Who ever knows or thinks about all these consequences of War and the aftermath?? I learned so much in this lecture! Prior to it, I watched Paris 1919, a movie on RUclips. The lecture dovetailed nicely!
Another brilliant talk from this outstanding historian. She has this uncanny ability to explain complicated matters in such a way that anyone can understand. Remarkable.
Not one mention of The Balfour Declaration & the impact that would’ve made to every Jews thought process in Europe or even around the world. She might of mentioned it but i must of farted & I missed it . Also The Ottoman Empire was I think mentioned once or twice but was massively swerved. Who controlled the oil in what was the Ottoman territory is always missed out by these ‘great’ historians.
@@ray_glaze , well to reality they are . The Balfour Declaration was the seed that started the ‘stab in the back’ & the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire & control of the oil fields within their old territories was the key prize at the hall of mirrors. Yet the so called historians serve it like neither ever happened. I wonder why .
@@ray_glaze , also not one mention of the Sykes Picot Agreement, which if it wasn’t for the Russian Revolution no one would’ve known about it . Conveniently swerved.
@@jameshodgkins559 I don't disagree with your comments. I'm only suggesting that this lecture need not include them. The focus of this lecture is the treaty of Versailles. And that is enough to fill a 45-minute lecture.
I am so grateful that a lecture like this is available, years later, for me to listen to form thousands of miles away. Thank you, internet. Thank you, Yutuve.
I’m glad she mentioned Japan, which saw itself dismissed and disrespected at Versailles. This led directly to the rise of strident militarism in Japanese politics, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and ultimately the Pacific war.
The Germans didn’t declare war on France in 1870; Bismarck provoked the French to do so - but finally France declared war on Germany. Napoleon III was defeated, but the new rulers wanted to continue to fight. By the way, France continuously invaded German territory; Louis XIV. started in 1688, Napoleon… 70/71 was the first time Germany out of defeat brought down France.
There wasn't an introduction. I recognize her and believe she's the granddaughter of Lloyd George but can't remember her name. Not mentioned in tge heading.
@@sherrylhendrickson6861 Her name is Margaret MacMillan. She wrote two excellent books on WWI, "Paris 1919" and "The War That Ended Peace." I think she is the best WWI historian going. I don't know if she's still teaching there but she was a professor at The University of Toronto. If you haven't read her books, I highly recommend them, especially Paris 1919 which I think is the best book on the Treaty of Versailles.
She is an excellent historian. I rank her right up there with Barbara Ruchman, who wrote The Guns of August, which gave a comprehensive account on the opening months of the First World War.
History is not a single pre-determined road which you cannot leave, so far I agree. What doomed the Versailles treaty though was the fact that all wonderful new principles declared by the Allies for the time after the war were not to be granted for the defeated. Self determination for all people - except Germans. German-speaking Austria could not unite with Germany despite having lost all economic means to survive as a separate state. The Sudetenland with its majority of Germans in the population had to be part of Czech-Slovakia because it contributed a lot of industry (70%) which this new state desparately needed. The Germans in Southern Tirol and their entire country were moved to Italy because this was one of the few promises made by the British to the Italians as payment for joining the war which was not broken. A system without any form of justice and a house so divided is not supposed to stay. This is exactly what happened.
You forgot areas like Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen etc with almost 100% German speaking population. Poland should never have been given access to the Baltic Sea, there was no Polish majority there. Not to forget the loss of the German colonies. What nation would have let that happen to them? The English would have demanded revenge in such a situation after 10 years, not after 20 years like the Germans.
@@guntherjager5085 I wrote "almost 100%". Some very tiny areas were partly French-speaking. The Germans there were deprived of their human rights by the French after 1918 and really extreme after 1945 in a way that is unparalleled in Western Europe.
Having participated in peace talks myself I can only say that hindsight is wonderful. The key problem was not that Europe was complex, it was that no-one on the winning side had lasting European peace as their main objective during the talks - except maybe Wilson who however was out of touch with reality. This was also the main objection of Keynes btw. You can agree or disagree with his analysis of what it would take to make a lasting peace, but he was 100% right to point out that the negotiators of the Treaty had - and put - other priorities than lasting peace first - and that was the ultimate failure of Versailles.
Many Germans still don't know what peace is. It wasn't an issue. It was the devastating destruction of life and cost of the b. Germans that was the issue and of course they should have been made to make reparations towards SOME of the cost of their war.
All the warring parties wanted this war. Must read : Barbara Tuchman. The Proud Tower. The wounds inflicted by The Dictates of Versailles and Trianon have not healed yet.
An oft forgotten point of the Treaty is that Germany signed under extraordinary distress: even after the armistice the British blockade was in place. German citizens were starving by the 10's of thousands. & we are surprised that the Treaty failed?
Excellent point. Somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000 German civilians were starved to death by the blockade in between the armistice and signature of the treaty. The Germans would never forget that- nor would any nation.
Most of Europe suffered of food shortage and famine during ww1. France and Germany both lost about 0.7% of their civilian population due to hunger and disease, but France lost on top of that tens and tens thousands more civilians due to military action and war crimes. Germany on the contrary was left untouched by the fightings and was pretty well off at the end of the war compared to pyrhic victors like France or Belgium.
Sanctions now the equivalent name used for blockade are still used againt countries and its people. Worse is that it is used against poor countries without a declaration of war as a form of imperial dominance to make the people, civilian people including children, suffer. Presently many countries are under sanctions. Evil empires do evil things.
I like the fact that she explores different ideas however, I think on this topic, she should start with a disclaimer: “David Lloyd George was my great grandfather.” As a historian myself, I have to be aware of the fact that I have my own biases, and I need to ask myself if it’s POSSIBLE that my personal biases are coloring my own work? 🤔🤷🏻
Should be basic… 🙄 All historians are supposed to be humans, and history is written (and periodically rewritten) by…humans, each one with his or her own biases, consciously or not. Never met, personally, an historian, a scientist, a journalist, or even an academic who wasn’t somehow ‘oriented’. The point is making it clear ‘in limine’, from the start, and being as honest as possible in all our works.
Yes, the Western World has yet to come to terms or take responsibility for the plague they visited on post Ottoman Middle East, I.E Sykes/Picot. The West still does not get it that it has no right to colonize, or to interfere in any country but their own. In other words, the mess the Middle east became was caused 100% by the French and the British.
