Like most of this treaty, the loss of the colonies was a blow to pride but had very little effect on the German economy. Or rather, it was better for their economy because basically all of the colonies ran financial losses.
Well, Austria-Hungary lost all their's too, except their colonies were all in Europe and considered part of Austria and Hungary. Sorta how US historians say that the US wasn't imperialist until they gained overseas land after the Spanish-American war, despite the US spending the 19th century buying and conquering the rest of what it is now.
EDIT Dec. 2022: I have since changed my views after the responses I received plus further research and this no longer reflects my thoughts. However, I'm going to leave this comment up in case anyone else was pondering what I was thinking. If anything, the treaty was not harsh enough, even if it had some of Foch's recommendations. Germany should have been split up entirely into at least four nations (Hanover, Bavaria, Rhineland and a new smaller Prussia), with a 50-year ban on reunification. ALL of East Prussia should have been given to Poland, not just the corridor (this would have made the region 10x more stable). These measures would have gone a long way in preventing a demagogue like Hitler and would have (for the most part) simply reverted Germany back to it's pre-1870s status. I've never understood why France or the other Allies never considered this. If Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans could be dissolved, why not Germany?
@@thunderbird1921 Because Germans had the feeling that they were one people (even including Austria). Mainly because they all had the same language (German). The peoples in the Austrian-Hungarian empire did not feel Austrian-Hungarian at all. They spoke many different languages. Splitting up Germany into four parts would have caused another war even sooner, I fear.
@@thunderbird1921 Germany wasn't that diverse as compared to Austria Hungary or the Ottomans... moreover the dissolution of the Austro Hungarian and the Ottoman Empire was mainly because of seperatist movements. Germany didn't have any. The people considered themselves as being Germans rather than Prussian or Bavarian.
The Treaty of Versailles struck the perfect balance between being just harsh enough that the Germans would want to start another war over it, and just lenient enough that they had a reasonable shot at winning it.
Agreed to avoid them starting a Second World War it needed to be actually harsh. That said, as bad as WW2 was, without it it would be hard to say how atomic bombs and their usage would have developed. Our WW2 may have actually prevented an Atomic War happening in the 20th Century.
The treaty wasn't lenient enough for them to get this strong. They broke the treaty numerous times before the second world War begun, but brittish foreign policy refused to punish Germany for doing so, and intervened on their behalf for anyone who tried to. Britain was solely responsible for the treaty failing.
@@xartecmana yes. They don't even say that the anglo-saxons prevented France from entering Berlin and occupying it as it should have. For me, the main responsible for these wars are the british
The big problem is that the Germans didn't really feel like they'd lost. The entire war had been waged outside of Germany, and the German government sued for peace before they were really pushed back. So the German people felt like they shouldn't be treated like a conquered nation. By contrast, most of the other, harsher treaties were imposed on countries that had actually been conquered, or at least successfully invaded. And probably the harshest part was the moral effect of being forced to accept sole responsibility for the war, which is an obviously idiotic assertion to begin with. More responsible than other major powers, maybe - but only slightly so. Nobody in Europe was free of blame for setting up WW1 to start and be unbelievably horrific. Regardless of your opinion on how harsh the Treaty of Versailles was, though, I think we can all agree that World War I was a really bad idea for everybody involved.
Thats so true And for the record the germans were wrong,they had been uterly defeated and thats the only reason their government sued for peace. In fact an allied general said that after the german armh had disintegrated in the last weeks of the war they should have pushed into germany so that there arent any illusions about who won as there was nobody stopping them
Besides, the war was lost on what, for the commoner, seemed like impssible circumstances: the germans had just defeated the russians, and by bringing this massive force from the east were now much better prepared on the western front. If, without this forces, they had been able to withstand for so long, with them, victory seemed certain. And consdiering that as soon as this forces arrived the germans launched the Kaiserschlacht which was a huge success at first and broke the stalemate, it would seem that victory was at their hands. And all of a sudden... they lost. Like, for a commoner... out of fucking nowhere. One day they were just about to walk on paris and the next they had just lost the war. It seemed like cheating. Partly due to the fact that german's defeat on WW1 is an extremely unusual one as I have explained, and partly due to that the reasons why germany lost were very new kind of reasons, uncommon on wars before the era of industrialization: germany kept winning battles on the spring offensive, but its supply line was strained and its lack of resources dampered its industrial capacity, all concpets that were relatively new for the art of war and that a commoner would never understand. For them, assessing the reasons of why germany lost was completely outside their comprehension, and thus a simplier explanation was crafted: the "stab in the back" myth, used both by bolsheviks and nazis to blame different parts of the nation for the defeat.
@@meandmetoo8436 I'd point out that the Habsburg empire was already collapsing before the armistice was implemented, so the treaties merely formalised the dissolution of the empire.
One thing you forgot about was that East Prussia was cut off from the German mainland. Most people could only get from one part of Germany to the other via plane or boat, which both were pretty expensive.
The Treaty of Versailles was seen as harsh because this wasnt the time of multi ethnic monarchies anymore, but the time of nation states. The Entente acted like they cared about the self determination of people, but in fact they split up many parts mostly inhabited by Germans and even forbid the remains of Austria to unify with Germany, even though this was the wish of the people at that time. In in contrast to that, Russia/USSR would "only" have lost regions not predominantly inhabited by Russians in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They also forced the Central Powers to take all the blame for the war, which was obviously not true and made the people in these countries very angry.
Sorry. And what territories did the Germans lose and why are they German? If the Germans settled the territory where the Slavs lived, then it became primordially German? Do you know the etymology of the word Prussia and Berlin? I can assure you that they are not of German origin.
