuriated so much that he vowed to enter politics. The "seed" was sown, and the "reaping" came later...
Prediction is not knowledge. It is relevant whether these predictions were right or wrong. That the Versailles Treaty would lead to tension between Germany and France was predictable, yes, but we cannot forget that Germany was doing quite alright economically by 1928 - until 1929 struck and threw Germany in an economic spiral. Just because Foch and Keynes ended up being right that the Versailles treaty would not solve all the world's problems, does not mean they accurately predicted (or knew) what was going to happen.
@@terrab1ter4 Yes, that is correct.
One could state that allied leaders "risked disaster" even though they did not know how the future would unfold. Hitler became chancellor, and later dictator in a way entirely unpridictable in 1919, and in a democratic election in which the people voted "with empty stomachs and empty pockets" for an "anti-establishment guy"...
However, that is not my point.
My point is in the last paragraph, and refers to the Biblical heed to all human beings to "beware of the seeds we sow". Versailles "sowed" a bad seed, and that such unwise political actions *will* have negative repercussions at some point, is "foreseeable", even if not "predictable".
To reach the conclusion that it is "foreseeable", we again can turn to the Bible to conclude that one is "wise" if one is not "unfair" to others (Solomon?).
Therefore "fair" = "to do onto others, as we wish to be done onto" = wise.
Versailles was not wise, and therefore led to dissatisfaction.
The "seed sown" was Hitler, who said of Versailles that it made him chose politics. The opposite is then also true. If there had been a wiser end to the war (which we could discuss further if you wish), Hitler would not have chosen politics, and would therefore not have been head of the DAP, later NSDAP in 1933. [Of course, we would probably have seen a "right shift" in the early-1930s as a result of the world-wide Depression, but this right wing would (without Hitler) have been splintered with conflicting agendas.]
Personally I'm getting kind of tired of our leaders going around imposing "onto others" what they would never have accepted themselves, and then not accepting the responsibility for their actions.
Even today, we suffer from this attitude.
Ask how that corporal got enough financial support early in his political career.
@@judithinsley9358 He got financial support from the elites.
People who thought: "there might be something in it for us and our cause if we support a populist".
The "anti-establishment guy" for the disenchanted masses...
Money in politics is one of the biggest problems with politics, because politicians will do what they are paid for, not what is right. Europeans have learnt the lesson...well, sort of...
@@ralphbernhard1757 money isnt the problem with politics. Unchecked power is the problem.
Excellent production. Thank you.
Horrific, dreadful, shameful... I am brought to tears over how many young men were lead to believe this war would be a 'normal one' as had been seen for the last 50 years prior, where wars would last for less than a year and be fought with arms and means that would see our fellow man only left with their surplus army men taken from the general population, this one however would see great numbers of not only the travelling war effort's men, but men at home injured, for for the first time a 'war machine' had developed which had never been seen before on this planet...
New arms developed to reap the benefits of war; man-shredding machines and arms on the battlefield and overhead, and would be sowed for generations to come as the men that fought in the war and survived with grave injuries returned distraught only to find if they were detractors that they would be the dregs of society, the war stricken, shell shocked souls were ridiculed for their injuries and tossed to the side, for they were not 'real men'...
i still can't believe that the ww1 ended today a 100th year and The last living veteran of World War die in 2012!!!!!
With respect, simplistic rendering of familiar Western-oriented narratives spun about the background, course and effects of the treaty.
A much fuller, complex and fresher approach towards the treaty can be gleaned in Adam Tooze's “The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931.”
+markpyruz There's a big difference between what can be achieved in a 59 minute video and a 583-page book.
Versailles was a failure, not because it was too harsh, but because it was to lenient.
I see current day influence, taking its toll on historical analysis...
Pherhaps so. Maybe I was to rash. Perhaps it’s main failure was that it ceased to be enforced after the 1933.
@@dantecaputo2629 In hindsight yes.
But at the time Germany was not considered a danger.
Communism was, and an opposite pole to aggressive communist expansion was felt appropriate.
For further reading, I suggest googling:
The Communist Manifest
The Comintern
Soviet re-armament in the Five Year Plans 1928 and 1933
Deep Battle (aka "Blitzkrieg")
Communist takeover of Mongolia
The Soviet invasion of China 1934
As an Empire with millions of poor and unsatisfied subjects, to whom communism might seem very appealing, London obviously felt that allowing Germany to rearm as a potential future ally might be forthcoming.
Also maybe Google The British policy for the continent, called Balance of Power.