I think her view of the results of the post WW1 settlement is rubbish on stilts. Keynes predicted the results when he resigned from the Treasury and wrote 'The economic consequences of the peace" in 1919.
I very much enjoyed Professor MacMillan’s presentation. Her perspective is interesting and enlightening. I would like to point out something though: In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, France was technically the aggressor. It was France that declared war, and pretexts aside (Bismarck’s manipulation of a telegram and disputes regarding the succession to the Spanish throne), the bottom line is that the French state was willing to go to war in order to prevent German unification. I’d also like to add (and I’m not trying to be cynical), that the war had a silver lining for France: It took a century after the French Revolution and a war with a foreign power to put to rest the monarchy and autocracy and establish the French Republic permanently (what also can be said about Germany after its defeat in 1945 - albeit in this case it took direct administration by foreign powers for this to happen).
Point well made. I was about to write on similar lines. TBH I feel that everyone was spoiling for a fight for many different reasons. As well as the French desire to avenge the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war, Britain wanted to suppress an emerging industrial competitor.
"the French state was willing to go to war in order to prevent German unification" I'd nuance that by pointing out that the French foreign politics under the Second Empire was pretty erratic, and sometimes kind of directionless. If the above point had been true, France would have entered the war of 1866 - in fact, Austria very much wanted them too. Nor did France declared war on Prussia to prevent them from uniting Germany - in fact, Germany got united *because* France declared war on Prussia. It was mostly misplaced ego that led them to this conflict.
Mm one aspect of the Versaille negotiations was the then attempt by Irish nationalists to get a hearing. But the victorious UK wouldnt recognise their requests. Thus the 1919 post WW1 UK General Election, bringing a majority of Sinn Fein MPs into being (from the island), led to the then resultant 1919- 1921 Anglo Irish independence war and Irish partition.
But surely the same thing would have happened anyway? Because Britain was never giving up Ireland in one form or another. But an interesting point and tbh one I was not aware of.
iTube22100 mostly it had to do with the fact that there were communications between Austria and Germany making it pretty clear that Austria wouldn’t have moved if Germany wasn’t going to back it. The second probably more important factor in terms of western Europe was that, Germany invaded Belgium which was a country that was neutral by agreed collective treaty of all major powers in Europe, who did nothing to Germany or Austria or Serbia. Basically it proved that there were no lines the Germans wouldn’t cross in order to win even if it was aggression against a nation that wasn’t even involved. The first could have been forgiven, the second couldn’t. It’s one thing to have a war time enemy or alliances, that was an understood part of the rules of war, it was another to invade a nation that wasn’t taking sides completely in the opposite direction of where the actual fighting had started to just get to France who also haven’t declared war on Germany. You fight your own enemy not a third party
Germany not only allowed this war by giving full support to Austria-Hungary, but it was Germany who extended the conflict by provoking 5 countries at the start of the war (Germany declared war on France, Russia, Belgium and invaded Luxembourg, pushing Britain to declare war), including 3 of the greatest world powers of the time. Not to mention the United States, which eventually entered the war in 1917 following attacks by German submarines on its passenger and merchant ships.
@@Anton-kp3mi Because the terms of the covenants came into effect. US provided war material, which is against the rules of neutrality (as they are doing even now) and for this they were attacked. Any way, they weren't the only ones responsibe.
@@iTube22100 If Germany had not given its full support Austria-Hungary would have thought twice about invading Serbia. Germany was the most powerful nation in continental Europe at the time, and Austria-Hungary was a bit like its little brother. Austria-Hungary was the one who wanted to waged war against Serbia, however the Austro-Hungarians needed the support of Germany. The Germans knew perfectly well the chain reaction that an invasion of Serbia by Austria-Hungary supported by Germany would provoke at the European level but the Germans themselves wanted a war with Russia which was the main ally of Serbia. The Germans were worried about the rise of the Russian army during the beginning of the 20th century and wanted a war with Russia as soon as possible to break up the Russian army before it became stronger than the German army. The Germans also knew perfectly well that a war against Russia would meant a war against France since France was Russia's ally, but the Germans thought that a victory against France was easily achievable. The Germans had also planned as early as 1905 to invade France through Belgium and Luxembourg, and they knew that by doing so they would also inevitably risked to trigger Britain to enter into the war as the British had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839.
I think an important puzzle piece is still missing: Because of the fragmentation into small states of central Europe, the situation between Germany and Russia moved more towards a power vacuum. Power in this sense is to be understood relatively. In other words: In relation to the large aforementioned neighbouring nations East and West of Central Europe. Since Germany and Russia were in a competition, either side would have profited from moving into this vacuum before the other side, while losing from letting the other side move first. This is a known and well studied game-theoretical situation. The imperatives of both players in this case are clear... You either move or you lose. In a way, in the ensuing decades that region was crushed by the giants bordering it. Just as is the case with Ukraine today...
I was listening to a lecture about the Paris Peace Conference on the Modetn Scholar Series. It was fascinating how those six months in 1919 would set the events for the entire 20th Century. It didn't just lay the foundation for World War Two, but the conflicts in Asia like Korea and Vietnam, as well as the issues in the Middle East. Every statesman and diplomat can learn a great deal from this .I really got a lot out of this video and hope to see more from her.
Would really look forward for Margaret MacMillans analysis of the Great Depression. A follow-up might help some of us better understand the role of unemployment, underemployment, hunger, poverty etc and how it contributed to war. What and how, and in what stages,, did things deteriorate, etc It always seems that poverty is the preceding and correlating underbelly to war, often underestimated or ignored, it needs to be more deeply understood.
The World War I was the war of the 19th century but fought in the 20th century. So was the Treaty of Versailles 1919. Lord Keynes, an economist, could foresee what the diplomats could not see. It exposed arrogance of the victors. It revived the French humiliation of 1871. Historian is more descriptive and less analytical.
Hellish nightmare and millions of deaths might have been avoided, had a tad more compassion and a tad less vindictiveness been shown, than the Treaty of Versailles. Those who assume that they have the upper hand in power and are entitled to dictate all terms as the spoils of victory, can underestimate the bitter wrath of the vanquished, and how balances can shift, once again.
