The Treaty of Versailles
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- This BBC documentary entitled "The Peacemakers" is an in-depth study of the Versailles Treaty of 1919. It provides some fine insight into the process, the politics, the problems and the impact of that infamous settlement. This is ideal for students of this period. Due to a music copyright claim, some sections of the film have been muted. You might also enjoy 'Lloyd George's War' on my channel. Uploaded for educational purposes only.
Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org We have recent history, old history, ancient history, debates, reviews, quizzes and much more. You might even consider contributing something of your own! See you there!
Very well produced. Conceding the Shantung Peninsula to Japan based on conquest and refusing to recognise the Japanese as racially equal (All men are created equal , who said that, written on the walls in Washington) to the Europeans, Wilson with his self determination failed in the first test. Rightly so the Americans rejected the League of Nations which did nothing for Ethiopia which comes to my mind at this time.
@@mohammadsyedhusain9280 Wilson wouldn't have been the only one at the table to think that self determination was only for white people. The attitude would have been as common in Europe as in the US.
John Ries Yeah I’m White, but never understood what that actually implies because there’s varying shades of every color between white and black pigment colors in the human race and how the varying degrees of that can make people hate whole Section of human race.I would consider it insane if people hate difference color puppy’s. It’s confusing how people can hate another human for something as insufficient as the pigment of skin color. It’s mainly just a way of help a groups of people who living in different climates adapted. I don’t understand it, no one can’t choose the group they’re born of anymore than anyone else can. Racism is only used to perpetuate and establish a way of thinking that leads to one group having almost Religious ideologically passed on through Indoctrination.Just to obtain what ever it that group is wanting by exploding and segregating races it’s almost always for summing of monetary value. People are just carrying along propaganda spread hundreds of years ago to justify the absurdly inhumane treatment of any group that wasn’t them. (as define by who god only know) you can easily be defined in a group and just as easily Excluded as well. There’s always that risk so why bother having it at all, there’s no good reason I can think of. Would people like a group that had red hair and using that as the criteria you had to be born with to own humans that happened to not have red hair? Crazy
@@mohammadsyedhusain9280 have you listened to Benjamin H. Freedman's speech?
@@Matt-zv9wpll
The worst document in the history of the world.... still dealing with the consequences of that....
Why the worst? How would it have been better?
"This is not peace, this is an Armistice lasting 20 years," Ferdinand Foch, Allied Commander of the Western Front after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919.
How right he was
This treaty guaranteed that this war was to be resumed.... For the final capitulation of a once economic power that challenged the Marxist revolution declared by kosher kommunists around the mid 1800s........
Just a 20 year ceasefire..
@@josekma1 kosher kommunists, come on, really?
@@Madmen604 ... the same kosher kommunist kriminals (KKK) (the premier racists the world has come to know) now run the USSA and all democracies around the world through usury.... Fact #3
So why the fek sign?
WWI and Versailles still resonate till today in the Middle East
As someone who grew up in the Middle East and still works there, I can tell you everyone agrees the borders created in 1919 are wrong - no one agrees what the 'right' ones are.
The whites had no right to do this
@@swiftallan5094 so why let them?
UA-cam Veterinarian and the Americans and Europeans can’t stop stealing from other countries.
@UA-cam Veterinarian What a dumb conversation you're both having. Petty arguments like these are what lead to the deaths of millions of innocents. Humans evolved to become superior to every predator in the world and now we are stuck in an unevolved state where we choose to be our own biggest predator. We need to either evolve our souls or go extinct.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Matthew Tippo God if that ain’t the truth
Well they really meant to pave it
Matthew Tippo So are many roads to Boston, Mass.
This one was paved with bad intentions...
It seems the harder they tried the worse the whole thing became.
I now understand why Italy and Japan chose to partner Hitler in WWII
The super-cool logo?
They just make it seem like those countries were evil
Well, regarding Japan the US forced them - in a way
@@martinhumble not in a way. Japan’s choice was to bend over or fight back
@@noticemesenpai69 i unterstand what you mean but its not entirely true . Before the sanctions where introduced the americans wanted to negotiate with Japan but they wanted all .....
Not much talk how Clemenceau himself in 1916 estimated that British Empire will never recover from this war. During that year Britain first time had to borrow huge sums of loans from USA. So in fact Uncle Sam cleaned the clocks of Europe.
This documentary did not change my mind. WWll was and extension of WW1. Wilson was wrong
Agreed
Peacemakers? There were no peacemakers when this horrific document was drawn.
Today deniers of this document are everywhere. I just wonder if we take the salaries of these deniers we will see them loot the streets.
Have you ever read the Treaty of Brest Litovsk? Maybe you've read the Septemberprogramm? No?
@@bolivar2153 Oh you mean the treaty that finally gave independence and self rule to Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and more? The treaty that won them independence from under the BOOT of RUSSIAN AGGRESSION?
That was a great treaty!
@@mamavswild Trouble is, it didn't give independence to those states. They got "independence" when their German occupiers were defeated. All Brest-Litovsk did was to swap their "overlords".
Russia just sucs I feel for anyone living in that hellhole then and now. And yeah they were trying to be peacemakers only ones that think otherwise was the ridiculous germans because their stupid leader started the war in the first place they should learn to deal with that and move on
The piano piece is Erik Satie- Gnossienne 1. Nice upload.
+Norm Kid Thanks, Norm.
+Dr Alan Brown
Thank you Alan. Greeting from Ukraine.
Yeah but Gymnopedie 1 is still No1 ;)
The Allies: *make Germany pay for the war, destroying the economy, rubbing salt in an open wound*
Germany: *starts another world war*
The Allies: *surprised pikachu*
y'all had good intentions but like bruh-
"make Germany pay for the war" No, the reparations were to cover a _fraction_ of the civilian damage done by the deliberate and intentional scorched earth policy pursued by Germany during the war. Should Belgium, neutral at the start of the war, have been forced to pay for the damage done to her and the cost of rebuilding? (Germany had already stripped the country bare and enforced occupation costs on her during the war).
@@bolivar2153 All countries owed. But you cannot bleed something that is already bled utterly dry.
In reality, the ‘reparations’ was French debt owed to the US and Britain, and the allies couldn’t make Germany pay it without forcing them to admit to ‘war guilt’...which is OUTRAGEOUS, when one studies and researches the cause or WWI. There’s was plenty of guilt to go around!
Much of what made the Versailles treaty horrible was the non-tangibles, the psychological damage done to a whole people. They not only lost their lands but lose many of her peoples to France, Poland and Czechoslovakia where many were harassed and mistreated, providing the impetus the later reich would use as justification for going into those terrorists.
Leave a nation with nothing but her pride...
@@mamavswild Germany appealed to Wilson for a peace based on the 14 points. Point 8 : France gets Alsace-Lorraine back.
@@mamavswild you failed to address this point :"Should Belgium, neutral at the start of the war, have been forced to pay for the damage done to her and the cost of rebuilding? (Germany had already stripped the country bare and enforced occupation costs on her during the war)."
@@mamavswild How many times does Article 231 mention "guilt"?
Dubious excuse: "Wilson was a politician, not an economist". Wilson was a PhD political scientist who may not have understood all of the ins and outs of economic theory, but would have understood the potential for economic factors to influence both voting behavior and political decision making. Keynes was right: it made no sense at all to saddle Germany with reparations it couldn't be expected to pay without crippling its own economy.
I'm sure it made PLENTY of sense to the corporations who profited off of the situation. It was not enough to make money sending arms to Europe on the Lusitania, and to be making money earning on the payback of today's sum of over 50 BILLION lent to the UK; no, certainly not. They expected to profit from the new situation as they siphoned investments into german industry to prop them up, so that these industries and those who worked for them could survive enough to "repay" the equivalent of 70 million overdrawn accounts and overmaxxed credit cards they inherited, based on an arbitrary sum, which would take an infinite amount of time based on the artificially worthless value of the currency in that country based on a result of the entire loan shark setup. The only way out is to get rich selling vice and smut, and that's exactly what the rich in the "glorious" and "legitimate" Weimar era did. So it was the mega-corps selling basic sh!t and industrialists who appeared to do ok, plus the smut peddlers. Pretty much the modern era situation of the West, minus the EBT/SNAP food stamp cards and social welfare parachute. It's said that France was not doing much better than Germany either, that it like Spain was a few tremors away from falling to the Bolshevik sympathists - even after events like the Red Terror in the Russian Civil War, the Holodomor, the Great Purge, etc. That puts it in perspective. The Paris Peace Conference turned Europe into a dumpster fire that only the ultra-rich could benefit from.
