i guess im randomly asking but does someone know a tool to get back into an instagram account?? I stupidly lost the password. I love any assistance you can offer me
@Raylan Camden I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im trying it out now. Takes quite some time so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
"What's 2+2?" WAR "Oh no, we're out of stew, could you make some more?" I'll make some WAR "This party is such a bore..." Don't worry, i'll make it a WAR
@@michaeldavis4651 On History Channel, USA/UK have won the hundred years war, Joan of Ark was british or american but surely not french as everyone in anglosphere knows they are CESM, cowards which always surrender. :D
Clémenceau is also very well-known for his sharp mind. We got a lot of sayings coming from him. "War is such a serious thing, that it shouldn't be handled by the army" is one of them, although the translation is not very good
Also regarding Foch and his appointment as Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies in 1918, it is said that he was preferred over the "more cautious" Pétain (some said even defeatist) because of his perseverance and spirit at the Doullens conference. Especially because of one of his statement in front of all the other generals and deleguates : "You aren't fighting? I would fight without a break. I would fight in front of Amiens. I would fight in Amiens. I would fight behind Amiens. I would fight all the time. I would never surrender" When the time will come, it would be interesting to have a special about him too.
"Ne craignez jamais de vous faire des ennemis; si vous n'en avez pas, c'est que vous n'avez rien fait." "Don't be afraid of making enemies; if you don't have any, it is because you made nothing." Georges Clémenceau (Sorry for the bad translation^^)
Indy, this is brilliant. I studied History in University and could never draw such an accurate portrait of Clemenceau. Congrats on another superb episode of the Great War.
In 1919 a low-life anarchist (sorry for being redundant) tried to kill Clemenceau. Afterwards, Georges "The Tiger" commented: "We have just won the most terrible war in history, yet here is a Frenchman who misses his target 6 out of 7 times at point-blank range. Of course this fellow must be punished for the careless use of a dangerous weapon and for poor marksmanship. I suggest that he be locked up for eight years, with intensive training in a shooting gallery." What a guy!
Hey Indy, by any chance did he yell "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" when he was taunting the Germans on the front lines?
Such an interesting and complex figure, flaws and paradoxes but so many forces. The way he got convinced of Alfred Dreyfus innocence and then defended him - I think, and I could be wrong, he was a journalist at that time - is highly emblematic in my humble opinion. And such a moustache! Thank you very much Indy and Baptiste
As usual, an outstanding video. Great dialogue, delivery, production values, and finding those historic film and pictures. Wow, you guys are amazing and proud to be a Patreon of THE GREAT WAR. I never had much interest in WW1 (though lots of interest in WW2 till you guys came along).
Stupid decision to stop Franchet d'Espèrey and the other allies on the oriental front whilst he was ready, willing and able to get to Germany... Also the way they negotiated the Treaty of Versailles in addition to this above-mentioned gross mistake (we should have made it clear to Germany that they had lost the war to the point of reaching and occuying their territory) was an horrible mistake we payed dearly later and even arguably to this day...
Indeed. It happened to Churchill directly following WWII as well, he was replaced by Clement Attlee but then won the election after Attlee's term was up.
I've been reading more recent work on Gallipoli that places more responsibility for the Entente disaster there on Kitchener than on Churchill. Worth looking into.
Sidenote: Mary Plummer Clemenceau was the grandniece of Nathan Hale. I personally met some of his descendants and even met the great-grandson of Czar Nicholas II 's doctor.
How far into the Post-war era is this channel going to cover? I absolutely love your production, and I just realized that the story of the great war ends 11 months, 1 day from now.
man those "le petit journal" illustrations always go so hard. I especially like the one depicting the miracle on the Marne. Would be cool to hang some up if someone makes them.
Honestly, it's too bad nobody started a centennial history website or TV channel or something in 2000, it'd be neat to rehash the events of the entire 20th century week by week.
6 років тому
Indy already does the Cuban Missile Crisis on another channel. See this video and the entire channel: watch?v=AKOgqsuHa28
Churchill was an admirer of Clemenceau actually. He was present in 1918 when the germans launched their offensive toward Paris and Clemanenceau made this speech: "They can take Paris, it won't end the war. We will fight behind the Seine, we will fight behind the Loire, we will fight behind the Garonne, we will fight in the Pyreneans, and if they take it, we will fight at sea, but we will never surrender" Reminds you of another speech?^^
Meanwhile, on wikipedia, the article for the President of France for WWII, Albert Lebrun, only has a small paragraph describing what he did, starting from 1932 and ending in 1944. He comments that he was still president because there was no one left to accept his resignation.
Clemenceau was Prime Minister, not President. The President of the Third Republic had relatively little political influence and was largely a ceremonial office. And Lebrun (in WW2) had essentially been deposed by Petain in 1940; him not resigning was more a technicality.
Being American, I am unfamiliar with the power structure of the French Republic. If the Presidency was worthless why did Clemenceau make a Presidential bid? And why does the WWI President, Raymond Poincaré, have a Wikipedia article 20 times longer then Albert Lebrun?
In most democracies, the Prime Minister is the important executive post, and the President a largely ceremonial head of state (think British queen.) However, the prestige of the person and position, plus their power to dissolve governments, can give rise to influential individuals.
The Presidency did not hold much power, but was a very prestigious office, so it was not rare for very influencial politicans, such as Clemenceau and Poincaré to end their career as president. They would not hold much official power, but their influence and prestige would still allow them to have an impact on French politics. As for why Poincaré is much more remembered than Lebrun, I believe it's because Lebrun became president without having held very high positions before, unlike Poincaré who has had a long career as MP, minister and prime minister. Also, Poincaré was president during the entirety of WWI while Lebrun was deposed as soon as 1940 when the French Republic fell. An other reason might be the intense rivalry between Poincaré and Clemenceau : being the rival of someone as famous as "the Tiger", and being the target of some of his most sassy comments, is certainly a way to gain fame. "There are only two perfectly useless things in this world. One is an appendix and the other is Poincaré", Clemenceau 1919
Those Wikipedia articles might also give a hint: "The strong-willed Poincaré was the first president of the Third Republic since MacMahon in the 1870s to attempt to make that office into a site of power rather than an empty ceremonial role," as opposed to "Re-elected in 1939, largely because of his record of accommodating all political sides, he (Lebrun) exercised little power as president." And what pimsou1 wrote - Poincaré was the more important politician in general, by far.
The talent for witty phrases and the exemplar leadership in a World War drive us to an inevitable comparison with Winston Churchill. Churchill himself, in his book 'Great Contemporaries' (1937), wrote a short and complimentary biography of Clemenceau.
I remember the comment he made after the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919. He said it was only a truce and Germany and France would be fighting again in 20 years.
Frank E McGillivray I believe it was Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch who said that, not Clemenceau. I could be wrong about that, so don't quote me on that.
Mike Brammer exactly, French Maréchal Ferdinand Foch said "ce n'est pas une paix, c'est un armistice de 20 ans"/"this is no peace, it is a 20 year armistice".