What an excellent comprehensive overview. This was certainly helped me understand more about what happened here in central Europe as I now live here, although I think the treaty of Trianon podcast untold damage and there’s still a lot of resentment hearing hungry about it.
I was at Versailles in 1984. All though I knew it was a big deal, it wasn't until the 100th Anniversaries of WW1 just how big. Wish I knew about all that when standing in the Hall of Mirrors.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but... All the talk about Germany, and yet the nation of Hungary had suffered the biggest punishment in the form of truncation to 28% of its pre-war size. Somehow the punishment was not proportional to the "crime committed".
This is an excellent point ..I’m a Brit living in Hungary with Hungarian family..I hadn’t realised the bad feeling that still exists with many regarding Trianon . There are still many who consider themselves ethnic Hungarians and speak Hungarian within their families in the modern states of Slovakia ,Serbia, Ukraine and Romania. I guess this could be the subject of its own lecture.
Such an interesting lecture. In 1914 the war was actually not called world war 1, but the great war or the war that would end all war. I knew a lot about this war beforehand, but its so interesting what she is pointing out about public opinion. When you compare the Wienna peace in 1814 to the peace negogiation in 1919. That the powers to be, except for a small nobel elite, did not have to take public opinion in to consideration in 1814, but they had to in 1919. An other interessting point is the groth of new ethnic nationalisms after the fall of several empires, Austria/Hungary etc, as a consequence of the end of the great war. Its great, really informative. 😊😊😊And her last question- no we are not better at making lasting peace - think of the current war in Ukraine- where Russia first had unlawfully invaded the crimerian peninsula, without much interferrence from EU and now a full blown war on european soil, that could escalate to other nations. 😢😢😢
I'd say so. While deeply flawed, the 1919 treaties are the most influential in history outright. Because they dealt with so many issues and broadly in most theatres of the world
Yugoslavia’s problem was socialism. When you do not have track of economic profitability everyone will be convinced that they are subsiding everyone else.
The point to the End of the WW1 is not only the treatment of Germany. But the destruction of Austria. Parcelling out the Austrian Hungarian empire is still giving trouble today. Where a lot of nations are intermixed it is difficult to produce nation states.
@@vincentdow5899What Britain and France did to the Middle east - Sykes/Picot - is total proof that mjoelnir is 100% correct. The mess in the Middle east is a DIRECT result of European Colonial ambitions. Until the West faces up and looks itself in the mirror the horrific wars which have resulted from their total greed and stupidity will never end.
What loot? The war was fought in Belgium and France in the West. Germanys treaty with Russia was much more ruthless than Versailles. Remind me again how much Germany ended up paying in reparations? France lost 40% of its manufacturing, mines, and the highest percentage of young men.
Let's face it the United States ultimately wanted the cost added up and to be paid back. It's my personal opinion that the only reason the United States entered the war was it feared an allied loss after the Russians pulled out and a GB, French default on their loans.
Well, I mean surely that was a factor but German U-boats destroying American tankers, fishing vessels, cruises and trading ships killing countless American civilians is probably the bigger reason. Even today if a nation started using submarines to destroy American ships irrespective of whether they were military or civilian crafts you would find yourself very quickly at war with America.
1. American sentate voted out Woodrow wilson's proposals. So US Wasn't a part in the League when it was created. 2. The amount given to European nations by US during war was not from tax payers but from private bankers, so a committee was setup on how to collect them back. 3. The initial installments left a huge burden on other European nations, and it gave Germany every chance to default on the reparation payments. 4. Germany was in fact preparing for the next war during these years, with the help of Russia, they produced munitions, commercial planes to be turned to airforce planes with minor modifications. 5. France raided Ruhr valley inspite of the peace talks to get the reparations. 6. The League was so hypocritical when it comes to the matters of their own interests. 7. Woodrow wilson's nation self determination led to the balkanization of europe and promoted mutual bitterness.
There was already bitterness from the smaller states being ruled by foreign empires. Either way, you go someone is not going to be happy. Empires were on the way out. People didn't want to be ruled by a foreign leader who didn't put their people and state first. They would always be considered less than the ruling people. If they agreed to a confederation or something similar, so they had representation instead of a monarchy, maybe that could have been an alternative, but that didn't happen. Main point, nobody wants to be ruled by a foreigner.
You cannot understand current events if you have not read this woman's book on the Versaille Treaty: "PeaceMakers - Six Months That Changed the World", by Margaret MacMillan
I read this article a while back that really dismantled the idea that the debt placed on Germany laid the foundation for the rise of Fascism. After the war, Germany was let off the hook like 10 times for failure to make payments, and many other financial leniencies were extended the Weimar Republic, not least the Dawes Plan... extended with a blind eye towards known rearmament.
It's interesting to recall that although the Treaty of Versailles was harsh and had consequences for another war. It's interesting also to note though that the conditions Germany imposed on Russia in 1917 make The treaty of Versailles seem mild in comparison and bespoke a western attitude to Russia we see to the present day.
Turning facts on their head here. Communists were eager for a peace - any peace. Germany did not impose too harsh conditions - the Communists traded Russian land and resources for the ultimate power grab. Had the Communists been willing to make a coalition of resistance instead of undermining the Russian army from within by killing lots of officers, calling on soldiers to mutiny, retreat etc. etc. The peace would have been very different.
Italy was almost ignored by the other powers even though she suffered 650000 casualties. The first armistice was signed between Austria-Hungary and Italy days before the armistice was signed between Germany and the other powers. One of the reasons why Germany decided to surrender was that she feared that Italy was going to invade From the south. Not only the defeated but also the Victor's felt betrayed by this treaty. Which explains Mussolini and Fascism
Fully agreed. Italy e tering into war had a strong impact on victory fixing many Austro hungarian and German troops. The role of Italy is as important if not bigeer than the role of American troops arriving in late 1917
Why no WW III (yet): MAD, Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, massive expansion of international trade. The next 20 years will test that structure. Only history professors have long memories. People and institutions have forgotten the horrors of war and the value of our crazy system in preventing them.
