@@kylezdancewicz7346the idea of an independent Luxembourg is related to the hre. Luxembourg started off as one of the houses vying for control over the Holy Roman Empire along with the Wittelsbachts and the Hapsburgs. Although, a lot of other really old duchies within the hre were destroyed in the treaty of Vienna or when Germany was founded including the Wittelsbachts that controlled Bavaria
Because he knows many disagree and will bash him for it just like he glt bashed for the HRE vs Rome poll recently where he acted like HRE was more Roman than the Eastern Roman Empire
yeah, my camera is right over my computer, so im looking slightly down. Also my ring light was too bright so i was squinting a bit. i will try to improve that going forward
also, it's a matter of the subjects being talked about, not many young people are interested in them and any intellectually stimulating wordplay will naturally be assumed to come from someone wise, usually an older person
To be fair to the Germans during the war, they actually didn't have a solid endgame planned for how spoils and land would be distributed. They really didn't have any kind of endgame planned for any of it actually, which is a little surprising considering the Prussian's usual penchant for intensive planning. The territorial claims you cited as the German plan for post-war reparations and concessions is a combination of several proposals put forward by elements within the German Imperial hierarchy, none of which were eve officially agreed upon with the exception of Brest-Litovsk. And even then, there was intense confusion over how far the new borders would extend, because the specifics of who occupied what in the Brest-Litovsk treaty were already outdated by the time it was signed. Plus there are some indications that the treaty which was signed was not actually intended to be the final draft, but that someone rushed it out so they could have SOMETHING signed, which left the German authorities scratching their heads at how the treaty didn't match up with the reality on the ground, nor with what they'd actually hoped to accomplish with it, hence the way it was "disregarded" in order to recognize more land as independent of Russia (which had likely been the closest thing they had to an actual plan before someone jumped the gun with Brest-Litovsk). As for French teritorial concessions, that was all purely hypothetical, and was one of several evolving proposals being floated inside the German high command during the war. It was the harshest though, so people latched onto it after the war to present it as THE German plan for Europe, despite the fact that it was never firmly agreed on and was in competition with several other proposals. The same is true for Belgium, which you sort of addressed, as well as for Africa, where there was a lot of disagreement over how much to take, and what Mittelafrika should even look like (or whether it should even exist). Then there was the Austrian question, which played into the confusion over Brest-Litovsk, since the death of Franz Joseph and the abysmal performance of the Austro-Hungarian military during the war threw the entire post-war map of Europe into question. What territories (if any) should be ceded to Austria-Hungary? Would there even BE an Austria-Hungary to cede territory to? Had their poor performance been enough to justify reneging on early-war agreements in regards to their claims in Poland? The reality was that neither side had any clear idea of what they wanted the map to look like when the war ended. The only point of absolute certainty was that France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back. Everything else was up in the air and up for debate for all parties until ink was put to paper at Versailles.
@@sokal03 I agree with the quote used in the video "It was too soft for its hardness and too hard for its softness" if the treaty of Versailles was to be effective it would have too either be harsh or fair, if it were harsh it would make it impossible for germany to bounce back as fast as it did and if it was fair it would make Germany disinterested in starting another war. The treaty in reality half assed both of these and as such led to WW2 With this said, if the video was to be honest, it should be called "what if the treaty of Versailles was effective" because to call what he made "fair" is simply insane
theyre losers that do nothing, doesnt matter if they get mad, if they try shit they get bombed. shouldve backed the winning horse rather than playing fence sitter.
Which means that in the next war, the Dutch wouldn't fight to stop the Germans,they would likely view them as liberators instead. Which means that the Allies immediately have a flank problem.
@thevoid5503 in ww2 the Dutch were invaded by the Germans and quickly crumbled, them being on germanys side effects the tide of war so little that it's almost a negative value. The entire point of this video is to entirely dismantle the germany and reward the Entente. The gains Belgium make here are valued more than the a hostile netherlands could devalue.
The problem with Germany's borders, especially with France, is that France has had a territorial state for several centuries and Germany has had one for a few decades. It is therefore difficult to determine who has the right to what, since until 1815 France was not faced with a major power in the Rhine area that could prevent the annexation of German territories. In the end, the only solution for peace would be the Saarland solution. So democratic votes in which the people are allowed to decide for themselves and nothing is forced on them by emperors or politicians. Still an interesting video with well developed ideas
It is very naive believes for this, anyone cares what's people thinks. In Silesian plebiscite on Upper Silesia Germans transport to vote peoples who's just born in this region but not still live in this places, or even not to born in Upper Silesia but try claim this. In Saarland may be a similar situation, thousands people from Saxony, Bavaria, Meklembug or Hannover just presenting themselves a natives born in this land. Or French try something similar with soldiers from Picardy, Normandy, Bretogne... just prove origin. Saarland being industrial area could became hotpoint in map of Europe, just like Upper Silesia in 1920' or Bosnia before WWI
How could giving away Dutch and Luxembourgish land even be remotely justified? They didn’t participate in the war, it’d be ridiculous to expect them to cede that much land and is just an insanely unrealistic ask. At that point you’re practically pushing the Dutch into fascism and painting the entente as imperialists who are just concerned with expanding their power. How can anyone trust the entente if they’re going around and forcing their way on neutral countries?
@@lu9asx no? In the case of Schleswig, Germany lost land to a neutral country. What this guy is suggesting is the equivalent of the allies pushing for France to annex the French speaking portions of Switzerland after World War II. I genuinely cannot think of a. instance where a neutral country just gave up land in a peace treaty for a war they weren’t involved in, let alone in the 20th century. There is no world where in the age of nationalism the Dutch are just ok with giving up something like 15% of their land area without fighting a war to try and keep it, that’s just insane. And again, the goal here is to build a long lasting peace, and this guys method of doing that is just bullying the Dutch for some reason, all while making them resentful and ready to jump at the first opportunity granted to take back land blatantly robbed from them.
Limburg also had a strong regional identity and had little desire to join Belgium, Zealand could have just been demilitarized too. The whole thing with the dutch its forcing them towards facism, and in turn making Indonesia's resources inaccessible to the allied power
@@jimmothy3012 The japs would take care of that later anyways. Also, why would this lead them to fascism? Their support of Germany against Belgium is the reasoning he gives.
Okay i will say some things,i think should have been done:Poland should not have received lands from Germany,or at least should have received lands in a way Prussia is not split off,maybe idk annex Lithuania or smh.Alsace loraine should be get back by French.Belgium should get Luxembourg,Denamrak should bot have received part for nit fighting at all Economically,germany should have to pay bug war debt,but their milutary ahould be far less harsly punished,put army at 300k max,and make arifirce and navy limited to small number They shall nit have been acc7sed if being war provocated,they officially at least,defended their alliance
This timelines axis will consist of Germany, Russia, Austria, Hungry and the Netherlands. Actually I think they might have a shot (unless the USA joins)
Pretty biased considering Germany offered several far better and more fair peace deals to the Russians who continued refusing them until their soldiers just stopped fighting at all. Germany could have taken all those resource rich areas from the French after the Franco Prussian war but did not as they wanted a friendly France but did not get that. That was germanys error not crippling France after the war. Back to the world war Woodson points were clear and Germany agreed to peace based on these points. Then all those Germans who should have been allowed to join Germany as they wanted to. Places with a German majority should have become part of Germany and it’s weird that Germany gets bigger after a war but they would lose their colonies, pay reparations and most importantly have lost their Allies. Perhaps Germany would not have been so hostile had the points been followed that people will belong to the country that makes the most sense instead of just drawing lines on a map and making new borders. We seen how great those random lines on maps worked out in the Middle East, thanks a lot France & Britain for that btw.
Yeah this videoclassifies 'fairness' based on 'it was done like this in the past' or 'Germany did it too'. Forgetting that: A) this will just breed another war B) it sets up the continued president that expansion and colonialisation won through war is good, and that self-determination is not a right for all but only the strong.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 To be honest the thing I'm most interested in is what would happen to the Dutch in the inevitable 2nd world war, along with how the Dutch protestants would be treated in catholic Belgium in the interim.
@@Videntis.History except you did in many areas such as Danzig which was 95% German or the Saar area which was again overwhelmingly German Also non of these areas wanted to be part of the states you assigned them to, nor was annexation even politically realistic.
Alsace-Lorraine had the largest textile producers in France and the fighting has already devastated most of the valuable territories of France during Franco-Prussia War.
I have some doubts about the effectiveness of Versailles in determining any borders east of the Vistula. If I recall correctly those borders are mainly decided by the Polish Soviet War and the Russian Civil War, not the Paris Peace Conference
He never lied. It was harsh. Only the fact that we lost land to the danes who literally did nothing during the war. And the fact that we got seperated from Königsberg.
@@confusedmango6557 optimistic. Considering that France would be seen (rightfully) as an imperialistic power, high on napoleon nostalgia, Germany would get a giant coalition of every scorned power. France is neutered by their internal politics, Poland by ethnic tensions.
I don't really think, that it's fair giving Belgium land of Netherland just because they were neutral and Germans chose to not invade them. It's almost like beating up neigbgour's kid after his father beat you up
The Netherlands didn't support the Germans, they just didn't stop trading. Should Sweden be punished after ww2? Not to mention that the Netherlands didn't allow German troops through their country for the invasion, they allowed the Germans to retreat through Dutch Limburg. Also Vlissingen? Excuse me, that city has never been Belgian and has no connection with the country.
no the idea with Poland probably wasnt explained well here. This would be the land granted to Poland but I wouldnt expect Poland to actually hold that much land in the east. I explain a bit more on the french foreign policy in part 2. Basically France would get further aims for the Germans, and have a huge incentive to actively support Poland in the east against teh Soviets. Despite that, Poland would not get that much land. Giving them this in the treaty would hopefully allow them to stop fighting with Poland, cut a deal over the Inflanty voivodship with Latvia to get them to join them. (In return for poland-lithuania dropping the territory) Polesia is essentially a Polish Belarussian hybrid, but they wouldnt be that large. Also, if the Poles had more support they could have taken less of Belarus and more of Ukraine. But the eastern border isnt that important. The allies are making an empty promise to Poland to get them to fight more against Russia and forcing France to send direct aid if they want to remain dominant on the continent. Sorry if thats a bit rambly but that was my thought process there.
So, Belgium letting French airships pass through them before Schlieffen, suspiciously declining fully paid German passage or for possible damages after still counts as neutrality, and attacking them repropbable?
As a point of military strategy, this plan creates a strong position for the Entente, particularly France and Poland, so I'd say the strategic goals of an Entente victory are met. While there are some contentions I have over the western borders, particularly in regards to the Netherlands, I consider the proposal reasonable enough in the interest of Belgian reparation and French security for it to be considered fair. My main skepticism comes from the Polish conditions, or more just in the way you presented them. The Silesian division is fine for the outermost subdivisions, but the transfer of the middle division into Poland, bar the obvious industrial and military benefits, is a tenuous prospect for incorporation into a Polish state wholly, so a further division may have been in order. The Posen transfer is reasonable and your points well justified, so I have little contention on that point and the same, surprisingly to me goes for the Polish strip, bar Mecklenberg which I consider mildly overstretching as a claim. The meat of my issues with this proposal come in the styling of the Polish control of these territories as being more humane than the alternative, particularly in the bit discussing how Poland would not have engaged in German deportations or cultural repression. Regardless of the origins of the German settlers, their presence in the region should not have been swept under the rug so casually. If a group existed that did not wish to be ruled by the Poles, there would be animosity between the peoples, and in such case of escalation, the government of Poland would have to respond through either crackdowns or deportation for national security if nothing else. Furthermore, I find it unlikely that Poland would have the inclination to rule with a light hand following the centuries of German domination, so it's far from unlikely that a similar nationalistic sentiment would spring up and use Germans as a primary target for a common enemy to promote national unity. In sum, it just feels like a significant change of tone from the western borders that seemed fairly reasoned, if a bit controversial, to some segments of the Polish section that gave an impression of "Germany bad in past, Poland should be big, Germans should kick rocks, Poles better rulers". I recognize this may be an unintentional aspect of the segment, or simply my own perspective on it, but I felt I should voice it anyway. Lastly, I found the idea of the USPL initally unrealistic, but on second consideration it seems if not likely than at least reasonable, and it is an interesting idea to pursue. I do consider the Eastern borders to be a source of contention with Belorussian and Ukrainian ambitions in future, so I believe it would be more realistic to have either the greater USPL or a more cohesive Intermarium, but not both together. Overall though, I did enjoy the vid and look forward to the next one. Good job 👍
One sidenote about Kashubians: majority sided with Poland... but when Poland came, most regretted it. Polish parliamentary committee even noted, that ages of germanisation did not make the Kashubians sympathise with Germany as much as Polish army did in one year.
Ill be real. One of the main problems i see with this alt history in the east is the idea that poland and lithuania wouldnt entirely ignore their new constitution to marginalise those 'incorporated' into the restored commonwealth. Both the nation states were extremely nationalistic and truthfully this whole proposal in the east would likely lead to even more divided poland than in our own timeline, much too unstable to stand as an actual nation. This doesnt mention the fact that ultimately germany would continue fighting rather than accept this peace for at least another year.
Yeah and the Americans qouldnt support that. Their goals were idialistic but when looking at such a piece you know who the bad guys are. Especially with the Americans wanting at least some form of ethnic borders which dont match at all with what poland would get. (Poland got like 10 million germans)
Prussian militarism is not fully broken with this treaty in fact I think it is actually strengthened because of the harsher treaty leading to an even greater desire for vengeance and the fact that there is not only a sizable enemy to the west but now also the east
I also think that the Dutch Will be pretty pissed. Because in there eyes they where punished whitout reason and the could become future Allies with germany
@@Videntis.History something tells me that your way to solve prussian militarism is by taken even more land because damn you made sure to enrage the germans, russians and dutch people to fight a second great war.
But doesn't the Belgium one kinda make your weighted claims and religious last resort goals invalid? Since a treaty that was signed 1 century prior would not be undone by the entente, because UK and France ratified it themselves and would make them seem imperialist, and would just cause another Allie or Anschluss for a future Germany to appear. While also giving Belgium that middle island without a claim with unlimited access to a sea because it kinda handy for them? While in our timeline it's was not even considered by the entente, like the Dutch demands after ww2
As an American of majority Italian decent, that part 2 better be just as long because otherwise this is basically just asking for a major rise in communist or fascist support in Germany, and even is likely to drag the Dutch on side against the entente. In fact, given how Greece was essentially forced to join the war, I can see a lot more people in the later years viewing the entente as imperialists who wanted to carve up Europe as much as they could get away with. Also, how on earth do you plan on ensuring prometheism works to it's fullest extent and enforcing it? The Entente did send people to fight against Soviets and supported the whites and despite this they stopped soon enough for a reason. So why and how would they get the support to ensure this by force? Further, even if it worked, communism wouldn't just cease to exist. It just wouldn't have a state to support it. This part seems a bit handwaved in my opinion, and if anything if this actually did succeed it just ensures Russia would join Germany in a future war rather than fight each other. Further, a France aligned Poland of such a size certainly would make the UK concerned over French power over the continent. If anything, all these changes fails to do what you set out as it simply hurts Germany bit more without crippling them industrially enough while pushing many neutral nations away from the entente. I know you said there would be a part 2, and many of your responses to comments like this seems to just be 'wait for part 2' however I have a feeling some of these points won't really be addressed. I really do not see how a 2nd world war is avoided here at this moment in time.