The topic is that Clemenceau didn't want peace with Germany. He critized the Versailles Treaty as too moderate. He didn't care that his attitude helped the far right in Germany to rise and to demand revenge.
@@rudolfkraffzick642 If he had his way, Germany would have ended like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, which I think we can agree have not been bad bois since then.
Well, they both were sassy old politicians that led the Allies to victory during the World Wars. Also, they both took power when the situation was looking quite grim for their country, but still stubbornly carried on. By the way, it's not impossible that Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches" speech was inspired by one of Clemenceau's in front of the French parliament when the German army got extremely close to Paris in 1918.
The parallels struck me too. From power to the political wilderness, called back when his nation decided that they needed him after all, acted as his own War Minister (Defence Secretary), loses the post war election, writes his own history. Clemenceau could be Monsieur Churchill, MD. Or, rather, Churchill could be the English Clemenceau, since Clemenceau's experience predates the equivalent portion of Churchill's life.
One of Churchill's opponents referred to him as something like a stone headed rabid dog. But the stone headed rabid dog England needed. France needed a Clemenceau at the time. A nationalist who truly believed that the survival of France was on the line.
I was struck by the rise, fall and rise again of Clemmanu and that of Churchill in WWII. Also Indy's description of his character being just right for a war time leader but maybe not peace similar to Churchill.
He also made a similar statement to Churchill's famous "Fight on the Beaches" speech. "The Germans may take Paris, but that will not prevent me from going on with the war. We will fight on the Loire, we will fight on the Garronne, we will fight even in the Pyrenees. And if at last we are driven off the Pyrenees, we will continue the war at sea."
In fact Clemenceaus hateful attitude towards Germany laid the seed for all what happend from 1930 on. Sad but true. The right man for the war isn't necessarilly the best choise for making peace.
Debatable. Had he had his way with Germany, it would have become an inoffensive regional power (through dismantling). You could also argue that it was the USA's will to have as little sanctions as possible (believing that trade would make war impossible), becoming Germany's main trade partner before creating the 1929 crash that made it's way to Germany... is to blame.
Benoit Bvg entre la crise de 1929 et l’humiliation de 1919 (et qui s’est poursuivie longtemps après lorsque la France occupait la Rhénanie notamment) je crois sincèrement que l’humiliation a eu plus de conséquences que la crise
This is excellent. I run these at 75% so as to absorb, the information and help me stop it in time to look at the photos. Apparently, Clemenceau was an overall positive for France, at least before the war. I was unaware of Mary Plummer his wife, and am looking her up at this time. The French Revolution and Liberalism is responsible for all of their problems, not Clemenceau as such.
A great man that held the Entente later Allies together. In spite of the myths he was somewhat lenient towards Germany , and if the terms of Versailles had been more rigourously enforced , in terms of reparations payments and from the remilitisation of the Rhineland,who knows? Inspite of both world wars Krupp , Siemens , Bosch, successors of IG Farben and Daimler Benz are still live and well . What reparations?
His most knowned allocution was in the parlement when he was talking about general Lyautey : here's an admirable man, courageous who had balls even if not always his !! (In french : "voilà un homme admirable, courageux, qui a toujours eu des couilles aux cul ... même quand ça n'était pas les siennes")
@@princekareem6872 elle n’était pas supposé mais réelle. Lyautey n’est jamais abordé mais il a eu un rôle essentiel dans l’organisation des armées françaises en tant que ministre de la guerre.
Clémenceau was also very wright on many things. He knew before everyone else that Pétain was an incompetent commander and that this spirit of a "loser" would bring France to defeat. He said "we pushed Pétain to victory by buming his ass towards it" (On l'a poussé à la victoire à coups de pieds dans le cul) What he said about Pétain finally made sense in 1940 when Pétain considered the battle of France lost while there still was a chance of breaking the encirclement.
Pétain was not an incompetent commander. He was excellent in defense but too pessimistic for attack. He knew how not to lose a battle, but not how to win one - even more so, a war. You can't always have it all.
Pétain was a defensive commander. It was his doctrine. Use the right men, at the right place and the right men. In 1916 France needed urgently competent defensive officers. Petain was the man.
Clemenceau was the man France needed to deal with Germany. In the last year of the war, the French and Allied successes owe a lot to him and his stubborness. With him, morale was back, and the mutinees had long been forgotten
Birdperson in part yes, but some say that Germany rebuilt into a nazi military machine because the Versailles treaty was not enough harsh with them as some demands from Clemenceau were tempered or disminished by the Americans or British. At first he even wanted a military occupation of west Germany to keep the Germans under watch, which was refused. But this idea was applied by the allies after ww2, and last to this day...
No, what led to World war 2 was not the harshness of the treaty, but it political unconsistency. And that unconsistency is due to Wilson incompetence and stupidity, unable to understand European issues.
Skyscanner HD of Doom lol the typical american or british ignorance or stupidity. In ww1, France has never been on the verge of surrendering. Stop applying your ww2 clichés to all history you moron. The Germans have never been able to break the French lines in ww1. They almost did at the Marne 1914 and Marne 1918 but the French always found the strengh to counter attack and won
Birdperson. The notion that the Treaty of Versailles directly led to WWII is a persistent myth. The Great Depression crippled Germany way more than the Versailles Treaty ever did and it was the catalyst that directly brought Hitler to power. The war-payment was in fact reduced *twice* first with the Dawes plan and later the Young plan. The Young plan even cut the original sum by half and also granted Germany loans with which it could both prosper (and the Weimar Republic was doing well prior to the Great Depression) and pay back the war repairs. Prior to the Great Depression hardly anybody listened to Hitler, why would they? In the 1928 German federal elections Hitler and the nazis only got 2,6% of all votes and was the 9th largest party. In the 1933 federal elections Hitler got 43,9% of all votes and the Nazi party was *by far* the biggest Germany party (the social democrats were second largest with 18,2% of the the votes). So how did Hitler go from 2,6% of the votes in 1928 to 43,9% of the votes in 1933? What happened between 1928 and 1933? The 1929 stock market crash and the later Great Depression. It's safe to say that Hitler and the nazis would *never* have become a popular party unless Germany had been severely struck by the effects of the Great Depression. You see Germany's economy relied heavily on trade and once world trade came to a halt with the onset of the Great Depression this was particularly bad for Germany. No further loans were granted to it either. Also, it was clear to most people who the culprit behind the Great Depression were - Jewish bankers. Btw, this was a belief that was commonplace in many countries of the world, not just Nazi Germany. Roosevelt was *far* from a popular president during the Great Depression and assassination attempts were made on him. Antisemitism was popular all over Europe and it seemed as if only the Jews profiteered from the Great Depression. The Versailles Treaty had since long seized to be a topic among Hitler and the nazis. They had two main enemies they focused all their attention on: Jews and communists. The former because they were a very suitable scapegoat (and not entirely out of the blue either) and the latter because Stalin's Soviet Union was pretty much next door. Speaking of which the communists gained a lot of support and popularity too in the 1930's in Germany (third largest party in the 1933 election) and many voted for the nazis because they had already made it very clear they would take a harsh and very firm stance against the communists. Here's the sum total: Even without the Versailles Treaty Germany would still have been severely crippled by the Great Depression as its economy relied on trade more than other countries. That means the nazis still get to power. What crippled Germany economically in the early 30's was the Great Depression, not the Versailles Treaty. German revanschism following the defeat in WWI would have remained intact Versailles Treaty or not. It rested on the myth Germany was on the verge on victory when traitors at home (Jews, pacifists, communists) betrayed them. A much more lenient Versailles Treaty wouldn't have erased this myth. The huge difference in votes for Hitler in the 1928 and 1933 elections makes it very clear the Germans only started listening to him when they had lost their jobs and all their savings. They didn't care about his ramblings about the Versailles Treaty (and he mostly blamed the Jews anyway as the *real* enemy of Germany). Here's another myth: That Hitler improved the German economy. His predecessors had already implemented several economic reforms and worked on them prior to his 1933 election. When he was in power it appeared as if he had saved Germany because the effects were being felt by this point. The Autobahn project was already planned years before Hitler's rise to power and the first stretches were built in 1931-1932 , which was before Hitler came to power. No Great Depression, No Hitler in power. However WWII would probably have broken out anyway although with Stalin's Soviet Union on one side and some coalition of European powers on the other. Before Hitler started the war in 1939 more people feared Stalin - and like I said before this is why Hitler was so popular. He had Germany cleansed of all communists and had them put in concentration camps in 1934 already. France paid war repairs for both the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The latter had Germany occupy them until 1873 when they paid a whopping 3 billion francs (an astronomic sum back then) to Germany. When France won the war in 1918 and had seen its entire country devastated by the war on an unfathomable scale - could anybody blame them for the Versailles Treaty? They paid back everything they owed in the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian war. This time Germany lost and they had to pay. Period.