I think we should start to realize how near sighted the views here are. The Russian weren't even invited to Versailles despite having massive losses in life and territory. But even after Versailles, the whole eastern question was largely ignored by the West though not by Germany. The war in Ukraine and the behavior of the Russians in Ukraine should be bringing a re-evaluation of their role in European history throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. For most Western countries Russia was just too far away and hardly viewed as threatening, but this was largely not the case for the Germans. The Soviets were their primary threat and Germany actually had no serious plans to go to war with the West at the start of the German/Polish war of 1939 which the British turned into a world war. The Germans, OTOH, had a very much more important view of the possibilities resultant with sharing a border with Russia, and this played a far more important role in how WWII came to be than did Versailles. This is not to say that Versailles didn't play an important role in creating WWII, but if we were to use the metaphor of the stick and carrot, Versailles was the stick but Russia, and actually far more importantly, the lands now more clearly recognized as Ukraine were the carrot that led to the war. Germany had these lands under it's control in 1917. Regaining Alsace-Lorraine after WWI was nowhere near in value to the prospect of regaining Ukraine.
Germans were involved in Eastern Poland from before 1914. Germs cause division and political turmoil in order to take control of Lebensraum for Ostseidlung. Ukraine land was that vast farm landwhich Germans wanted only for themselves. Germans did help set up a temporary Independent Ukrainian state, but did what they do best. They turned on the Slavic tribes who had no interest in German expectations of grain supplies. German military became brutally violent to the people. Germans got their Karma and ran away back to mutter.
@@metanoian965 If anyone was brutal it was the Poles and the Soviets. The Germans simply fought back against Polish and Soviet aggression. Don't like it? Then keep the peace.
Germs are viruses and by nature jealous, greedy and aggressive. If you don't like that, then do some HONEST research. Feelies and made up stories are not facts. Invasion is part of Ger Parasite life cycle. Some sort of death wish they get.
Fascinating. Wasn't it typical before WWI that debts for armaments between allies was forgiven. Could this be why the US insisted it was NOT an ally? So we could collect
Maybe for Europeans. The last time I checked, America wasn't in Europe. I'm sure the US would have never loaned that money if it wasn't expected to be paid back.
A Great Lecture. Has she also done an analysis of what the Great Powers did in the Middle East and how we are still dealing with those Decisions? Thank you for this. ❤
As far as I know, the "invasion of France" in 1870, as Ms. Mc Millan explains here, was a consequence of the Franco-Prussion war , which France began with its declaration of war on Prussia, the leading country of the German confederate states, and from which the advance of the troops of the German confoderation naturally began to attack the capital Paris because the French troops did not surrender. Should this usual act of war somehow explain or justify Clemenceau's actions after the great war ?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I could listen to her all day and not be bored!
The model of a superb historian!
Who ever knows or thinks about all these consequences of War and the aftermath?? I learned so much in this lecture! Prior to it, I watched Paris 1919, a movie on RUclips. The lecture dovetailed nicely!
I watched Paris 1919 recently on RUclips as well. I found it enjoyable and informative.
Another brilliant talk from this outstanding historian. She has this uncanny ability to explain complicated matters in such a way that anyone can understand. Remarkable.
Not one mention of The Balfour Declaration & the impact that would’ve made to every Jews thought process in Europe or even around the world.
She might of mentioned it but i must of farted & I missed it .
Also The Ottoman Empire was I think mentioned once or twice but was massively swerved.
Who controlled the oil in what was the Ottoman territory is always missed out by these ‘great’ historians.
@@jameshodgkins559 it is necessary to be selective when giving a one hour lecture. The topics you raise are not central to this lecture.
@@ray_glaze , well to reality they are .
The Balfour Declaration was the seed that started the ‘stab in the back’ & the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire & control of the oil fields within their old territories was the key prize at the hall of mirrors.
Yet the so called historians serve it like neither ever happened.
I wonder why .
@@ray_glaze , also not one mention of the Sykes Picot Agreement, which if it wasn’t for the Russian Revolution no one would’ve known about it .
Conveniently swerved.
@@jameshodgkins559 I don't disagree with your comments. I'm only suggesting that this lecture need not include them. The focus of this lecture is the treaty of Versailles. And that is enough to fill a 45-minute lecture.
Read her book Paris 1919 and this is a great synthesis. Great historian and presenter. Thank you for putting this video up
Great lecture. History is always more complicated than we have been taught in grammar school.
History is made complicated ...but goethe and hegel made it simple...isnt it?
Benjamin Freedmans Speech Willard Hotel 1961
Very wise,thereis official truth,and true truth...
Of course
This was really good. I’m a big student of both world wars and there was some stuff in here I had never heard or considered. Thank you
I am so grateful that a lecture like this is available, years later, for me to listen to form thousands of miles away. Thank you, internet. Thank you, Yutuve.
Try considering REAL history -Brest-litvsk demands for a start.
Like which stuff, cos I like viewers comments that’s knowledgeable
What an outstanding and excellent lecture!
I’m glad she mentioned Japan, which saw itself dismissed and disrespected at Versailles. This led directly to the rise of strident militarism in Japanese politics, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and ultimately the Pacific war.
The Germans didn’t declare war on France in 1870; Bismarck provoked the French to do so - but finally France declared war on Germany. Napoleon III was defeated, but the new rulers wanted to continue to fight.
By the way, France continuously invaded German territory; Louis XIV. started in 1688, Napoleon…
70/71 was the first time Germany out of defeat brought down France.
Love her to bits. My absolute favourite historian. Never a bad presentation. Her books are a treat as well.
There wasn't an introduction. I recognize her and believe she's the granddaughter of Lloyd George but can't remember her name. Not mentioned in tge heading.
@@sherrylhendrickson6861 Her name is Margaret MacMillan. She wrote two excellent books on WWI, "Paris 1919" and "The War That Ended Peace." I think she is the best WWI historian going. I don't know if she's still teaching there but she was a professor at The University of Toronto. If you haven't read her books, I highly recommend them, especially Paris 1919 which I think is the best book on the Treaty of Versailles.
@@itinerantpatriot1196 if you think the apologist, MacMillan, is the best historian on the outbreak of the war then I pity your reading list.
She is an excellent historian. I rank her right up there with Barbara Ruchman, who wrote The Guns of August, which gave a comprehensive account on the opening months of the First World War.
@@aaronkahland9896 either suggest a book or get lost
Great presentation. As an Austro-Hungarian descendant I would like to thank your very much. Greetings from Mexico City.