Now I see, your profile picture is just you with a beard hahahaha Also I must say, your voice sounds so happy like I always imagined you smiled during the recordings, it's so weird looking at this lmao As per the treaty, I mostly agree except for the parts where Belgium expands into the Netherlands, that seems a bit weird considering the Dutch were neutral during the war? But other than that, pretty good
I honestly think a more appropriate title for the video might be "what if the Treaty of Versailles was about destroying Germany?" this is not fair to the Dutch, Luxembourgers, Germans and all populations forced to join the Polish state. you lied many times about the ethnic composition of some regions, and when you were right you made the situation worse like in Danzig if it has a German majority why you have given it to the Poles? you tried to justify it with the problem of Poland's lack of ports but then you give it 2/3 of the Baltic coast to Poland. this just seems like anti-German sentiment to me I'm probably wrong but in the video it seems like that . I just pray that part 2 fixes this mess
@Videntis.History first sorry for using the word "lied" Second at the start of the video, you say that most of the territory lost was not ethnically german, and this is not true, especially in the western territory. alsace was a German majority territory and that part of Lorraine was like 40-30% Etnich German . For the Easter territory, using an American or Polish Etnich map is not any better of using a German one. The polish corridor was an Etnich mess the only real reason was given to Poland is because Poland needed access to the sea. Prussia was more German of what you say in the video .
@@Italienisch_freikorp Kaiser Wilhelm I said Alsace and Lorraine were not German. He explicitly said they were Frenchmen. The corridor had a clear slavic majority between the Kashubians and Poles. Even the German maps showed that. What do you mean Prussia was more German than I showed? I used official census data.
Germany started the war, killed millions, and at the end inflated its own economy in order to pay nothing for it. There is literally nothing Versailles could have done that would've been "harsh" or "unfair" on the germans.
@@sokal03The harshness of the original treaty led to hitler getting to power and finally ww2 Being fair would have avoided this. Maybe letting the Brest Litowsk Treaty so Germany wins in the East and the Rest as it was. So both sides would have won
@@Suchtel10 lmao no. Versailles being harsh was a lie produced by Hitler and the Nazis. In truth, the treaty was pretty normal in its harshness for the time.
He states openly that Germany only planned to take SOME French colonies, SMALL border territory, and make them pay 13 million marks. then proceeds to say that Germany losing a QUARTER of all European land, ALL of their colonies, and having to pay OVER 50 MILLION marks is somehow MORE LENIENT? Not only that, but the small border lands which Germany would have taken are NOTHING compared to the Rhine/Saar occupation and the Polish Corridor which would split apart core Prussian territory, I respect his opinion and the research he did, but I really feel like he is biased harshly against Germany. Not even mentioning that the British AFTER the war kept blockading Germany so that over a million Germans starved to death.
Pomerania is and always was primarily a core Polish teritiory, centuries before germs got there in the 1300s, after Teutons butchered Gdańsk's Polish population in 1308.
@@RexOlafusVidulusMagnus that doesnt mean to kick out the existing germans there, im talking about ethnic majorities and practicality, if you were gonna split prussia from the german mainland, just give it independence like austria at that point
I don’t necessarily agree with the war reparations bit. Yes the French payed back with smaller economy more than the Germans did in their respective wars but we need to keep in mind the current economic situation in both countries. The Franco Prussian war ended very swiftly while the First World War lasted years. The German economy was completely drained and in debt which caused the peoples argument with unable to pay war reparations.
the french had tons of devastation in their land, and were militarily occupied by the germans until the repaid them. I think it was harder for the french to repay the Germans in 1871 then for Germany in 1919.
@@Videntis.History Thats pretty bogus honestly. France lost around 12k people while germany had lost 15% of its young male population. Its not even remotely comparable. You also chose to compare frances numbers with the deflated reichsmark in 1920 where it already dropped significantly in value to the dollar in 1914 to artificially inflate frances numbers.
While your points are valid we do need to objectively think that if Germany, say, invaded Russia first instead of France, it would be France tearing up all of the Rhine River Valley if they tried advancing into Germany proper with them distracted in Russia. Would Germany still be the cause of the war then? I'd say yes, but the notion of France ruining the Rhine would be mentioned in a potential alternate Treaty of Versailles. What would your (and anyone else's) thoughts be on this alternate timeline?
I'm not gonna wait for the explanation of "It wasn't too harsh on the germans". It was. When you so thoroughly humiliate your adversary, force their actual legitimate government(headed by the Kaiser) to disband, then abuse it in the immediate years after the war(invasion by the French in the Rhineland). You leave no reason for reconciliation and by that path, moving on. You leave only a desire for vengeance against those that wronged it. Versailles guaranteed above all else through it's dictates, the rise of a dictator who would flagrantly disregard the treaty as Hitler did, and guarantee that he sought help from other authoritarian minded individuals to subvert it.
I explained how it wasnt harsh on the Germans in the video. Its in the first 15ish minutes. Respond to my points in the video. If you think what I said, which was backed up by sources, is wrong, explain how.
The Kaiser was overthrown by the Germans. Don't change history. Some people like you don't make the difference between history and using history to find arguments to justify political projects. But history is about processes, social classes, fight for power... At that time, Germans were a giant among nains and had no colonies, they wanted their "fair share". As the Kaiser Wilhem II said "the place in the sun".
The only area of the German empire that wasn’t majority German was the Province of Posen. Most areas that were given to other countries were primarily populated by German people, that were offered a choice of either leaving or exchanging their passports.
Checkout German Empire language census map from 1910 "Nationalitätenkarte des ostprovinzen des Deutsches Reich" and see for yourself (a map made by Germans btw)
This new treaty is even worse when it comes to planting resentment and future hostilities. I get the strategic power-balance considerations, but those are guaranteed to be seen as unjust and humiliating all the same. Wilson's promise of ethnic self-determination was a very significant factor in sapping the willingness of central power populations to continue the fight (and turning their ethnicities against each other). Disregarding it for strategic considerations will completely undermine its very idea and foster a feeling of betrayal - as it happened in our time. The Saarland will turn into the new Alsace-Lorraine given that its population had little interest in joining France and will be an important target for any revisionist movements within Germany. The Netherlands will likely bow to your new treaty, but will be outraged at this attack on their sovereignty and disregard for their neutrality. They will become the staunchest of German allies to avenge this perceived injustice done to them by the Entente powers. The population of Luxembourg will embrace their German heritage far tighter in a historic mirror to what happened after WW2 in OTL as a result of this conquest. Belgium might have been given important strategic territories but full of a population rife with opposition. It is likely that a "German" alliance will emerge between Dutch Limburg (local Limburgish is a low-German language) and Luxemburg (the German spelling now on purpose) who together with German minority populations will drive for autonomy and the establishment of a third counterpart to Flanders and Wallonia. While the new borders of Silesia will be unpopular, it is your plans for Prussia which will make the German population the most incensed as it is the clearest example of disregard of self-determination. There will be a large and economically powerful German minority within North-Western Poland which were never given a chance to voice their own opinion. In addition, while Polonization might be forbidden by law I highly doubt that it would be applied to the Kashubians, Masurians and Silesians who would have been considered Poles but were strongly influenced by German culture (and sometimes superiority beliefs) or were Protestants - there's a reason quite a lot of those actually voted to remain part of Germany when given the choice. The Memelland will be another area where there was a distinction towards their neighbors, because they saw themselves largely as Lithuanian Prussians (informed by their history and religion), not simply Lithuanians. The United States of Poland-Lithuania will be an incredibly fragile construct. Even if the proposed system was implemented, there will be internal opposition both from the Polish side who will try to curtail Lithuanian over-representation and from the Lithuanian side trying to undermine Polish dominance and blaming "those in Warsaw" for all the issues. Political divisions will be inflamed by a language divide. The new Lithuania will have large German, Polish and Protestant minorities, which will be seen as a foreign attack vector and likely result in repression resulting in radicalization of the minorities. Overall you created two largely equal power blocs with France, Belgium, Poland-Lithuania on the one and Germany, Netherlands, Russia on the other side. It will be interesting what your plans are for Italy, Austria-Hungary and the Balkans. However, so far you left out an incredibly important factor: The impact a Belgian-French success over the Anglos would have on domestic politics for Britain and the USA. And while I think the British might be content with being able to play the lynch-pin for continental disputes between the blocs, you have just caused a resounding fall of Wilson's government. I'd like to remind you that over a third of the US population were of Dutch and German descent and while they had little love for the German Empire, they were quite pro-German. What was OTL seen as a splendid foreign success and moral victory, will be seen as a foolish foreign policy adventure which only furthered French imperial goals, while getting American boys killed. At best that will push the Americans back into "splendid isolation", at worst it will cause them to leave the Entente and join the new alliance around Germany. In which case the British will likely need to stay on the French side as a counter-weight. So you might have just inadvertently caused the invasion of Canada.
Dutch Limburg for a long time wanted to join Belgium as opposed to the Netherlands, so that point is somewhat justifiable eventhough it would outrage the Dutch. Zeelandic Flanders and Vlissingen however is a different story. Both have been Dutch since the independence of the Dutch Republic.
Although the peace treaty was criticised, it was "accepted". The main problem was the repayments. During the Great Depression, the Allies came up with the idea of getting the money they needed from Germany. Money that we didn't have at the time and that completely ruined our economy.
The real problem is that Germany never accepted their defeat, so they never accepted to pay. That’s why we occupied Rhineland (and they totaly had the money)
This is untrue. Hyperinflation was deliberately engineered to wipe out domestic war debt. To fund the war, germany borrowed massively from its own citizens (war bonds) by sinking value of those bonds, german government get rid of that debt
@@thomaslewandowski3724 That is a false premise. After the was the SPD kept winning the elections, only the Great Depression and H-man`s political ability made the far right surge. The militarists surely didn`t accept the defeat, the average German had other things on his mind.
Im not sure i agree with the complete transferes of Danzig and half the Saarland. If danzig is mainly tranfered so the polish have a port on the coast, but then the poles are united with lithuania, do they not already have ports in lithuania? The immediate economy viability of the poles can be secured through an extended occupation of the city, that would be returned to germany following a plebiscite. Much like the Saarland occupation of history. For similar reasons, i think the extended occupation of the Saarland was a better solution than a transfere. I notice you didnt discuss any such occupations as possibilities in this video. Will they appear in the next? Or was that part of the script that got cut for time? Regardless, i await part 2 eagerly, to see your full vision
You don't understand, it's not about simple sea access, it's about historical and legitimate lands that were a part of Poland for ages, these lands being Pomerelia, or how Germans renamed them "West Prussia"
Well, Gdańsk is legitimately Polish city; every time it happened to be in the borders of some German state it was through invasion and robber - every single time, so not really legal way. You could say that Danzig was inhabitet by German people for centuries but that doesn't matter at all. Originally they were just settlers on foreign westslavic lands, long before such political instances like German Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or even Ducal Prussia (wonder if you ever heard of it) even came to exist. How could these political being have any legitimacy over that city? Because Danzingers spoke German? So have Austrians, yet it would be an absurd for Prussians and Kaisers to inherit their lands 'cause it has never been theirs.
Saying that world war I wouldn't have happend if Germany wouldnt have given a blanc check is a little short signted. It would have prevented the war at that time, but another moment it would have happend as all the great powers were quite hawkish at the time. France was revanchist after the Franco-Prussian war. Alle states were constantly competing over colonies and both Russia and Austria-Hungary wanted to expand their influence into the Balkans.
It's just territory, a lot of whitch was simply robbed by Prussia in the first place. Look at that this way: over 70% of land that Poland gaind was its legitimate former borders before *Fritz not so Great*™ theft them; the rest are just spoils of the war that Germans themselves craved for but ultimately lost - so it is quite indeed fair. Were you thinking Germany has only right to expand politically but not to shrink?
@@czmychalWould the German people back in 1919 think that? “Keep Stability for the German people?” What a joke. Might as well dissolve Germany into Bavaria, Prussia, Wittenberg, Saxony, Rhineland(French), Holstein, and Hannover.
@@czmychalIt is one of Videntises' goals of his version of the Treaty of Versailles. And I think balkanizing Germany was what the Allies had in mind before the British + French + Americans vs. Soviet power struggle became all too real and had to create their own Germany to counter Soviet Union's Germany.
10k likes for a part 2 about the fate of Germany. If you have any questions about my decisions, I will try my best to reply. If you want any of the songs, leave a comment.
I believe that if Austria-Hungary was not partitioned, but instead had been turned into a federation of different entities somewhat based on ethnic lines, with mixed regions such as Vojvodina becoming their own entities, with each region and ethnic group being represented equally with an Habsburg head of state and a democratic government, Hitler would never have been able to rise to the level of power that he did. You see, Austria and the Sudetenland would still be within the same strong democratic nation, where germans would be a minority group. There is no way Hitler would be able to take on Austria and annex neither the Sudetenland or Austria under these circumstances. There would of course have needed to be some territorial concessions, but mostly out of necessity, such as ceding Galicia to Poland, and perhaps also Bukovina to Romania, but Transylvania should have remained within Austria. This new Austrian federation would very likely have been an ally of Poland, and would have posed a significant power block to counter German influence in the region. If Germany had tried to invade Poland, not just France and Britain would declare war on Germany, but very possibly Austria as well, meaning that Germany would have enemies on every front and would not be able to take advantage of their newly conquered territories, as there would have been none. It was a grave mistake by the allies to destroy Austria as an entity, as it had a very big chance to succeed if the right reforms was implemented. What they essentially achieved was to create a bunch of weak states that hated one another because of ethnic disputes. One of the most important reforms would have been to abolish the Ausgeleich of 1867, as the Hungarians was much to blame for causing strong separatist movements within their share of the empire, as they aimed to magyarize slovaks, Romanians, croats and serbs, something that the Austrians had never tried to do to their ethnic minorities. As it goes for territorial changes on Germany, I think that East-Prussia now being separated from mainland Germany should have been made its own separate nation, as this would have prevented much of the frustration from Germany by not having a land-bridge to east-prussia and would have made east-prussia free to seek relations with neighboring nations similar in size and population such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. One could even create some sort of baltic league or confederation consisting of these three nations, as it would have created a more powerful state to deter Russian expansionism. Your'e also justifying polish annexations based on historical claims. In that case, Poland had no right to upper Silesia, just saying.