Yeah, but they started it. They already wanted a war. The kaiser was itching for a war. If they wouldn't have pushed it so much maybe it wouldn't have happened at all. Or u cpuld blame Gabriel princip or whatever his name was.. conspiracy theorists are so funny
World war ii was caused by British cruelty against Germany at the treaty of Versailles
The French were the cruellest and WW2 happened because of many other reasons
I think their emboldening of the polish state something to do with it
That's right blame us Brits; as always...
How about blaming the nation that started the war in the first place...
Quite frankly, we should have kept out of WW1. Germany would have won, WW2 and Hitler never would have happened, neither Stalin for that matter....how about that idea? Lol
I firmly believe there is a direct connection between 1919 and 1939. The animosity between the French and Germany was just too much and the Treaty that was imposed on Germany, by stating that Germany alone was responsible for the war, the imposition of a republican form of government on a country that didn't have a clue what that meant and that over 90% of the Treaty's clauses were directed at Germany alone are just some of the direct links between WW1 and WW2. As the French Marshall Ferdinand Foch stated: "This isn't peace . It's an armistice for 20 years".
I totally agree. For one the idea that Germany was responsible for the war was flawed from the start. Secondly the restrictions on the Armed forces played a huge part in the rise of the Nazis it stripped Germany of its pride. Thirdly the overall penalties were entirely to punitive, They crippled the German economy well before the start of the Great Depression. Hitters rise to power more than likely would not have been possible if the Treaty had actually been about a lasting peace and not extracting a pound of flesh from the Germans.
+Zach Sweet
You complaining about Versailles treaty? You know of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
+Vladimir Eng Brest-Litovsk, and the outcome of the war on the Eastern Front, gave the various peoples (Fins, Lets, Lithuanians, the inhabitants of the Caucasus, the Ukraine, and others) of the Imperialist Russia Empire their first chance of freedom to live life according to own desires, and within own national borders.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
+Ralph Bernhard
Russia lost more land and people in WW1 than Germany!
The Versaille peace treaty give people's Poland and Czechoslovakia chance to be free from Germany Empire, but you still cry like bitches about Versailles treaty.
+Ralph Bernhard
Russia lost more land and people in WW1 than Germany!
The Versaille peace treaty give people's Poland and Czechoslovakia chance to be free from Germany Empire, but you still cry like bitches about Versailles treaty.
Actually one should not talk about the signing of a treaty by Germany. The allies still enforced a blockade on Germany. German representatives were forced to sign the treaty or go to war again (which really wasn't possible). Unlike the treaty of Vienna that ended the Napoleanic wars of French Aggression, Germany was not welcomed back into the club but was forced out and made to take the entire blame for the war.
Erich Socker You are avoiding Germany's responsibility. If the allies have carried out a
blockade you omit that the state of war existed between France & its allies & Germany
and its allies.
Didn't Germany violate the neutrality of Belgium in 1914 ? The German Delegates in 1919 in Versailles knew very well what was going to happen there And in addition a choice was offered to the German delegates: signing of the armistice or continuation of the war ! At the armistice of 1918 in Rethondes, the same tone as 1870 had been dictated. That the tone of Winners..
We must remember the Interview of Ferrières on 19 & 20 September 1870, which was calamitous for France. The French Diplomat Favre does not obtain the slightest concession from Chancellor Bismarck who will impose all the conditions: loss of Alsace & Lorraine, War indemnity of 5 Billion gold francs. All this announce the treaty of Frankfurt on May 10, 1871, which confirmed the armistice already established on January 28, 1871 in Versailles.
no one cares, they're all dead lol
@@haydnlangner9847 its all the innocents that did and have subsequently died because of these leaders
Boohoo
@S Rohith Who attack Serbia ? Who declared war to Russian Empire knowing as well France was a truth allied ? Who invaded neutral Belgique knowing as well too, the Great Britain go to war ?
Hello everyone! Due to a music copyright claim, and some slight subsequent editing, this film may now contain short sections of silent footage. Regards - Alan.
+Dr Alan Brown The silences seem to correspond to the moments Germany is making its case in Versaille. Is this a real correlation for political reasons?
It's a good document historically. I appreciate getting some more insight into this event.
thanks for the upload :)
otto skorzeny It's amazing that anyone can blame Jews. Let's recall that Britain and France negotiated the terms of Versaille, not Israel. There was no Jewish state at the time, nor would they have been involved if they were. The Jews of Europe weren't a factor in the war anymore than the Hindus.
Alan A How about black, white, Hindu, Jewish, and Chinese bankers, oil barons, and weapons manufacturers: and capitalists. Embrace diversity! Your missing the economic story and the essential and obvious sources of division, war, and environmental collapse.
Jeff Moore You mean to say you don't know that Jewish Bankers controlled much of the European Economy during those times?
Terrific documentary. The thing I love most is the time travel back to 1919 when I view the footage of what the people and the world looked like at that time.
Poorly researched and disappointing, the part about the Middle East is full of lies and misinformation, the fate of Ottoman territories was settled much earlier by a number of secret agreements during the war, the most famous of which is Sykes-Picot agreement and map in 2016. Regarding Iraqi oil, noway that Lloyd-George was bargaining for oil in Versailles conference, since the first Iraqi oil will was discovered in 1928.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Documentary created by the BBC. It is completely bias in favor of England and France. let Wilson .with all the guilt of the failure of the treaty in regard of Germany and middle East. Forget about the hyper inflation in Germany .
Look like a propaganda clip
Yes
@@mogh2603Wikipedia lol
IT was No treaty but a criminal dictate.
The word “revision” appears in this video several times in its various forms. Makes sense, since this is an attempt at revising fact and trying to convince the audience that Versailles was not a main contribution to the cause of WW 2.
But the Treaty was not the main contributor to WWII, Steve. Versailles was detested by practically every German, but the fulfilment politicians such as Stresemann, and particularly the Locarno Treaty, convinced many people that revision was already under way by 1930. Reparations were cancelled in 1932 at the Lausanne Conference, and Germany paid only 16% of the entire amount. It was Hitler who made Versailles a _casus belli_ and had the Nazis not come to power (by virtue of the Wall Street Crash and not their opposition to Versailles), the Weimar Republic would never have sanctioned war to overturn the territorial changes.
The History Room so cancelling the treaty that left Germany destitute was the cause? Really? I ain’t buyin’ what you are trying to sell here. Research refutes your claims, categorically.
I’d argue the following had a larger impact:
“In the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the victorious powers (the United States, Great Britain, France, and other allied states) imposed punitive territorial, military, and economic provisions on defeated Germany. In the west, Germany returned Alsace-Lorraine to France. It had been seized by Germany more than 40 years earlier. Further, Belgium received Eupen and Malmedy; the industrial Saar region was placed under the administration of the League of Nations for 15 years; and Denmark received Northern Schleswig. Finally, the Rhineland was demilitarized; that is, no German military forces or fortifications were permitted there. In the east, Poland received parts of West Prussia and Silesia from Germany. In addition, Czechoslovakia received the Hultschin district from Germany; the largely German city of Danzig became a free city under the protection of the League of Nations; and Memel, a small strip of territory in East Prussia along the Baltic Sea, was ultimately placed under Lithuanian control. Outside Europe, Germany lost all its colonies. In sum, Germany forfeited 13 percent of its European territory (more than 27,000 square miles) and one-tenth of its population (between 6.5 and 7 million people).“ encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/map/german-territorial-losses-treaty-of-versailles-1919
@@oasis6767 In my opinion, the immediate and main cause of the Second World War was the blatant siding of Britain and France with Poland for their own dishonest economic reasons. Just as it had been in 1914 with poor little Belgium. Just a threadbare excuse. From 1918 to 1939, Germany (and Austria), with their chaotic economies, were full of Germans fleeing persecution in the ultra-nationalist slavic states created by the Versailles criminals. The situation became acute in 1938 and 1939, when the Czechs sent their army into Sudetenland, and the Polish military dictatorship started a active brutal persecution of the Germans in Upper Silesia and West Prussia (given to the Poles by the Allies) by handing carte blanche to Poland with their Treaty during the Danzig and Corridor crisis. That dithery old twit Chamberlain had the possibility to force compromises in both cases. The Sudetenland injustice was so blatant that even Chamberlain couldn't ignore it, as they had done for 20 years. It is obvious to any child that the aim of Versailles was NOT to create peace, but to cripple Germany economically. The lessons learned in 1918 to 1920 were only belatedly put into practice after 1945, when Stalin had occupied nearly all of Eastern and Central Europe.