Indy, I know I'm quite early, but could you in the future make an episode on the misconceptions about the Treaty of Versailles ? I read all days so much partial and biased comments on the Internet about that. Many people think it's the main cause of WW2 when the reality is so much more complex...
Yep, on the outside, but warning of problems before the war, eventually thrust into leadership, a solid, unyielding character, then voted out post-war. The similarities are remarkable.
"Mr. Wilson bores me with his Fourteen Points; why, G0d Almighty has only Ten." The right man at the right time. Vive Clemenceau and Vive la France :-)
Harder conditions would not have been the right solution. Smarter ones would have done it. Ensure, that territorial disputes due to cultural groups being located in other countries are avoided and strenghten the economic dependencies between countries. That´s how you make peace. Not ruining a countries economy, let the people pretty much starve for a few years and give big chunks of their territory to other states. That is not how you ensure peace and the French despite all should have known that.
It's highly debatable that a softer treaty would have helped, though. As Italy proved, fascism could rise even in a country on the winning side, and Hitler did not take power during the harsh years just after the war, but long after that, when the country had recovered, then collapsed again for entirely different reasons. Plus, it would have been impossible to make public opinion accept softer terms. The 1871 treaty had been extremely harsh and humiliating to France, and after four years of having the whole northern regions ravaged, no-one there was in an especially merciful mood.
While you are absolutely in the right when you say that Hitler did not come to power in the years after the war, I disagree that the collapse of german economy happened for "entirely different reasons." Germany was extremely dependant on the money coming from other countries like the USA to get its enonomy going again. When they did not pay reperations the french just came and occupied the wealthiest part of their country. And when the market crashed it hit Germany harder than other countries since they were dependent on other countries. Also, yes, the 1871 treaty was extremely harsh. To my knowledge the French had to pay even more than the Germans, however that was an entirely different situation. France lost the war in 1871 rather quickly and its economy was intact for the most part. Germany after WWI was standing on its last legs. Also France lost Alsace to Germany, which was maybe wrong, but since many people there actually spoke German is at least understandable. Germany however did not only lose Alsace, it also lost a LOT of land in the east. Austria lost the southern part of Tyrol, which was, excuse me for saying this, just BS since this part of the country did not even have a stable minority of Italians. Had they listened to Wislon all this things could have been avoided. Also also most politicians did not care about public opinion when they started the war, they should at least have the guts to not care when they ended it.
I guess he buys into the silly narrative that the Versailles treaty was too harsh and caused WW2, and blames Clémenceau for it. Let's conveniently forget that the war reparations that Germany paid after WW1 were lower than the ones France paid after the Franco-Prussian war. The Weimar overinflation was caused by woeful mismanagement, not by an "overly harsh" Versailles treaty.
You're right, sorry. Germany did nothing wrong, and the fact that none of what happened in Germany happened in France after a much harsher peace treaty and much larger land occupation is purely coincidental. Silly me and my idiotic "you too" fallacies. Have a nice day.
I love that the expertise of viewer fans is utilized in the various special episodes. Indy and crew may not know it, but they are the model for future pedagogical regimens, totally democratized globally. The Great War should become a lecture bloc for university classes in 20th century European history.
Great video, as usual. But I'm confused as to what the role of "Prime Minister" in the French Republic of the time actually entailed. It doesn't seem to be the equivalent of the British Prime Minister as there is also a French elected President. What it boils down to is this - where did the real power lie?
Actually, at the time of the third republic, the French Prime Minister's office is pretty comparable to the English one, while the President would be akin to the King/Queen of England: the official head of state, but little real power. What makes it confusing is that nowaday, it's very much the reverse: under the fifth republic, the President holds the real power, while the Prime Minister is a more subordinate position (most of the time - if the President and the Prime Minister happens to be from different political parties, then there's some balance between them)
I have just stumbled onto your channel and am very impressed. I was wonder what is your motivation for doing this great undertaking? I got to ep 44 this evening and will pick it up with 45 tomorrow evening.. What got my attention was the episode you did on the somme (the third one) My grand father started his service in ww1 in that battle.. after I left the marines in 1972 we talk for many days of war.. he told me about that battle and many others he fought in until he was wounded. He passed on three years later in 1975.. he was a great man.. they don't seem to make them like him any more.. thanks for what your doing.. it reminds me of him..
"One simply needs to add 'military to something to have it mean the opposite. As such, military music is not music, and military justice is not justice." - Georges Clemenceau
@The Great War. Something I find interesting that I hope you cover more in depth in your regular videos is how Clemenceau's government feuded with Loyd George over replacements until the Armistice, and how under his premiership, the ideology of the Sacred Union was only used by pro war papers, and was in reality dead. Thanks for covering one of my favorite people from the war.
I hate how Clemenceau in the popular consciousness has been stereotyped as simply "the guy who was mean to Germany and therefore is more responsible for World War II than Hitler is". It's such an idiotically simple-minded way to look at history and it strips the participants in all these events of their agency. Fact is, Clemenceau was in fact LESS aggressive toward Germany during the peace conference than most major French political figures, and men such as President Poincaré and Marshals Foch and Pétain were on the verge of removing him from the negotiations due to just how much they viewed him as going soft on the Germans. That's ignoring the fact that France had plenty of good reasons for being harsh to Germany after the war, having lost millions of lives and having suffered an occupation of some of their most prosperous industrial centers for almost five years. The idea that Clemenceau and the French somehow drove Germany into the arms of Nazism just serves to whitewash the numerous people who willingly supported Hitler's rancid policies, as if they didn't have a choice in the matter.