That's the only realistic way to avoid ww2. Large German minorities in.other countries will envitablely just fuel German nationalism and German recentment. Agaranteeing future conflicts. Instead keeping all majority German land under German rule, but breaking said German rule into numerous Micro-states with a unified ecconomy breaks german military strength, especially offensively, while lessoning the desires for expansion (no irrendentism)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I fail to see how that will solve anything. German unification was a blessing to Germans and taking it away would just cause even more resentment.
@vetarlittorf1807 honestly listening to him is appalling the more I listen, German Unification was so strong the people throught the German states and even in some non German (large pop of Germans) nationstates rose up against their governments all around the same time to make that Unification possible. Them thinking dividing the Germans again is gonna tame them, no your gonna piss them off more and have another century of unrest and war because of it.
This is incredibly biased. Somehow, he managed to sneak in the word “subhuman” when addressing the German Empire’s attitudes towards the eastern peoples. These were not Nazis. They did not consider Lithuanians and poles subhuman. Stop it.
Need part 2.. 2 months mann and hope you are working on it. Really enjoyed this when I originally watched it when it came out. So would love to see part 2 and hope and hope it is in the works 🙏.
Videntis, I ABSOLUTELY love this style of video and it feels unique to your channel, I feel like it would be great for you to produce more videos like these, but I get why you would be on the fence due to the length of a video of this nature, thank you for making the video.
@@Videntis.History I'd like to second this opinion. I don't care about the face reveal, and I might not agree with everything stated, but I find this video both very interesting and very engaging.
22:53 Taking land away from someone who never fought in the War is Just a bad as Rewarding Denmark for doing nothing. The Dutch would join the Axis in WW2 if the Treaty failed.
If you consider the previous status quo, that wouldn't go in the direction you are hinting at... French territory lost by the French Empire (Wallonia, Savoy, Swiss bordering lands, Luxembourg, some islands) were greater than the German territories lost by the German Empire. The non national losses were arguably greater too : non french territory part of the natural borders of the Revolution (Flemmish, Dutch, and German parts), Piemont, Illyria and a few greek islands. The Vienna Congress was fair in that it ensured the balance of power in Europe though. The Versailles treaty wasn't, it was too harsh to make an ally out of Germany, and too soft to ensure the balance of power.
The Congress of Vienna didn't have to deal with an aggressive nation-state who went above and beyond what was at that time considered honourable conduct of Warfare.
Great and interesting Video. I (as a German myself) never thought of an even tougther one in ( some points). What I don't quite understand, is why you give Masuren to Poland and Tilsit to Lithuania. The masovien people with former eastern prussia were culturaly fairly good inclued in east prussia and diceded to remain with germany in a referendum. As for Tilsit I can't think of any pro for lithuania to anex Tilsit. But maybe I'm a bit biased.
@@Videntis.History yeah polish polish politicians are just the most reliable of sources about potential Polish territory *rolls eyes* None of those sources you list are on the ground sources. It's all just opinions backed up by nothing. They might of voted to be Polish but if the only thing you can bring to back up that claim is the words of politicians rather than polling or other mass demonstrations, you are just blowing hot air.
No offense but fixed aboslutely nothing, germany is still as mad as posible, uk apeasament still hapens with anschluss and the hole czecoslovak issue, russia and hermany still would ally, without russia being comunits probably the woul form a berlin moscow axus, germans would still develop blitzkrieg counteting french defenses and poland cant hope to defend against both
Germany did n o t "destroy" occupied Belgium. The area around Liege with many forts was heavily damaged and of course all areas where the armies clashed, especially in western Flanders. Concerning the ethnics of West Prussia there was a majority of German population along the Baltic coast (except one kashubian county) and the Netze River since the late 1400reds, which connected later East Prussia ethnically with Pomerania, 95% German settled. In the election of 1912, the last before WW1, two third of West Prussia voted for German parties, one third for the Polish minority party. All in all, it was almost impossible to draw accepted borders in east central Europe because many regions were ethnically mixed. But the worst mistake was to create a seperate city and territory of Danzig under the rule of the League of Nations but with extended privileges for Poland. This situation was created in Versailles it wasn't the responsibility of Germany or Poland alone. Yet, the people of both Nations were blamed and suffered Mio. of killed persons.
I respect but don’t agree with your thoughts, mainly because: In regards to justification I don’t think an comparison tobte treaty of Frankfurt can be made, the stripping of Alsace leaves out the eastern German territories which were far more insulting including territory’s held by Prussia since the defeat of Napoleon, here the circumstances matter as Germany was originally left unable to defend its territory’s from Poland with the „National Votes“ being set up to favor Poland(Propaganda) along with it becoming occupied on Poland. If all parts had decided to go with Poland it would have devastated Germany. When the elections went in Germanys favor, the terms were changed to give some minor territory’s to Poland, including establishing Danzig despite it being an almost completely Germany city. But much more importantly it completely exposed the Entente as hypocritical, since it blocked German self determination( most German propaganda posters will play on this fact, by displaying Austria which was prohibited joining Germany) Second the economic aspect, I actually disagree with the Historian here, the original „draft“ of Versailles did not include a sum. Germany could have been able to then supply the aggreed upon sum, but the argument leaves out that Germany was economically devastated, with both a new Social-System being established and dept being payed off. Germany would have needed about 20 years to pay of the war. If paying it off earlier had been possible they would have done so and they provided payment until the global financial crisis, were notable propaganda of the financial burden appear in Germany. So here I would argue it was Frances treatment off how and when the Money was payed rather then the sum, since to many Germans it was unjust to demand the money in such difficult times and not simply delay payment by some years. Last war guild: I’m sorry but here I must unfortunately at least on Frances Part call a lie detector, although Belgium had not been fault at the war. France and it’s Generals had planned the war and most lied about it later, France had made secret arrangements with Russia, Italy, Romania and UK which were aimed against Germany and ended up defining the alliances of ww1. Additionally anti-German propaganda was common and diplomatic instances like the Marrocen crisis were blown out of propositions. Lastly they also had full access to the German version of the document meaning they were at least aware of its meaning. Last the point made by the historian Fischer, the September program might have been infamous for its presentation of German expansionism. But in reality it way never consensus in higher circles. Germanys aims had been to weaken Russia and France but in what form was not known. France and Russia followed similar plans creating an eye for an eye mentality. Which made the desire for revenge seem justified. German highcomnand knew a war was coming and decided that they wanted to win it rather then prevent it an Mentality shared by their peers. Lastly other points that in my opinion made the treaty unjustified, include the handing over of leaders, reduction of armies and occupation of the Rheinland. For all those reasons I think the treaty was to harsh on Germany rather then to soft, if it had been harder I doubt that it would have been enforceable, with Germany likely becoming a second France, waiting until the Entente was distracted to make there strike or completely refusing the treaty and fighting to the bitter end. Permanent keeping down of Germany was impossible and that was something latter realized by Frances leaders as their domestic situation didn’t always provide for war.
I disagree with the assertion that Germany would have foisted that peace deal you reference in the beginning upon the allies. That was assuming not only an unconditional surrender, but was a fantasy as well and was only a product of the military leaderships delusions.
4:05 big rebuke: France was mostly intact Economically. Franco-Prussian war was a 1 year conflict at most with only a few Cities Decimated, France didn't have the time to Damage it's own economy through Mobilization and Fighting to the Bitter End. WW1 was a War of Attrition in which everyone planned on Fighting to the end. The Central Government in Paris collapsed when Napoleon III was Captured at Sedan and forced to Abdicate by Republican Provisional Officials who by the end of the War found themselves Encircled in Paris, and had no Choice but to Surrender. Alsace-Lorraine overwhelmingly wanted to join Germany, only 2.5 percent Left the Province for France upon ownership being Transferred by the Treaty of Frankfurt, the Rest of the Population either were Exuberant or indifferent to who owned the Territory after 1871 according to Census Data collected in the Aftermath Germany did much less Damage in France even in WW1, Entaunt did more to Damage France, Belgium flooded half of itself to try and hold the Germans off like it was the Yangtze river, the Germans only and Irrecoverably Stealing Belgian Industry among it's other War crimes. Huge subatomic Explosions called Mines Rocked everywhere along French Flanders and Picardie, the French even provoked the Germans to start using Gas by throwing Tear Gas and Chlorine Grenades made for Russia while Belgium was still losing Territory which no doubt to France's Detriment Gas caused most of the Zone Rouge and Villages that Died for France, long after the Iron Famines begin from salvaging all the Iron Harvests Frankfurt was a Political Humiliation for a War France Started to deny Hohenzollern Coronation in Spain. Versailles was Revenge and Economic Gangrape. The Debt incurred on France from Frankfurt was at most a Third of Versailles and they easily paid it off due to Overseas Colonies and a largely intact Economy, only losing Alsace-Lorraine as a Center of Ore mining for Steel Production that the Germans would Capitalize on. If Frankfurt was anything like Versailles and france was as crippled as Germany, not even the French would have the dog in them to dare make Serious Strides to pay off the Debt. No Famines in France, no key Losses in France aside from a territory that largely wanted to be German Indicated by it's own Census data, and France was Rich colonially. Germany didn't tap much off of any other Occupied Territories and were happy to Leave thanks to Otto Bismarck insisting on making things Lenient. France tripled the Debt to pay for the US Bankrolling the entire Entaunt in Loans, stripped many vital lands and carved 30 percent of Germany to be Occupied and never be German again. Germany Economy crippled from being at war for 4 years, Hundreds of Thousands dead from Starvation thanks to the Naval Blockade along with Millions dead by the War in Germany, Berlin still hasn't recovered it's Pre-WW1 Population to this day. The French also had Rights to Saarland and the Rhineland industrial Zone by the Treaty which didn't tally towards Financial Reparations. Not to mention Germany's Colonies were mostly net Losers except for Togo and Qingdao, and Germany lost these Colonies so it couldn't benefit the way France did. The US kept pumping Inflationary spending into Weimar who was Weak, Indecisive and by Design incompetent because the Competent people were all Monarchists and didn't want to be forcefully Democratic. Aside from Banning Economic Communism, Forcing an Ideology in name inside a Constitution is Neither Democratic nor a Good Idea because Eventually the Locals will Call BS and will Toss thier Constitution for being worse than a Dictator Anschluss was Democratically attempted by Austria as Austria-Germany in 1919 who was also banned from it by the Treaty of Saint Germain and Blocked by Versailles, Austria was in a worse Position than Germany, but allowing this would have helped to Punish Germany, as well as already fulfil many of the Territorial desires of Greater Germany which easily could have deterred the Rise of the Nazis. Poland illegally revolted and ethnically Cleansed much of west Poland prior to the Plebiscites, and even saw the Allies rigging most of the Referendums which the Poles themselves Realized not wanting to end up in Soviet Poland due to the Ongoing Polish Soviet War which was how East Prussia never became Polish. Denmark didn't do shit and unfairly received German Territory. Austria-Germany was literally Austria and the Confiscated-Occupied Sudetenland which the Czechs stole butthurt over how thier Rebellion centuries Prior had thier Elites' property confiscated as Punishment, Czech Nationalism at that Point wasn't about the Czechs nor Slovaks, but Getting the Estates Back, Only the people believed it was about them. Even the Intelligencia were Tricked by this. A Fair Treaty of Versailles in your Vision would have made the Punic Peace between Rome and Carthage look like Capitulation to Carthage (who by the way were begging for Peace at all costs after they lost Syracuse and the rest of Sardinia and Sicily). Belgium only got the Congo because France didn't want Germany taking it and only because France didn't forgive Germany for winning a war France Started in 1870 during the Berlin Conference of the 1880s (86 I think.), Belgium not only proved to be the most Inept at being a Colonizer (worse than Portugal who saw Vorbeck's German-African Army as Liberators from Portuguese Brutality and Incompetence) but also the most Brutal practically engaging in Genocide in the Congo their only Colony which even the Germans called out and they're for minding thier own Buisness in Africa trying to uphold the Colonial Neutrality Policy. Belgium relied on France and Britain and thus shouldn't deserve anything but Melmedy Back for a slap on the wrist to Germany and a Separate deal with Germany. They had everything they wanted by surviving, they didn't need anything else, Rwanda and Burundi was just a Participation Trophy, British would have starved them into Submission too because that's the only thing the British know how to do if they lose a war on Land. Belgium itself was meant to be a half Dutch-French Buffer state which by designed couldn't leave it's Neutrality and was nothing more than a Political tool by the British. the Locals in 1830 didn't want to be Dutch nor Austrian and were Inspired to be a Napoleonic Republic like France was, they literally got the "We won but at what Cost" treatment in both Cases. I had a 5th Great Granduncle who as an Admiral volunteered his Fleet to help them, but were denied due to being an Admiral of Blue of the British Empire. Sir Isaac Coffin was his Name. also Guarantee the Kingdom of Greece and Conserve the Monarchy or make it Native, suppress the Republicans until a Compromise is reached. Metaxas only took power because the Entaunt started a Greek Civil war trying to get a Vardar front. Greece wouldn't be the shitshow we know it today if it wasn't for the Entaunt violating Greek Neutrality with even less Provocation than Germany had for invading Belgium, Make the Treaty fair for Greece while at it, Return Constantinople and the Magali Idea and tell Ataturk to take his Deep state and Rig it somewhere where there'll never be Democracy or Voting Stations but keep an Independent Turkey with a Greater Armenia to avenge the Genocide. My Solution: Make it the Franco-Prussian war Debt, Split Alsace Lorraine between German and French Speakers, Split Tyrol the same way, Don't establish Yugoslavia or Prioritize Italian promises, Disincentivize Ethno-Terrorism practiced by the Poles, don't give the Poles thier Gdynia Corridor, give them the Memel Corridor instead as to deepen animosity between Poland and Lithuania past Wilno/Vilnius and to keep Germany away from the Baltics, Allow Anschluss with Sudetenland in 1919, having enough Economic Assets to be used to rebuild the Economy is all you need to make it Fair. this will disarm the Divided Germany plot Hitler Established, and make the Debt not as much as a Spark point. also: Blame Serbia and the British for the War, they provided the Guns used to assassinate the Archduke, and while at it, don't make the Treaty of Trianon such a Ballbuster if you're serious about keeping Austro-Hungary Dissolved, and tell Japan to Fuck Off for not helping more in the War, but don't impose Naval Restrictions and Embargos that Violate your own Neutrality, Japan did half of what it did to Spite and Acknowledge that despite there being International Order, I won't follow that Order due to all of the Suppressions involved again Japan who was an Ally after WW1. Don't give shit to someone who never fought in the War (Looking at you Denmark.). lean off the Army Restrictions and more on holding Germany accountable for Future Actions to provide a sense of Forgiveness which stokes the Christian in all Europeans.