After massive Soviet armament, which came first, something was needed to "balance" that out...
I worked for a painting business that had one wooden ladder and its name was Woodrow Wilson
😅🤣😂😁🤭
Ha,Ha Good One and quite apt!
the treaty is to blame for hitler hating the allies and wanting revenge , the treaty is created by the allies = allies are also partly responsible for what happened from 1939-1945
54:45 This documentary has been UTTERLY RUINED BY MUTES FOR THE SAKE OF GREEDY COPYRIGHT CLAIMS - COPYRIGHT SHOULD NEVER APPLY TO DOCUMENTARIES!
I must say I would have enjoyed this video much more if the sound didn’t keep disappearing lol
Due to a music copyright claim, unfortunately.
zing zong
Versailles caused WW2
Germany's national ambition wasn't extinguished. And her industrial might wasn't curtailed. These 2 combined made a future war probable IMHO.
What "national ambition"?
That sounds like a very specific claim.
How would you substantiate that?
+Ralph Bernhard The ambition to dominate the continent. After they were beaten...they tried again. Why was the stabbed in the back myth so widespread? Why did they think they deserved to win against the UK/France/Russia/US/Canada/Australia/Italy/Serbia/Romania rather against the odds? (I didn't say "world" because I'm not sure many Germans saw that as realistic. Napoleon dominated the continent and said if he could only beat the royal navy he'd "have the world".)
Steve Christie In case you mean an economic "domination" of the continent, then I agree.
As the popular saying goes, "everybody wants to rule the world", and in this respect some (note, some) Germans were no different to some Brits, French, Americans or Russians at the time. Trying to be king of the mountain is a natural instinct in many dominant and ambitious males, not only German males.
As for the more specific 'military dominance' and ' national ambition', I have to disagree.
The German declaration of war in 1914 was a result of the escalating deterioration of international affairs after the 'trigger' of Sarajevo.
To find one's own particular scapegoat is a bit of a futile affair, since that would mean overstating the steps of ' the other side', while at the same time understating the steps of the own side or allies.
Needless to say, there was no 'road map' for war by any nation, and no false flags, or WMD-style propaganda efforts before the Sarajevo assassination.
Europe simply stumbled towards war, since the egoistic and proud leaders on all sides were too uncompromising to step down from a position once taken, risking war as an alternative to "national disgrace".....
I'm glad those days are over.
+Ralph Bernhard We can't blame the Balkans as the "trigger" could have been anywhere in Europe. What matters are the underlying opinions of the countries aforementioned.
When Kaiser Wilhelm II's parents died he went through their possessions convinced they were pro-British at the expense of Germany. His uncle Edward VII met him and was worried about his warmonger mentality. Left-wing newspapers in Germany encouraged a war with the UK.
Russia/France/UK didn't want a powerful Germany and were willing to cooperate to put an end to her expansionist ambition.
If Germany didn't have expansionist ambition and France/Russia/UK didn't care about Germany's rising great power status, no way would they go to war over an obscure A-H royal. Imagine if the A-H Empire was stable and the UK was the unstable one with Irish/Scottish/Welsh terrorist attacks against "London's domination". Imagine the same backdrop, where France and Russia are willing to preserve the UK and are wary of Germany's rising power, and Germany is willing to help Irish/Scottish/Welsh dissidents. Light the fuse: UK's George V's assassination in 1914 Dublin and boom you have WWI. Gonna blame Ireland this time?
Who cares which fuse was lit?
To those who are saying that Versailles was not harsh or too lenient, I bet you all detest the reunification of Germany in 1990!
Nope
@@TimMillernapavalleyfilmworks What???
Watching from India
the idea was to destroy germany completely
The idea was the weaken Prussia (carved up by the creation of the artificial "Corridor"), but to leave Germany sufficiently strong to guard against the potential rise of Moscow or Warsaw (and their "Polish Intermarium" dreams)..
Empowering little "beta males" like Warsaw, was classical "divide and rule" tactic....
All of this, in line with the continental policy called Balance of Power.
Apparently, what people wanted for themselves (freedom, liberty and self-determination as set as a standard by Wilson's 14 Points) played little role, and can be filed under "L" for "lip service to liberals"....
Absolutely. Got it in one, Herr Meyer
They tried to make the "war to end all wars" actually end all wars.
We ought to forgive them sometime.