Not even close to Finnish, but there are a lot of you in my town, and you're an interesting bunch. It'd be pretty neat to see a special on the Finnish Independence.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat No, his cousin (I think - a family member in any case), who was the French President who made Clemenceau Prime Minister in 1917.
Hmm, turns out I like him a bit more than I thought I would. Considered him a right-wing/conservative guy who doomed France with the Diktat in 1918 in Versailles. There is always a bit more to people I guess. Thanks, this one was great! Looking forward to Ernst Jünger.
The Treaty of Versailles was obviously a bad one, we can clearly see that now, since we had a hundred years to ponder on it. However, I think we tend nowadays to blame it, and the people who designed it, such as Clemenceau, way too hard. Sure, they should have done it differently, but it's difficult to say if it was even possible. For instance, I doubt the French public and political class would have accepted a fairer deal that would not punish Germany. The people who made the treaty were constrained by the reality of their time. Also, saying that the treaty caused the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy, WWII and the doom of France streamlines, I think, History in a way that completly ignores the complexity of historical events. I mean, by that logic, we can go far into the past. For instance, I could say that the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles was caused by French revanchism, which in turn was caused by the treaty of Frankfurt (1871) (which was as harsh on the French than the treaty of Versailles was on the German by the way), and therefore blame the whole thing on Otto von Bismarck. Or on Napoleon III for causing the war of 1870 in the first place. And both accusations would be quite unfair.
Blaming the rise of nazism on the treaty of Versailles indeed is short-sighted. It took 15 years after the end of WW1 for Hitler to get in power; that's a while after the treaty. Also fascism rose if Italy, which was part of the victors; francoism rose in Spain, which stayed neutral. There are way too many factors and blaming it all on the treaty of Versailles is way oversimplifying the matter.
Hitler s'en foutait comme de sa première chemise du Diktat de Versailles,les alliées l'on menacé en vain;il a passé outre et on n'a rien fait pour l’empêcher de réarmer c'est si vrai qu'il a mis à genou l'Europe en très peu de temps!
Can the next WHO DID WHAT IN World War 1 be about Einstein? he might not of had a role in the war, but his name was pretty known and the war affected his life.
Well. They are very different. George is a social-democrat, republican and anti-colonization. Churchill is a conservative, royalist and wanted to maintain the Empire
Clemenceau was not as "extreme" as is explained here. He did not openly criticize Joffre, although he was always milder in praise than all. Although he was an ardent critique, he did not directly accuse Malvy of collusion with the ennemy, but commented and insinuated on those (right-wing), who did, leading to the confusion.
One of the oldest streets in Belgrade is named after him. A lot of monumets in Belgrade are dedicated to French due to their help in WW1.
i guess im randomly asking but does someone know a tool to get back into an instagram account??
I stupidly lost the password. I love any assistance you can offer me
@Fisher Terrell instablaster :)
@Raylan Camden I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im trying it out now.
Takes quite some time so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Raylan Camden it worked and I now got access to my account again. I'm so happy!
Thanks so much, you saved my account :D
@Fisher Terrell glad I could help xD
Whatever the question, the answer is..... I MAKE WAR.
"What's 2+2?"
WAR
"Oh no, we're out of stew, could you make some more?"
I'll make some WAR
"This party is such a bore..."
Don't worry, i'll make it a WAR
Clemenceau is the Warhammer 40k of French prime ministers; there is only war.
My friends, it has often been said that i like war...
"Sir! We're at-"
"WAR"
War, what is it goo-
WAR!
This channel does history so much better than "The History Channel."
The History Channel is *Historically* wrong hehe.
To be fair though, The History Channel is all aliens, conspiracy theories, and reality shows these days. Another piece of my childhood ripped away...
@@michaeldavis4651 On History Channel, USA/UK have won the hundred years war, Joan of Ark was british or american but surely not french as everyone in anglosphere knows they are CESM, cowards which always surrender. :D
Agreed.
Clémenceau is also very well-known for his sharp mind. We got a lot of sayings coming from him.
"War is such a serious thing, that it shouldn't be handled by the army" is one of them, although the translation is not very good
Georges, what are you making fro dinner.
I MAKE WAR
That does not sound tasty.
lol
Foreign policy I MAKE WAR
Dinner policy I MAKE WAR
In France he is considered one of the two most important political figure of the century (the other one is De Gaulle)
Mitterrand?
Also regarding Foch and his appointment as Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies in 1918, it is said that he was preferred over the "more cautious" Pétain (some said even defeatist) because of his perseverance and spirit at the Doullens conference.
Especially because of one of his statement in front of all the other generals and deleguates : "You aren't fighting? I would fight without a break. I would fight in front of Amiens. I would fight in Amiens. I would fight behind Amiens. I would fight all the time. I would never surrender"
When the time will come, it would be interesting to have a special about him too.
"Ne craignez jamais de vous faire des ennemis; si vous n'en avez pas, c'est que vous n'avez rien fait."
"Don't be afraid of making enemies; if you don't have any, it is because you made nothing."
Georges Clémenceau
(Sorry for the bad translation^^)
Read his Wikiquote page. Fantastic/hilarious stuff.
(when he saw a hot French woman): "Oh-la-la, to be seventy again!"
Dieu nous a donnés 10 commandements, Willson nous a donnés 14.
Indy, this is brilliant. I studied History in University and could never draw such an accurate portrait of Clemenceau. Congrats on another superb episode of the Great War.
In 1919 a low-life anarchist (sorry for being redundant) tried to kill Clemenceau. Afterwards, Georges "The Tiger" commented:
"We have just won the most terrible war in history, yet here is a Frenchman who misses his target 6 out of 7 times at point-blank range. Of course this fellow must be punished for the careless use of a dangerous weapon and for poor marksmanship. I suggest that he be locked up for eight years, with intensive training in a shooting gallery."
What a guy!
He also said shortly after being shot at something like " I was missing something; I didn't know what it felt like to be assassinated."
Hey Indy, by any chance did he yell "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" when he was taunting the Germans on the front lines?