History is not a single pre-determined road which you cannot leave, so far I agree. What doomed the Versailles treaty though was the fact that all wonderful new principles declared by the Allies for the time after the war were not to be granted for the defeated. Self determination for all people - except Germans. German-speaking Austria could not unite with Germany despite having lost all economic means to survive as a separate state. The Sudetenland with its majority of Germans in the population had to be part of Czech-Slovakia because it contributed a lot of industry (70%) which this new state desparately needed. The Germans in Southern Tirol and their entire country were moved to Italy because this was one of the few promises made by the British to the Italians as payment for joining the war which was not broken. A system without any form of justice and a house so divided is not supposed to stay. This is exactly what happened.
One generation handed the next a world-redefining war because of expediency.
You forgot areas like Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen etc with almost 100% German speaking population. Poland should never have been given access to the Baltic Sea, there was no Polish majority there. Not to forget the loss of the German colonies. What nation would have let that happen to them? The English would have demanded revenge in such a situation after 10 years, not after 20 years like the Germans.
you also have to ad the dismantlement of the german merchant navy so Germany could not compete with USA and England
@@rb3058 100% is quite the exaggeration
@@guntherjager5085 I wrote "almost 100%". Some very tiny areas were partly French-speaking. The Germans there were deprived of their human rights by the French after 1918 and really extreme after 1945 in a way that is unparalleled in Western Europe.
Having participated in peace talks myself I can only say that hindsight is wonderful. The key problem was not that Europe was complex, it was that no-one on the winning side had lasting European peace as their main objective during the talks - except maybe Wilson who however was out of touch with reality. This was also the main objection of Keynes btw. You can agree or disagree with his analysis of what it would take to make a lasting peace, but he was 100% right to point out that the negotiators of the Treaty had - and put - other priorities than lasting peace first - and that was the ultimate failure of Versailles.
Many Germans still don't know what peace is. It wasn't an issue. It was the devastating destruction of life and cost of the b. Germans that was the issue and of course they should have been made to make reparations towards SOME of the cost of their war.
All the warring parties wanted this war. Must read : Barbara Tuchman. The Proud Tower. The wounds inflicted by The Dictates of Versailles and Trianon have not healed
yet.
Europe, WW1, WW2, UKRAINE WAR.
If WW2 was Versailes fault, who is at fault for Ukraine?
Trump: 4 YEARAMSÜ OF
nice to hear someone speak about this with a critical mind.
They, like her know everything. Afterwards.
How are the kiddos? Going to school now I imagine
An oft forgotten point of the Treaty is that Germany signed under extraordinary distress: even after the armistice the British blockade was in place. German citizens were starving by the 10's of thousands. & we are surprised that the Treaty failed?
the figure I have read is that 250,000 Germans died of hunger etc as a result of the British blockade.
Excellent point. Somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000 German civilians were starved to death by the blockade in between the armistice and signature of the treaty. The Germans would never forget that- nor would any nation.
@@albertoborrero8306 it was actually between 600,000 and 800,000
Most of Europe suffered of food shortage and famine during ww1. France and Germany both lost about 0.7% of their civilian population due to hunger and disease, but France lost on top of that tens and tens thousands more civilians due to military action and war crimes. Germany on the contrary was left untouched by the fightings and was pretty well off at the end of the war compared to pyrhic victors like France or Belgium.
Sanctions now the equivalent name used for blockade are still used againt countries and its people. Worse is that it is used against poor countries without a declaration of war as a form of imperial dominance to make the people, civilian people including children, suffer. Presently many countries are under sanctions. Evil empires do evil things.
Wow. What a powerful presentation.
Wish Margaret had been my history teacher 50 years ago. Wonderful presentation thank you.
Не расстраивайся по поводу истории - твоё время безвозратно ушло. Теперь пиши завещание и готовься к вечной жизни.
I like the fact that she explores different ideas however, I think on this topic, she should start with a disclaimer: “David Lloyd George was my great grandfather.” As a historian myself, I have to be aware of the fact that I have my own biases, and I need to ask myself if it’s POSSIBLE that my personal biases are coloring my own work? 🤔🤷🏻
Should be basic… 🙄 All historians are supposed to be humans, and history is written (and periodically rewritten) by…humans, each one with his or her own biases, consciously or not. Never met, personally, an historian, a scientist, a journalist, or even an academic who wasn’t somehow ‘oriented’. The point is making it clear ‘in limine’, from the start, and being as honest as possible in all our works.
@fabiengerard8142
10b humans by 2055
Where should areas of conflict be for max efficiency
Keep in focus Messianic Era
That is sure that the British version is biased.
Very eloquent and timely. I write these words from Aleppo-a place that still suffers from the failure of the international community.
Yes, the Western World has yet to come to terms or take responsibility for the plague they visited on post Ottoman Middle East, I.E Sykes/Picot. The West still does not get it that it has no right to colonize, or to interfere in any country but their own. In other words, the mess the Middle east became was caused 100% by the French and the British.
Professor MacMillan is amazing. This was a fascinating lecture. Thank you.
I think her view of the results of the post WW1 settlement is rubbish on stilts. Keynes predicted the results when he resigned from the Treasury and wrote 'The economic consequences of the peace" in 1919.
MM taught me history in the late 70's at Ryerson in Toronto She was loved by all and I have watched her career with great admiration.
shs is just a brilliant historian. Love these and thank you
I very much enjoyed Professor MacMillan’s presentation. Her perspective is interesting and enlightening. I would like to point out something though:
In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, France was technically the aggressor. It was France that declared war, and pretexts aside (Bismarck’s manipulation of a telegram and disputes regarding the succession to the Spanish throne), the bottom line is that the French state was willing to go to war in order to prevent German unification.
I’d also like to add (and I’m not trying to be cynical), that the war had a silver lining for France: It took a century after the French Revolution and a war with a foreign power to put to rest the monarchy and autocracy and establish the French Republic permanently (what also can be said about Germany after its defeat in 1945 - albeit in this case it took direct administration by foreign powers for this to happen).
Point well made. I was about to write on similar lines. TBH I feel that everyone was spoiling for a fight for many different reasons. As well as the French desire to avenge the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war, Britain wanted to suppress an emerging industrial competitor.
I find this lecture to be so one sided as to be nothing but a piece of finely spoken propaganda.
YES, YES, A TOUSAND TIMES YES. THE TRUTH AT LAST. THANK YOU.