Very disappointing content based on distorted views and lack of understanding the entire situation and the historical aftermath of the treaty. I even would go further, the opinions presented are totally lacking the perspective of the nations on the suffering side. Many issues are just as unresolved today as they have been in 1919 after decades of struggle and neglect. To my point, may I encourage to observe the current situation in Europe.
Alsace and Lorraine weren't just a barrier. They were also mega rich in iron and coal. Germany was screwed without this wealth.
Yes, correct.
After a 1,000 years of Europeans tearing each other apart for control of resources, and strategic gain (geostrategy), who would've guessed that actually sharing these on an equal basis could be the start of something good...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community
And that's the Greed of a Senile Old Idiotic Politician that can and will have totally logical consequences.
Seeing the suffering of the solders in WW1 I realize I have no reason to complain about anything.
Starting a comment with an appeal to the readers' emotions usually means the commenter doesn't have a stronger argument for a cause.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
That then usually means, unless a stronger argument in favor of a "total disaster treaty" can be presented that the commenter will in future probably fall for similar appeals to emotions, if made to him by weak leaders aiming to score cheap "brownie points" for current causes....
You either watched this in school or are watching this for a homework essay
I disagree with how the treaty was against Germany they should blame Serbia for assassinating the arch duke of Austria Hungary
Don't be silly.
I've always wondered the same thing Germany was so done wrong
True
Germany was held responsible for turning what should have a local conflict into a world war
Serbia did assist in the assassination, but, by invading Belgium, Germany pulled the British Empire and her allies into the war, causing the war to spread. In short: Germany turned what should have been a local conflict into a world war
Please see how many countries had agreements with other countries. Germany with the Austrians,Russia with Serbia, England with Russia etc,etc,etc. The only thing Germany was guilty of is being the last one to quit! The other powers that brought Germany into the conflict all were beaten but not punished in Versailles. Facts matter in history and Life.🤔
The Versailles Treaty was stupid. The Germans were not even allowed to participate. A century earlier, the French, who had ravaged Europe for some 2 decades under their emperor Napoleon, did sit at the conference table in Vienna in 1815.
Some have argued that the financial stipulations of the treaty were fair comparing them to the reparations imposed by Imperial Germany on defeated France in 1871. It is a fact, however, that the French paid everything off in 2 years. Apparently, the wine harvests were very good in 1871 and 1872.
I would argue, however, that the territorial concessions caused the most grief. I am not referring to Alsace-Lorraine or Silesia. Most probably would have been able to live with losing these territories. I think Germans viewed the so-called ‘Polish Corridor’ as the most offensive because it split their country in two. The corridor was created to give the newly established Poland access to the Baltic Sea. Still, can anyone imagine a line being drawn through France, to give another country, access to a port on the Atlantic; a corridor that would split France in two. And imagine you want to visit or bring food to the other side and those in control of the corridor decide rather arbitrarily whether to let you enter. How do you think the French would have felt about that?
Does anybody else see the irony of the treaty of Versailles being signed on the 28th of June 1919? That’s the 5 year anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
It was done deliberately for that reason, Scott.
Hey Dr.! I appreciate the things you've accumulated here. I just hate to learn LOL
Comparing the eve of WWI, WWII and today, there seem to be similarities and patterns.
Something can not be taken care by one or two agreements among the countries but something that uncontrollably drives people to fight, even by breaking the rule of democracy.
Will there be a WWIII?
My prediction is resounding yes.
I don't see any force to counter act it.
I'm sure many academics are in effort to look into it and find a solution.
I can't imagine mankind just let this keep going over and over.
In America, the GOP in power in the Senate, refused to accept the treaty.
Opposition to the treaty was actually bipartisan and as it takes a two/thirds majority to ratify a treaty, a Democratic majority in and of itself would not have helped.
And thank God for that. Too bad we didn't avoid becoming ensnared in the monstrosity that is the UN after WW2.
With all due respect to Dr. MacMillan, I do think mistakes were made that could be seen without hindsight. I think Wilson's idea of "peace without victory" was the higth of hubris, and the French and British were forced to go along because of their indebtedness to and dependence on the Americans. I think the Entente Powers should have invaded Germany and demanded surrender.
If you had been in charge, why would you have invaded a country which had accepted an armistice, leading to (potentially) millions more dead?
Wilson's 'peace without victory' was a good idea, but simply put, badly implemented....
Because they had no operable defense. All the Entente needed to do was march; that's why.
David Rodgers So if you were a boxer and the opponent throws the towel, you would keep on punching?
This wasn't boxing, this was war.