@@ReSSwend What about territories that Germans once settled from Slavs that the Slavs once had settled either from Germans or other peoples? How far back do you want to go with this, exactly? And why stop arbitrarily at only the first settlement by Germans?
@@ReSSwend Probably the people that lived there in 1918 and not the slavic tribes that lived there 800 years earlier. Culture borders in Europe have shifted more times than anyone can count and no people have a primordial claim to any peace of land. There was always someone before, and there will be someone after. Especially in the case of the lands around Brandburg and Berlin which were Eastern Germanic before the great migration period.
@@scan4707 only because they had to fight two fronts with little help. Everybody knows that 1v1 Germany would have destroyed the allies. Those pussies couldn´t fight on their own.
The great depression arriving while germany was already strugling with the reparations and then France occupying the rhur valley with its industry also has a lot to do with the perception of the treaty.
The depression started in 1929 (and really reached Europe in 1930). The French occupation of the Ruhr was long over by then, it had been in 1923 to 1925. In fact France and Britain reacted to the depression by cancelling the demands for reparations first partially, then completely in 1932.
This. The video was one of the weaker ones by the author. Only the video about king Leopold of Belgium was worse (from those I've seen so far). Rhineland being occupied AT THE SAME TIME that Germany was supposed to cough up the money, led to a catastrophic inflation. Also France tried to gin up a movement in the Rhineland to separate it from Germany, during their occupation. (That secession was not espoused in Versailles, so arguably France violated the treaty first, and also-arguably we cannot blame Versailles for it. But you leave troops in someone else's country, eventually someone is going to try what the Soviets will try in East Germany.)
The video completely ignored the fact that Germany had to give up all of its collonies, got harshly demilitarised and was forced to give up the entirety of its navy. Add to that the fact that no enemy had stepped foot on german soil for the entire war and the stupid decision to pin the blame for the war on Germany and you can see that the treaty really was ridiculous.
Err nope. Germany was the aggressor. They are solely to blame for the British and the US being in the war, and gave Austro-Hungary a diplomatic blank check to invade Serbia; ensuring the war with Russia [& thus France] in the 1st place. Germany brought it upon themselves, and had no intention to be generous to France (et al) had they won.
@@fanis1414 German colonies were peanuts in their economy anyway. As for the « blame » put on Germany for the war, that is actually not true at all. The sentence just says that Germany and her allies are responsible for the damages they made in the Entente countries, it was just to justify the war reparations. There is actually the exact same sentence in the treaties with Austria and Hungary, which proves that Germany was never declared as the sole responsible for the war, which again was not even the Point of the sentence. As for no fighting taking place on german territory, well blame it on german generals who preferred to stop the fight before, Germany was doomed anyway, its Army was in Full retreat and all its allies had surrendered.
@@jimtaylor294 the war didn't have one agressor. Every participante was an agressor in its own right, that's why you can't blame anyone for starting it. Every state is to blame for it.
One of the reasons that the Treaty of Versailles was seen as harsh was because the frontline never entered in German territory, which sounds like a good thing but at the eyes of many germans the war wasn't lost yet. Now knowing how brutal that war was I wouldn't have complained, but for someone that have been in a society focussed on the war and with a lot of war propaganda it's a different story.
@Fabian Kirchgessner the whole point of the video is Germany wasn't all that harmed, but felt is as a loss of pride. All I can say to that is "get over it."
@Fabian Kirchgessner It was normal after what ! Germany declared war, Germany lost, Germany destroyed 80% of Belgium and 20% of France. Germany had no factories destroyed, and Germany refused to pay its indemnity. It was not too hard. it was deserved, and UK and France made a fatal error by not destroying Germany by going to Berlin to show the reality of the defeat to the German People. Then Hitler played on this after saying that in Reality Germany was not defeated. France and Belgium was on the knees, with a lot of industry completly destroyed. The East region in France was the one producing coals, the energy source of the country and Germany had destroyed it. So no, Versailles was fair and deserved after the 1871 treaty, the annexation of Alsace and Moselle, and the indemnity paid after Vienne in 1815. As the video said, it was not harsh for Germany, it was justified. And Germany not even payed the war indemnity.
Fabian Kirchgessner the allies would have been to Berlin because Germany was exploding staring summer 1918. Massive mutiny, General strikes everywhere, no more support for the military dictatorship in place, and riots in several cities. Germany was doomed. Few months before Austria was too. So Germany was isolated vs the Allies. I don’t like that some Germans still find some excuses for Nazism emergeance like the Treaty of Versailles. The Habsburg lost completely their Empire, Austria was nothing like the one it was. This was harsh. Germany kept a lot of its territory, and it’s industry which was absolutely key at the beginning of the 20rh century. Germany could have pay the war indemnity but they refused. In my opinion to avoid The Second World War, the best thing to do was to split German Empire in 2 countries : original Prussia and the rest of German states and put war infemnities in Prussia which was always the responsible for wars such as 1871 and 1914. Plus during the WWII, Prussians officers were the most favorable to Hitler in the Werchmact. Bavaria, Saxony, Ségur, Westphalia, Tyrol, were ok together like in the Confederation of the Rhine. But a top powerful Germany means Wars. Today I’m still not happy with the unified Germany and I think it could lead to problem in Europe sooner or later. Mitterand and Thatcher were against the German reunification. I think they were right. Prussia was always one thing and other German states another.