Vincent Nicosia bottom wipers
Vincent Nicosia nobody expects the French Taunting Guard!
really hoping for one of these videos on Miklos Horthy
King Brunswick he will he said so
"A ministry's stairway is a place where people who come in late cross paths with people who leave early." - Georges Clemenceau
In honour of Finland's 100th anniversary of independence, could you please do a special about Finland in WWI
Such an interesting and complex figure, flaws and paradoxes but so many forces. The way he got convinced of Alfred Dreyfus innocence and then defended him - I think, and I could be wrong, he was a journalist at that time - is highly emblematic in my humble opinion. And such a moustache! Thank you very much Indy and Baptiste
As usual, an outstanding video. Great dialogue, delivery, production values, and finding those historic film and pictures. Wow, you guys are amazing and proud to be a Patreon of THE GREAT WAR. I never had much interest in WW1 (though lots of interest in WW2 till you guys came along).
thanks for your support
Clemenceau-Foch= the Dream Team
Stupid decision to stop Franchet d'Espèrey and the other allies on the oriental front whilst he was ready, willing and able to get to Germany... Also the way they negotiated the Treaty of Versailles in addition to this above-mentioned gross mistake (we should have made it clear to Germany that they had lost the war to the point of reaching and occuying their territory) was an horrible mistake we payed dearly later and even arguably to this day...
Respect 🇫🇷
Cocorico , le sujet sur notre Clémenceau est bien fait ✓
He isnt a French Churchill, Churchill is a british Clemenceau!
He won the war, he lost peace...
Societies have a habit of rewarding their war-leaders with the boot when the peace is won.
Indeed. It happened to Churchill directly following WWII as well, he was replaced by Clement Attlee but then won the election after Attlee's term was up.
I've been reading more recent work on Gallipoli that places more responsibility for the Entente disaster there on Kitchener than on Churchill. Worth looking into.
No the Republicans in the US congress doomed the peace when they doomed the league of nations.
I think it was more US postwar isolationism, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and French political disunity
I love the contemporary satirical art of the subject you are talking about. They are a window to the mind of the people that lived at the time.
Sidenote: Mary Plummer Clemenceau was the grandniece of Nathan Hale.
I personally met some of his descendants and even met the great-grandson of Czar Nicholas II 's doctor.
looks like mr Monopoly, lol.
Probably not entirely a mistake, Monopoly came out of the first half of the 20th century.
Do one on Mannerheim please! Love the show btw, great stuff! :)
This couldn’t have come out a few days ago BEFORE I completed my Seminar paper on France in WW1?!
rip
"We're out for war, let it be war to the DEATH!!!" Georges Clemenceau
"You must have an odd number to govern, and three is already too much" - Georges Clemenceau
How far into the Post-war era is this channel going to cover?
I absolutely love your production, and I just realized that the story of the great war ends 11 months, 1 day from now.
man those "le petit journal" illustrations always go so hard. I especially like the one depicting the miracle on the Marne. Would be cool to hang some up if someone makes them.
love to see this program continue into the interwar period, record the aftermath for posterity. oh well, we have at least another year to enjoy
Vern Etzel that's difficult, because not a lot of people want 16 years of a channel that doesn't cover any major war
Honestly, it's too bad nobody started a centennial history website or TV channel or something in 2000, it'd be neat to rehash the events of the entire 20th century week by week.
Indy already does the Cuban Missile Crisis on another channel. See this video and the entire channel: watch?v=AKOgqsuHa28
I've been waiting for that episode for YEARS! I'm so happy ;_;
French version of Winston Churchill in World War I.
Churchill was an admirer of Clemenceau actually. He was present in 1918 when the germans launched their offensive toward Paris and Clemanenceau made this speech:
"They can take Paris, it won't end the war. We will fight behind the Seine, we will fight behind the Loire, we will fight behind the Garonne, we will fight in the Pyreneans, and if they take it, we will fight at sea, but we will never surrender"
Reminds you of another speech?^^
Clemenceau finally says: Foch You!!
After WWI ends, you should make weekly episodes about WWII, this time exactly 80 years after the events happen.
Ron Lewenberg
World war 2 officially started September 3rd, 1939. The war in Asia before that had nothing global.
Great episode, now I'm off on a George Clemenceau tangent.
Meanwhile, on wikipedia, the article for the President of France for WWII, Albert Lebrun, only has a small paragraph describing what he did, starting from 1932 and ending in 1944. He comments that he was still president because there was no one left to accept his resignation.
Clemenceau was Prime Minister, not President. The President of the Third Republic had relatively little political influence and was largely a ceremonial office. And Lebrun (in WW2) had essentially been deposed by Petain in 1940; him not resigning was more a technicality.
Being American, I am unfamiliar with the power structure of the French Republic. If the Presidency was worthless why did Clemenceau make a Presidential bid? And why does the WWI President, Raymond Poincaré, have a Wikipedia article 20 times longer then Albert Lebrun?
In most democracies, the Prime Minister is the important executive post, and the President a largely ceremonial head of state (think British queen.) However, the prestige of the person and position, plus their power to dissolve governments, can give rise to influential individuals.
The Presidency did not hold much power, but was a very prestigious office, so it was not rare for very influencial politicans, such as Clemenceau and Poincaré to end their career as president. They would not hold much official power, but their influence and prestige would still allow them to have an impact on French politics.
As for why Poincaré is much more remembered than Lebrun, I believe it's because Lebrun became president without having held very high positions before, unlike Poincaré who has had a long career as MP, minister and prime minister. Also, Poincaré was president during the entirety of WWI while Lebrun was deposed as soon as 1940 when the French Republic fell.
An other reason might be the intense rivalry between Poincaré and Clemenceau : being the rival of someone as famous as "the Tiger", and being the target of some of his most sassy comments, is certainly a way to gain fame.
"There are only two perfectly useless things in this world. One is an appendix and the other is Poincaré", Clemenceau 1919
Those Wikipedia articles might also give a hint: "The strong-willed Poincaré was the first president of the Third Republic since MacMahon in the 1870s to attempt to make that office into a site of power rather than an empty ceremonial role," as opposed to "Re-elected in 1939, largely because of his record of accommodating all political sides, he (Lebrun) exercised little power as president." And what pimsou1 wrote - Poincaré was the more important politician in general, by far.
thanks for the great videos guys!
Clemenceau is my favorite wartime leader.
Moredread25 HOW DARE YOU
The talent for witty phrases and the exemplar leadership in a World War drive us to an inevitable comparison with Winston Churchill. Churchill himself, in his book 'Great Contemporaries' (1937), wrote a short and complimentary biography of Clemenceau.
I remember the comment he made after the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919. He said it was only a truce and Germany and France would be fighting again in 20 years.
Frank E McGillivray I believe it was Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch who said that, not Clemenceau. I could be wrong about that, so don't quote me on that.
Mike Brammer exactly, French Maréchal Ferdinand Foch said "ce n'est pas une paix, c'est un armistice de 20 ans"/"this is no peace, it is a 20 year armistice".
The topic is that Clemenceau didn't want peace with Germany. He critized the Versailles Treaty as too moderate.
He didn't care that his attitude helped the far right in Germany to rise and to demand revenge.
@@rudolfkraffzick642 If he had his way, Germany would have ended like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, which I think we can agree have not been bad bois since then.
Awesome video guys. You all rock!
probably I'm wrong but he kinda reminds me of Churchill similar style except for the mustache
Well, they both were sassy old politicians that led the Allies to victory during the World Wars. Also, they both took power when the situation was looking quite grim for their country, but still stubbornly carried on.