David Rodgers Exactly. War has the potential to tear nations apart...see Vietnam. WW1 was no different.
depts.washington.edu
Note, that this article is merely the tip of the iceberg, when it comes the topic of 'war weariness' by 1918. There were similar movements in all European nations, including GB and France.
So, if your 'march to Berlin' had turned into another slaughter fest, or got stuck at the Rhine...and the body bags started piling up in what was already an extremely unpopular war, well....
Woodrow Wilson was a dreamer. The League of Nations of which he is at the origin was a serious failure. From 1922 Germany signed with the USSR the training of its soldiers in camps in Russia by the Treaty of Rappallo (Genova) Italy on April 16, 1922.
Germany should have left all troops on The Marne to finish the job
The Germans complaining about the "harshness" of the Versailles Treaty is somewhat hypocritical. After all, as Clemenceau remarked, the War didn't start "because Belgium invaded Germany". Northeastern France had been devastated by the war. Where Germany suffered little to no physical damage. So the demand for reparations seemed just. As for the German bitterness over territorial losses to Poland in the east, the Germans seemed to have forgotten that most of the land given to Poland (including that which made up the Polish Corridor), had been grabbed by Germany at the time of the Partitions. German anger over lands given to Poland had much more to do with racist anti-Polish attitudes in the German people. And the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with defeated Russia, shows what the Germans would have done, had they won the war.
Why do you think one must be German to "complain about the harshness of Versailles", rather than a rational human being, pointing out how stupid it was?
First off...Clemenceau.
Maybe he forgot that it was France and Russia which expanded the "Third Balkan War" of 1914 into a "Continental European War" when French PM Poincare handed the Russia Tzar a "blank cheque" to foolishly mobilize their forces. Only against Austria-Hungary of course...of course...
ww1live.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/2071914-poincare-begins-his-state-visit-to-russia/
Those sloppy Russians have mislaid every record of that meeting, but it seems obvious that steps to undertake own interests in the Balkans, were discussed.
No sooner was Poincare on a boat back to France, than the Russian army mobilized as the first power to do so.
No coincidence.
Furthermore, apart from the fact that WW1 did not exist in July 1914, but de facto did exist in August 1914 (name it "Great War" or whatever) was a result of free choice.
WW1 was a war of choice for all the major powers, except Belgium.
Had there been no French blank cheque to Russia, there would have been no WW1, but rather a "3rd Balkan War".
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk actually directly did the people's of the Caucasus, and the Ukraine a favor, releasing them from centuries of Moscow's influence. In the long run, they would have gained their complete independence, under the hegemony of Berlin-Vienna-Budapest.
Indirectly, the campaigns in the east created the incentives for Fins, Latvians, Letts, and others, to free themselves from Moscow (independence, in the wake of Moscow's weakness).
Why would this eventual independence and freedom have been such a bad thing?
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli. Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did *not* invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
Finally, the idea that it was "the nasty Germans carving up Poland", which is a logical fallacy known as "historian's fallacy"...
www.rightattitudes.com/2018/06/07/the-historian-fallacy/
Firstly, not only Germany, but also Russia and Austria-Hungary carved up the Polish Kingdom, which up to that point in time had aggressively expanded its sphere of influence.
As for the people who actually lived here, they didn't care much, because nationalism didn't exist yet, and for the most part the simple farmers simply picked up their lives after a war had passed over, and found themselves with a different set of French-speaking aristocrats in charge, to pay taxes to....
[Note, a general truth for all of Europe at the time]
The idea of "nations" as "states" did not exist yet, and therefore criticizing from today's point of view is illogical.
Nationalism only slowly developed....
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
...and wasn't firmly embedded in the majority's conscience until, say the early-20th century.
Education had improved, books were more widely read, and knowledge and ideas spread more easily.
As the timeline shows, what could be considered wrong in 1900, wasn't wrong in the late-18th century, when "carving up taxpayers" by the elites was the norm.
By the late-19th century, "drawing lines on the map" without considering the opinions of those being "carved up", was getting a bit iffy....
By the early-20th century (as it is indeed still today), *not* asking the people what they want for themselves is simply asking for uprisings, revolutions, or even war...
Note also that German-Polish talks about independence started in 1916, under the pressures of war, and if those talks had continued after 1918, Poles could have had an own state on the territory on which Poles were also the majority of inhabitants. Not implementing the 14 Points (plebiscite to determine majorities), and stealing the people's right to chose their own political destiny, lay the foundation for WW2.