@@freewal Separating German Reich in 2 entities with their its parent country, Prussia, basically dismantled and forced to pay for everything would've been seen as utterly outrageous, even more so than the the OG peace treaty, considering the fact it wasn't even Germany nor Prussia who have started the war. There's no way the government would've agreed to this even if they were faced with an imminent Entente invasion of Germany and pretty sure population would've went along with the continuation of the war if Entente (but probably mostly France) wanted to do it that way. Moreover, the question of Alsace-Lorraine, yeah, it was 70% etchnically German, spoke German, was part of the Holy Roman Empire just 150 years earlier and was took away by force from HRE. If anything, Germany's claim to Alsace was more ground-to-earth than France's.
Just wanna note that the northern part of Germany, Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark via local voting, the rest of Schleswig and Holstein decided to stay German
And Southsliesia was also occupied eith just the Tip wanting to join Poland and also south Eastprussia, where the whole place wanted to stay (exept for a few villages) And Eupen-Malmedy might be rigged as the votings were open and people feared that if they vote to stay in Germany they won't get food from the occupying foces
@「 Deadpoppin 」 literally is. Upper silesia was majority polish linguistically. Who knows how many germanised poles there were there that just didn't speak Polish. Either way the German minority there owned the major institutions and used propaganda posters and teachers teacher students hard ethnic hatred of the Polish state
This comparisons aren't fair because 1- the lands lost by Germany had significant German populations unlike the other treaties especially Trianon and Brest litovsk 2- it was the stupidly high reparations much much stronger than other central nations or France faced that made the treaty so infamous. Even British economists like John Maynard Keynes predicted starvation and revanchism
France was broke, where do you expect them to get the money from? From Tree's? Germany started this Bloody war and they should expect to lose a lot if they lose.
1. Both other treaties still ceded lands that had large ethnic ruling populations in those areas. What, where do you think modern Russia gets its russian-speaker claims to Ukraine and all that? Was it only ever the Soviets who tried to Russify the western lands? 2. "Stupidly high" yeah its called the first world war for a reason
1. The worst part of Versailles was not the loss of land but the lie that Germany had started the war and was to blame which still is believed by most people today. Did Germany order the assassination of the Austrian arch-duke? No, Serbia/Russia did. Was Germany the first nation to declare war? No, Austria-Hungary did. Was Germany the first nation to mobilise its army? No, Russia and France did. 2. You can't compare the other treaties of Paris with Versailles as Germany lost lands which were predominantly inhabited by ethnic Germans while Hungary and Austria lost parts which where inhabited by non-Hungarians like Slovakia and Croatia. Same goes for Brest-Litovsk: That treaty gave independence to nations that had been under Russian rule but had non-Russian ethnicities.
Glad to see someone is of the same opinion. I've only recently started really taking an interest in WW1, and that was was the first thing I noticed, Germany didn't start it.
The treaty never states Germany started the war. In each treaty to a Central Powers country, they say "x country's name and her allies". They never singled out Germany.
Your second point is incorrect. The Polish corridor was mainly Polish, the 1920 independence vote lost them majority Danish North Schleswig. Only Alsace Lorraine(which was only recently part of Germany, didn't want to be part of Germany and treaty as a colony more than anything), the harbour city of Danzig(which was turned into a free city because Germany would be able to cut off Poland's access to the sea if they didn't have the port city) and 2-3 villages to Belgium to repay them for the war crimes and sheer destruction Germany caused on their lands. Also, both Alsace Lorraine and the Russian Eastern European colonies had tons of French and Russian minorities so that straight up isn't true, they had been part of those countries for centuries and were heavily integrated. Alsace Lorraine was a integral industrial part of France. France had a very close connection to Alsace Lorraine. It had been part of France for 200 years before that point and people were pretty mixed. That's like Mexico invading parts of the southern US and people saying it's okay because they're mainly Latino or were part of Mexico first.
@@tylersmith3139 Your points are incorrect. Alsac lorraine was a recent addition to france, being a bit over 100 years added to the french empire and, still to this day, is culturally german, despite many attempts by the french to change that. The Saarlands, which were quite close to Lötheringen, overwhelmingly voted to remain german, and Elzas Lötheringen would have done so as well, if given the chance. Also it was industrialized by the germans, not by the french, which can be seen by the fact that the railways still drive on the right there, instead of the usual left in france, because they were build by germany, not france. It is like russia conquering the baltics, forcibly inserting russians there, and now claiming it because of the "russian minority". Dont forget france invaded the german kingdoms 27 times in the two centuries leading up to 1870) Yes, a small part was given to belgium as compensation, but no one is stating that was too harsh.
@@tylersmith3139 The Polish Corridor has a roughly equal amount of Germans and Poles, splitting core Prussian land off from the German heartland is impractical and honestly stupid.
@Trz That and some of the Victors didn't want to weaken France too much, fearing that doing so would only further upset the Balance of Power in Europe, the Restoration of which was the whole point of the Congress.
@plentyness One major factor was that France's instability was blamed for the French Revolution, which threatened the monarchies of Europe and allowed someone like Napoleon to rise and spread war over the entire continent. At the Congress of Vienna, the general consensus was that Europe needed to be made stable. Napoleon had spread all of France's liberal ideas and even dismantled the traditional feudal nobility, which left most of Europe very unstable. The idea was that if a lasting balance of powers was to be made, Europe needed France stable since the French People weren't simply going to go away.