@@slabheadihno8679 they were harsher on Germany without completely crushing their militarism. Now the dutch and a large amount of neutral estates are likely less alligned with imperialists that just carve up borders of neutral states (the dutch) and grew a massive pola d out of seemingly nowhere that has German majority population in some areas which would most likely not want to be part of that country just because "well the poles had to deal with that too"
@@internetperson1666 whereas l agree with the thing abt neutral estates. Germany deserves what they got in this treaty. Read Griff Nach der weltmacht, it shows in many ways how German is to be blamed for the war. And if you don’t want just read abt welthmact and weltpolitk. Furthermore the land belongs to Poland it has ever since the great deluge stole her lands
@@slabheadihno8679 I don't really care about the border changes in Germany but I'm worried about how the German state will react to it. Unless the entente changes the internal structure of Germany to make it more passive and less Prussian in nature (which again would push neutral states further from Britain and France) Germany would have even deeper hatred for poles and the french. Russia, whose lands are getting carved out as well might join Germany in this regard too. I'm still waiting for pt 2 but this initial peace treaty doesn't look good for a future peace.
Your peace is even worse than Versailles. Germany may have declared war but France and Russia were already amassing their armies on their borders having mobilized first with the intent to declare war later. Belgium forced into a war does deserve reparations, France who sought conflict does not. Germany had managed to alienate the Allemans in Alsace-Lorraine and so France deserved it back but no more. The only real way to achieve a lasting piece would be to add Germany to the peace negotiations, a new Congress of Vienna. When the French negotiated Versailles they believed the Entente+US would continue after the war was over to enforce the peace and thus Europe was structured in such a way to favor dominance by a land power such as France. Germany, the Soviet Union, and Hungary were surrounded by small states allied to the French with the hope that if conflict came again the joint invasion by them would be enough for victory. Each of these states though did not behave as nation states as Wilson had hoped but aspiring empires, their ambitions collided meaning that all of these smaller states could not be organized into an effective front, especially by a politically polarized and economically lethargic French state, thus Nazi Germany came to fill the role that France had intended for itself. Lastly the supposed Entente. The UK had joined only for Belgium's sake but their own propaganda had led them to sign onto a French Europe, with the war over, their empire fracturing as a result of marshalling it for the war, they realized that they had signed a peace against their longstanding interest in a balance of powers in Europe and thus undermined Versailles where it suited them. The US, out of the hands of the moral crusader Wilson also returned to its isolationism. The French alone and their failing economy and divided politics could not hold the peace.
I have an idea for the video that talks about if Portugal had won the war of succession and placed Joan, the wife of the King of Portugal, on the throne and unified Portugal and Castile by folding the Portuguese coat of arms in 1468, I think. plz. a Portuguese hug
So imagine that Princess Joana was supposed to be the heir to the throne of Castile, which most likely Joana's father had put in his will, but the will disappeared and Joana's sister Isabel was placed on the throne with the help of her husband, the king/prince of Aragon instead of Joana and the king of Portugal took advantage and married Joana and tried to place her on the throne and rule over the Castilian throne. After marrying Joana, he gathered a large army and marched to Castile, but due to bad military and diplomatic decisions he lost the support of the Castilian nobles who wanted Joana in power and the entry of the kingdom of Aragon into the war and there was even a request for help from the king of France but he didn't accept it.
What many people forget, germany didn't just have to pay money but hand over many recourses and also give away most of its coal and concrete production to france and Belgium also having to give up all its merchant fleet. Many people just look at the money
39:46 Prussia was Polish for a time as a Vassal of Poland after the Teutonic Knights Secularized and before Prussia and Brandenburg became one Country. the Pruss were Germanized Poles for the same Military Concerns. Don't continue a Cycle of Military Concerns, that's how Wars keep Happening between the same Beligerants.
I listened till Alsace-Lorraine and then I actually couldn't make excuses for this nonsense anymore. This is missing the whole idea that Germany was supposed to remain a great power after than war and was practically impossible to crush without killing at least 40 million people along the way. A more draconian peace couldnt realistically have been enforced. The polish adjustments although some were in principal fair had too glaring problrms. 1) The artificial polish corridor with the unenforcable idealistic league of nations bullshit would necessitate future resolution. 2) Many poles actually voted to stay in Germany for economic considerations, so much that the allies granted Poland many German votinh territories despite the plebiscites. Belgium as a concept simply isn't sustainable in a hard peace agreement and probably should have wallonia annexed into France (of course this wouldn't happen, but any land given to belgium is gonna have no impact on its defensibility and seizing land from Germany is just a convenient cassus belli). Now Alsace-Lorraine. The french claim to alsace-lorraine stemmed back 300 years. The German claim 800 years. Most of the population was German (albeit not 100% and alsacian German). It just happened that Germany had no use for this territory and it was vital for French industry. Anyone claiming Alsace-Lorraine as rightfully French chooses to ignore the history and language spoken (again culture is alsatian) in the region, because their grandpa said so. Accusing the Germans of being excessively proud against the Polish is exactly what the French were against the Germans. Bismarck didn't actually want to annex the land, however it was insisted upon by the Kaiser. Not for military purposes but for national pride.
@@Videntis.History IDK what the German Kaiser said, but this wasn't a political discussion (therefore that's not even a relevant source to cite if it is true). From an ethnic standpoint Alsace was overwhelmingly German and Lorraine had a German supermajority. Unless you are arguing the Alsace-Lorraine was "politically" French (which is a mute point because this is the case with all territorial losses). From a purely ethnic standpoint Germany could've seized a decent chunk more land than Alsace-Lorraine. You don't need to trust a stupid RUclips commenter, just do some research from credible sources (no quora, RUclips, reddit, or tiktok).
Love this. Really appreciate the look back at historical censuses from multiple different countries and the economic breakdowns. Plus the maps, as always with your channel, look super crisp. Please make more of these.
As a Belgian : FINALLY, someone who respects Belgium in alternate history. You did your research very well unlike some wikipedia-reading youtubers out there. Great video !
Thank you very much! I think sadly the video is performing as well because its too long. I spent a long time on research and then the video got really long. Most people wouldnt spend 8 mins talking about Belgium during the Treaty of Versailles but I thought it was something important that is often overlooked
By giving you Dutch land? Whilst the Netherlands was neutral? Yeah seems fair.... Dutch Limburg I can get behind. But Zeelandic Flanders and Vlissingen? Lol those territories were part of the Netherlands before there was even the idea of Belgium.
When discussing Versailles, the Author mentions that the vast majority of German losses were non Germans. He fails to draw the same conclusion with Brest Litovsk as the vast majority of Russian losses were non Russians
I'm impressed. A very creditable and well-researched (and well-presented) video. I've subscribed. (I doubt you'll get anywhere near 10k views - too cerebral a topic I'm afraid.) A major criticism of your Eastern Europe changes as set against their objectives is, I think, a too-simplistic equation of new state territorial size with proprtionate military and economic weight. Germany would retain its pre-eminent economic (and, dare I say it, cultural) preponderance, together with its historic and highly efficient central state structures. The existence of even bigger largely backward and rural states to it East would not be fatal to any revanchist or military-adventurist projects it might choose to venture on - irrespective of a monarchist, republican or NSDAP character it might settle on. A better agenda for your whole 20/20 rewriting of Versailles might be to home and maybe rethink in on the central and essential areas that enabled the NSDAP takeover in Germany subsequently: "war guilt", reparations and the Polish Corridor (the latter poisoned the Junker/officer class against an otherwise natural anti-Soviet ally?). In the latter case, Germany can be either co-opted or coerced: Rapallo tells us that the Allies failed to succeed with either.
As far as the USPL goes, the justification for it being on the basis that Wilson supported Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia is extremely shaky. Both states were established on the basis that all those within the territory were in fact one people, only separated through the mishaps of history. In contrast, Poles Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians are very distinct peoples.
I love your content, some of the best, if not the best alternate history content on this entire platform Ps can you please make a video about Zimbabwe? I think it would be really good
Will you try to revise the treaty regarding the Habsburg lands and maybe the other Central Powers? I think you did great with this one and I'm interested in what a fair Saint-Germain and Trianon could be like.
You know there is sooo much in this i want to argue with you over, but im gonna limit myself to just this... You say Franco-Prussian War Framce had to pay War reparations twice as much and was able to pay it while under German occupation, while WW1 Germany was not able to pay theirs, but heres where your argument falls short... Franco-Prussian War France had an entire Empire of colonies and most of its industries to fall back on to be able to pay those reparations. Meanwhile WW1 Germany had their empire of Colonies stripped away, and most of their industrial complex either removed or its production taken away to be given to the allies on top of reparations. On top of that Germany was left with no colonies hardly any industry left and many restrictions for them to be able to bouce their economy back to have any chance at paying the full reparations without destroying the value of the gold-mark to a paper-weight. So looking at that it makes sense they were not able to pay those reparations unlike 1870s France.
Go to ground.news/videntis to better understand the world. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access to Ground News.
You look Paleo-Iberian, mate. You look like the people lived in Spain before the Romans and Carthagenians.
@@sagittariusa7662 thanks i guess?
@@Videntis.HistoryI think he said you look like a caveman
@@Videntis.HistoryBtw the what if the Catholics won the 30 years war reached 4K likes (the goal)
Completely partitions Luxembourg
“This might be a little harsh on Luxembourg”
they were only independent for like 50 years so its not that extreme
@@Videntis.History The state technically started its existence in 1815 as a grand duchy under a personal union with the Dutch.
@@kylezdancewicz7346the idea of an independent Luxembourg is related to the hre. Luxembourg started off as one of the houses vying for control over the Holy Roman Empire along with the Wittelsbachts and the Hapsburgs. Although, a lot of other really old duchies within the hre were destroyed in the treaty of Vienna or when Germany was founded including the Wittelsbachts that controlled Bavaria
luxembourg was in the entente though
@@pdp117O did you watch the video
Why does he look so disgusted when he looks at the camera.
Yea why tho
Because he probably is not used to speak into a camera
i think he prolly has his script placed weirdly so he has to look at it weird
Because he knows many disagree and will bash him for it just like he glt bashed for the HRE vs Rome poll recently where he acted like HRE was more Roman than the Eastern Roman Empire
yeah, my camera is right over my computer, so im looking slightly down. Also my ring light was too bright so i was squinting a bit. i will try to improve that going forward
Suggestion : What if the Byzantines repelled the Arab Invasions
Goated suggestion
Heaven on earth.
Happy Orthodox Chants
Hell yeah!
He's already done like 3 Byzantium scenarios already. I think you Romeaboos have had enough for some time.
Why did I actually think he was going to be an old bearded man with an orange background
i dont think i sound old
@@Videntis.History me neither! I just got that for some reason lmao
@@Videntis.History your logo
also, it's a matter of the subjects being talked about, not many young people are interested in them and any intellectually stimulating wordplay will naturally be assumed to come from someone wise, usually an older person
Same
To be fair to the Germans during the war, they actually didn't have a solid endgame planned for how spoils and land would be distributed. They really didn't have any kind of endgame planned for any of it actually, which is a little surprising considering the Prussian's usual penchant for intensive planning. The territorial claims you cited as the German plan for post-war reparations and concessions is a combination of several proposals put forward by elements within the German Imperial hierarchy, none of which were eve officially agreed upon with the exception of Brest-Litovsk. And even then, there was intense confusion over how far the new borders would extend, because the specifics of who occupied what in the Brest-Litovsk treaty were already outdated by the time it was signed. Plus there are some indications that the treaty which was signed was not actually intended to be the final draft, but that someone rushed it out so they could have SOMETHING signed, which left the German authorities scratching their heads at how the treaty didn't match up with the reality on the ground, nor with what they'd actually hoped to accomplish with it, hence the way it was "disregarded" in order to recognize more land as independent of Russia (which had likely been the closest thing they had to an actual plan before someone jumped the gun with Brest-Litovsk).
As for French teritorial concessions, that was all purely hypothetical, and was one of several evolving proposals being floated inside the German high command during the war. It was the harshest though, so people latched onto it after the war to present it as THE German plan for Europe, despite the fact that it was never firmly agreed on and was in competition with several other proposals. The same is true for Belgium, which you sort of addressed, as well as for Africa, where there was a lot of disagreement over how much to take, and what Mittelafrika should even look like (or whether it should even exist). Then there was the Austrian question, which played into the confusion over Brest-Litovsk, since the death of Franz Joseph and the abysmal performance of the Austro-Hungarian military during the war threw the entire post-war map of Europe into question. What territories (if any) should be ceded to Austria-Hungary? Would there even BE an Austria-Hungary to cede territory to? Had their poor performance been enough to justify reneging on early-war agreements in regards to their claims in Poland? The reality was that neither side had any clear idea of what they wanted the map to look like when the war ended. The only point of absolute certainty was that France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back. Everything else was up in the air and up for debate for all parties until ink was put to paper at Versailles.
"Let's make the Treaty of Versailles more fair!"
Proceeds to make the most imperialist treaty imaginable:
More fair for the winners*
Why is there such many people
thinking that versailles was harsh???
@@sokal03Exactly compared to others treaties it really wasn’t.
@@sokal03 I agree with the quote used in the video "It was too soft for its hardness and too hard for its softness" if the treaty of Versailles was to be effective it would have too either be harsh or fair, if it were harsh it would make it impossible for germany to bounce back as fast as it did and if it was fair it would make Germany disinterested in starting another war. The treaty in reality half assed both of these and as such led to WW2
With this said, if the video was to be honest, it should be called "what if the treaty of Versailles was effective" because to call what he made "fair" is simply insane
@@thomaslewandowski3724it was more than fair enough
"what if the treaty of versailles was fair"
>proceeds to cause the Dutch to become the most fiercely anti-entente nation in the region
good job man
theyre losers that do nothing, doesnt matter if they get mad, if they try shit they get bombed. shouldve backed the winning horse rather than playing fence sitter.
Which means that in the next war, the Dutch wouldn't fight to stop the Germans,they would likely view them as liberators instead. Which means that the Allies immediately have a flank problem.
@@thevoid5503Never were the Dutch decisive in any sort to the Entente victory.