By the way, it's not impossible that Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches" speech was inspired by one of Clemenceau's in front of the French parliament when the German army got extremely close to Paris in 1918.
The parallels struck me too. From power to the political wilderness, called back when his nation decided that they needed him after all, acted as his own War Minister (Defence Secretary), loses the post war election, writes his own history. Clemenceau could be Monsieur Churchill, MD. Or, rather, Churchill could be the English Clemenceau, since Clemenceau's experience predates the equivalent portion of Churchill's life.
One of Churchill's opponents referred to him as something like a stone headed rabid dog. But the stone headed rabid dog England needed. France needed a Clemenceau at the time. A nationalist who truly believed that the survival of France was on the line.
Churchill said about Clemenceau that if a single man can be the living representation of a country, then Clemenceau was France
I've been hoping for this! Thank you! You guys are amazing.
Hey Indy, are u planning on making a special about the famine in lebanon during world war 1?
I was struck by the rise, fall and rise again of Clemmanu and that of Churchill in WWII. Also Indy's description of his character being just right for a war time leader but maybe not peace similar to Churchill.
He also made a similar statement to Churchill's famous "Fight on the Beaches" speech. "The Germans may take Paris, but that will not prevent me from going on with the war. We will fight on the Loire, we will fight on the Garronne, we will fight even in the Pyrenees. And if at last we are driven off the Pyrenees, we will continue the war at sea."
@@CJ87317 22+ years before even :) ;)
Frenchie von Bismarck
I make War. Badass boast.
Do one on Sir Bernard Montgomery
I mainly come here for Indy´s abyssmal pronounciation of everything French... :-P
It s not too bad I’d say. I mean, did you ever listen to a French person trying to pronounce english ...
French wasn't created for foreigners :-D
In fact Clemenceaus hateful attitude towards Germany laid the seed for all what happend from 1930 on. Sad but true.
The right man for the war isn't necessarilly the best choise for making peace.
Debatable. Had he had his way with Germany, it would have become an inoffensive regional power (through dismantling). You could also argue that it was the USA's will to have as little sanctions as possible (believing that trade would make war impossible), becoming Germany's main trade partner before creating the 1929 crash that made it's way to Germany... is to blame.
Clemenceau was blinded by his desire of revenge over Germany...
Benoit Bvg entre la crise de 1929 et l’humiliation de 1919 (et qui s’est poursuivie longtemps après lorsque la France occupait la Rhénanie notamment) je crois sincèrement que l’humiliation a eu plus de conséquences que la crise
Là-dessus, aucun de nous ne pourra apporter de preuves...
Berg Steirer 😳 Indeed! Much the same could be said of Winston Churchill in peacetime.
This is excellent.
I run these at 75% so as to absorb, the information and help me stop it in time to look at the photos.
Apparently, Clemenceau was an overall positive for France, at least before the war.
I was unaware of Mary Plummer his wife, and am looking her up at this time.
The French Revolution and Liberalism is responsible for all of their problems, not Clemenceau as such.
A great man that held the Entente later Allies together. In spite of the myths he was somewhat lenient towards Germany , and if the terms of Versailles had been more rigourously enforced , in terms of reparations payments and from the remilitisation of the Rhineland,who knows? Inspite of both world wars Krupp , Siemens , Bosch, successors of IG Farben and Daimler Benz are still live and well . What reparations?
His most knowned allocution was in the parlement when he was talking about general Lyautey : here's an admirable man, courageous who had balls even if not always his !! (In french : "voilà un homme admirable, courageux, qui a toujours eu des couilles aux cul ... même quand ça n'était pas les siennes")
La tu es grossier!.........
SIRIUS-PETRUSSE peut-être mais Georges Clemenceau était connus pour ne pas prendre de pincettes. ... inimaginable de nos jours à l'assemblée 😉
Tinuraviel Surtout en cette infecte ère de rectitude politique !
Il faisait référence a la supposé homosexualité du Maréchal Liautey.
@@princekareem6872 elle n’était pas supposé mais réelle.
Lyautey n’est jamais abordé mais il a eu un rôle essentiel dans l’organisation des armées françaises en tant que ministre de la guerre.
Anyone else getting a French Bismarck vibe?
Clemensau was awesome
Clémenceau was also very wright on many things.
He knew before everyone else that Pétain was an incompetent commander and that this spirit of a "loser" would bring France to defeat.
He said "we pushed Pétain to victory by buming his ass towards it" (On l'a poussé à la victoire à coups de pieds dans le cul)
What he said about Pétain finally made sense in 1940 when Pétain considered the battle of France lost while there still was a chance of breaking the encirclement.
Pétain was not an incompetent commander. He was excellent in defense but too pessimistic for attack. He knew how not to lose a battle, but not how to win one - even more so, a war. You can't always have it all.
Pétain was a defensive commander. It was his doctrine. Use the right men, at the right place and the right men. In 1916 France needed urgently competent defensive officers. Petain was the man.
Right, not Wright.
Clemenceau was the man France needed to deal with Germany. In the last year of the war, the French and Allied successes owe a lot to him and his stubborness. With him, morale was back, and the mutinees had long been forgotten
But isnt he responsible for the Harshness of the Treaty of Versailles, which directly led to World War II ?
Birdperson in part yes, but some say that Germany rebuilt into a nazi military machine because the Versailles treaty was not enough harsh with them as some demands from Clemenceau were tempered or disminished by the Americans or British. At first he even wanted a military occupation of west Germany to keep the Germans under watch, which was refused. But this idea was applied by the allies after ww2, and last to this day...
No, what led to World war 2 was not the harshness of the treaty, but it political unconsistency. And that unconsistency is due to Wilson incompetence and stupidity, unable to understand European issues.
Skyscanner HD of Doom lol the typical american or british ignorance or stupidity. In ww1, France has never been on the verge of surrendering. Stop applying your ww2 clichés to all history you moron. The Germans have never been able to break the French lines in ww1. They almost did at the Marne 1914 and Marne 1918 but the French always found the strengh to counter attack and won
Birdperson. The notion that the Treaty of Versailles directly led to WWII is a persistent myth. The Great Depression crippled Germany way more than the Versailles Treaty ever did and it was the catalyst that directly brought Hitler to power. The war-payment was in fact reduced *twice* first with the Dawes plan and later the Young plan. The Young plan even cut the original sum by half and also granted Germany loans with which it could both prosper (and the Weimar Republic was doing well prior to the Great Depression) and pay back the war repairs.
Prior to the Great Depression hardly anybody listened to Hitler, why would they? In the 1928 German federal elections Hitler and the nazis only got 2,6% of all votes and was the 9th largest party. In the 1933 federal elections Hitler got 43,9% of all votes and the Nazi party was *by far* the biggest Germany party (the social democrats were second largest with 18,2% of the the votes).