@@oasis6767 It was waaaay more than just reparations! It was being forced to admit ‘war guilt’ after being made to believe they were walking into an Armistice not a forced surrender. There was plenty of guilt to go around regarding WWI! Forcing Germany to admit to such an injustice left a giant scar in the National fabric...the treaty did more than just remove lands...it removed the German people from the mainland and placed them inside new nations that were not friendly towards their presence, causing Mistreatment, a mass refugee crisis, and German people trapped on what was now the ‘wrong’ side of the border.
All of this provided the stage that Hilter was able to March on.
How could they say Germany started World War i?
It’s an absolute disgrace, especially when you see that the British and French empires got away with their own interests and took more land; the oil fields of Iraq, for example.
There was plenty of ‘guilt’ to go around. I feel insulted on behalf of WWI Germany, in fact.
British anti german discrimination
@@williambeuttel4208 French mainly
History in the making, in many senses. They managed to lay the foundations for both the Second World War and later the war in Vietnam, and so also the Korean War with the ongoing conflict, The Cold War, and most following major conflicts since 1918. When will they ever win the peace?
When we humans and our constructions are gone.
@bearjew ,
Not all of it is nonsense. Don't forget who sent Lenin back to Russia and helped the Bolsheviks to come to power.
@Per Spellman
Your forgot the conflict in the middle east
'They' never will, only 'We' can do that.
If human not stop conflict or war, the conflict or war will stop humanity
The Treaty of Versailles should be a standing lesson to the world, and a warning what not to do....but has it been???
No, not at all. Dont give so much power to a few idiot people who think they knlw whats good flr the world. Like the paris climate deal or globalization.
no it hasn't
ua-cam.com/video/cQsIIgxBFzk/v-deo.html
I just love these know all historians who attempt to rewrite history. They should lose themselves because there were those who could see a future war emerging at the time of the treaty. One fellow said "We shall have to fight this war all over again in 25 years time [out by just 5 years] & the other fellow who said "I wouldn't sign if I were them because it gives them NO HOPE whatsoever!" So pardon me Madame Historian, there were those back then who saw the trouble that lay ahead!!!
Correct.
There was a multitude of voices condemning the treaty at the time, and saw it for what it was.
A mere "tool" for European empires, which wanted to rule the world...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreconcilables
In the US, it was first and foremost the Irreconcilables in the US Senate, who didn't want the USA to become a pawn of foreign powers.
The new League of Nations was understood as a stage for old Europe, and their old ways...
@@ralphbernhard1757 Agreed!! The Versailles treaty was so horrific, it set the stage not just for the rise of Hilter and WWII, but also the Korea war, the Vietnam war. The Chinese civil war, the lack of stability and wars of the middle east, the Balkan wars of the 1990’s...and probably more wars to come in the future!
Treaty of Versailles set the platform for the spectre that overshadows us today
@pammens miss For what? For you?
the idea was to destroy germany completely
The idea was the weaken Prussia (carved up by the creation of the artificial "Corridor"), but to leave Germany sufficiently strong to guard against the potential rise of Moscow or Warsaw (and their "Polish Intermarium" dreams)..
Empowering little "beta males" like Warsaw, was classical "divide and rule" tactic....
All of this, in line with the continental policy called Balance of Power.
Apparently, what people wanted for themselves (freedom, liberty and self-determination as set as a standard by Wilson's 14 Points) played little role, and can be filed under "L" for "lip service to liberals"....
Absolutely. Got it in one, Herr Meyer
At one point, it is stated that Great Britain hadn't fought a war in Europe in 100 years... between 1815 and 1914, there was one war in Europe in which Great Britain did partake: the Crimean War.
Alex Llöyd That was barely anything. They only fought on the Crimean Area.
YES! And the BOER WAR in South Africa of which Churchill was an officer!
@@xman4un The Boer War wasn't a European conflict.
Halinspark,
The Boers were from Holland therefore European. The British were European. The Germans in Tanganyika were European. If three Europeans were brawling on the Moon it would be a European war. Just my opinion.
*_MIKE, I'D AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THEN WE'D BOTH BE WRONG._*
Wilson, like Lloyd-George, was initially not in favour of reparations on the Germans being too harsh. The French during a lengthy break in the negotiations took him on a lengthy tour of the devastated areas of France and managed to persuade him to change his views. Lloyd-George was unable to convince him afterward that his new approach was a mistake and would lead to future problems. During a later debate, he said to Wilson that, "If the French insisted on bankrupting Germany then the country would collapse leaving the way open to 'any tin-pot leader' that promises to give them back their self-respect and twenty years from now we'll have to do this all over again". He was right, even to the date.
After 1871 France paid and didnt go full nazi. Maybe the Allies should have simply occupied and split Germany in 1919, not in 1945. Could haave prevented an even greater disaster. Nazism takes its roots in German social order, not the money transfers destined to repair French northeast. It is fallacious not to blame the Germans themselves for nazism more than foreigners.
The french were sending troops in to hassle people on the street when the germans were late in paying their war debts, she never mentions this, it would really provoke ethnic radicalism for sure.
Plus Belgium
They marched into the Ruhr in 1923 and enslaved men and women off the street. Even Britain balked at that and called it a ‘French act of military aggression’.
The French more than anyone set the stage for the rise of Hilter.
I don’t think there is any coincidence that this took place in the same year of hilter’s Munich Putsch, or in the subsequent light sentence he received.
@@mamavswild "The French more than anyone set the stage for the rise of Hilter . y the
Post-war haggling by financiers and politicians fixed German reparations at an annual fee of 132 billion gold marks. This was about one quarter of Germany's total 1921 exports. When Germany was unable to make these crushing payments, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr to take by force what could not be obtained voluntarily. In 1924 the Allies appointed a committee of bankers (headed by American banker Charles G. Dawes) to develop a program of reparations payments. The resulting Dawes Plan was, according to Georgetown University Professor of International Relations Carroll Quigley, "largely a J.P. Morgan
@@mamavswild good point. Hitters putsch was partly due to German anger at their old enemy France marching into the Ruhr
@@abdirahmanidris290 The Putsch failed miserably, obtaining no popular support anywhere. There may have been anger against the occupation, but there was little support for Hitler and Ludendorff at that time. On the plus side, 16 Nazi's met their end. If only the German's had been better shots ...
As for the light sentence he received, he'd been up before that Judge before and knew him to be sympathetic to the Nazi cause. He really didn't take any gamble when he began his monologue in the court, neither was it a surprise when the Judge happily allowed him to do so. A minimum sentence was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
Sad faces and jolly bottoms, that's the best description of the British by a Frenchman ever to have been uttered aloud. 😅😆
I guess that frenchman wasn t in the front lines of any of the 30 wars the french have fought in the last 300 years
I disagree with how the treaty was against Germany they should blame Serbia for assassinating the arch duke of Austria Hungary
Don't be silly.
I've always wondered the same thing Germany was so done wrong
True
Germany was held responsible for turning what should have a local conflict into a world war
Serbia did assist in the assassination, but, by invading Belgium, Germany pulled the British Empire and her allies into the war, causing the war to spread. In short: Germany turned what should have been a local conflict into a world war
Please see how many countries had agreements with other countries. Germany with the Austrians,Russia with Serbia, England with Russia etc,etc,etc. The only thing Germany was guilty of is being the last one to quit! The other powers that brought Germany into the conflict all were beaten but not punished in Versailles. Facts matter in history and Life.🤔
A peace treaty should be meant to keep peace, not force an innocent country into taking guilt for what you have done so you can flaunt your military might.
"Innocent country"? Do you even realize what you said there?
@@arnold3768 You proved my point: Everyone thinks Germany is the bad guy since the treaty forced Germany to accept war guilt.
@@aperson8473 first of all, Germany wasn't solely blamed for the war, all Central Powers had to take responsability for it.
That being said, let me ask you a few things:
Who encouraged Austria-Hungary to wage war with Serbia?
Who declared war on both Russia and France?
Who invaded into France through *neutral* Luxembourg and Belgium and commited atrocities on civilians there?
@@arnold3768 Who enslaved a fourth of the world? Who shot the duke? Who sent a list of demands to Serbia before resorting to war?
@@aperson8473 oh, so you're saying that only the British enslaved nations but germans didn't, and they were liberators of those enslaved nations? Interesting.
And just because the archduke is shot, doesn't mean you have to wage war for it. And A-H only dared to send the demands (which were intentionally made to be hard to agree with) after Germany guaranteed austrians their support.
So please stop calling the aggressor of the war "innocent". Germany entered into this war 100% on its own will and lost. But instead of paying up their war debts and helping rebuild the countries they had ravaged, you germans started another war, which you again lost.
this was interesting. i would've like to see a 10 part series on this.
This document should serve a purpose…NEVER kick someone when they’re down. NEVER force someone into a corner.