@thevoid5503 in ww2 the Dutch were invaded by the Germans and quickly crumbled, them being on germanys side effects the tide of war so little that it's almost a negative value. The entire point of this video is to entirely dismantle the germany and reward the Entente. The gains Belgium make here are valued more than the a hostile netherlands could devalue.
@@astillia6073 so a Neutral Country is a "Fence-Sitter", good to Know
The problem with Germany's borders, especially with France, is that France has had a territorial state for several centuries and Germany has had one for a few decades. It is therefore difficult to determine who has the right to what, since until 1815 France was not faced with a major power in the Rhine area that could prevent the annexation of German territories. In the end, the only solution for peace would be the Saarland solution. So democratic votes in which the people are allowed to decide for themselves and nothing is forced on them by emperors or politicians.
Still an interesting video with well developed ideas
part 2 will deal with Germany more
It is very naive believes for this, anyone cares what's people thinks. In Silesian plebiscite on Upper Silesia Germans transport to vote peoples who's just born in this region but not still live in this places, or even not to born in Upper Silesia but try claim this. In Saarland may be a similar situation, thousands people from Saxony, Bavaria, Meklembug or Hannover just presenting themselves a natives born in this land. Or French try something similar with soldiers from Picardy, Normandy, Bretogne... just prove origin. Saarland being industrial area could became hotpoint in map of Europe, just like Upper Silesia in 1920' or Bosnia before WWI
How could giving away Dutch and Luxembourgish land even be remotely justified? They didn’t participate in the war, it’d be ridiculous to expect them to cede that much land and is just an insanely unrealistic ask.
At that point you’re practically pushing the Dutch into fascism and painting the entente as imperialists who are just concerned with expanding their power. How can anyone trust the entente if they’re going around and forcing their way on neutral countries?
wait for part 2
germany lost north schleswig, so it in theory is justified
@@lu9asx no? In the case of Schleswig, Germany lost land to a neutral country. What this guy is suggesting is the equivalent of the allies pushing for France to annex the French speaking portions of Switzerland after World War II.
I genuinely cannot think of a. instance where a neutral country just gave up land in a peace treaty for a war they weren’t involved in, let alone in the 20th century. There is no world where in the age of nationalism the Dutch are just ok with giving up something like 15% of their land area without fighting a war to try and keep it, that’s just insane.
And again, the goal here is to build a long lasting peace, and this guys method of doing that is just bullying the Dutch for some reason, all while making them resentful and ready to jump at the first opportunity granted to take back land blatantly robbed from them.
Limburg also had a strong regional identity and had little desire to join Belgium, Zealand could have just been demilitarized too. The whole thing with the dutch its forcing them towards facism, and in turn making Indonesia's resources inaccessible to the allied power
@@jimmothy3012 The japs would take care of that later anyways. Also, why would this lead them to fascism? Their support of Germany against Belgium is the reasoning he gives.
Like this if I did a worse job!
Okay i will say some things,i think should have been done:Poland should not have received lands from Germany,or at least should have received lands in a way Prussia is not split off,maybe idk annex Lithuania or smh.Alsace loraine should be get back by French.Belgium should get Luxembourg,Denamrak should bot have received part for nit fighting at all
Economically,germany should have to pay bug war debt,but their milutary ahould be far less harsly punished,put army at 300k max,and make arifirce and navy limited to small number
They shall nit have been acc7sed if being war provocated,they officially at least,defended their alliance
Great video!
way worse job
This timelines axis will consist of Germany, Russia, Austria, Hungry and the Netherlands. Actually I think they might have a shot (unless the USA joins)
French glaze fest
Pretty biased considering Germany offered several far better and more fair peace deals to the Russians who continued refusing them until their soldiers just stopped fighting at all. Germany could have taken all those resource rich areas from the French after the Franco Prussian war but did not as they wanted a friendly France but did not get that. That was germanys error not crippling France after the war. Back to the world war Woodson points were clear and Germany agreed to peace based on these points. Then all those Germans who should have been allowed to join Germany as they wanted to. Places with a German majority should have become part of Germany and it’s weird that Germany gets bigger after a war but they would lose their colonies, pay reparations and most importantly have lost their Allies. Perhaps Germany would not have been so hostile had the points been followed that people will belong to the country that makes the most sense instead of just drawing lines on a map and making new borders. We seen how great those random lines on maps worked out in the Middle East, thanks a lot France & Britain for that btw.
Yeah this videoclassifies 'fairness' based on 'it was done like this in the past' or 'Germany did it too'. Forgetting that:
A) this will just breed another war
B) it sets up the continued president that expansion and colonialisation won through war is good, and that self-determination is not a right for all but only the strong.
nothing I did breaks ethnoreligious lines.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 To be honest the thing I'm most interested in is what would happen to the Dutch in the inevitable 2nd world war, along with how the Dutch protestants would be treated in catholic Belgium in the interim.
@@Videntis.History except you did in many areas such as Danzig which was 95% German or the Saar area which was again overwhelmingly German Also non of these areas wanted to be part of the states you assigned them to, nor was annexation even politically realistic.
Alsace-Lorraine had the largest textile producers in France and the fighting has already devastated most of the valuable territories of France during Franco-Prussia War.
I have some doubts about the effectiveness of Versailles in determining any borders east of the Vistula. If I recall correctly those borders are mainly decided by the Polish Soviet War and the Russian Civil War, not the Paris Peace Conference
*Then Hitler wouldn't need to lie when he said it was harsh.*
yeah but that doesnt matter as then germany would have no chance of winning
oh well, if he tries anything he gets crushed.
He never lied. It was harsh. Only the fact that we lost land to the danes who literally did nothing during the war. And the fact that we got seperated from Königsberg.
@@Masterchief_Tito Well... That's just historical consequence that when one nation f*cks around they eventually end up finding out.
@@confusedmango6557 optimistic. Considering that France would be seen (rightfully) as an imperialistic power, high on napoleon nostalgia, Germany would get a giant coalition of every scorned power. France is neutered by their internal politics, Poland by ethnic tensions.
I don't really think, that it's fair giving Belgium land of Netherland just because they were neutral and Germans chose to not invade them. It's almost like beating up neigbgour's kid after his father beat you up
Especially considering that, if Belgium had the choice, they too would've been neutral.
I mean, as a belgian, if we do'nt get terrytorry we owuld have less chance of standing a chance
What if the Congress of Vienna was more harsh (1814)
The Netherlands didn't support the Germans, they just didn't stop trading. Should Sweden be punished after ww2? Not to mention that the Netherlands didn't allow German troops through their country for the invasion, they allowed the Germans to retreat through Dutch Limburg. Also Vlissingen? Excuse me, that city has never been Belgian and has no connection with the country.
If this is how you treat a neutral country like the Netherlands, I shudder to think what you have in mind for Sweden after WW2.
I’m confused by your logic. You give Poland a bunch of land in the west to guarantee military stability but create a huge federation?
Because it's not actually about making a good treaty. It's just about Bing harsher to Germany while pretending it's a fairer treaty.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 ahhhhh okay
no the idea with Poland probably wasnt explained well here. This would be the land granted to Poland but I wouldnt expect Poland to actually hold that much land in the east. I explain a bit more on the french foreign policy in part 2. Basically France would get further aims for the Germans, and have a huge incentive to actively support Poland in the east against teh Soviets. Despite that, Poland would not get that much land. Giving them this in the treaty would hopefully allow them to stop fighting with Poland, cut a deal over the Inflanty voivodship with Latvia to get them to join them. (In return for poland-lithuania dropping the territory) Polesia is essentially a Polish Belarussian hybrid, but they wouldnt be that large. Also, if the Poles had more support they could have taken less of Belarus and more of Ukraine. But the eastern border isnt that important. The allies are making an empty promise to Poland to get them to fight more against Russia and forcing France to send direct aid if they want to remain dominant on the continent. Sorry if thats a bit rambly but that was my thought process there.
lizodup kaisera xd@@matthiuskoenig3378
@@Videntis.History Sorry, but that treaty is complete bullshit.
Exclaimed about Germanic colonization of Poland but ignored how exactly Alsace gained that French population
To cut a long story short: Everybody's unhappy
So it is much better than historically
Everybody except those who actually won?
@@raul9648 So it is better than in original where no one was happy
@@KiraiKatsuji 💯
Not for France, Beligum, Britain, Austria, Yugoslavia, and Poland
So, Belgium letting French airships pass through them before Schlieffen, suspiciously declining fully paid German passage or for possible damages after still counts as neutrality, and attacking them repropbable?
As a point of military strategy, this plan creates a strong position for the Entente, particularly France and Poland, so I'd say the strategic goals of an Entente victory are met. While there are some contentions I have over the western borders, particularly in regards to the Netherlands, I consider the proposal reasonable enough in the interest of Belgian reparation and French security for it to be considered fair.
My main skepticism comes from the Polish conditions, or more just in the way you presented them. The Silesian division is fine for the outermost subdivisions, but the transfer of the middle division into Poland, bar the obvious industrial and military benefits, is a tenuous prospect for incorporation into a Polish state wholly, so a further division may have been in order. The Posen transfer is reasonable and your points well justified, so I have little contention on that point and the same, surprisingly to me goes for the Polish strip, bar Mecklenberg which I consider mildly overstretching as a claim. The meat of my issues with this proposal come in the styling of the Polish control of these territories as being more humane than the alternative, particularly in the bit discussing how Poland would not have engaged in German deportations or cultural repression. Regardless of the origins of the German settlers, their presence in the region should not have been swept under the rug so casually. If a group existed that did not wish to be ruled by the Poles, there would be animosity between the peoples, and in such case of escalation, the government of Poland would have to respond through either crackdowns or deportation for national security if nothing else. Furthermore, I find it unlikely that Poland would have the inclination to rule with a light hand following the centuries of German domination, so it's far from unlikely that a similar nationalistic sentiment would spring up and use Germans as a primary target for a common enemy to promote national unity. In sum, it just feels like a significant change of tone from the western borders that seemed fairly reasoned, if a bit controversial, to some segments of the Polish section that gave an impression of "Germany bad in past, Poland should be big, Germans should kick rocks, Poles better rulers". I recognize this may be an unintentional aspect of the segment, or simply my own perspective on it, but I felt I should voice it anyway.
Lastly, I found the idea of the USPL initally unrealistic, but on second consideration it seems if not likely than at least reasonable, and it is an interesting idea to pursue. I do consider the Eastern borders to be a source of contention with Belorussian and Ukrainian ambitions in future, so I believe it would be more realistic to have either the greater USPL or a more cohesive Intermarium, but not both together.
Overall though, I did enjoy the vid and look forward to the next one. Good job 👍
One sidenote about Kashubians: majority sided with Poland... but when Poland came, most regretted it. Polish parliamentary committee even noted, that ages of germanisation did not make the Kashubians sympathise with Germany as much as Polish army did in one year.
Lol - Europeans!
(Yes, I am European.)
And guess why Poles acted that way. Certainly nothing to due with 123 years of forced Germanisation in the Prussian partition.... right?
@@RexOlafusVidulusMagnus germanisation caused Polish Army to treat Kashubians as colony and behave like barbaric horde? Mkay.
Ill be real. One of the main problems i see with this alt history in the east is the idea that poland and lithuania wouldnt entirely ignore their new constitution to marginalise those 'incorporated' into the restored commonwealth. Both the nation states were extremely nationalistic and truthfully this whole proposal in the east would likely lead to even more divided poland than in our own timeline, much too unstable to stand as an actual nation.
This doesnt mention the fact that ultimately germany would continue fighting rather than accept this peace for at least another year.
Yeah and the Americans qouldnt support that. Their goals were idialistic but when looking at such a piece you know who the bad guys are. Especially with the Americans wanting at least some form of ethnic borders which dont match at all with what poland would get. (Poland got like 10 million germans)
Prussian militarism is not fully broken with this treaty in fact I think it is actually strengthened because of the harsher treaty leading to an even greater desire for vengeance and the fact that there is not only a sizable enemy to the west but now also the east
this is only part 1, part 2 solves prussian militarism
I also think that the Dutch Will be pretty pissed. Because in there eyes they where punished whitout reason and the could become future Allies with germany
@@erikveldkamp4828 I think so far it definitely looks like the dutch would be enticed to join germany to carve up belgium.
@@Videntis.History something tells me that your way to solve prussian militarism is by taken even more land because damn you made sure to enrage the germans, russians and dutch people to fight a second great war.
@@erikveldkamp4828so fuherreich?
I think you just somehow made it even more harsh.
It’s debatable but yes i think
So he made it from not harsh to a little harsh.
'Even more'
Great!
He Made a Sligthly Harsh Treaty to a Ultra-Imperialist & Unjust Treaty
Add Bushy Eyebrows to your Profile on YT so it looks like you in 50 years lol, btw great vid
But doesn't the Belgium one kinda make your weighted claims and religious last resort goals invalid? Since a treaty that was signed 1 century prior would not be undone by the entente, because UK and France ratified it themselves and would make them seem imperialist, and would just cause another Allie or Anschluss for a future Germany to appear. While also giving Belgium that middle island without a claim with unlimited access to a sea because it kinda handy for them? While in our timeline it's was not even considered by the entente, like the Dutch demands after ww2
As an American of majority Italian decent, that part 2 better be just as long because otherwise this is basically just asking for a major rise in communist or fascist support in Germany, and even is likely to drag the Dutch on side against the entente. In fact, given how Greece was essentially forced to join the war, I can see a lot more people in the later years viewing the entente as imperialists who wanted to carve up Europe as much as they could get away with.
Also, how on earth do you plan on ensuring prometheism works to it's fullest extent and enforcing it? The Entente did send people to fight against Soviets and supported the whites and despite this they stopped soon enough for a reason. So why and how would they get the support to ensure this by force? Further, even if it worked, communism wouldn't just cease to exist. It just wouldn't have a state to support it. This part seems a bit handwaved in my opinion, and if anything if this actually did succeed it just ensures Russia would join Germany in a future war rather than fight each other. Further, a France aligned Poland of such a size certainly would make the UK concerned over French power over the continent.
If anything, all these changes fails to do what you set out as it simply hurts Germany bit more without crippling them industrially enough while pushing many neutral nations away from the entente.
I know you said there would be a part 2, and many of your responses to comments like this seems to just be 'wait for part 2' however I have a feeling some of these points won't really be addressed. I really do not see how a 2nd world war is avoided here at this moment in time.
By the end of ww1 there was no way to get a treaty that wouldn’t end with ww2. Just too much hatred and desire to take back lands.
Given that it's been 2 weeks and the video isn't at 10k likes I get the feeling that there's never going to be a part 2, is there?