So how did Hitler go from 2,6% of the votes in 1928 to 43,9% of the votes in 1933? What happened between 1928 and 1933? The 1929 stock market crash and the later Great Depression. It's safe to say that Hitler and the nazis would *never* have become a popular party unless Germany had been severely struck by the effects of the Great Depression. You see Germany's economy relied heavily on trade and once world trade came to a halt with the onset of the Great Depression this was particularly bad for Germany. No further loans were granted to it either.
Also, it was clear to most people who the culprit behind the Great Depression were - Jewish bankers. Btw, this was a belief that was commonplace in many countries of the world, not just Nazi Germany. Roosevelt was *far* from a popular president during the Great Depression and assassination attempts were made on him. Antisemitism was popular all over Europe and it seemed as if only the Jews profiteered from the Great Depression.
The Versailles Treaty had since long seized to be a topic among Hitler and the nazis. They had two main enemies they focused all their attention on: Jews and communists. The former because they were a very suitable scapegoat (and not entirely out of the blue either) and the latter because Stalin's Soviet Union was pretty much next door.
Speaking of which the communists gained a lot of support and popularity too in the 1930's in Germany (third largest party in the 1933 election) and many voted for the nazis because they had already made it very clear they would take a harsh and very firm stance against the communists.
Here's the sum total: Even without the Versailles Treaty Germany would still have been severely crippled by the Great Depression as its economy relied on trade more than other countries. That means the nazis still get to power. What crippled Germany economically in the early 30's was the Great Depression, not the Versailles Treaty.
German revanschism following the defeat in WWI would have remained intact Versailles Treaty or not. It rested on the myth Germany was on the verge on victory when traitors at home (Jews, pacifists, communists) betrayed them. A much more lenient Versailles Treaty wouldn't have erased this myth.
The huge difference in votes for Hitler in the 1928 and 1933 elections makes it very clear the Germans only started listening to him when they had lost their jobs and all their savings. They didn't care about his ramblings about the Versailles Treaty (and he mostly blamed the Jews anyway as the *real* enemy of Germany).
Here's another myth: That Hitler improved the German economy. His predecessors had already implemented several economic reforms and worked on them prior to his 1933 election. When he was in power it appeared as if he had saved Germany because the effects were being felt by this point. The Autobahn project was already planned years before Hitler's rise to power and the first stretches were built in 1931-1932 , which was before Hitler came to power.
No Great Depression, No Hitler in power. However WWII would probably have broken out anyway although with Stalin's Soviet Union on one side and some coalition of European powers on the other. Before Hitler started the war in 1939 more people feared Stalin - and like I said before this is why Hitler was so popular. He had Germany cleansed of all communists and had them put in concentration camps in 1934 already.
France paid war repairs for both the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The latter had Germany occupy them until 1873 when they paid a whopping 3 billion francs (an astronomic sum back then) to Germany. When France won the war in 1918 and had seen its entire country devastated by the war on an unfathomable scale - could anybody blame them for the Versailles Treaty? They paid back everything they owed in the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian war. This time Germany lost and they had to pay. Period.
Indy, I know I'm quite early, but could you in the future make an episode on the misconceptions about the Treaty of Versailles ? I read all days so much partial and biased comments on the Internet about that. Many people think it's the main cause of WW2 when the reality is so much more complex...
In almost all aspects, Clemenceau can be considered the French Churchill.
Skyscanner HD of Doom Then the French and Moustache Churchill.
An interesting point that.
Yep, on the outside, but warning of problems before the war, eventually thrust into leadership, a solid, unyielding character, then voted out post-war. The similarities are remarkable.
Cezar-Iulian Blebea
I’m pretty sure Clemenceau didn’t willingly starved his colonies to death.
Joseph Stalin Note, Marshall Stalin, that I said "almost all aspects".
"Mr. Wilson bores me with his Fourteen Points; why, G0d Almighty has only Ten."
The right man at the right time. Vive Clemenceau and Vive la France :-)
A shame really. Had he listened to Wilson a bit more maybe France would have been spared the terror and embarrassment of the second WW.
well foch was the person that predicted WW2 and he wanted harder conditions than versailles afaik
Harder conditions would not have been the right solution. Smarter ones would have done it. Ensure, that territorial disputes due to cultural groups being located in other countries are avoided and strenghten the economic dependencies between countries. That´s how you make peace. Not ruining a countries economy, let the people pretty much starve for a few years and give big chunks of their territory to other states.
That is not how you ensure peace and the French despite all should have known that.
It's highly debatable that a softer treaty would have helped, though. As Italy proved, fascism could rise even in a country on the winning side, and Hitler did not take power during the harsh years just after the war, but long after that, when the country had recovered, then collapsed again for entirely different reasons.
Plus, it would have been impossible to make public opinion accept softer terms. The 1871 treaty had been extremely harsh and humiliating to France, and after four years of having the whole northern regions ravaged, no-one there was in an especially merciful mood.
While you are absolutely in the right when you say that Hitler did not come to power in the years after the war, I disagree that the collapse of german economy happened for "entirely different reasons." Germany was extremely dependant on the money coming from other countries like the USA to get its enonomy going again. When they did not pay reperations the french just came and occupied the wealthiest part of their country. And when the market crashed it hit Germany harder than other countries since they were dependent on other countries.
Also, yes, the 1871 treaty was extremely harsh. To my knowledge the French had to pay even more than the Germans, however that was an entirely different situation. France lost the war in 1871 rather quickly and its economy was intact for the most part. Germany after WWI was standing on its last legs. Also France lost Alsace to Germany, which was maybe wrong, but since many people there actually spoke German is at least understandable. Germany however did not only lose Alsace, it also lost a LOT of land in the east. Austria lost the southern part of Tyrol, which was, excuse me for saying this, just BS since this part of the country did not even have a stable minority of Italians. Had they listened to Wislon all this things could have been avoided.
Also also most politicians did not care about public opinion when they started the war, they should at least have the guts to not care when they ended it.
Clémenceau is my hero.
Blah b umm what are you talking about he died in 1929?
I guess he buys into the silly narrative that the Versailles treaty was too harsh and caused WW2, and blames Clémenceau for it. Let's conveniently forget that the war reparations that Germany paid after WW1 were lower than the ones France paid after the Franco-Prussian war. The Weimar overinflation was caused by woeful mismanagement, not by an "overly harsh" Versailles treaty.
Blah b I guess you can call it an eye for an eye the German treaty during the Franco Prussian war was much harsher.
You're right, sorry. Germany did nothing wrong, and the fact that none of what happened in Germany happened in France after a much harsher peace treaty and much larger land occupation is purely coincidental. Silly me and my idiotic "you too" fallacies. Have a nice day.
I love that the expertise of viewer fans is utilized in the various special episodes. Indy and crew may not know it, but they are the model for future pedagogical regimens, totally democratized globally. The Great War should become a lecture bloc for university classes in 20th century European history.
A lot of public history scholars pay close attention.
Great video, as usual. But I'm confused as to what the role of "Prime Minister" in the French Republic of the time actually entailed. It doesn't seem to be the equivalent of the British Prime Minister as there is also a French elected President. What it boils down to is this - where did the real power lie?