@@chicagofineart9546 BAH BAH BLACK SHEEP...
"the French state was willing to go to war in order to prevent German unification"
I'd nuance that by pointing out that the French foreign politics under the Second Empire was pretty erratic, and sometimes kind of directionless. If the above point had been true, France would have entered the war of 1866 - in fact, Austria very much wanted them too. Nor did France declared war on Prussia to prevent them from uniting Germany - in fact, Germany got united *because* France declared war on Prussia. It was mostly misplaced ego that led them to this conflict.
She's just awesome !could listen to her for hours Bless her!
This was a great lecture by the professor and I enjoy watching it and I'm looking forward to viewing some more of her stuff
Mm one aspect of the Versaille negotiations was the then attempt by Irish nationalists to get a hearing. But the victorious UK wouldnt recognise their requests. Thus the 1919 post WW1 UK General Election, bringing a majority of Sinn Fein MPs into being (from the island), led to the then resultant 1919- 1921 Anglo Irish independence war and Irish partition.
But surely the same thing would have happened anyway? Because Britain was never giving up Ireland in one form or another. But an interesting point and tbh one I was not aware of.
I still don't understand why put all the blame on Germany. Austria sent the ultimatum to Serbia not Germany
iTube22100 mostly it had to do with the fact that there were communications between Austria and Germany making it pretty clear that Austria wouldn’t have moved if Germany wasn’t going to back it. The second probably more important factor in terms of western Europe was that, Germany invaded Belgium which was a country that was neutral by agreed collective treaty of all major powers in Europe, who did nothing to Germany or Austria or Serbia. Basically it proved that there were no lines the Germans wouldn’t cross in order to win even if it was aggression against a nation that wasn’t even involved. The first could have been forgiven, the second couldn’t. It’s one thing to have a war time enemy or alliances, that was an understood part of the rules of war, it was another to invade a nation that wasn’t taking sides completely in the opposite direction of where the actual fighting had started to just get to France who also haven’t declared war on Germany. You fight your own enemy not a third party
Austria is to blame just as equally as Germany agreed
Germany not only allowed this war by giving full support to Austria-Hungary, but it was Germany who extended the conflict by provoking 5 countries at the start of the war (Germany declared war on France, Russia, Belgium and invaded Luxembourg, pushing Britain to declare war), including 3 of the greatest world powers of the time. Not to mention the United States, which eventually entered the war in 1917 following attacks by German submarines on its passenger and merchant ships.
@@Anton-kp3mi Because the terms of the covenants came into effect. US provided war material, which is against the rules of neutrality (as they are doing even now) and for this they were attacked. Any way, they weren't the only ones responsibe.
@@iTube22100 If Germany had not given its full support Austria-Hungary would have thought twice about invading Serbia. Germany was the most powerful nation in continental Europe at the time, and Austria-Hungary was a bit like its little brother. Austria-Hungary was the one who wanted to waged war against Serbia, however the Austro-Hungarians needed the support of Germany. The Germans knew perfectly well the chain reaction that an invasion of Serbia by Austria-Hungary supported by Germany would provoke at the European level but the Germans themselves wanted a war with Russia which was the main ally of Serbia. The Germans were worried about the rise of the Russian army during the beginning of the 20th century and wanted a war with Russia as soon as possible to break up the Russian army before it became stronger than the German army. The Germans also knew perfectly well that a war against Russia would meant a war against France since France was Russia's ally, but the Germans thought that a victory against France was easily achievable. The Germans had also planned as early as 1905 to invade France through Belgium and Luxembourg, and they knew that by doing so they would also inevitably risked to trigger Britain to enter into the war as the British had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839.
Very well presented makes it simple to understand and interesting too.
Another great talk by Gresham College
A very intelligent argument with much relivance today.
I think an important puzzle piece is still missing:
Because of the fragmentation into small states of central Europe, the situation between Germany and Russia moved more towards a power vacuum. Power in this sense is to be understood relatively. In other words: In relation to the large aforementioned neighbouring nations East and West of Central Europe.
Since Germany and Russia were in a competition, either side would have profited from moving into this vacuum before the other side, while losing from letting the other side move first.
This is a known and well studied game-theoretical situation. The imperatives of both players in this case are clear... You either move or you lose.
In a way, in the ensuing decades that region was crushed by the giants bordering it. Just as is the case with Ukraine today...
A zugzwang?
Power vacuum aggravated by Yalta and Roosewelt (invasion in France instead of Italie).
What a refresher! Amazing.
Thank you, what a wonderful informative presentation.
I was listening to a lecture about the Paris Peace Conference on the Modetn Scholar Series. It was fascinating how those six months in 1919 would set the events for the entire 20th Century. It didn't just lay the foundation for World War Two, but the conflicts in Asia like Korea and Vietnam, as well as the issues in the Middle East. Every statesman and diplomat can learn a great deal from this .I really got a lot out of this video and hope to see more from her.
Excellent presentation. Thank you from Oslo.
A great lecture.
Would really look forward for Margaret MacMillans analysis of the Great Depression. A follow-up might help some of us better understand the role of unemployment, underemployment, hunger, poverty etc and how it contributed to war. What and how, and in what stages,, did things deteriorate, etc It always seems that poverty is the preceding and correlating underbelly to war, often underestimated or ignored, it needs to be more deeply understood.
Really nice lecture with a fresh perspective.
This was absolutely fantastic.
The World War I was the war of the 19th century but fought in the 20th century. So was the Treaty of Versailles 1919. Lord Keynes, an economist, could foresee what the diplomats could not see. It exposed arrogance of the victors. It revived the French humiliation of 1871. Historian is more descriptive and less analytical.
Hellish nightmare and millions of deaths might have been avoided, had a tad more compassion and a tad less vindictiveness been shown, than the Treaty of Versailles. Those who assume that they have the upper hand in power and are entitled to dictate all terms as the spoils of victory, can underestimate the bitter wrath of the vanquished, and how balances can shift, once again.
But hardly surprising after the suffering, fine words but would you be less vindictive.
I hope the balances shift again, soon. Germans are the most brilliant and best of us. Certainly better than their treacherous Anglo counterparts.
She is one of my FAVORITES!