Treaty of Versailles taught lessons need be learned how being so hardish punish any nation.
After WWII was Germany punished much more and only after that they became a relatively peaceful nation.
@@dturtleneck Illusory truth effect or Truthiness: A tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity.
[Wiki: List of Cognitive Biases]
Marshall Plan.
Germany should have left all troops on The Marne to finish the job
The Versailles Treaty was stupid. The Germans were not even allowed to participate. A century earlier, the French, who had ravaged Europe for some 2 decades under their emperor Napoleon, did sit at the conference table in Vienna in 1815.
Some have argued that the financial stipulations of the treaty were fair comparing them to the reparations imposed by Imperial Germany on defeated France in 1871. It is a fact, however, that the French paid everything off in 2 years. Apparently, the wine harvests were very good in 1871 and 1872.
I would argue, however, that the territorial concessions caused the most grief. I am not referring to Alsace-Lorraine or Silesia. Most probably would have been able to live with losing these territories. I think Germans viewed the so-called ‘Polish Corridor’ as the most offensive because it split their country in two. The corridor was created to give the newly established Poland access to the Baltic Sea. Still, can anyone imagine a line being drawn through France, to give another country, access to a port on the Atlantic; a corridor that would split France in two. And imagine you want to visit or bring food to the other side and those in control of the corridor decide rather arbitrarily whether to let you enter. How do you think the French would have felt about that?
Very disappointing content based on distorted views and lack of understanding the entire situation and the historical aftermath of the treaty. I even would go further, the opinions presented are totally lacking the perspective of the nations on the suffering side. Many issues are just as unresolved today as they have been in 1919 after decades of struggle and neglect. To my point, may I encourage to observe the current situation in Europe.
My great-great-uncle was sent there ahead of Wilson to try and get the"victors" to be conciliatory towards the "losers", warning that if they did not, Germany would have No choice but to go to war again, my uncle, George Creel often finished with "... the next war would be in about 20 years.."
65 days off isn't bad.
dumbest treaty ever.
and it cost them all the empires in the end, no one won
A dumb solution to a dumb war!
"Germany must pay a toll of 6.6 billion US Dollars in order to aid French recovery from the Great War"(Massively Paraphrased) That's Germany paying for a war started by Austria and their involvement in it was due to Russian involvement in the war between Serbia and Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Maybe, but you are making the assumption that they would actually have treated the war in the same way we did, and given no fighting took place on German soil, they likely wouldn't have made them as harsh and even if they were, rather than giving them to the 4th Country to entre the war (which Germany was) they most likely would have gone to Serbia, For it was their General "The Bee" who hired Princip to Assassinate Franz Ferdinand.
Even if this was the case, in my opinion, the terms would still have gone to the wrong country, which for me would have been Austro-Hungry for it was they by whom Serbian Bosnia was invaded in 1908 which set in course the events that would eventually led to World War twice, the of Communism and Fascism, Cold War, and even conflicts as recent as the last Chechnian War.
How so ?
the treaty is to blame for hitler hating the allies and wanting revenge , the treaty is created by the allies = allies are also partly responsible for what happened from 1939-1945
Why is it you say someone thing and it's the total opposite that actually happened nobody had self-determination that's b*******
i still can't believe that the ww1 ended today a 100th year and The last living veteran of World War die in 2012!!!!!
The perfect example of a treaty is just a piece of paper
A "Re-Upload"?
They did an Excellent Job with "The De-Nationalization" of Germay and It's People
+donben91 Yes, it is a re-upload, donben, but not by choice. If a film has a certain number of views, any editing now requires it to be saved as a 'new video', so my apologies! Regards - Alan.
I bet a lawyer thought of that
Germany and its people. In english
European tragedy - the vindictive shortsighted treaty that conceived the Second World War...
This was merely a provocation to WW 2. They knew Germany could not sustain these unreasonable reparations.
I know; I’m outraged on behalf of the WWI Germans, whose fault is shared equally for the war and who fought as hard as anyone else if not more, just to be treated this way.
Wilson and DLG might have been "liberal", but political liberalism should not be confused with social justice or equality.
For both, it was not about either.
It was about the superiority of the own system.
For DLG (and the French of course too) is was the continued rule of empires.
For Wilson it was about eclipsing "empires" with a new system, *their system* , which was corporate capitalism.
For Wilson, the Treaty of Versailles was about "creating a better world" which would lead to a decline of European imperialist empires, by propagating values which would ultimately lead to the overthrow (from the bottom up) of empires by the inhabitants of those empires.
The Europeans obviously saw through this plan, and wanted a League of Nations which would serve their interests, not lead to THEIR demise in the long run.
Obviously, the nations in these empires struggling for self-determination, which could point at actual signed documents, would have had a much easier path to freedom.
At Versailles a struggle took place between "the old" (European imperialism) and "the new" (American imperialism).
Roosevelt eventually achieved that under pressure during WW2 (Atlantic Charter), because in a world of ever-increasing, more widely distributed wealth and education, "the old" didn't stand a chance.
The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Trianon was not ratified both by the US and Russian Governments. These two countries were major protagonist during the war, and as a result many questions and legal challenges have been raised by other parties concerning the final outcome of the war. Although 100 years have passed on many issues remain unresolved.
The single best book on this subject is Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919. The film documentary and audiobook of the same title are every bit as good as Professor MacMillan's book. That gal sure can break down a piece of history. Way to go, girl.!!.....
yes, her presentation is pretty brilliant
She’s a woman, not a girl.
To those who are saying that Versailles was not harsh or too lenient, I bet you all detest the reunification of Germany in 1990!
Nope
@@TimMillernapavalleyfilmworks What???
*axis countries* : this treaty will ensure stabilty in the region, right?
*the allied power* :
well yes, but actually no
During, WWI it was the Central Powers
54:45 This documentary has been UTTERLY RUINED BY MUTES FOR THE SAKE OF GREEDY COPYRIGHT CLAIMS - COPYRIGHT SHOULD NEVER APPLY TO DOCUMENTARIES!
Woodrow Wilson was out of his depth, this is what happens when an academic goes into politics and is given high office; just look at how badly Theresa May handled Brexit. The truth is that Wilson made two huge blunders that the world is still paying for - the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the Versailles Treaty in 1919.
America is a continent not a country. America is composed of many countries within its hemisphere. If the yankis could not find a suitable name for their bunch of states, then maybe, they should take the time to do so and stop usurping the great name of a continent.
Thank you again Alan for all your wonderful work. What I find astounding is the so-called big threes treatment of Italy. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the allies promise to restore the land on the border that was taken from Italy in the first place if they would join the allies? This seems to say Wilson alone refused. My understanding is Italy could have very well joined the central powers in this conflict which may have been cause for not delivering what was promised after it was over. I do believe it was a major factor in Italy becoming the German allies in WW 2.
Not really, they "agreed" to give Italy large territories along the Adriatic sea in Albania and Croatia that was colonies of Venice once, but had not belonged to them since the late middle ages, and had never been part of the Italian state, nor shared their culture or language. There was nothing nationalistic in the Italian requests, only pure imperialism. They were in the end given two large areas Istria and Sudtirol, one was entirely Slovenian, while the other had a large Austrian majority population,.
As far as Italian language and culture was concerned, the Italan state already had all the area they could legitimately claim. The UK did anyway have a "thing" for promising the same teritories to several parties at the same time during the war to gain allies, they just needed to win the war, and they would worry about sorting out that mess later. In the middle east most prominently, they offered Palestine to both jewish and muslim rebels to gain their support, and they made many mutually contradictory promises to states in the Balkans as well.
Italy also received a chunk of southern Austria full of German-speaking ethnic Austrians that is known outside of Italy as South Tyrol (The Italians call it Alto Adige). Germany annexed it after Italy changed sides during World War II but it was restored to Italy rather than Austria afterwards (despite the fact that Austria was officially considered a victim of Nazi aggression during the war and commemorated as such by a US postage stamp). FYI, Italy was supposed to be an ally of Germany and Austria-Hungary but decided it would could more if it came into the war on the Allies' side instead -- and did so in 1915.
Italy was bought off - always! It was promised Libya.
These Peacemaker..lolll
Wilson was an awful PotUS
Really! Historians don't attribute the Versailles Treaty as the cause of The Second World War. They must all be graduates of Princeton.
But it wasn't the cause, Durty, at least not a major one. War would not have occurred when it did without the NSDAP in power, and they would not have been in power without the global economic crash. Campaigning on a largely 'anti-Versailles' ticket had brought them little success, a meagre 2.6% of the vote in the 1928 elections. Besides, practically every political party in Germany despised the Treaty, but the 'fulfilment' politicians such as Stresemann and many others hoped that the terms would be lessened over time if they complied with them. The Treaty of Locarno proves their view to have been the acceptable one to the Entente Powers.