Actually, at the time of the third republic, the French Prime Minister's office is pretty comparable to the English one, while the President would be akin to the King/Queen of England: the official head of state, but little real power.
What makes it confusing is that nowaday, it's very much the reverse: under the fifth republic, the President holds the real power, while the Prime Minister is a more subordinate position (most of the time - if the President and the Prime Minister happens to be from different political parties, then there's some balance between them)
The Free Man Becomes The Chained Man that is brilliant
I have just stumbled onto your channel and am very impressed. I was wonder what is your motivation for doing this great undertaking? I got to ep 44 this evening and will pick it up with 45 tomorrow evening.. What got my attention was the episode you did on the somme (the third one) My grand father started his service in ww1 in that battle.. after I left the marines in 1972 we talk for many days of war.. he told me about that battle and many others he fought in until he was wounded. He passed on three years later in 1975.. he was a great man.. they don't seem to make them like him any more.. thanks for what your doing.. it reminds me of him..
"One simply needs to add 'military to something to have it mean the opposite. As such, military music is not music, and military justice is not justice." - Georges Clemenceau
Please do a episode about siam
Very well done ! Thanks
@The Great War. Something I find interesting that I hope you cover more in depth in your regular videos is how Clemenceau's government feuded with Loyd George over replacements until the Armistice, and how under his premiership, the ideology of the Sacred Union was only used by pro war papers, and was in reality dead. Thanks for covering one of my favorite people from the war.
Do one on King Zog!
I hate how Clemenceau in the popular consciousness has been stereotyped as simply "the guy who was mean to Germany and therefore is more responsible for World War II than Hitler is". It's such an idiotically simple-minded way to look at history and it strips the participants in all these events of their agency. Fact is, Clemenceau was in fact LESS aggressive toward Germany during the peace conference than most major French political figures, and men such as President Poincaré and Marshals Foch and Pétain were on the verge of removing him from the negotiations due to just how much they viewed him as going soft on the Germans. That's ignoring the fact that France had plenty of good reasons for being harsh to Germany after the war, having lost millions of lives and having suffered an occupation of some of their most prosperous industrial centers for almost five years. The idea that Clemenceau and the French somehow drove Germany into the arms of Nazism just serves to whitewash the numerous people who willingly supported Hitler's rancid policies, as if they didn't have a choice in the matter.
You forgot that is name lives on. As the French Navy named an Aircraft Carrier was named after him.
Not a very important mention, especially for a ww1 video
@derrickstorm6976 Ohhhh !!!.... thanks. Now you made me feel like a bag of moldy Tangerines.
finnish special when
"Monday"
WE! WANT! FINNISH SPECIAL!
AND MANNERHEIM! CANT FORGET MANNERHEIM!!
Not even close to Finnish, but there are a lot of you in my town, and you're an interesting bunch. It'd be pretty neat to see a special on the Finnish Independence.
Could you do Jan Smuts or John Monash next?
There are two perfectly useless things in this world. One is the appendix, and the other is Poincare.
The Latest Meme 😖 You mean one of the greatest mathematicians of recent times . . . ?
It's a quote from Clemenceau
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat No, his cousin (I think - a family member in any case), who was the French President who made Clemenceau Prime Minister in 1917.
Rather similar in style to Churchill, unsmooth fanatic that in soem extreme situation can boost morale and keep going no matter what?
No Surrender Period By G.Clemenceau
Ahhh, Where was Clemenceau when we needed him in WW2...
I mean, we did have de Gaulle, but he didn't have that awesome mustache.
Dead and buried.
Déclassé is such a fine mispronunciation for Delcassé. ( Around 13:00 )
we wanted to spice it up for you
Please make video on the India in World War 1
Finland episode please
Seems like you were heard!
King George V next?
Glorious video
His politics may be based one time and cringe another, but no one can deny the man was a Chad.
How dare they make such graphic pictures of him killing the Reichsadler.
French Teddy Roosevelt
rThere's an incredible book about the Dreyfus Affair: "An Officer and a Spy" by Robert Harris. It's a really great read and drew me into it very well.
Hmm, turns out I like him a bit more than I thought I would. Considered him a right-wing/conservative guy who doomed France with the Diktat in 1918 in Versailles. There is always a bit more to people I guess.
Thanks, this one was great!
Looking forward to Ernst Jünger.
history is always so complicated
That's what is great about it!
The Treaty of Versailles was obviously a bad one, we can clearly see that now, since we had a hundred years to ponder on it. However, I think we tend nowadays to blame it, and the people who designed it, such as Clemenceau, way too hard. Sure, they should have done it differently, but it's difficult to say if it was even possible. For instance, I doubt the French public and political class would have accepted a fairer deal that would not punish Germany. The people who made the treaty were constrained by the reality of their time.
Also, saying that the treaty caused the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy, WWII and the doom of France streamlines, I think, History in a way that completly ignores the complexity of historical events. I mean, by that logic, we can go far into the past. For instance, I could say that the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles was caused by French revanchism, which in turn was caused by the treaty of Frankfurt (1871) (which was as harsh on the French than the treaty of Versailles was on the German by the way), and therefore blame the whole thing on Otto von Bismarck. Or on Napoleon III for causing the war of 1870 in the first place. And both accusations would be quite unfair.
Blaming the rise of nazism on the treaty of Versailles indeed is short-sighted. It took 15 years after the end of WW1 for Hitler to get in power; that's a while after the treaty.
Also fascism rose if Italy, which was part of the victors; francoism rose in Spain, which stayed neutral. There are way too many factors and blaming it all on the treaty of Versailles is way oversimplifying the matter.
Hitler s'en foutait comme de sa première chemise du Diktat de Versailles,les alliées l'on menacé en vain;il a passé outre et on n'a rien fait pour l’empêcher de réarmer c'est si vrai qu'il a mis à genou l'Europe en très peu de temps!
Can the next WHO DID WHAT IN World War 1 be about Einstein? he might not of had a role in the war, but his name was pretty known and the war affected his life.
A very peculiar general once asked, "do you recall what Clemenceau said about war? He said that war is too important to be left to the generals."
damn that speech was pretty cool.
Great job!
Clemenceau reminds me of another old bulldog from the next generation -- Churchill.
Skyscanner HD of Doom ?
Skyscanner HD of Doom where are you from ?
Well. They are very different. George is a social-democrat, republican and anti-colonization. Churchill is a conservative, royalist and wanted to maintain the Empire
@@felipedesaxe-coburgogotha7669 Yes but both of them, were great fighters against german dictatures!!!
I tough he would make a Finland episode during the hundred years of freedom day
If ever a man was the right man at the right place at the right time it was Clemenceau.
Oui on doit beaucoup au TIGRE ! Un Grang Homme ! Un Patriote Irréductible, Sauveur de la PATRIE !
Hello
Clemenceau was not as "extreme" as is explained here. He did not openly criticize Joffre, although he was always milder in praise than all. Although he was an ardent critique, he did not directly accuse Malvy of collusion with the ennemy, but commented and insinuated on those (right-wing), who did, leading to the confusion.