The treaty includes no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe - nothing to make the defeated central empires into good neighbours, nothing to stabilise the new states of Europe, nothing to reclaim Russia; nor does it promote a compact of economic solidarity among the allies themselves; no arrangement was reached at Paris for restoring the disordered finances of France and Italy, or to adjust the systems of the old world and the new. -Keynes One of the few who realized the mistake in Paris early on. It doesn’t matter how harsh a treaty is compared to another, the context is important. This includes also the role a country has in a system, like the central powers had in the economy of Europe. In the end, it would be enough to not just be a burden on europe but especially on the young Weimar Republic. It would became a perfect breading ground for radical ideas and ideologies, especially when the life’s of millions are heavily affected by it. A machine doesn’t work when their parts are broken. The best way to compare it is a jenga tower, you can take but it will destabilize you. You take too much and the entire thing will come crushing down at you, in one way or another. The best way would have been by not taking much or nothing it all and instead stabilizing it and prevent others to take pieces out of it. It was this lesson the world had yet to learn, just good they did and created the EU, it was this concept that was needed at the time. Not being harsh or even more harsh, but deciding for a solution that has solidarity in it.
It certainly ruined future diplomatic relations as well as it scrapped Europe’s economy. Especially when we look at the Weimar Republic, one of the most liberal democracies at the time, but permanently pushed down by the treaties. The treaty made it a huge problem to stabilize the country, using the remaining armed forces to “solve problems” was another portion of oil into the fire. They tried to extinguish the flames but couldn’t because the source was simply too hot. The most impressive thing about Germany at this time was that they actually managed, for a short time, to successfully manage the huge problems of the treaty. Still, just as people like Keynes predicted, it was dangerous. The stability (they seriously called it the golden years of the Weimar Republic) was very thin. It needed just one accident to drag the entire nation back to the start, back into the chaos. Imagine we end up in a conflict with China and propose a Versailles treaty, (or even more laughable) an even harsher treaty on them. The economy and so the entire world would collapse into unforeseen chaotic consequences. Their population would in no way be able to preserve enough food and other needed resources. Their government would fail at managing the damage. Term after term they fail until people are so tired of it they start listening to radicals. This treaty was a bad idea, for everyone.
Very good analysis! I totally agree with you that the aftermath of WW2 with the Marshall-plan and the Franco-German alliance initiated by de Gaul was what has ensured peace in Western Europe for more than 70 years. In essence, one has to ensure that all countries will be interested in upholding the status quo. By isolating and severely punishing Germany after WW1, it was inevitable that Germany would do anything to change the status quo.
True. It was a lesson which the world had to learn. And somehow, we managed to learn it some decades before weapons of mass destruction became "widely" available. I pitty the alternative realities where phycicists, engineers and mathematicians were ambitious enough to produce nuclear weapons before the world experienced the terrors of a global war (twice).
I am glad we were able to leave the savage thirsty for revenge behind and create a new peace deal that would secure a safer future for all members involved. Altho on the very few months of allied occupation they did imposed crippling taxes on germany but thankfully that was abandoned.
The years from 1910 to 1941 had several of the worst politicians in power ever. Hitler, Wilhelm II., Stalin, Chamberlain, Wilson... What were you thinking?! :O
@@peterwindhorst5775 Very pathetic. Little things like that which artificially maintains the divide in the legal system between the common people and the legal professionals.
I think a major difference between the treaty of Versialles and the other peace treatys is, that Austria-Hungary and Russia would have lost most of those territories anyway in the next few decades, whereas in a considerable amount of the former german territory a mayority of ethnic germans lived. The multiethnic state of Austria Hungary had many revolts of the different ethnic groups and barely held together until the end of WW I. Russia became a few years later the soviet union. The countries merged in the soviet union had common foreign politics, but beside that they acted more like independent countries than a unified nation.
A little bit late, but two very important points you forgot to mention are: 1. While France occupied the Rheinland they instigated a few confrontations between Democrats and Communists(if I remember correctly one was nearly civil war) and made it difficult to keep the heavy industry running.(Not good for monetary reasons) 2. The great depression. Every western nation involved in the treaty was suddenly fucked. All of them needed money and demanded the reparations, even when the Weimar Republic couldnt pay them. And even back then german economy was greatly focused on exports, but nobody could buy(because no money). So while most western nations only had to carry their own population through the crysis, germany had to pay those massive reparations. And the population knew this. There are many things to reconsider. So no, the treaty wasnt exceptionally harsh for the time, but the circumstances made it much worse than being butthurt.(there is so much more, but most of it is already in the comments)
@@zarlg Yes and no. While the reparations had been canceled, it was so that Germany could pay back the loans it took to pay the reparations. To put the value of those loans into perspective, these were paid back in 2010. But since the great Depression started 1929, there still was a lot of money put into paying reparations. Money, that Germany needed in other places, even before the Depression.
@@Mittelalterfreak93 I'm pretty sure the only country that didn't cancel both reparations and loans was the United States, those loans being repayed in 2010 were paid to the US.
German people also felt very upset by the treaty because they actually had the feeling that they were on the winning side and that it would just take some more time until victory. You have to remember that the war was fought almost the entire time (at the western front) on french or belgian soil.
And that State Propaganda was lying to their teeth to the very end (Every Nation did that but it didn't worked out well for those who lost the war obviously)
If you defeat a enemy, either hit him so hard that he will never be able to retaliate or let him go unharmed so that he won't have the willingness to attack you Versailles did neither It humiliated Germany to a point where hatred agenst France was insured for Generations while not stripping it of his industrial capacity to fight further wars
Actually, for 15 years the industrial part of Germany was occupied while Germany was still expected to pay the reparations so in this case, Versailles hit Germany way too hard.
@@leonpaelinck to me this is such a great topic to discuss on yt comments... but I think that's arguable... one thing is clear, easiest way to get germany industry on track was using it for military and once you build the military what to do? the original motivation seems to be to take slavs land and kill all slavs (that one is pretty clear to me) while the war against france was "oversight"... I think Hitler thought that invading Poland he will get away with it with the politics of appeasement he had the experience for 6 years...