From the introduction:
"The trouble with hindsight is that you know how the story ends..."
Which is actually incorrect. In 1919 there were hundreds who actually *predicted* "how the story *would* end", each with own motivations. From the advocates of "eternal war" like Foch ("armistice for 20 years") to those stating that there was better way of doing things, like Keynes.
Right or wrong?
Irrelevant, because we know how the story ended.
And that story started with a little corporal, infuriated so much that he vowed to enter politics. The "seed" was sown, and the "reaping" came later...
Prediction is not knowledge. It is relevant whether these predictions were right or wrong. That the Versailles Treaty would lead to tension between Germany and France was predictable, yes, but we cannot forget that Germany was doing quite alright economically by 1928 - until 1929 struck and threw Germany in an economic spiral. Just because Foch and Keynes ended up being right that the Versailles treaty would not solve all the world's problems, does not mean they accurately predicted (or knew) what was going to happen.
@@terrab1ter4 Yes, that is correct.
One could state that allied leaders "risked disaster" even though they did not know how the future would unfold. Hitler became chancellor, and later dictator in a way entirely unpridictable in 1919, and in a democratic election in which the people voted "with empty stomachs and empty pockets" for an "anti-establishment guy"...
However, that is not my point.
My point is in the last paragraph, and refers to the Biblical heed to all human beings to "beware of the seeds we sow". Versailles "sowed" a bad seed, and that such unwise political actions *will* have negative repercussions at some point, is "foreseeable", even if not "predictable".
To reach the conclusion that it is "foreseeable", we again can turn to the Bible to conclude that one is "wise" if one is not "unfair" to others (Solomon?).
Therefore "fair" = "to do onto others, as we wish to be done onto" = wise.
Versailles was not wise, and therefore led to dissatisfaction.
The "seed sown" was Hitler, who said of Versailles that it made him chose politics. The opposite is then also true. If there had been a wiser end to the war (which we could discuss further if you wish), Hitler would not have chosen politics, and would therefore not have been head of the DAP, later NSDAP in 1933. [Of course, we would probably have seen a "right shift" in the early-1930s as a result of the world-wide Depression, but this right wing would (without Hitler) have been splintered with conflicting agendas.]
Personally I'm getting kind of tired of our leaders going around imposing "onto others" what they would never have accepted themselves, and then not accepting the responsibility for their actions.
Even today, we suffer from this attitude.
Ask how that corporal got enough financial support early in his political career.
@@judithinsley9358 He got financial support from the elites.
People who thought: "there might be something in it for us and our cause if we support a populist".
The "anti-establishment guy" for the disenchanted masses...
Money in politics is one of the biggest problems with politics, because politicians will do what they are paid for, not what is right. Europeans have learnt the lesson...well, sort of...
@@ralphbernhard1757 money isnt the problem with politics. Unchecked power is the problem.
Listening to this ... I can't help thinking about quote "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." ... and that it might be true, but it's obviously bending way more slowly than people realize.
If it doesn t bend towards justice during our lifetime of what use is it
Thank you for uploading and sharing with everyone this very interesting documentary!
Horrific, dreadful, shameful... I am brought to tears over how many young men were lead to believe this war would be a 'normal one' as had been seen for the last 50 years prior, where wars would last for less than a year and be fought with arms and means that would see our fellow man only left with their surplus army men taken from the general population, this one however would see great numbers of not only the travelling war effort's men, but men at home injured, for for the first time a 'war machine' had developed which had never been seen before on this planet...
New arms developed to reap the benefits of war; man-shredding machines and arms on the battlefield and overhead, and would be sowed for generations to come as the men that fought in the war and survived with grave injuries returned distraught only to find if they were detractors that they would be the dregs of society, the war stricken, shell shocked souls were ridiculed for their injuries and tossed to the side, for they were not 'real men'...
Seeing the suffering of the solders in WW1 I realize I have no reason to complain about anything.
Starting a comment with an appeal to the readers' emotions usually means the commenter doesn't have a stronger argument for a cause.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
That then usually means, unless a stronger argument in favor of a "total disaster treaty" can be presented that the commenter will in future probably fall for similar appeals to emotions, if made to him by weak leaders aiming to score cheap "brownie points" for current causes....
Comparing the eve of WWI, WWII and today, there seem to be similarities and patterns.
Something can not be taken care by one or two agreements among the countries but something that uncontrollably drives people to fight, even by breaking the rule of democracy.
Will there be a WWIII?
My prediction is resounding yes.
I don't see any force to counter act it.
I'm sure many academics are in effort to look into it and find a solution.
I can't imagine mankind just let this keep going over and over.
In peace treaty at Versailles. Germany lose land and people's, Germany loses war. Germany complained about treaty of Versaille been harshly? but what about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ? All land and people Russia lose? Why do German only complaint when tables turned?
I prefer to ask Ukrainians, Lets, Fins or Lithuanians how they feel about 'what Russia lost at Brest-Litovsk'....
+Ralph Bernhard
Russia lose more land and people in WW1 than Germany. Germany was bitch crying about harsh Versailles treaty, not Russia! I come from Ukraine! We had to fight the Bolsheviks and ended up back under Russia heels! So what freedom? You know the Kaiser wanted Ukraine for him?
+Vladimir Eng The reason you ended up fighting the Bolshevik, was because the western Allies demanded Germany to rescind the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
That gave the Reds the free hand to start their civil war, in an effort to regain the territories lost when their leaders capitulated.
+Ralph Bernhard
I don't understand. You call Versaille peace treaty bad? Germany did not complain when they force Russia to sign bad peace treaty. Germany alway cry like little girl. Germany invade countries and bomb countries but once Germany is invade and bomb they cry..why? In Ukraine we fight Russia many time and today! We lose many million and we don't cry we tough and fight back.
+Ralph Bernhard
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was forced on Russia by the threat of further advances by German and Austrian forces. In the treaty, Russia ceded the Baltic States to Germany. Russia also ceded its province of Kars Oblast in the South Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire and recognized the independence of Ukraine. Furthermore, Russia agreed to pay six billion German gold marks in reparations. Historian Spencer Tucker says, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator." The Congress Poland was not mentioned in the treaty, as Germans refused to recognize the existence of any Polish representatives, which in turn led to Polish protests. It's typical Germany, they only complain once tables are turned and they are signing harsh treaties, been bombed and invaded. It's not nice, is it? Maybe Germany will think twice before they invade and terrorise their neighbours. I feel sorry for Germany been invaded by so many Islamic State people. I read one comment saying Germany is first European country to fall to Islamism?
The Germans complaining about the "harshness" of the Versailles Treaty is somewhat hypocritical. After all, as Clemenceau remarked, the War didn't start "because Belgium invaded Germany". Northeastern France had been devastated by the war. Where Germany suffered little to no physical damage. So the demand for reparations seemed just. As for the German bitterness over territorial losses to Poland in the east, the Germans seemed to have forgotten that most of the land given to Poland (including that which made up the Polish Corridor), had been grabbed by Germany at the time of the Partitions. German anger over lands given to Poland had much more to do with racist anti-Polish attitudes in the German people. And the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with defeated Russia, shows what the Germans would have done, had they won the war.
Why do you think one must be German to "complain about the harshness of Versailles", rather than a rational human being, pointing out how stupid it was?
First off...Clemenceau.
Maybe he forgot that it was France and Russia which expanded the "Third Balkan War" of 1914 into a "Continental European War" when French PM Poincare handed the Russia Tzar a "blank cheque" to foolishly mobilize their forces. Only against Austria-Hungary of course...of course...
ww1live.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/2071914-poincare-begins-his-state-visit-to-russia/
Those sloppy Russians have mislaid every record of that meeting, but it seems obvious that steps to undertake own interests in the Balkans, were discussed.
No sooner was Poincare on a boat back to France, than the Russian army mobilized as the first power to do so.
No coincidence.
Furthermore, apart from the fact that WW1 did not exist in July 1914, but de facto did exist in August 1914 (name it "Great War" or whatever) was a result of free choice.
WW1 was a war of choice for all the major powers, except Belgium.
Had there been no French blank cheque to Russia, there would have been no WW1, but rather a "3rd Balkan War".
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk actually directly did the people's of the Caucasus, and the Ukraine a favor, releasing them from centuries of Moscow's influence. In the long run, they would have gained their complete independence, under the hegemony of Berlin-Vienna-Budapest.
Indirectly, the campaigns in the east created the incentives for Fins, Latvians, Letts, and others, to free themselves from Moscow (independence, in the wake of Moscow's weakness).