Now I see, your profile picture is just you with a beard hahahaha Also I must say, your voice sounds so happy like I always imagined you smiled during the recordings, it's so weird looking at this lmao
As per the treaty, I mostly agree except for the parts where Belgium expands into the Netherlands, that seems a bit weird considering the Dutch were neutral during the war? But other than that, pretty good
I honestly think a more appropriate title for the video might be "what if the Treaty of Versailles was about destroying Germany?" this is not fair to the Dutch, Luxembourgers, Germans and all populations forced to join the Polish state.
you lied many times about the ethnic composition of some regions, and when you were right you made the situation worse like in Danzig if it has a German majority why you have given it to the Poles?
you tried to justify it with the problem of Poland's lack of ports but then you give it 2/3 of the Baltic coast to Poland.
this just seems like anti-German sentiment to me I'm probably wrong but in the video it seems like that .
I just pray that part 2 fixes this mess
What ethnic area did I lie about?
@Videntis.History first sorry for using the word "lied"
Second at the start of the video, you say that most of the territory lost was not ethnically german, and this is not true, especially in the western territory.
alsace was a German majority territory and that part of Lorraine was like 40-30% Etnich German .
For the Easter territory, using an American or Polish Etnich map is not any better of using a German one. The polish corridor was an Etnich mess the only real reason was given to Poland is because Poland needed access to the sea.
Prussia was more German of what you say in the video .
@@Italienisch_freikorp Kaiser Wilhelm I said Alsace and Lorraine were not German. He explicitly said they were Frenchmen. The corridor had a clear slavic majority between the Kashubians and Poles. Even the German maps showed that. What do you mean Prussia was more German than I showed? I used official census data.
Personally I think take all that land from Germany was too harsh, France should’ve just taken what they lost in the Franco Prussian War.
Bro the end was straight up polish nationalism
Not too mention completely unobtainable in scope without the backing of both French or British troops in order to bring to fruition and hold together
Seems like polish nationalism is really great
@@sokal03 ahh yes we defeated our foreign oppressors and imperialist that's why we should become the new oppressors and imperialist
epic win @@nikostsiantas4060
@@nikostsiantas4060 Oh noo ... not the dreaded polish nationalism...
Awesome face reveal! And that's Saint Constantine the Great in the background?! Amazing!
Nah bro's face reveal is even worse than Dream's one 😭🙏
Bro you didnt fix Versailles you broke it even more
Until now this is much more unfair to Germany than the original Treaty.
Germany started the war, killed millions, and at the end inflated its own economy in order to pay nothing for it. There is literally nothing Versailles could have done that would've been "harsh" or "unfair" on the germans.
The original treaty was not harsh enough
This kinda does justice
@@sokal03The harshness of the original treaty led to hitler getting to power and finally ww2
Being fair would have avoided this.
Maybe letting the Brest Litowsk Treaty so Germany wins in the East and the Rest as it was.
So both sides would have won
@@Suchtel10 lmao no. Versailles being harsh was a lie produced by Hitler and the Nazis. In truth, the treaty was pretty normal in its harshness for the time.
@@sokal03wow bro. And then you are wondering why people say you deserved to get invaded.
He states openly that Germany only planned to take SOME French colonies, SMALL border territory, and make them pay 13 million marks. then proceeds to say that Germany losing a QUARTER of all European land, ALL of their colonies, and having to pay OVER 50 MILLION marks is somehow MORE LENIENT? Not only that, but the small border lands which Germany would have taken are NOTHING compared to the Rhine/Saar occupation and the Polish Corridor which would split apart core Prussian territory, I respect his opinion and the research he did, but I really feel like he is biased harshly against Germany. Not even mentioning that the British AFTER the war kept blockading Germany so that over a million Germans starved to death.
Pomerania is and always was primarily a core Polish teritiory, centuries before germs got there in the 1300s, after Teutons butchered Gdańsk's Polish population in 1308.
@@RexOlafusVidulusMagnus that doesnt mean to kick out the existing germans there, im talking about ethnic majorities and practicality, if you were gonna split prussia from the german mainland, just give it independence like austria at that point
I don’t necessarily agree with the war reparations bit. Yes the French payed back with smaller economy more than the Germans did in their respective wars but we need to keep in mind the current economic situation in both countries. The Franco Prussian war ended very swiftly while the First World War lasted years. The German economy was completely drained and in debt which caused the peoples argument with unable to pay war reparations.
the french had tons of devastation in their land, and were militarily occupied by the germans until the repaid them. I think it was harder for the french to repay the Germans in 1871 then for Germany in 1919.
@@Videntis.History least obvious french man
@@Videntis.History Thats pretty bogus honestly. France lost around 12k people while germany had lost 15% of its young male population. Its not even remotely comparable.
You also chose to compare frances numbers with the deflated reichsmark in 1920 where it already dropped significantly in value to the dollar in 1914 to artificially inflate frances numbers.
@@theChaosKe inb4 you get mobbed by bad faith responses that can't fathom the idea that a YTber could be wrong about something.
@@theChaosKe
This.
While your points are valid we do need to objectively think that if Germany, say, invaded Russia first instead of France, it would be France tearing up all of the Rhine River Valley if they tried advancing into Germany proper with them distracted in Russia. Would Germany still be the cause of the war then? I'd say yes, but the notion of France ruining the Rhine would be mentioned in a potential alternate Treaty of Versailles. What would your (and anyone else's) thoughts be on this alternate timeline?
I'm not gonna wait for the explanation of "It wasn't too harsh on the germans". It was. When you so thoroughly humiliate your adversary, force their actual legitimate government(headed by the Kaiser) to disband, then abuse it in the immediate years after the war(invasion by the French in the Rhineland). You leave no reason for reconciliation and by that path, moving on. You leave only a desire for vengeance against those that wronged it. Versailles guaranteed above all else through it's dictates, the rise of a dictator who would flagrantly disregard the treaty as Hitler did, and guarantee that he sought help from other authoritarian minded individuals to subvert it.
I explained how it wasnt harsh on the Germans in the video. Its in the first 15ish minutes. Respond to my points in the video. If you think what I said, which was backed up by sources, is wrong, explain how.
The Kaiser was overthrown by the Germans. Don't change history. Some people like you don't make the difference between history and using history to find arguments to justify political projects. But history is about processes, social classes, fight for power... At that time, Germans were a giant among nains and had no colonies, they wanted their "fair share". As the Kaiser Wilhem II said "the place in the sun".
@@alexandre_02 i said he was overthrown by the Germans?
Germany was "invaded" because it refused to make coal shipments for the 38 month in a row.
It's quite sad to see Nazi propaganda persist despite all the modern academic efforts to right false narratives.
13:25 USA never signed the treaty of Versailles they saw it as hard as it ignored mostly the 14 points.
2:25 Yeah but Germany was already in a Bad Situation After ww1 and france After 1870 was Not
“Fixing Versailles”
_looks inside_
*Fuhrrereich but somehow even worse*
Better
Man, the Dutch letting food imports for hungry people pass through them was hardly punished for sure.
The only area of the German empire that wasn’t majority German was the Province of Posen. Most areas that were given to other countries were primarily populated by German people, that were offered a choice of either leaving or exchanging their passports.
Checkout German Empire language census map from 1910 "Nationalitätenkarte des ostprovinzen des Deutsches Reich" and see for yourself (a map made by Germans btw)
This new treaty is even worse when it comes to planting resentment and future hostilities. I get the strategic power-balance considerations, but those are guaranteed to be seen as unjust and humiliating all the same.
Wilson's promise of ethnic self-determination was a very significant factor in sapping the willingness of central power populations to continue the fight (and turning their ethnicities against each other). Disregarding it for strategic considerations will completely undermine its very idea and foster a feeling of betrayal - as it happened in our time.
The Saarland will turn into the new Alsace-Lorraine given that its population had little interest in joining France and will be an important target for any revisionist movements within Germany.
The Netherlands will likely bow to your new treaty, but will be outraged at this attack on their sovereignty and disregard for their neutrality. They will become the staunchest of German allies to avenge this perceived injustice done to them by the Entente powers. The population of Luxembourg will embrace their German heritage far tighter in a historic mirror to what happened after WW2 in OTL as a result of this conquest. Belgium might have been given important strategic territories but full of a population rife with opposition. It is likely that a "German" alliance will emerge between Dutch Limburg (local Limburgish is a low-German language) and Luxemburg (the German spelling now on purpose) who together with German minority populations will drive for autonomy and the establishment of a third counterpart to Flanders and Wallonia.
While the new borders of Silesia will be unpopular, it is your plans for Prussia which will make the German population the most incensed as it is the clearest example of disregard of self-determination. There will be a large and economically powerful German minority within North-Western Poland which were never given a chance to voice their own opinion. In addition, while Polonization might be forbidden by law I highly doubt that it would be applied to the Kashubians, Masurians and Silesians who would have been considered Poles but were strongly influenced by German culture (and sometimes superiority beliefs) or were Protestants - there's a reason quite a lot of those actually voted to remain part of Germany when given the choice. The Memelland will be another area where there was a distinction towards their neighbors, because they saw themselves largely as Lithuanian Prussians (informed by their history and religion), not simply Lithuanians.
The United States of Poland-Lithuania will be an incredibly fragile construct. Even if the proposed system was implemented, there will be internal opposition both from the Polish side who will try to curtail Lithuanian over-representation and from the Lithuanian side trying to undermine Polish dominance and blaming "those in Warsaw" for all the issues. Political divisions will be inflamed by a language divide. The new Lithuania will have large German, Polish and Protestant minorities, which will be seen as a foreign attack vector and likely result in repression resulting in radicalization of the minorities.
Overall you created two largely equal power blocs with France, Belgium, Poland-Lithuania on the one and Germany, Netherlands, Russia on the other side. It will be interesting what your plans are for Italy, Austria-Hungary and the Balkans.
However, so far you left out an incredibly important factor: The impact a Belgian-French success over the Anglos would have on domestic politics for Britain and the USA. And while I think the British might be content with being able to play the lynch-pin for continental disputes between the blocs, you have just caused a resounding fall of Wilson's government. I'd like to remind you that over a third of the US population were of Dutch and German descent and while they had little love for the German Empire, they were quite pro-German. What was OTL seen as a splendid foreign success and moral victory, will be seen as a foolish foreign policy adventure which only furthered French imperial goals, while getting American boys killed. At best that will push the Americans back into "splendid isolation", at worst it will cause them to leave the Entente and join the new alliance around Germany. In which case the British will likely need to stay on the French side as a counter-weight. So you might have just inadvertently caused the invasion of Canada.
Dutch Limburg for a long time wanted to join Belgium as opposed to the Netherlands, so that point is somewhat justifiable eventhough it would outrage the Dutch. Zeelandic Flanders and Vlissingen however is a different story. Both have been Dutch since the independence of the Dutch Republic.
Although the peace treaty was criticised, it was "accepted". The main problem was the repayments. During the Great Depression, the Allies came up with the idea of getting the money they needed from Germany. Money that we didn't have at the time and that completely ruined our economy.
The real problem is that Germany never accepted their defeat, so they never accepted to pay. That’s why we occupied Rhineland (and they totaly had the money)
@@thomaslewandowski3724 Normal. ¿Como aceptar una derrota que solo fue posible porque Estados Unidos se metió mediante engaños en la guerra? 😅
This is untrue. Hyperinflation was deliberately engineered to wipe out domestic war debt. To fund the war, germany borrowed massively from its own citizens (war bonds) by sinking value of those bonds, german government get rid of that debt
@@thomaslewandowski3724
That is a false premise. After the was the SPD kept winning the elections, only the Great Depression and H-man`s political ability made the far right surge. The militarists surely didn`t accept the defeat, the average German had other things on his mind.
@@thomaslewandowski3724
What makes you think Germany hade the Money?
Im not sure i agree with the complete transferes of Danzig and half the Saarland.
If danzig is mainly tranfered so the polish have a port on the coast, but then the poles are united with lithuania, do they not already have ports in lithuania? The immediate economy viability of the poles can be secured through an extended occupation of the city, that would be returned to germany following a plebiscite. Much like the Saarland occupation of history.
For similar reasons, i think the extended occupation of the Saarland was a better solution than a transfere.
I notice you didnt discuss any such occupations as possibilities in this video. Will they appear in the next? Or was that part of the script that got cut for time?
Regardless, i await part 2 eagerly, to see your full vision
there will be more talk of occupations in the rhine in part 2
You don't understand, it's not about simple sea access, it's about historical and legitimate lands that were a part of Poland for ages, these lands being Pomerelia, or how Germans renamed them "West Prussia"
Well, Gdańsk is legitimately Polish city; every time it happened to be in the borders of some German state it was through invasion and robber - every single time, so not really legal way.
You could say that Danzig was inhabitet by German people for centuries but that doesn't matter at all. Originally they were just settlers on foreign westslavic lands, long before such political instances like German Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or even Ducal Prussia (wonder if you ever heard of it) even came to exist. How could these political being have any legitimacy over that city? Because Danzingers spoke German? So have Austrians, yet it would be an absurd for Prussians and Kaisers to inherit their lands 'cause it has never been theirs.
Saying that world war I wouldn't have happend if Germany wouldnt have given a blanc check is a little short signted. It would have prevented the war at that time, but another moment it would have happend as all the great powers were quite hawkish at the time. France was revanchist after the Franco-Prussian war. Alle states were constantly competing over colonies and both Russia and Austria-Hungary wanted to expand their influence into the Balkans.
That’s a fair point, a Great War was probably inevitable
@@Videntis.History fair enough and thanks for the reply 👍
"Fixed"?! For Germany, it would be even more catastrophic than the original one!
The original wasn’t catastrophic.
It's just territory, a lot of whitch was simply robbed by Prussia in the first place.
Look at that this way: over 70% of land that Poland gaind was its legitimate former borders before *Fritz not so Great*™ theft them; the rest are just spoils of the war that Germans themselves craved for but ultimately lost - so it is quite indeed fair.
Were you thinking Germany has only right to expand politically but not to shrink?
@@czmychalWould the German people back in 1919 think that? “Keep Stability for the German people?” What a joke. Might as well dissolve Germany into Bavaria, Prussia, Wittenberg, Saxony, Rhineland(French), Holstein, and Hannover.
@@jefferyhanderson7849 No clue what you are refering to but I like your idea of balkanizing Germany. Entente dismantled wrong Empire
@@czmychalIt is one of Videntises' goals of his version of the Treaty of Versailles. And I think balkanizing Germany was what the Allies had in mind before the British + French + Americans vs. Soviet power struggle became all too real and had to create their own Germany to counter Soviet Union's Germany.
10k likes for a part 2 about the fate of Germany. If you have any questions about my decisions, I will try my best to reply. If you want any of the songs, leave a comment.