@@leonpaelinck he did it on purpose, he knewd about the french guarantees, he really wanted to occupy france what do you think he remilitarized the rhineland for
@@leonpaelinck They invaded Luxembourg and Belgiun without provocation. France was an ally of Russia which backed Serbia and declared war on Austia-Hungary.
@@leonpaelinck The provocation was the general mobilization of Russia and subsequently it's ally France and the fear that not doing anything will leave them crippled in case they started to attack. Given the instability, and so many countries being on the verge of war not entirely unsubstantiated.. Russia mobilizing and saying it won't start a war is, as we now know, not too reliable
Well they were the ones that had to face the worse of the war directly at there border, and Belgium had it even worse considering they were a neutral nation that didn't want to get involved and war, but Germany invaded them anyway just because they refuse military access through there lands. You can understand why either of these governments weren't find of the Germans after that.
It was actually more like “ugh fine.” As referenced in the video, France’s original plan was literally to dissolve Germany into multiple separate countries. They got negotiated down by the other Entente members, something which obviously came back to bite all of them a couple decades later.
@@pokefan20001000 Yeah, just dissolving Germany in several independent states is like giving continental Europe hegemony to France, something the British would never accept, and how exactly are you going to demand that the Germans break up their own country without occupying it first? Sure, the entente can do it, but remember the conditions of the moment, revolution in Russia, soldiers organized in councils, the Home Front tired of war, the USA with the idea of self-determination; Even if Germany were dismembered, it would take force to prevent a reunification, not to mention the great possibility of the Communists taking over all of Central Europe.
“Versailles wasn’t that bad” Military History Visualized: “the occupation of the Ruhr was enough to convince even moderate politicians to support secret rearmament as it was clear to everyone Germany couldn’t protect its own borders...(The Treaty) came across as an attack on Germany’s economy by many companies who lost nearly every customer they had due to the actions of the treaty and the inability to build reserves”
@@arnold3768 “two wrongs don’t make a right” If you could point me to where I said it was fine to do the whole world war 2 thing that would be great I didn’t but I’ll wait, my point was that Versailles was more than bad, it was atrociously criminal as vengeance for the bitch slapping they received in the Franco Prussian War and an obvious move by Britain to remove Germany as a European power because Britain could never hope to defeat it alone if push ever came to shove
@@arnold3768 are you stupid austria hungary start ww1, serbia is allied with russia, and russia is allied with french. The war would not start if russia don't guarantee serbia lol.
@@arnold3768 bitch I’m not German I’m a Freeaboo And yeah, because when the British wanted to destroy the entire high seas fleet of Germany it was out of leniency for losing and not fear of their own global position Good thing that fear wasn’t realized when the americans...dethroned them as the worlds largest navy...in 3 years...but that is the power of hindsight
@@arnold3768 Versailles was so lenient it economically collapsed Germany and made the main political problem for Germany the fear that Eastern fucking Prussia could be occupied by Poland and the Germans would have no way to stop them Also a freeaboo is most easily translated as american (free) fanboy (aboo), you may have heard of a wehraboo, those are the weirdos who think the Wehrmacht could’ve won the war
What few interests but is no less important was France's view and role in the negotiations. During the years 1870/1871 Germany and France had more or less equal populations. Also, France (even after the war) was still the wealthier nation. Even after the loss of Alsace-Lorraine (1871), the amount of resources both countries had was the same. This is the vital difference between the Peace of Frankfurt and the Treaty of Versailles. Although it resulted in the founder crash, the German actors in the peace negotiations at that time were able to foresee any consequences in advance, which is why they were also able to regulate economic relations between the countries in their treaty. What had to be observed up to 1914 was Germany's achievement. Until then, the country had a population 70% higher than France, and it also developed into one of the leading industrial and trading nations in the world. The technological skill and Germany's ability to produce future wealth were unsurpassed. France, on the other hand, has never been able to achieve such an achievement. Despite its prosperity and position as a great power, France had a falling, partly stagnating population by 1870. It had also fallen far behind compared to other nations (and their economic opportunities) in terms of the production of future wealth. All of this, with France's existing view, should become an important part of moving towards a draconian peace. France's actors in the negotiations embodied this most significantly. If we summarize Clemencau's view of the world, it quickly becomes clear how this contract could get out of hand. According to Clemencau (who stands for all of Paris / contemporary sources say all of Paris had become morbid by the time the contract was signed) war is an inevitable phenomenon that will occur between all countries. He also saw Wilson's points doomed and so their content. According to him, war is a boxing match: you can win a round, but it won't be the last. Accordingly, a peace treaty should not work towards securing peace for a long time, but should work towards being able to easily defeat the opponent in the next round by weakening it. “Equal treatment according to Wilson inevitably meant that Germany recovered more quickly and threw itself back on France.” - Clemencau This was decisive for France's failure to demand “guarantees”. Each and every one of them increased the anger and anger experienced by the public in Germany. Each individual clause increased the idea of revenge, to which France delegated reacted by drafting new clauses (for each clause). With Clemencau this world view was most strongly represented and completely rejected any other. That the 14 points were only enforced, even met with tolerance, was to reassure the President of the USA. France tried to turn back the clock, after before 1870, this was to be achieved by reducing the national territory and destroying Germany's economic transport routes. Germany's economic position, however, was one, if not the most important, cornerstone of Europe's economic system and population prosperity. That in turn tore the continent into the abyss. France's (Clemencau first and foremost) ideas of the world belonged to the past and were not directed towards the future. One thought only of the conflict between France and Germany, not of peace, not of the human problem. France's leading politicians did not raise the question of the laborious development of European civilizations or the existing system of order. To keep it short: France was mentally in the wrong age. Even then it was foreseeable that a cathartic peace would not be possible and, if carried out, would not hold. The idea of the Versailles Treaty alone was morally reprehensible and incorrect, as Keynes correctly summarized it as early as 1919. For all quarantined students who are thirsty for knowledge and find history difficult, remember the following sentence: You cannot turn back time to restore countries to their original state. In the attempt, the European overall structure was destroyed, as well as the European social order and its institutions.