Why would this eventual independence and freedom have been such a bad thing?
As far as "poor Belgians" as Casus Belli for GB and the Empire....
Belgium was a pretext for war for the British Empire.
British leaders had the choice to avoid the German implementation of Schlieffen Plan, but chose not to.
British leaders, at the time, knew that Germany had no interest in a war with GB.
In fact, they would even have changed the Schlieffen Plan, and honored Belgian neutrality, if only GB would agree to stay out of the war.
The British stance on Belgium was that "if Belgium was invaded, GB would declare war", in other words, Belgium was Casus Belli. Correct?
Therefore, logically, the following is also true: "If Germany did *not* invade Belgium, GB would stay out of the war". In other words, no invasion, no Casus Belli...
Also correct?
Berlin therefore approached London, stating just that.
Peace for Belgium, in return for a guarantee that GB would stay out of the continental European war about to start (after Russian mobilisation).
Foreign minister Grey refused, stating that GB reserved the right to join the war at any future point in time.
That clearly proves that "Belgian neutrality" in August 1914 was a pretext.
British leaders had it in their hands to save Belgium, but chose not to.
Belgium was a so-called geostrategic barrier to ensure the Policy of Balance of Power, and protect the British Empire. GB fought WW1 for own interests, not the "safety of others" or any other emotional argument.
Finally, the idea that it was "the nasty Germans carving up Poland", which is a logical fallacy known as "historian's fallacy"...
www.rightattitudes.com/2018/06/07/the-historian-fallacy/
Firstly, not only Germany, but also Russia and Austria-Hungary carved up the Polish Kingdom, which up to that point in time had aggressively expanded its sphere of influence.
As for the people who actually lived here, they didn't care much, because nationalism didn't exist yet, and for the most part the simple farmers simply picked up their lives after a war had passed over, and found themselves with a different set of French-speaking aristocrats in charge, to pay taxes to....
[Note, a general truth for all of Europe at the time]
The idea of "nations" as "states" did not exist yet, and therefore criticizing from today's point of view is illogical.
Nationalism only slowly developed....
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
...and wasn't firmly embedded in the majority's conscience until, say the early-20th century.
Education had improved, books were more widely read, and knowledge and ideas spread more easily.
As the timeline shows, what could be considered wrong in 1900, wasn't wrong in the late-18th century, when "carving up taxpayers" by the elites was the norm.
By the late-19th century, "drawing lines on the map" without considering the opinions of those being "carved up", was getting a bit iffy....
By the early-20th century (as it is indeed still today), *not* asking the people what they want for themselves is simply asking for uprisings, revolutions, or even war...
Note also that German-Polish talks about independence started in 1916, under the pressures of war, and if those talks had continued after 1918, Poles could have had an own state on the territory on which Poles were also the majority of inhabitants. Not implementing the 14 Points (plebiscite to determine majorities), and stealing the people's right to chose their own political destiny, lay the foundation for WW2.
Wilson, the Father of Progressives, had just as modern Progressives little respect for the Constitution. During WWI his Sedition Acts trashed the First and Sixth Amendments. He then left Congress out of the development of League of Nations and was surprised that the Senate turned him down (another aspect of the Constitution he disliked). The pursuit of a “world government” is a pernicious goal that will doom our civil rights. It was good that the US stayed out of the League. President Washington warned us about becoming involved with the “entangling alliances” among the perfidious Europeans. We would be much better off if we remained true to our Founding Fathers’ view of Europeans-do NOT trust them.
46:00 Dead Trim. What the hell, did blud cheat on his barber💀💀. Blud Needs to change locations cus' blud walking out like he's about to get some girls. Bro if you walk out like that you ain't pulling nothing. So get a New trim bro cus' that ting looks crispy and dry. It's time to patten you up so you can get some girls cus' you looking like you got potential.
Thank you so much for uploading this!!!!
These individuals are hardly historians. Let's omit the fact that in between the Armistace and Versailles, France, England and the US blockaded Germany, and literally starved 800,000 civilians to death. Did they genuinely believe that this would be forgotten? Secondly, with respect to England and the US , the slave trade had ended only 50 years earlier. It is difficult to view them as moral leaders in that context. Again, history swept asunder. Lastly, the assertion that the borders were redrawn "of necessity " is laughable. England in particular had predetermined new borders in order to lure otherwise neutral powers into the war on the side of the British. In fact, the redrawn borders would prove the bloodiest battlegrounds for the next century.
Yes ted, you need to remember that the British Empire was the most murderous organisation ever in human history, killing at least 110 million people.
Slavery as an institution ended in 1865, the slave trade ended in the beginning of the 1800s in America I believe. Just saying.
This is a Great doc. I have watched many on this topic but its the first time for this one. Its very well done, even the silent parts.ha Keep the Good Stuff coming Dr Brown.
"Good solid british food! (as opposed to french cuisine)LMAOF!!
Shhhhut up! You'll give Haggis and also Steak & Kidney Pie a bad name.
Did no one learn from 100 years prior when Europe spared France and decided to move forward after napoleon? Great job guys. Great documentary though
Why all the gaps ? There are several places where the narration and the subtitles completely cut out. Too much substance perhaps ? Why no mention of the world's involvement in the Russian Civil War ?
The gaps are caused by editing out soundtrack music, jmon. With some films we are faced with a stark choice - either mute the music to avoid copyright infringement or take the video down. Regards, Alan.
You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.
Dr Alan Brown in my family their is a story in which a relative by the name of George Creel was sent by President Wilson to persuade the other allies to not be harsh on Germany or it would leave Germany no choice but to fight another war. ??
I have seen pictures of George Creel with Pres Wilson on many occasions and in different places.
Do you know of a George Creel?
We have to be careful here. While Hitler initially was drawn to socialist ideas, ultimately he opted for the private ownership of the means of production. For sure he railed against Marxian socialism in Mein Kampf, as you state. ( have not read your article, only a summary on Amazon.) A lot of sense can be made of the Nazi and Fascist movements - two types of corporatism (though clearly is different from the other) - if we understand the long history of organic State thinkers from Aristotle through Hegel (as in Part III of his Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, (Philosophy of Right), , and especially Bluntschli and Spengler to understand the development of corporatism. Corporatism literally is the embodiment of life by the State ( reflect that private ownership but State control. (cf: Bel, G. (2017) “Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany” - www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf ; Schindler (Schindler, R.J. (2017). “Franz Neumann (1900-1954), Behemoth (1941, 1944)”. Lecture Notes. www.rschindler.com/hobbes.htm and www.rschindler.com/2017) aptly characterizes the fundamental economic character of the system as “ … totalitarian monopoly capitalists could make super profits guaranteed by the National Socialist movement. ; Hitler had four community (Volkish) groups to feed his insatiable lust for power and quest for undefeatible sovereignty: party, civil service, army, and Big Business.”.
An upshot of this is that socialism should not be confabulated the notion of the organic State. Socialism - at least the common usage, judging by what most socialist can agree on is - that the term applies the social ownership and control of the means of production. Corporatism clearly separates the two.
Don't fool yourself. Hitler was an autocrat dictator, he would set up crony capitalism with companies and funnel the profits to his own accounts and took bribes. German corps were lock step with what HItler wanted.
I believe, in Hitler's mind at least, corporatism applied to wooing munitions factories' (CFOs" at that time) making a killing in preparations for a war (any war, in the future - on which he already pondered). I'm sure that his ideas/business model would have worked in ad dictatorship).
Dr Alan Brown 𝚃𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚔 U for ths information I’m a huge History Fan & Love to learn about Our past & See tht We really havnt Change tht Much as people.. We Still have the same Worries, same problems.. only difference is that the money got bigger the weapons got deadlier.!! Wht a Shame we Still can’t learn from Our past.!! Thts why We Repeat ths over & over Again..
Versailles caused WW2
Germany's national ambition wasn't extinguished. And her industrial might wasn't curtailed. These 2 combined made a future war probable IMHO.
What "national ambition"?
That sounds like a very specific claim.
How would you substantiate that?
+Ralph Bernhard The ambition to dominate the continent. After they were beaten...they tried again. Why was the stabbed in the back myth so widespread? Why did they think they deserved to win against the UK/France/Russia/US/Canada/Australia/Italy/Serbia/Romania rather against the odds? (I didn't say "world" because I'm not sure many Germans saw that as realistic. Napoleon dominated the continent and said if he could only beat the royal navy he'd "have the world".)
Steve Christie In case you mean an economic "domination" of the continent, then I agree.