I believe that if Austria-Hungary was not partitioned, but instead had been turned into a federation of different entities somewhat based on ethnic lines, with mixed regions such as Vojvodina becoming their own entities, with each region and ethnic group being represented equally with an Habsburg head of state and a democratic government, Hitler would never have been able to rise to the level of power that he did. You see, Austria and the Sudetenland would still be within the same strong democratic nation, where germans would be a minority group. There is no way Hitler would be able to take on Austria and annex neither the Sudetenland or Austria under these circumstances. There would of course have needed to be some territorial concessions, but mostly out of necessity, such as ceding Galicia to Poland, and perhaps also Bukovina to Romania, but Transylvania should have remained within Austria. This new Austrian federation would very likely have been an ally of Poland, and would have posed a significant power block to counter German influence in the region. If Germany had tried to invade Poland, not just France and Britain would declare war on Germany, but very possibly Austria as well, meaning that Germany would have enemies on every front and would not be able to take advantage of their newly conquered territories, as there would have been none.
It was a grave mistake by the allies to destroy Austria as an entity, as it had a very big chance to succeed if the right reforms was implemented. What they essentially achieved was to create a bunch of weak states that hated one another because of ethnic disputes. One of the most important reforms would have been to abolish the Ausgeleich of 1867, as the Hungarians was much to blame for causing strong separatist movements within their share of the empire, as they aimed to magyarize slovaks, Romanians, croats and serbs, something that the Austrians had never tried to do to their ethnic minorities.
As it goes for territorial changes on Germany, I think that East-Prussia now being separated from mainland Germany should have been made its own separate nation, as this would have prevented much of the frustration from Germany by not having a land-bridge to east-prussia and would have made east-prussia free to seek relations with neighboring nations similar in size and population such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. One could even create some sort of baltic league or confederation consisting of these three nations, as it would have created a more powerful state to deter Russian expansionism.
Your'e also justifying polish annexations based on historical claims. In that case, Poland had no right to upper Silesia, just saying.
germany was screwed by the treaty. unless you divided germany into smaller pieces than before the napoleaonic wars, WW2 would have still happened.
wait for part 2
That's the only realistic way to avoid ww2.
Large German minorities in.other countries will envitablely just fuel German nationalism and German recentment. Agaranteeing future conflicts.
Instead keeping all majority German land under German rule, but breaking said German rule into numerous Micro-states with a unified ecconomy breaks german military strength, especially offensively, while lessoning the desires for expansion (no irrendentism)
@@matthiuskoenig3378so Germany gets twice the population of france?
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I fail to see how that will solve anything. German unification was a blessing to Germans and taking it away would just cause even more resentment.
@vetarlittorf1807 honestly listening to him is appalling the more I listen, German Unification was so strong the people throught the German states and even in some non German (large pop of Germans) nationstates rose up against their governments all around the same time to make that Unification possible. Them thinking dividing the Germans again is gonna tame them, no your gonna piss them off more and have another century of unrest and war because of it.
So he just made the treaty even more unfair? 😅
Booohooo
muh germarinos
@@sokal03least clownish polish nationalist:
@@sokal03Muh germany started world war 1
This is incredibly biased.
Somehow, he managed to sneak in the word “subhuman” when addressing the German Empire’s attitudes towards the eastern peoples.
These were not Nazis. They did not consider Lithuanians and poles subhuman.
Stop it.
They instead called them other slurs, you can read about it
@@Ponanoix I call all my friends slurs. 😐 if they were subhumans I wouldn’t even be friends with them.
Stop it.
Need part 2.. 2 months mann and hope you are working on it. Really enjoyed this when I originally watched it when it came out. So would love to see part 2 and hope and hope it is in the works 🙏.
Videntis really has the worst beliefs
Elaborate
Videntis, I ABSOLUTELY love this style of video and it feels unique to your channel, I feel like it would be great for you to produce more videos like these, but I get why you would be on the fence due to the length of a video of this nature, thank you for making the video.
Noted!
@@Videntis.History I'd like to second this opinion. I don't care about the face reveal, and I might not agree with everything stated, but I find this video both very interesting and very engaging.
This title is one of the many reasons for a world war
Do you know something about Symon Petliura? Why didn't you add Ukraine into the Federation?
Most of the 7 Million people Germany lost After ww1 were German Not french danish or poles
22:53 Taking land away from someone who never fought in the War is Just a bad as Rewarding Denmark for doing nothing. The Dutch would join the Axis in WW2 if the Treaty failed.
No, it’s even worse than giving land to neutral nations. It’s a lot worse.
I don't see the issue with rewarding Denmark with northern Schleswig though? What's wrong with self determination
to see if the treaty was fair, all we have to do is compare it to the conference of Vienna
If you consider the previous status quo, that wouldn't go in the direction you are hinting at...
French territory lost by the French Empire (Wallonia, Savoy, Swiss bordering lands, Luxembourg, some islands) were greater than the German territories lost by the German Empire.
The non national losses were arguably greater too : non french territory part of the natural borders of the Revolution (Flemmish, Dutch, and German parts), Piemont, Illyria and a few greek islands.
The Vienna Congress was fair in that it ensured the balance of power in Europe though. The Versailles treaty wasn't, it was too harsh to make an ally out of Germany, and too soft to ensure the balance of power.
The Congress of Vienna didn't have to deal with an aggressive nation-state who went above and beyond what was at that time considered honourable conduct of Warfare.
@@markgarrett3647 and what was napoleonic France?
Which in their first chance to give their lifes to Napoleon the moment he came back
@@princelourenco1914 Napoleonic France to their credit stuck most of the time to the honourable conduct of War.
Great and interesting Video. I (as a German myself) never thought of an even tougther one in ( some points).
What I don't quite understand, is why you give Masuren to Poland and Tilsit to Lithuania.
The masovien people with former eastern prussia were culturaly fairly good inclued in east prussia and diceded to remain with germany in a referendum. As for Tilsit I can't think of any pro for lithuania to anex Tilsit.
But maybe I'm a bit biased.
they only voted to stay in germany because of the Polish Soviet war but thanks for the kind comment
How do you know that? It's a very biased assumption.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 numerous journalists of the time, league of nations members, as well as polish and soviet politicians all said that
@@Videntis.History yeah polish polish politicians are just the most reliable of sources about potential Polish territory *rolls eyes*
None of those sources you list are on the ground sources. It's all just opinions backed up by nothing.
They might of voted to be Polish but if the only thing you can bring to back up that claim is the words of politicians rather than polling or other mass demonstrations, you are just blowing hot air.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 i didnt only mention the poles
Part 2 when?
33:27 *Poland A Vs B Intensifies*
Poland fell in 1792 from instability first, then Partition by Conquest. don't make history repeat itself.
No offense but fixed aboslutely nothing, germany is still as mad as posible, uk apeasament still hapens with anschluss and the hole czecoslovak issue, russia and hermany still would ally, without russia being comunits probably the woul form a berlin moscow axus, germans would still develop blitzkrieg counteting french defenses and poland cant hope to defend against both
this is only part 1, part 2 deals with germany
@@Videntis.History please make part 2 I’ll pay
Fix you grammar first before fixing Europe
@@Videntis.Historyi bet part 2 will be garbage
It's just more anti German crap.
Germany did n o t "destroy" occupied Belgium. The area around Liege with many forts was heavily damaged and of course all areas where the armies clashed, especially in western Flanders.
Concerning the ethnics of West Prussia there was a majority of German population along the Baltic coast (except one kashubian county) and the Netze River since the late 1400reds, which connected later East Prussia ethnically with Pomerania, 95% German settled. In the election of 1912, the last before WW1, two third of West Prussia voted for German parties, one third for the Polish minority party.
All in all, it was almost impossible to draw accepted borders in east central Europe because many regions were ethnically mixed. But the worst mistake was to create a seperate city and territory of Danzig under the rule of the League of Nations but with extended privileges for Poland.
This situation was created in Versailles it wasn't the responsibility of Germany or Poland alone. Yet, the people of both Nations were blamed and suffered Mio. of killed persons.
I respect but don’t agree with your thoughts, mainly because:
In regards to justification I don’t think an comparison tobte treaty of Frankfurt can be made, the stripping of Alsace leaves out the eastern German territories which were far more insulting including territory’s held by Prussia since the defeat of Napoleon, here the circumstances matter as Germany was originally left unable to defend its territory’s from Poland with the „National Votes“ being set up to favor Poland(Propaganda) along with it becoming occupied on Poland. If all parts had decided to go with Poland it would have devastated Germany. When the elections went in Germanys favor, the terms were changed to give some minor territory’s to Poland, including establishing Danzig despite it being an almost completely Germany city.
But much more importantly it completely exposed the Entente as hypocritical, since it blocked German self determination( most German propaganda posters will play on this fact, by displaying Austria which was prohibited joining Germany)
Second the economic aspect, I actually disagree with the Historian here, the original „draft“ of Versailles did not include a sum. Germany could have been able to then supply the aggreed upon sum, but the argument leaves out that Germany was economically
devastated, with both a new Social-System being established and dept being payed off. Germany would have needed about 20 years to pay of the war. If paying it off earlier had been possible they would have done so and they provided payment until the global financial crisis, were notable propaganda of the financial burden appear in Germany. So here I would argue it was Frances treatment off how and when the Money was payed rather then the sum, since to many Germans it was unjust to demand the money in such difficult times and not simply delay payment by some years.
Last war guild: I’m sorry but here I must unfortunately at least on Frances Part call a lie detector, although Belgium had not been fault at the war. France and it’s Generals had planned the war and most lied about it later, France had made secret arrangements with Russia, Italy, Romania and UK which were aimed against Germany and ended up defining the alliances of ww1. Additionally anti-German propaganda was common and diplomatic instances like the Marrocen crisis were blown out of propositions. Lastly they also had full access to the German version of the document meaning they were at least aware of its meaning. Last the point made by the historian Fischer, the September program might have been infamous for its presentation of German expansionism. But in reality it way never consensus in higher circles. Germanys aims had been to weaken Russia and France but in what form was not known. France and Russia followed similar plans creating an eye for an eye mentality. Which made the desire for revenge seem justified. German highcomnand knew a war was coming and decided that they wanted to win it rather then prevent it an Mentality shared by their peers. Lastly other points that in my opinion made the treaty unjustified, include the handing over of leaders, reduction of armies and occupation of the Rheinland.
For all those reasons I think the treaty was to harsh on Germany rather then to soft, if it had been harder I doubt that it would have been enforceable, with Germany likely becoming a second France, waiting until the Entente was distracted to make there strike or completely refusing the treaty and fighting to the bitter end. Permanent keeping down of Germany was impossible and that was something latter realized by Frances leaders as their domestic situation didn’t always provide for war.
i Want a Part 2 Only to See How Crazy WW2 Would go
Icon in the background🗿
St. Constantine the Great
Unique take on Versaille i'm interested to see part 2
I disagree with the assertion that Germany would have foisted that peace deal you reference in the beginning upon the allies. That was assuming not only an unconditional surrender, but was a fantasy as well and was only a product of the military leaderships delusions.
4:05 big rebuke: France was mostly intact Economically. Franco-Prussian war was a 1 year conflict at most with only a few Cities Decimated, France didn't have the time to Damage it's own economy through Mobilization and Fighting to the Bitter End. WW1 was a War of Attrition in which everyone planned on Fighting to the end. The Central Government in Paris collapsed when Napoleon III was Captured at Sedan and forced to Abdicate by Republican Provisional Officials who by the end of the War found themselves Encircled in Paris, and had no Choice but to Surrender.
Alsace-Lorraine overwhelmingly wanted to join Germany, only 2.5 percent Left the Province for France upon ownership being Transferred by the Treaty of Frankfurt, the Rest of the Population either were Exuberant or indifferent to who owned the Territory after 1871 according to Census Data collected in the Aftermath
Germany did much less Damage in France even in WW1, Entaunt did more to Damage France, Belgium flooded half of itself to try and hold the Germans off like it was the Yangtze river, the Germans only and Irrecoverably Stealing Belgian Industry among it's other War crimes. Huge subatomic Explosions called Mines Rocked everywhere along French Flanders and Picardie, the French even provoked the Germans to start using Gas by throwing Tear Gas and Chlorine Grenades made for Russia while Belgium was still losing Territory which no doubt to France's Detriment Gas caused most of the Zone Rouge and Villages that Died for France, long after the Iron Famines begin from salvaging all the Iron Harvests
Frankfurt was a Political Humiliation for a War France Started to deny Hohenzollern Coronation in Spain.
Versailles was Revenge and Economic Gangrape.
The Debt incurred on France from Frankfurt was at most a Third of Versailles and they easily paid it off due to Overseas Colonies and a largely intact Economy, only losing Alsace-Lorraine as a Center of Ore mining for Steel Production that the Germans would Capitalize on. If Frankfurt was anything like Versailles and france was as crippled as Germany, not even the French would have the dog in them to dare make Serious Strides to pay off the Debt. No Famines in France, no key Losses in France aside from a territory that largely wanted to be German Indicated by it's own Census data, and France was Rich colonially. Germany didn't tap much off of any other Occupied Territories and were happy to Leave thanks to Otto Bismarck insisting on making things Lenient.
France tripled the Debt to pay for the US Bankrolling the entire Entaunt in Loans, stripped many vital lands and carved 30 percent of Germany to be Occupied and never be German again. Germany Economy crippled from being at war for 4 years, Hundreds of Thousands dead from Starvation thanks to the Naval Blockade along with Millions dead by the War in Germany, Berlin still hasn't recovered it's Pre-WW1 Population to this day. The French also had Rights to Saarland and the Rhineland industrial Zone by the Treaty which didn't tally towards Financial Reparations. Not to mention Germany's Colonies were mostly net Losers except for Togo and Qingdao, and Germany lost these Colonies so it couldn't benefit the way France did. The US kept pumping Inflationary spending into Weimar who was Weak, Indecisive and by Design incompetent because the Competent people were all Monarchists and didn't want to be forcefully Democratic. Aside from Banning Economic Communism, Forcing an Ideology in name inside a Constitution is Neither Democratic nor a Good Idea because Eventually the Locals will Call BS and will Toss thier Constitution for being worse than a Dictator
Anschluss was Democratically attempted by Austria as Austria-Germany in 1919 who was also banned from it by the Treaty of Saint Germain and Blocked by Versailles, Austria was in a worse Position than Germany, but allowing this would have helped to Punish Germany, as well as already fulfil many of the Territorial desires of Greater Germany which easily could have deterred the Rise of the Nazis. Poland illegally revolted and ethnically Cleansed much of west Poland prior to the Plebiscites, and even saw the Allies rigging most of the Referendums which the Poles themselves Realized not wanting to end up in Soviet Poland due to the Ongoing Polish Soviet War which was how East Prussia never became Polish. Denmark didn't do shit and unfairly received German Territory. Austria-Germany was literally Austria and the Confiscated-Occupied Sudetenland which the Czechs stole butthurt over how thier Rebellion centuries Prior had thier Elites' property confiscated as Punishment, Czech Nationalism at that Point wasn't about the Czechs nor Slovaks, but Getting the Estates Back, Only the people believed it was about them. Even the Intelligencia were Tricked by this.