"Wilson was the villain of the piece". !
+Bill King Or as some would have it, Bill, "the villain of the _peace_!"
Did u misspell 'peace' on purpose?
All of them were villains...
... of pie?
Just to clairfy, it's an old expression referring to a bad guy in a story or a play
After more than a century of French invasions of Germany (in which the French returned to France only after practicing scorched earth in Germany), characterizing Germany as this video does demonstrates a deliberate manipulation of history.
28:06 The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) declared their independence in 1918.
@pammens miss If "Putin invades" the Baltic States it will be because of another "little war over by Christmas" in the ME, Iran to be exact, started without consultation....
A contested sphere of influence, and world leaders intent on "not stepping down this time".
This video is very unique ~!
+Dr Alan Brown Thanks for posting this; I often find the comments as interesting as the documentary in terms of what it tells you about perceptions :). One that is often repeated is 'Versailles caused WWII;' I've said that myself in the past, but...I wonder how true it is.
The issues of pre-1914 Germany included militarism, regionalism (the continued existence of Bavaria, Saxony etc and their resentment at Prussian dominance often gets ignored), democratic forms without a democratic culture, class conflict (arguably that between the middle class and aristocracy was the most damaging because it led to the naval race) etc.
All of these issues were present in Weimar Germany but none of them were caused by Versailles. Prussia lost territory - but outside the Junkers class, who cared? The 100,000 army - limiting for career soldiers but again, who else? The Freikorps were a short-lived symptom of the reality that you can't train people to fight and die for four years, then suddenly turn it off, not necessarily a continued desire for militarism.
The big industrial combines like Krupp actually gained from hyper inflation because it eliminated their Reichsmark-denominated debts - the rentier class lost out but it was the winners who funded the Nazis. Their strength is reflected today in how many modern German companies (Krupp, BASF, Siemens, Allianz, Bayer etc) have been around since before 1914. Despite the headline figures on reparations, very few were ever paid (whereas the UK only finished reimbursing the US for WWI war debts in 2000).
I know you can take this too far but it's one of those 'everyone knows this' facts that isn't necessarily correct. Versailles was a recurring theme of Hitler's speeches but that's like 22nd century historians using Donald Trump's speeches to understand US attitudes towards Mexico. The rank and file of the SA saw themselves as social revolutionaries - their issue was the continued predominance of the pre-war power elites, not Versailles. Gregor Strasser's radical faction lost out in 1934 but the Night of the Long Knives was a pre-emptive strike backed by the Army to stop revolution, not support it.
So we could argue the problem with Versailles is that it didn't go far enough because it failed to address the major fault lines in German society - and even then, the Nazis were not inevitable. 'The Strange Death of Liberal England' could be equally paralleled by 'The Weird Demise of the Weimar Republic.'
Germans are not idiots,
it took Versaille & then hyper inflation and economical depression from 1929 for them to want someone like Hitler.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'Germans are not idiots' since I didn't imply that.
Your answer simply validates my point; Versailles was 1919. Hyper inflation began in late 1922 (at least partly due to deliberate German government policy) and stabilized by end 1923. In the 1928 Federal elections, the Nazis won 2.6% of the vote.
Neither Versailles nor hyper inflation were factors in 1932; economic collapse was but even then, the Nazis were invited into government by conservative Nationalists who thought they could use them. So the idea
and let's not forget italy went fascist without having to pay war reparations
there is much more to social upheaval than just reparations of course.
The day Europe surrendered
The Versailles Treaty was the seed of the next war. I'm starting to think it was intended to be.
you see well, or speak the right language. it was/is just part of the Great conflict of greed vs the slave. a perpetual war with no end unless drastic measures are taken.
After all was said and done, Germany ended up paying less than 20% of the judgement against them before the entire fine/debt was forgiven in 1933....so the reality of the situation doesn't quite match up with the notion that the seeds of WWII were planted in Paris in 1919. Things like the crash 0f '29, which was of global impact, and the appearance, and rapid rise of, Fascist National Socialism in Germany around about the same time were much more instrumental in bringing about WWII than was the Treaty of Versailles
@@Bix12 this "fine" was paid until 2010 idiot
Agreed
@@humdidoadi it just a publicity move at this point.
Hopefully the person who did the sound editing on this video will never edit any video again.
That would be RUclips, Roy. Because of music copyright claims, some sections have been muted.
@@oasis6767 you can easily remove the music
So why is there a silence in this documentary from 47 minutes for a minute or so? What is silenced here? Why?