Some interesting points; but it was still in France's best interest to see Germany broken up. Indeed; had General Pershing had his way the French probably would have got most of what they wanted. Germany has the UK & US chiefly to thank for that not coming about.
Is it better to be split up, which can always lead to being reunited later on, or to be charged an insane amount of money and resources that ultimately bankrupts you and leaves you unable to buy even bread?
@@InfernosReaper get split up, have a communist government which purges its own people, wage war with several nation to basically live, get looted, then left to starve. 10/8 would choose the german option
@@InfernosReaper Hungary still had to pay ridiculous amounts of money too. We were blamed by all the other nations for EVERYTHING that happened under the old empire.
there is just a small hiccup with the idea that Hungary lost disproportional amount of land. and that hiccup is the fact that most the land it lost was populated by many minorities and not Hungarians. try not to spin this like it was so unfair
@@loranttoth5897 you are right. i said most not all but i get what you are saying.some land (like parts todays romania) were mostly hungarian. all im saying it is not as simple as hungary having its land stolen from it. it lost territory mostly populated by slaves to jugoslavia and chekoslovakia, and some land to romania. the populations of this land were mixed and no simple border could be drawn, like all over Europe and especially former austro-hungarian empire there are many minorities in all of this countries even today. and i get that populations being separated from their nations if a bad thing but it is immposible to draw borders without that being the case
@@camm8642 prussian Mainly Tried to unite germany and the most aggressive span before Was with Friedrich der Große, Austria was more Diplomatic most of the time. Europes biggest aggressors were france
You kind of forgot a lot of things that happened adding to it. Like the country being forced into democracy (which many people really didn't want), the abhorrend treatment of the Germans in the territories taken over, losing all the colonies, the massive demilitarisation of the country and the part where a bit later on the economic crisis happened and the french semi-invaded Germany and forced people to work in factories for them.
1 Germany wasn't forced into democracy, they had a revolution, and when the economy stabilized it was actually not that bad, the period was even called the golden 20s 2 if Germany didn't want to lose their colonies/territory, maybe they shouldn't have escalated the conflict. 3 I don't really see why being demilitarized is a bad thing 4 if you're right, then yes, obviously people being discriminated against is terrible but let's not pretend that Germany was any better with its non-german people.
@@DemocraticConfederalist33 i can agree with you mostly but the last point is a little confusing to me. Because yes, of course, Germany was also treating it's non german poeple badly. But that's not the point right now. It's just that the way the french for example behaved around german citizens was shitty and this of course left a mark. Not saying that it was out of the blue. It made sense the french were assholes, Germany made their country literally the battlefield and many poeple lost their lifes. Then again, an eye for an eye and whole world goes blind
Germany has no idea how lucky they were France didn't have them be split up like they were before 1870s unification. In fact, that would have been a MUCH more effective punishment. I'm personally shocked the Allies never considered this, after all Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were split up. Make Germany into Bavaria, Hanover, a new smaller Prussia and Rhineland, with a 50-year ban on reunification. That would have also helped stop a totalitarian like Hitler from rising.
@@thunderbird1921 Was France split up after Napoleon tried to conquer europe and lost the war? Why not? Probably the same reason why Germany wasn't. Balance of power. Nobody in Europe wanted one central power controlling everything. Germany and France balance each other. If one vanishes the other could take control other everything. (Obviously both Germany and France tried to do so). What would happen to all those smaller european countries if Germany and France weren't rivals (or one of them would not existed)? They would probably got "eaten" very fast.
If I Recall Correctly, the Clause States “Germany and Her Allies”, Just as The Treaty of San-Germain States “Austria and Her Allies”. The Treaty Indeed States the War’s Instigation Had Been Austria-Hungary’s Declaration of War.
Before the outbreak of World War I, Europe was truly a complex network: Nations exchanged coal and steel and traded machinery and food. This was made possible thanks to a complex transport system, convertible currencies and low tariffs. The German Empire was the largest economic machine on the European continent. It not only supplied its neighbors with goods, but also a large part of the capital necessary for their development. Germany was the central pillar of the system around which the rest of the European economic system was grouped. The Treaty of Versailles had largely destroyed the economic network, which was decisive for Europe's later development. People who say stuff like „the treaty was too lenient“ do not only understand a single point of basic economics and society as well as history, but live in the same childish dreamworld like Clemencau. No matter how more harsh the treaty would have been, it was foreseeable since 1919 that this decision would end in civil wars, economic disasters and weak governments. Keynes self predicted that the more harsh this treaty was made, the more likely it became that a new war breaks out. Everyone at the peace conference is to blame for the Second World War. They build the stairs for this catastrophe and put up the “where to go”- shields.
@@arnold3768 shut up flathead and read some books. Being simply not smart enough to get the comment does not make your bs right. Stuff like yours was already proven wrong by historians like Christopher Clark. Your the best example of the type of people who don’t understand history. It certainly explains why you’re lingering for weeks (if not even more laughable: months) under a simple history video. Get a life, or even better: get a brain and a life.
Alright, I bought the book and f, I underestimated the treaty. It was much worse. But there is one thing I would like to correct: the economic system of Europe was damaged during the war: But you are completely right, it was hopelessly destroyed when Versailles was made. France and Italy misused their roles as victors when they tried to destroy their enemies. They were closely and indissolubly linked to their victims trough cultural and economic ties. Destroying Germany and Austria-Hungary meant destroying themselves.