A Fair Treaty of Versailles in your Vision would have made the Punic Peace between Rome and Carthage look like Capitulation to Carthage (who by the way were begging for Peace at all costs after they lost Syracuse and the rest of Sardinia and Sicily).
Belgium only got the Congo because France didn't want Germany taking it and only because France didn't forgive Germany for winning a war France Started in 1870 during the Berlin Conference of the 1880s (86 I think.), Belgium not only proved to be the most Inept at being a Colonizer (worse than Portugal who saw Vorbeck's German-African Army as Liberators from Portuguese Brutality and Incompetence) but also the most Brutal practically engaging in Genocide in the Congo their only Colony which even the Germans called out and they're for minding thier own Buisness in Africa trying to uphold the Colonial Neutrality Policy. Belgium relied on France and Britain and thus shouldn't deserve anything but Melmedy Back for a slap on the wrist to Germany and a Separate deal with Germany. They had everything they wanted by surviving, they didn't need anything else, Rwanda and Burundi was just a Participation Trophy, British would have starved them into Submission too because that's the only thing the British know how to do if they lose a war on Land. Belgium itself was meant to be a half Dutch-French Buffer state which by designed couldn't leave it's Neutrality and was nothing more than a Political tool by the British. the Locals in 1830 didn't want to be Dutch nor Austrian and were Inspired to be a Napoleonic Republic like France was, they literally got the "We won but at what Cost" treatment in both Cases. I had a 5th Great Granduncle who as an Admiral volunteered his Fleet to help them, but were denied due to being an Admiral of Blue of the British Empire. Sir Isaac Coffin was his Name. also Guarantee the Kingdom of Greece and Conserve the Monarchy or make it Native, suppress the Republicans until a Compromise is reached. Metaxas only took power because the Entaunt started a Greek Civil war trying to get a Vardar front. Greece wouldn't be the shitshow we know it today if it wasn't for the Entaunt violating Greek Neutrality with even less Provocation than Germany had for invading Belgium, Make the Treaty fair for Greece while at it, Return Constantinople and the Magali Idea and tell Ataturk to take his Deep state and Rig it somewhere where there'll never be Democracy or Voting Stations but keep an Independent Turkey with a Greater Armenia to avenge the Genocide.
My Solution: Make it the Franco-Prussian war Debt, Split Alsace Lorraine between German and French Speakers, Split Tyrol the same way, Don't establish Yugoslavia or Prioritize Italian promises, Disincentivize Ethno-Terrorism practiced by the Poles, don't give the Poles thier Gdynia Corridor, give them the Memel Corridor instead as to deepen animosity between Poland and Lithuania past Wilno/Vilnius and to keep Germany away from the Baltics, Allow Anschluss with Sudetenland in 1919, having enough Economic Assets to be used to rebuild the Economy is all you need to make it Fair. this will disarm the Divided Germany plot Hitler Established, and make the Debt not as much as a Spark point. also: Blame Serbia and the British for the War, they provided the Guns used to assassinate the Archduke, and while at it, don't make the Treaty of Trianon such a Ballbuster if you're serious about keeping Austro-Hungary Dissolved, and tell Japan to Fuck Off for not helping more in the War, but don't impose Naval Restrictions and Embargos that Violate your own Neutrality, Japan did half of what it did to Spite and Acknowledge that despite there being International Order, I won't follow that Order due to all of the Suppressions involved again Japan who was an Ally after WW1. Don't give shit to someone who never fought in the War (Looking at you Denmark.). lean off the Army Restrictions and more on holding Germany accountable for Future Actions to provide a sense of Forgiveness which stokes the Christian in all Europeans.
This is without doubt the worst alternate Treaty of Versailles video I have ever watched
So it would seem
And why do you think so
@@slabheadihno8679 they were harsher on Germany without completely crushing their militarism. Now the dutch and a large amount of neutral estates are likely less alligned with imperialists that just carve up borders of neutral states (the dutch) and grew a massive pola d out of seemingly nowhere that has German majority population in some areas which would most likely not want to be part of that country just because "well the poles had to deal with that too"
@@internetperson1666 whereas l agree with the thing abt neutral estates. Germany deserves what they got in this treaty. Read Griff Nach der weltmacht, it shows in many ways how German is to be blamed for the war. And if you don’t want just read abt welthmact and weltpolitk. Furthermore the land belongs to Poland it has ever since the great deluge stole her lands
@@slabheadihno8679 I don't really care about the border changes in Germany but I'm worried about how the German state will react to it. Unless the entente changes the internal structure of Germany to make it more passive and less Prussian in nature (which again would push neutral states further from Britain and France) Germany would have even deeper hatred for poles and the french. Russia, whose lands are getting carved out as well might join Germany in this regard too.
I'm still waiting for pt 2 but this initial peace treaty doesn't look good for a future peace.
Your peace is even worse than Versailles. Germany may have declared war but France and Russia were already amassing their armies on their borders having mobilized first with the intent to declare war later. Belgium forced into a war does deserve reparations, France who sought conflict does not. Germany had managed to alienate the Allemans in Alsace-Lorraine and so France deserved it back but no more. The only real way to achieve a lasting piece would be to add Germany to the peace negotiations, a new Congress of Vienna. When the French negotiated Versailles they believed the Entente+US would continue after the war was over to enforce the peace and thus Europe was structured in such a way to favor dominance by a land power such as France. Germany, the Soviet Union, and Hungary were surrounded by small states allied to the French with the hope that if conflict came again the joint invasion by them would be enough for victory. Each of these states though did not behave as nation states as Wilson had hoped but aspiring empires, their ambitions collided meaning that all of these smaller states could not be organized into an effective front, especially by a politically polarized and economically lethargic French state, thus Nazi Germany came to fill the role that France had intended for itself. Lastly the supposed Entente. The UK had joined only for Belgium's sake but their own propaganda had led them to sign onto a French Europe, with the war over, their empire fracturing as a result of marshalling it for the war, they realized that they had signed a peace against their longstanding interest in a balance of powers in Europe and thus undermined Versailles where it suited them. The US, out of the hands of the moral crusader Wilson also returned to its isolationism. The French alone and their failing economy and divided politics could not hold the peace.
I have an idea for the video that talks about if Portugal had won the war of succession and placed Joan, the wife of the King of Portugal, on the throne and unified Portugal and Castile by folding the Portuguese coat of arms in 1468, I think. plz. a Portuguese hug
can you explain that a bit more? so what portugal be the ones who created spain?
So imagine that Princess Joana was supposed to be the heir to the throne of Castile, which most likely Joana's father had put in his will, but the will disappeared and Joana's sister Isabel was placed on the throne with the help of her husband, the king/prince of Aragon instead of Joana and the king of Portugal took advantage and married Joana and tried to place her on the throne and rule over the Castilian throne. After marrying Joana, he gathered a large army and marched to Castile, but due to bad military and diplomatic decisions he lost the support of the Castilian nobles who wanted Joana in power and the entry of the kingdom of Aragon into the war and there was even a request for help from the king of France but he didn't accept it.
peak trolling hours
Never let him cook ever again with any treaty Ok maybe With the One hungarian
You're one of My favorite alt history channels! This will be amazing! Suggestion: Harold godwinson won the battle of hastings
Great suggestion!
@@Videntis.History Great You liked it
@@Videntis.Historyi have an idea too
What if Bohemia won the battle of marchfeld?
(Bohemian empire real)
What many people forget, germany didn't just have to pay money but hand over many recourses and also give away most of its coal and concrete production to france and Belgium also having to give up all its merchant fleet. Many people just look at the money
You stare at us like a NPC giving us info for a quest to take the enemy base down
Lmao
39:46 Prussia was Polish for a time as a Vassal of Poland after the Teutonic Knights Secularized and before Prussia and Brandenburg became one Country. the Pruss were Germanized Poles for the same Military Concerns. Don't continue a Cycle of Military Concerns, that's how Wars keep Happening between the same Beligerants.
Prussian militrism arguement is fucking stupid this isn't fair at all but rather gaaaaaaaaay!!
WW2 Is Going to Go Crazy with this One!
I listened till Alsace-Lorraine and then I actually couldn't make excuses for this nonsense anymore.
This is missing the whole idea that Germany was supposed to remain a great power after than war and was practically impossible to crush without killing at least 40 million people along the way. A more draconian peace couldnt realistically have been enforced.
The polish adjustments although some were in principal fair had too glaring problrms. 1) The artificial polish corridor with the unenforcable idealistic league of nations bullshit would necessitate future resolution. 2) Many poles actually voted to stay in Germany for economic considerations, so much that the allies granted Poland many German votinh territories despite the plebiscites.
Belgium as a concept simply isn't sustainable in a hard peace agreement and probably should have wallonia annexed into France (of course this wouldn't happen, but any land given to belgium is gonna have no impact on its defensibility and seizing land from Germany is just a convenient cassus belli).
Now Alsace-Lorraine. The french claim to alsace-lorraine stemmed back 300 years. The German claim 800 years. Most of the population was German (albeit not 100% and alsacian German). It just happened that Germany had no use for this territory and it was vital for French industry. Anyone claiming Alsace-Lorraine as rightfully French chooses to ignore the history and language spoken (again culture is alsatian) in the region, because their grandpa said so. Accusing the Germans of being excessively proud against the Polish is exactly what the French were against the Germans. Bismarck didn't actually want to annex the land, however it was insisted upon by the Kaiser. Not for military purposes but for national pride.
The German Kaiser said Alsace and Lorraine were French people but ok, I should trust a RUclips commenter over the Emperor who conquered them.
@@Videntis.History
IDK what the German Kaiser said, but this wasn't a political discussion (therefore that's not even a relevant source to cite if it is true). From an ethnic standpoint Alsace was overwhelmingly German and Lorraine had a German supermajority. Unless you are arguing the Alsace-Lorraine was "politically" French (which is a mute point because this is the case with all territorial losses). From a purely ethnic standpoint Germany could've seized a decent chunk more land than Alsace-Lorraine. You don't need to trust a stupid RUclips commenter, just do some research from credible sources (no quora, RUclips, reddit, or tiktok).
@@Videntis.HistoryAlsace-Lorraine is historically German speaking yeah.
Dear Videntis you made an almost perfect Versailles in the thumbnail except for Alsace Lorraine and Limburg and Luxembourg and Austria
Love this. Really appreciate the look back at historical censuses from multiple different countries and the economic breakdowns. Plus the maps, as always with your channel, look super crisp. Please make more of these.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Where part 2???
As a Belgian : FINALLY, someone who respects Belgium in alternate history. You did your research very well unlike some wikipedia-reading youtubers out there. Great video !
Thank you very much! I think sadly the video is performing as well because its too long. I spent a long time on research and then the video got really long. Most people wouldnt spend 8 mins talking about Belgium during the Treaty of Versailles but I thought it was something important that is often overlooked
By giving you Dutch land? Whilst the Netherlands was neutral? Yeah seems fair.... Dutch Limburg I can get behind. But Zeelandic Flanders and Vlissingen? Lol those territories were part of the Netherlands before there was even the idea of Belgium.
DUDE HOW DO YOU MAKE MAPS LOOK THIS AMAZING?? PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DROP A TUTORIAL
When discussing Versailles, the Author mentions that the vast majority of German losses were non Germans. He fails to draw the same conclusion with Brest Litovsk as the vast majority of Russian losses were non Russians
I'm impressed. A very creditable and well-researched (and well-presented) video. I've subscribed. (I doubt you'll get anywhere near 10k views - too cerebral a topic I'm afraid.)
A major criticism of your Eastern Europe changes as set against their objectives is, I think, a too-simplistic equation of new state territorial size with proprtionate military and economic weight. Germany would retain its pre-eminent economic (and, dare I say it, cultural) preponderance, together with its historic and highly efficient central state structures. The existence of even bigger largely backward and rural states to it East would not be fatal to any revanchist or military-adventurist projects it might choose to venture on - irrespective of a monarchist, republican or NSDAP character it might settle on.
A better agenda for your whole 20/20 rewriting of Versailles might be to home and maybe rethink in on the central and essential areas that enabled the NSDAP takeover in Germany subsequently: "war guilt", reparations and the Polish Corridor (the latter poisoned the Junker/officer class against an otherwise natural anti-Soviet ally?). In the latter case, Germany can be either co-opted or coerced: Rapallo tells us that the Allies failed to succeed with either.
I think I’ll release p2 but instead of the 1hr it’s supposed to be, I will cut it down to like 15-20 min
Is Videntis Eastern Orthodox? Or Catholic? That picture in the back looks like an icon to me 👀 ☦️
lets gooo
He’s gotta be (and Christ is risen to all you orthodox brethren!☦️)
As far as the USPL goes, the justification for it being on the basis that Wilson supported Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia is extremely shaky.
Both states were established on the basis that all those within the territory were in fact one people, only separated through the mishaps of history.
In contrast, Poles Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians are very distinct peoples.
I love your content, some of the best, if not the best alternate history content on this entire platform
Ps can you please make a video about Zimbabwe? I think it would be really good
thanks, but what about zimbabwe
@@Videntis.History how about something along the lines of a what if everything went perfect for Rhodesia
Will you try to revise the treaty regarding the Habsburg lands and maybe the other Central Powers?
I think you did great with this one and I'm interested in what a fair Saint-Germain and Trianon could be like.
You know there is sooo much in this i want to argue with you over, but im gonna limit myself to just this...
You say Franco-Prussian War Framce had to pay War reparations twice as much and was able to pay it while under German occupation, while WW1 Germany was not able to pay theirs, but heres where your argument falls short...
Franco-Prussian War France had an entire Empire of colonies and most of its industries to fall back on to be able to pay those reparations.
Meanwhile WW1 Germany had their empire of Colonies stripped away, and most of their industrial complex either removed or its production taken away to be given to the allies on top of reparations. On top of that Germany was left with no colonies hardly any industry left and many restrictions for them to be able to bouce their economy back to have any chance at paying the full reparations without destroying the value of the gold-mark to a paper-weight. So looking at that it makes sense they were not able to pay those reparations unlike 1870s France.
I see that icon in the back. Bless you brother!