As the popular saying goes, "everybody wants to rule the world", and in this respect some (note, some) Germans were no different to some Brits, French, Americans or Russians at the time. Trying to be king of the mountain is a natural instinct in many dominant and ambitious males, not only German males.
As for the more specific 'military dominance' and ' national ambition', I have to disagree.
The German declaration of war in 1914 was a result of the escalating deterioration of international affairs after the 'trigger' of Sarajevo.
To find one's own particular scapegoat is a bit of a futile affair, since that would mean overstating the steps of ' the other side', while at the same time understating the steps of the own side or allies.
Needless to say, there was no 'road map' for war by any nation, and no false flags, or WMD-style propaganda efforts before the Sarajevo assassination.
Europe simply stumbled towards war, since the egoistic and proud leaders on all sides were too uncompromising to step down from a position once taken, risking war as an alternative to "national disgrace".....
I'm glad those days are over.
+Ralph Bernhard We can't blame the Balkans as the "trigger" could have been anywhere in Europe. What matters are the underlying opinions of the countries aforementioned.
When Kaiser Wilhelm II's parents died he went through their possessions convinced they were pro-British at the expense of Germany. His uncle Edward VII met him and was worried about his warmonger mentality. Left-wing newspapers in Germany encouraged a war with the UK.
Russia/France/UK didn't want a powerful Germany and were willing to cooperate to put an end to her expansionist ambition.
If Germany didn't have expansionist ambition and France/Russia/UK didn't care about Germany's rising great power status, no way would they go to war over an obscure A-H royal. Imagine if the A-H Empire was stable and the UK was the unstable one with Irish/Scottish/Welsh terrorist attacks against "London's domination". Imagine the same backdrop, where France and Russia are willing to preserve the UK and are wary of Germany's rising power, and Germany is willing to help Irish/Scottish/Welsh dissidents. Light the fuse: UK's George V's assassination in 1914 Dublin and boom you have WWI. Gonna blame Ireland this time?
Who cares which fuse was lit?
One other thing that was on the rise after WW1 was an "Us and Them," mentality. It happened across Continental Europe as new states emerged from the wreckage of empire, but one place where the same thing occurred, but often seems to be forgotten about, was Ireland.
Although Ireland had been an integral part of the UK since 1801, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland wasn't treated as an equal in this arrangement by any means. In fact, the same year WW1 broke out, 1914, with the passage of a third Home Rule Bill through Parliament, the previous two having failed to be passed for different reasons, Ireland was on the brink of Civil War by the time WW1 broke out.
While the war was still raging in Europe, while there were many men from Ireland who volunteered to fight for the British, believing that they would be able to return and come back as a fully trained army for Ireland, others stayed in Ireland, feeling that the war in Europe was a perfect distraction to strike against Britain and help Ireland become independent. The result, the Easter Rising, on Easter Monday, April 24th 1916, led to a heavy handed and violent crackdown by Britain in the city the Rising was centred on, Dublin.
The destruction of Dublin, caused by the British shelling the city, left Dublin as the first European city to suffer such destruction since the Napoleonic Wars. And with the subsequent, ruthlessly swift execution of the Rising leaders, public opinion in Ireland shifted from support for Britain and opposing the Rising rebels, to viewing those same leaders as martyrs to the goal of an Irish Republic. The rising leaders that were spared from execution, like Eamon Devalera, came to join a party called Sinn Fein (We Ourselves), reorganising it to match the agenda to form an independent Irish Republic. The result, the 1918 UK General Election, was that Sinn Fein won
an overwhelming majority of Irish seats in Parliament. However, all these newly elected Sinn Fein MP'S refused to take their seats in Westminster, instead meeting at the Mansion House in Dublin, the temporary home of the first Dail.
Long story short, Britain refused to recognise the Dail at first, leading to the Irish War of Independence from 1919 to 21 and with the 1920 Government of Ireland Act as well as the 1921 signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, partitioned Ireland into Northern Ireland and what was initially the Irish Free State. It was in the latter that Civil War broke out in 1922, lasting until 1923
Very good.
Unfortunately for the Irish, their island was in a geographically unfavorable location, so to the master planners Irish freedom was not considered as "worthwhile freedom" in the same way as the 100s of delegates standing outside the doors of Versailles hoping for freedom for their people (incl. for example Ho Chi Minh from Vietnam).
Do you know who benefited from a historically favorable geographical location on the map, so their "freedom" counted more than anybody else's freedom?
@ralphbernhard1757 given the size of their empire, plus the fact that in Versailles they got pretty much everything they wanted, I would say the British (not just for the location of the UK itself, but also outposts like Gibraltar and Cyprus and Malta, meant that they could project their power and protect their interests from multiple directions, such as the Suez Canal)
@@SiVlog1989 You mean the UK/London/British Empire temporarily "won" from the setup the "ear whisperers" (Washington DC/"14 Points") whispered in their ears?
Yes, that is so. But in the long run the geopolitical setup was a disaster for the British Empire.
What I meant with my question was "Poland" (resurrected) as a strategy of power. Ireland was not in the same favorable location on the map (geopolitics), so it was left to fend for itself, whilst Poland was "given freedom" per declaration as consensus of the winners.
Why do you think that was?
Why do you think, even today, that the "freedom" of some, counts for more than the freedom of others?
@@ralphbernhard1757 the British Foreign Secretary, while in Paris with Prime Minister David Lloyd George, overheard the Prime Minister talking about the Middle East in the suite he was based in:
"Mesopotamia...yes, oil, irrigation, we must have Mesopotamia. Palestine...the Holyland, Zionism, we must have Palestine. Syria, huh, what is there in Syria? Let the French have that,"
As for the situation with other countries, it has, for major powers, always been self-interest, how can we secure our interests? Eamon Devalera talked indirectly about that situation in his response to Churchill criticising Ireland declaring itself neutral in WW2:
"Mr Churchill makes it clear, that in certain circumstances he would've violated our neutrality and likely would justify his actions through 'Britain's necessity'... Surely Mr Churchill must see, that like minded actions could be used to justify similar acts of aggression elsewhere and no small nation adjoining a Great Power could ever hope to go its own way in peace... Mr Churchill is proud of Britain's stand alone, after France had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he not find it in his heart, the generosity to acknowledge, that there is a small nation that stood alone, not for one year or two, but for 700 years against aggression?"
@@SiVlog1989 Agreed, 100%. The more powerful state implements what it can get away with (often simply greed, often vested, disguised by the "our interests"-apologia), often at the expense of smaller nations and states.
Empires have to be careful though, how they throw their weight and influence around. A bit like the "corporate ladder" on which the ambitious step over heads to get to the top, forgetting that they might meet these again on the way down.
That is what happened to the British Empire, when it was "on the way down" and now discovered all potential alignment/alliance partners had begun to economically or politically line up behind the more powerful American Century (post-WW2), even some of the own dominions.
Versailles was a disaster for Europe, although in the short term in suited the London lordships, because of what they could "get" out of it (colonialism/imperialism) like the barrier zones to protect the Suez Canal (the true grand strategy reasoning behind Sykes-Picot or the Balfour Declaration).
In view of all the changes, and problems already clear long before WW1, it would have been far more beneficial to implement the concept of the Commonwealth of states (say around 1900), regardless of the race or ethnicity of the people or region of the planet, while London still had the economic/financial global upper hand. Power politics always seems to function along the lines of "too little, too late."
The same seems to be happening to those steering the future of the American Century. The intention to control and dominate everything, eventually leads a false allocation of the means, and to losing everything. I think Friedrich the Great said something along those lines ("Who tries to defend everything, defends nothing").
The treaty was probably the biggest cock up in modern times. Still at least all those appallingly rich bankers got even richer as a result.
Oh, my God. I hate it when the narrator or author of a video is British. It's all about them and their views and their self centered view of Empire. Never they can make just a purely reporting journalistic video, disgusting. Get over Britons the UK is not an Empire anymore.
that is what WWI was about- England saw the writing on the wall that Germany was a rising empire and baited Germany into the war
that is what WWI was about- England saw the writing on the wall that Germany was a rising empire and baited Germany into the war
+otto skorzeny Not exactly.
WW1 was caused by a geopolitical stand off between AH/Germany on the one side, and France/Russia, and that 'lap dog' Serbia, on the other.
It started due to conflicting interests in the Balkans.
GB and had nothing to do with it....although their sympathy DID lie with the French and Russian ambitions for the region....and their leaders and historians are therefore prone to 'bending the truth a little' in order to justify own actions....and the deaths of around 1,000,000 of the Empire's citizens.
But, I'm getting carried away :-)
sorry to say but we are. the Queens still an empress due the fact she rules foreign territory
+Mathew Kevern I love how people focus on the UK's supposed downfall and drastic change when we had in 1913 a Prime Minister, monarch, military and economic might, which we also had in 1919, 1938, 1946 and 2016.