Germany: I lost 10% of my population after the war! Soviet Union: Big deal. I lost 30% of my population! ???: Amateurs... Germany: Who said that?? *Hungary with 65% of it's people gone* : AMATEURS!
You should have mentioned the impact on the colonial territories, the restrictions on the arms industry, airforce and navy, conscription and number of men, dissolution of the general staff , types if arm/calibers they're allowed... I think was more than just a peace treaty exchange of territories
^This The problem was that there were a great many other factors to the treaty most of which were open ended. There was no "100.000 man army for 20 years" or something, it was essentially in perpetuity. This was a treaty that was absolutely guaranteed to fail at some point. Treat a major power, even a defeated one, like a puppet-state and there will be consequences down the road.
@@hothoploink1509 exactly. the only problem with versailles was that it didnt go far enough. the allies should have gone for complete victory and dismantlement.
The treaty was unfair because it marked germany as the true and only country in guilt for what has happened. I as a German can say, that Germany for sure didn't act right in the years leading to WWI, but other nations like France or the UK also did some terrible mistakes that led to it. Everyone was basically up for a fight, like a barrel of gunpowder, that could be ignited by any small spark. The mindset in entire Europe was, that war was inevitable. So germany wasn't the only one, guilty. The only difference was that they'd lost, so they were to be blamed entirely. And this was poorly handled by the allies. Austria Hungary was a slightly different case as it was an empire that also had territories of many other people who were suppressed and couldn't be their own country. In the end, i personally am happy that because of the ww1 loss, countries like czechia, poland or yugoslavia could finally become independent. But back then, many people felt humiliated. This does NOT justify anything that the nazis did in the 2nd WW, but it made germany very unstable and gave room for nazism.
That's what everyone is taught in school, that everyone was equally responsible for the sake of reconciliation. But if you read up a bit on the July crisis you'll find it's not true at all. In reality Germany escalated this regional crisis into a European war all the way, while France for example genuinely did not want war and did what it could to attempt to prevent it.
@@zarlg hahahaha that was funny joke France didn’t want war. It’s not like from 1872-1914 French politicians voiced anti-German sentiment and active voiced for open war with the German Empire for Elsass-Lothringen to be returned to them.
@@soundwavegamer2321 It is indeed not like that. Revanchists were a fringe party that was never in government. Saying the French wanted war is like saying the Germans today want to leave the EU because the AFD exists.
@@zarlg so the fact that when the former Empress Victoria made a visit to France and had to leave due to how violent a lot of the protests for her being there got means anti-German sentiments were fringe? France after their defeat in the Franco-Prussian war felt like their pride had been lost they had gone from one of the most powerful nations on the continent with a military rivaled only by England to a nation beaten by a nation that had only just been on the rise. They lost territory they had their pride shattered and now their new neighbors were seeing economic growth on a large scale. A kind of sounds familiar doesn’t it? The Frankfurt Treaty of 1871 was the moment in history were France went from being the sworn enemy of England to the sworn enemy of all Germans they despise Germans as they were a reminder of their defeat. It’s why after the war so many in the Rhineland when Hitler rose to power supported him because the abuse they had under French rule all for being German was horrific.
@@soundwavegamer2321 What "horrific abuse"? Point to me exactly what this "horrific abuse" was that the French supposedly committed? Anything that even begins to compare to the large scale massacre of civilians committed by Germans during WW1? The main thing that the Germans complained about regarding the French occupation of the Ruhr was that occupation forces included Negro soldiers, which offended German ideas of racial supremacy. And of course the Germans, who still believed their wartime propaganda about being on the verge of winning the war until the very end and were still high on the aggressive German nationalism that started the war in the first place, refused to accept they had lost which is why they resorted to conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot.
And in some Parts of Silesia, that were given to Poland, were big and important coalmines (one fourth of German coal came from there) so there definitely was a big impact on an industrial level. The occupation of the Rhineland by France while Germany struggled to pay the reperations also kicked the industry down the road
These parts of Silesia given to Poland had Polish population which wanted to be the part of newly formed Polish state. They even started three Silesian Uprisings because they were so tired of "Prussians" telling them what to do.
Zogo 974 The division of Silesia between Germany and Poland was ultimately decided by the League of Nations with a commission consisting of Belgium, Brazil, Spain, and China not the treaty of Versailles.
The uprisings were while the poles were held and the only thing I can find is that an international comitee overlooked the division of Silesia that was written down in the treaty of Versailles. I would be very happy, if you could tell me, were you found that, (for serious, no irony)
To be clear: the area was split between Poland and Germany and the coalmines were also split: Poland received 63 coal mines, Germany kept 19. Poland received 9 steel mills (Germany kept 5). Also, as you said, Germany before the war received 1/4 of its coal from Silesia. For the newly independent Poland the Polish part of Silesia was 3/4 of its coal.
Actually, Germany had no problem paying, it just didn't want to. They crashed their own economy and paid people in the Sarre region to not cooperates to gain points with the revanchists.
A big problem with comparing the loss of "x" percent of the population is that in all the examples given here the lands lost aren't always majority populated by the dominant ethnic group of the nation losing them.
Alsace-Lorraine was majority German though, the only reason the French took it in total is due to its economic and strategic importance. If it was divided along ethnic lines then only the outer half of Moselle and a small slither of Bas Rhin would've been granted to the French. The region that Belgium took was also questionable. The only regions that were explicitly divided along ethnic lines were the lands granted to the newly-created Polish Republic and the South Jutland County granted to Denmark.