What an excellent comprehensive overview. This was certainly helped me understand more about what happened here in central Europe as I now live here, although I think the treaty of Trianon podcast untold damage and there’s still a lot of resentment hearing hungry about it.
////podcast/// >> forecast (?)
Thank you.
gsilcoful if you knew anything about what happened you’d know that was just a formality and Bismarck planned it all
One of the best lectures on War & Peace. Leo Tolstoy might rise from the grave applauding!
I was at Versailles in 1984. All though I knew it was a big deal, it wasn't until the 100th Anniversaries of WW1 just how big. Wish I knew about all that when standing in the Hall of Mirrors.
هل بالإمكان ترجمتها للعربيه لنستفاد من الدروس التي تتضمنها ونبدي حولها ملحوظاتنا ؟ وان يشمل ذلك بقية المحاضرات
تحيه للاستاذه المحترمه٠
Correct me if I'm wrong, but... All the talk about Germany, and yet the nation of Hungary had suffered the biggest punishment in the form of truncation to 28% of its pre-war size. Somehow the punishment was not proportional to the "crime committed".
This is an excellent point ..I’m a Brit living in Hungary with Hungarian family..I hadn’t realised the bad feeling that still exists with many regarding Trianon . There are still many who consider themselves ethnic Hungarians and speak Hungarian within their families in the modern states of Slovakia ,Serbia, Ukraine and Romania. I guess this could be the subject of its own lecture.
Such an interesting lecture. In 1914 the war was actually not called world war 1, but the great war or the war that would end all war. I knew a lot about this war beforehand, but its so interesting what she is pointing out about public opinion. When you compare the Wienna peace in 1814 to the peace negogiation in 1919. That the powers to be, except for a small nobel elite, did not have to take public opinion in to consideration in 1814, but they had to in 1919. An other interessting point is the groth of new ethnic nationalisms after the fall of several empires, Austria/Hungary etc, as a consequence of the end of the great war.
Its great, really informative. 😊😊😊And her last question- no we are not better at making lasting peace - think of the current war in Ukraine- where Russia first had unlawfully invaded the crimerian peninsula, without much interferrence from EU and now a full blown war on european soil, that could escalate to other nations. 😢😢😢
What happened to YUGOSLAVIA, wasn´t the 90-ties war in Yugoslavia a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, as well?
I'd say so. While deeply flawed, the 1919 treaties are the most influential in history outright. Because they dealt with so many issues and broadly in most theatres of the world
Yugoslavia’s problem was socialism. When you do not have track of economic profitability everyone will be convinced that they are subsiding everyone else.
100% Yugoslavia never should have been created.
Would retaining Austro-Hungarian empire been better?
@@tangosmurfen2376 - Is capitalism garanty for peace?
The point to the End of the WW1 is not only the treatment of Germany. But the destruction of Austria. Parcelling out the Austrian Hungarian empire is still giving trouble today. Where a lot of nations are intermixed it is difficult to produce nation states.
@@vincentdow5899What Britain and France did to the Middle east - Sykes/Picot - is total proof that mjoelnir is 100% correct. The mess in the Middle east is a DIRECT result of European Colonial ambitions. Until the West faces up and looks itself in the mirror the horrific wars which have resulted from their total greed and stupidity will never end.
How about The Balfour Declaration & the problems that caused
@@jameshodgkins559 Precisely: another example of British White Supremacist Colonialism.
The treaty of Versailles? The Germans were not allowed to take part in the negotions. It was all about dividing the loot.
Well you shouldn't have started it then.
It has been proven by time , Germany wasn't the instigator .
What loot? The war was fought in Belgium and France in the West. Germanys treaty with Russia was much more ruthless than Versailles. Remind me again how much Germany ended up paying in reparations? France lost 40% of its manufacturing, mines, and the highest percentage of young men.
Bravo, Very Instructive !
Interesting lecture.
Let's face it the United States ultimately wanted the cost added up and to be paid back. It's my personal opinion that the only reason the United States entered the war was it feared an allied loss after the Russians pulled out and a GB, French default on their loans.
Well, I mean surely that was a factor but German U-boats destroying American tankers, fishing vessels, cruises and trading ships killing countless American civilians is probably the bigger reason. Even today if a nation started using submarines to destroy American ships irrespective of whether they were military or civilian crafts you would find yourself very quickly at war with America.
The US entered the war almost a full year _before_ Russia left the war.
A completely brilliant presentation, her knowledge is unsurpassed, fantastic stuff
What a great lecture, certainly puts it all in perspective. To think though, all this happened because two people got blown away....
"For various reasons" ? ? ? (20:52) I wonder what those could have been! ! !
Macmillan is a great writer as well. Her books that bookend the Great War are wonderful to read. Informative and fun.
Great lecture, thank you
so interesting and expertly woven . this woman is a master .
Such an engaging speaker, superb
She is the most important writer on the subject.
1. American sentate voted out Woodrow wilson's proposals. So US Wasn't a part in the League when it was created.
2. The amount given to European nations by US during war was not from tax payers but from private bankers, so a committee was setup on how to collect them back.
3. The initial installments left a huge burden on other European nations, and it gave Germany every chance to default on the reparation payments.
4. Germany was in fact preparing for the next war during these years, with the help of Russia, they produced munitions, commercial planes to be turned to airforce planes with minor modifications.
5. France raided Ruhr valley inspite of the peace talks to get the reparations.
6. The League was so hypocritical when it comes to the matters of their own interests.
7. Woodrow wilson's nation self determination led to the balkanization of europe and promoted mutual bitterness.
There was already bitterness from the smaller states being ruled by foreign empires. Either way, you go someone is not going to be happy. Empires were on the way out. People didn't want to be ruled by a foreign leader who didn't put their people and state first. They would always be considered less than the ruling people. If they agreed to a confederation or something similar, so they had representation instead of a monarchy, maybe that could have been an alternative, but that didn't happen. Main point, nobody wants to be ruled by a foreigner.
This subject of the Treaty of Versailles is MacMillian's chief expertise.
You cannot understand current events if you have not read this woman's book on the Versaille Treaty: "PeaceMakers - Six Months That Changed the World", by Margaret MacMillan
I read this article a while back that really dismantled the idea that the debt placed on Germany laid the foundation for the rise of Fascism. After the war, Germany was let off the hook like 10 times for failure to make payments, and many other financial leniencies were extended the Weimar Republic, not least the Dawes Plan... extended with a blind eye towards known rearmament.