Whereas the Kaiser, the Tsar, the Ottoman Emperor......
In America, the GOP in power in the Senate, refused to accept the treaty.
Opposition to the treaty was actually bipartisan and as it takes a two/thirds majority to ratify a treaty, a Democratic majority in and of itself would not have helped.
And thank God for that. Too bad we didn't avoid becoming ensnared in the monstrosity that is the UN after WW2.
One point not mentioned was what the US got in treaty regarding the German Overseas Territories. The US got the Marianas, the Marshall Islands, Samoa and a couple of others while the British also took some other Pacific islands belonging to Germany.. This makes sense since the US had taken Spain to the laundry in 1898 and got the Philippines.
Actually Japan took the Marshall islands, the Carolines and the Northern Marianas not the US, who took Guam which is the southernmost of the Marianas.
And Japan got the former German colonies in China. The Chi es walked out in 1919 and never signed. By 1926, Russia was exporting weapons and Communism to China.
The Germans were not present at the treaty of Versailles, that should be mentioned. I like the German people who defended their country
wars end with nothing. All countries fight not only for victory but to wear each other out, and no result will be achieved. Wars made in history pointless wars
Follow the money. Germany finished paying reparation to the Allies in 2010.
They "finished" in 1932 when reparations were cancelled. They'd paid just 16% of the amount. The paid the last instalment on loans they'd taken out following the war (which Hitler had defaulted on in 1933) in 2010, but it's important to note that 50% of the debt owed from those loans was cancelled in 1953 and part of the remaining debt was deferred until after Germany reunited in 1995.
You either watched this in school or are watching this for a homework essay
typical one sided propaganda
There is good food, and there is British food, but there is not good British food.
Colonel Charles Wellington Furlong, President Wilson's Document Secretary at Versailles lived our hometown of Scituate MA. He specialized in military intelligence. He was also a world explorer, ethnologist, rodeo competitor, sailing expert, naval historian and nature conservator. When he died in 1967; he was actively lecturing at Dartmouth College in NH where his papers and world travel artifact collection resided to this day.
I disagree. Wilson had noble intentions, but the Brits and the French just were not going to let it happen. And their feelings are understandable too. How do you draw the map of the world after the fall of those Empires without having backlash? It was really Germany trying to get its territory back that started WW2. Surely nobody believed they should have kept what would become Poland and Czechoslovakia?
They tried to make the "war to end all wars" actually end all wars.
We ought to forgive them sometime.
Versailles was a failure, not because it was too harsh, but because it was to lenient.
I see current day influence, taking its toll on historical analysis...
Pherhaps so. Maybe I was to rash. Perhaps it’s main failure was that it ceased to be enforced after the 1933.
@@dantecaputo2629 In hindsight yes.
But at the time Germany was not considered a danger.
Communism was, and an opposite pole to aggressive communist expansion was felt appropriate.
For further reading, I suggest googling:
The Communist Manifest
The Comintern
Soviet re-armament in the Five Year Plans 1928 and 1933
Deep Battle (aka "Blitzkrieg")
Communist takeover of Mongolia
The Soviet invasion of China 1934
As an Empire with millions of poor and unsatisfied subjects, to whom communism might seem very appealing, London obviously felt that allowing Germany to rearm as a potential future ally might be forthcoming.
Also maybe Google The British policy for the continent, called Balance of Power.
After massive Soviet armament, which came first, something was needed to "balance" that out...
Britain fought in the Crimean War, that’s in Europe.
Sadly this is a poor documentation about the reasons what it made with Germany after the first world war in the country itself. It lead to a great instability, which later allowed Hitler to gain power and to beginn a second german caused world war.
Ho Chi Minh was a kitchen assistant at a Ritz hotel in France during the Versailles Treaty era? Who would've known? And he is young but politically aware which prompts him to send a letter to French delegation demanding France leave Vietnam? Wow...this sounds like a start to an interesting movie. How ironic....French are pissed at Germans for their aggression but the French are using their colonial aggression and power to subdue Indo China....see that's where you have to see that they're all to blame for their imperialism and disregard for humanity. Look in the mirror before casting stones. Whose to blame? The belligerents are the likes of the Dutch and British East India company and other imperialistic elite organizations that trampled throughout the world swallowing up territory upon territory.
Each "enlightened" European nation then cuts each other up in order to gain imperial dominance in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The average person wasn't engaged in the mass murder and aggression of the big boys at the top of the colonial food chain but had to pay a price when they stepped on each other and went to war. Maybe this was all inevitable. The royal alpha males were going to play hardball and eventually clash over who gets the most gold & land. This was a battle of empires and the fall of monarchs.
The people are the foot soldiers that are moved like pawns on a chess board at the behest of the egos of the elite sociopaths who could never have enough. They really should have shoved their nationalism straight up their pipes and organized against these mad men. The people would do much better if they cut these elites down to size and stop playing by the rules they set. Just as today....big players threatening nuke war...if the people of NK would rise up and take out that psychopathic KJ Un and family they might have a chance. Bring in South Korea and break away from the totalitarian state apparatus...of course easier said than done since bi-polar China props N Korea up. Humanity will probably self destruct before this world and its people have decency and peace. Until then the military contractors will always feed well off the eternal security state borne out of a manifested terror fear. Man will always be man. Part human and part animal. The beast is always lurking to trample the good spirits of the world and its people.
Just goes to show...nations which ruled over other nations, pointing out how 'a nation's sovereignty' was something worth dying for...
Pure hypocrisy.
What our leaders should strive for, is that personal choice (self determination) should be the highest standard of things, irrelevant of other criteria.
If history has taught us one thing, it is that ignoring the valid and justified wishes of millions, will have serious effects.
For the USA, the Vietnam War started with the Vietnamese declaration of independence in 1945, and their leaders' choice to side with the colonial power France who wished to avoid this.
Of course, we are being sold a version of 'history' in which 'domino stones' play a big role. It also played a big role in 1945, and the fear was of colonies using the Vietnamese example to declare independence, and leading to a whole series of 'domino stones'...
Sovereignty and self-determination? Couldn't have that now, could we?
Seems to be a very difficult act to follow in this globalized militaristic technocracy we live under.
Well said
true, well said Concerned Citizen, by far the best comment here
@Concerned Citizen, So long as there is political government there will be no solutions, but there will be must time and money spent on treating symptoms interspersed with the slaughters of wars. Political government is diabolical; it is Satan's work. So long as people reject God, there will be horrors, but because we are not perfect we will still have some bad times, just not so much.
Ahh, yes. The cause of WWII.
"we have dressed in our bests, and prepared to go down with the ship! ................ah but we would like a brandy?" - some smart man
Take the brandy. The ship will leave the tip. For a few seconds
This mess Created fascism: nobody cared of treaties signed with italy or of Italian requests. Plus then As today 99 per cent of Americans still do not know italy was an ally in WW1 simply because no american fought on the Italian front battle line. Italian deaths were therefore considered useless by the Italian public , a needless massacre. That is the undeniable cause of fascism: Wilson knew and understood nothing of European grievances and reasons. The Europeans Allie’s didn t care either. It Was like having an alien coming to earth to design states borders without even looking at history or a map. The Italian democratically elected gvnmt had little to show for a horrible war.
"Fascism" as a doctrine was firmly entrenched within Mussolini's mind by the time he returned home from the war (August 1917). Mussolini was "radicalised" by the war, by what he perceived as the inadequacies within Italy's leadership, and by what he saw as the "failures of Socialism", not the peace.
At the outbreak of the war, Mussolini was a committed socialist, standing against the war, and proclaiming the need for Italy to remain neutral. By the time Italy entered the war in 1915, Mussolini was one of the most outspoken proponents in favour of Italian intervention.
At the turn of the century (1900) the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe".
By the 1930s, the new "sick men" were London and Paris, desperately trying to hold on to empires, long after the days of "empires" were over.
It was a bed they made for themselves at Versailles, and in 1939 they had to sleep in it.
In 1919 there were 2 who were not invited, and in 1939 there were 2 (note, *two,* not one) who challenged "the system" set up at Versailles...
Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland.
And there was another world war.
Boiled cabbage!............Yum!
Stan Sbornak ”Delicious british food” lol
The day Europe surrendered
Actually a very absorbing and convincing documentary. Lessons for today's world?
dont let the you know whos do this again.
33:33 But this area ‘Iraq’ was also coveted by the British, who had taken it from ottoman control in the war’.
Tell me again how this is ALL Germany’s fault and only THEY were the imperialist aggressors?
And this is just ONE example.