That’s because at least some of the allied nations understood the treaty was one sided and too harsh on Germany.
Had France not lost Alsace-Lorraine, there wouldn't have had been World War 1 😢
History is who we are & why we are! Well in my opinion!
3:00
1917 w.wilson: Is this a private fight or can anyone join in ?
Everyone else: Stay Out ?
Awesome. Have read two of Margaret MacMillan's books, a first-rate historian.
you taught me in 30mins what 4 years of high school history failed to teach me, Bravo
I appreciate your take on all the aspects. I feel the Mahabharata perspective was a little misinformed, but to each his own.
Excellent!
Exceptional!
It's interesting to recall that although the Treaty of Versailles was harsh and had consequences for another war. It's interesting also to note though that the conditions Germany imposed on Russia in 1917 make The treaty of Versailles seem mild in comparison and bespoke a western attitude to Russia we see to the present day.
Thank you - you saved me the trouble of making exactly that point, one that seems so often to be overlooked in modern readings of this history.
Turning facts on their head here. Communists were eager for a peace - any peace. Germany did not impose too harsh conditions - the Communists traded Russian land and resources for the ultimate power grab. Had the Communists been willing to make a coalition of resistance instead of undermining the Russian army from within by killing lots of officers, calling on soldiers to mutiny, retreat etc. etc. The peace would have been very different.
@@ColinMill1it is not overlooked it's done intentionally
@@visnjalivancic3953 I think you are right.
and no one batted an eye at it. It is intentionally forgotten.
What about the influence of the British and European colonies?
Wonderful soo very interesting, thank you
her last sentence to end the session... how haunting, hearing that in 2023.
I think the reason the world is destined to repeat it's failings is that war is fought by soldiers but peace is fought by politicians !!
Excellent lecture whether you agree with her or not
Italy was almost ignored by the other powers even though
she suffered 650000 casualties. The first armistice was signed between Austria-Hungary and Italy days before the armistice was signed between Germany and the other powers. One of the reasons why Germany decided to surrender was that she feared that Italy was going to invade From the south. Not only the defeated but also the Victor's felt betrayed by this treaty. Which explains Mussolini and Fascism
Fully agreed. Italy e tering into war had a strong impact on victory fixing many Austro hungarian and German troops. The role of Italy is as important if not bigeer than the role of American troops arriving in late 1917
peace is never given freely, it has to be a fight to accomplish peace.- A.H
Why no WW III (yet): MAD, Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, massive expansion of international trade. The next 20 years will test that structure.
Only history professors have long memories. People and institutions have forgotten the horrors of war and the value of our crazy system in preventing them.
📍24:30
2📍24:30
3📍13:47
I love to listen to her especialy for interesting quotes
I think we should start to realize how near sighted the views here are. The Russian weren't even invited to Versailles despite having massive losses in life and territory. But even after Versailles, the whole eastern question was largely ignored by the West though not by Germany. The war in Ukraine and the behavior of the Russians in Ukraine should be bringing a re-evaluation of their role in European history throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. For most Western countries Russia was just too far away and hardly viewed as threatening, but this was largely not the case for the Germans. The Soviets were their primary threat and Germany actually had no serious plans to go to war with the West at the start of the German/Polish war of 1939 which the British turned into a world war.
The Germans, OTOH, had a very much more important view of the possibilities resultant with sharing a border with Russia, and this played a far more important role in how WWII came to be than did Versailles. This is not to say that Versailles didn't play an important role in creating WWII, but if we were to use the metaphor of the stick and carrot, Versailles was the stick but Russia, and actually far more importantly, the lands now more clearly recognized as Ukraine were the carrot that led to the war. Germany had these lands under it's control in 1917. Regaining Alsace-Lorraine after WWI was nowhere near in value to the prospect of regaining Ukraine.
Germans were involved in Eastern Poland from before 1914. Germs cause division and political turmoil in order to take control of Lebensraum for Ostseidlung.
Ukraine land was that vast farm landwhich Germans wanted only for themselves.
Germans did help set up a temporary Independent Ukrainian state, but did what they do best. They turned on the Slavic tribes who had no interest in German expectations of grain supplies. German military became brutally violent to the people. Germans got their Karma and ran away back to mutter.
@@metanoian965 If anyone was brutal it was the Poles and the Soviets. The Germans simply fought back against Polish and Soviet aggression. Don't like it? Then keep the peace.
Germs are viruses and by nature jealous, greedy and aggressive. If you don't like that, then do some HONEST research. Feelies and made up stories are not facts.
Invasion is part of Ger Parasite life cycle. Some sort of death wish they get.
Thank you! Hope that you will address the other failure in that treaty, namely the Sykes Picot plan.....
Thank you for sharing.
✌ ❤ 🌎
Fascinating. Wasn't it typical before WWI that debts for armaments between allies was forgiven. Could this be why the US insisted it was NOT an ally? So we could collect
Maybe for Europeans. The last time I checked, America wasn't in Europe. I'm sure the US would have never loaned that money if it wasn't expected to be paid back.
A Great Lecture. Has she also done an analysis of what the Great Powers did in the Middle East and how we are still dealing with those Decisions? Thank you for this. ❤
Nobody liked the outcome of it, the Germans thought it too harsh and the French thought it not harsh enough.
Margaret MacMillan is a masterful historian..one of my favourites when discussing WW1 ..along with Christopher Clark and David Stevenson 👍
That was awesome.
Love it every bit!
As far as I know, the "invasion of France" in 1870, as Ms. Mc Millan explains here, was a consequence of the Franco-Prussion war , which France began with its declaration of war on Prussia, the leading country of the German confederate states, and from which the advance of the troops of the German confoderation naturally began to attack the capital Paris because the French troops did not surrender.
Should this usual act of war somehow explain or justify Clemenceau's actions after the great war ?
In Lexington, Kentucky they have a road by this name. However, the Hill-Williams there call it VER-Sails.
If the smartest man in the room indicates a war in twenty years . Then dont have a treaty.
Huge amounts of resources were supplied to Germany which allowed them to aquire the hardware.
You can't talk about that part.
Unfortunately I must agree with your conclusion. Some of our leaders think it’s fun to dance on volcanoes.