@@a6s3 All of the ethnic maps I've seen show only the southern part of modern-day Moselle and only a little bit of modern-day Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin as French-speaking.
@@arnold3768 Bold of you to assume that. I think Versailles would have been reasonable if Germany could have kept their regions in Poland, The Germanic parts of Alsace Lorraine, and Eupen-Malmedy. I'm mostly against your frankly stupid idea of turning Germany into a second HRE. Tell me, how do you divide an ethnically homogeneous nation? Unlike Austria-Hungary, There weren't other ethnic groups.
@@arnold3768 crippling a nation so it is unable to start any wars sounds extremely stupid. You'd just create a hermit kingdom similar to North Korea. And Stalin would have still invaded poland and those crippled german states and start WW2. Go on the Fascism Wikipedia article, press Ctrl+F, and type in Japan. It only appears once in a footnote about Imperialism, which was Japan's Ideology. And you still didn't mention my rebuttal to your claim of Japan turning "Fascist" after WW1. It annexed Korea far before WW1. Also, being Racist =/= Being Fascist. The Confederates weren't Fascist, even though they had similar views. Crash Course states in their WW1 video that Russia was the first to pre-emptively mobilize. They didn't attack first, but they were the first to prepare.
@@arnold3768 Stalin would have still invaded Poland. Just because he invaded it later didn't mean he would have never. Eastern Poland had a large amount of Ukrainians and Belarussians Stalin wanted in the USSR. And don't forget the Polish-Soviet war. Stalin would have still tried to take those lands. Who knows, maybe he'd help the Spartacists form a socialist german state that he'd use to extend influence into western Europe. Your fractured Germany idea would only allow extremism to quickly spread and take over multiple small states. First of all, I was looking at Fascism's page itself, which lists the HISTORY of Fascism. Second of all, Imperialism doesn't equal fascism. The Spanish and Japanese Empire treated foreign people very terribly, but neither were Far-Right economically. Fascism isn't just being racist. CrashCourse is a channel with over 11 million subs. Also, In 1913, Nicholas II approved an increase in the Russian Army of over 500,000 men. They also had plans to take Istanbul from the Ottomans and turn it into Tsarigrad.
Technically 1918. Kaiser Wilhelm II jointly abdicated the Prussian and Imperial German Crowns on the 9th of November and the last German monarch, William or Wilhelm II.... of Württemberg abdicated on the 30th, and also on the 9th Philipp Scheidemann, a prominent member of the SPD declared a Republic
The Treaty of Versailles was more or less the reason for WW2. They punished Germany way to hard. Many people even say the plan was to destroy the country completely through the treaty of versailles. Taking away Germany’s military (from 4 mio to only 100 thousand) was a big humiliation for them. The country had one of the most advanced military and it was definitely one of the biggest prides of the nation. Another problem was that in the territories that got taken away from them there lived many ethnic Germans who didn’t want to belong to the neighboring countries (obviously). Also Germany could’ve never payed the allies with the money they demanded from them. The country itself was in a huge economic crises. It was only a matter of time before another war would break out. (And don’t forget that they lost all of their colonies in Africa and Asia) It was also not fair that Germany had to accept all the war guilt for a war they didn’t even start in the first place.
Liebe Lina... Die 4 Millionen Mann die du meintest, waren aber nur die aktiven Truppen, die bei Kriegsende im Feld standen . Das ist ein voll mobilisiertes Heer, dass in Friedenszeiten, nie so groß war. Tatsächlich hatte in Westeuropa im letzten Friedensjahr, Frankreich dass größte stehende Heer. Deutschland, dass mit 70 Millionen Menschen, die bei weitem größte Bevölkerung hatte (mal von Russland abgesehen), leistete sich nur die 3. größte stehende Armee. Ich finde das sehr bezeichnend. Vor allem, wenn da immer von deutschem Militarismus die Rede ist...
Conclusion: Not that harsh.... even tough it was more than 5 times as harsh as the peace germany enforced in the Franco prussian war. A war France started, and lost totally. Also the peace that the Germans enforced on the Russians, was more a break up along cultural lines rather than outright annexation. Aka you could argue that the land Germany was taking wasn't all that Russian to begin with. I think the largest problem with Versailles is Danzig, the fact that it created a large chunk of disconnected land, pretty much insured a future war with Poland.
Let me correct something: France started the Franco-Prussian war after the Ems dispatch was send all over Europe by Bismarck, which was a way to make France attack, so I don’t think it’s super accurate just to say they started it (the major defeat of France is the same at the end of the day whatever...)
Except ukraine which was actually mostly russian but after this f*cking war they suddenly started these national tendencies along with using their new language. If not for that we wouldnt be facing this sh*t now.
Ngl, if i was ukrainian under russia, and then have to starve under stalin, i’d prefer 100% to be a german puppet And i’m a scientific socialist just to prove how much the ussr sucked😂
@@mbogucki1 The Levant and Egypt were mostly Arabic and the lands beyond the Dardanelles were a mix of Greek and various Balkan principalities that the Ottomans conquered over the centuries. I doubt I need to mention Tunis being Tunisian. I don't think any actually Turk-majority lands were lost.
@@MyVanir You could argue that half of todays Greece and large Parts of Bulgaria were inhabited by a turkish Majority. It's hard to say though, they mixed a lot with the Greeks. Every second Greek has turkish Blood running through their Veins. Even if they don't like to admit it.
Yes the territorial losses of the Treaty of Versailles were pretty "par for the course" in terms of similar treaties. It's already been said in the comments that Trianon and Brest-Litovsk were worse by far. And yet, most of the complaints about the Treaty of Versailles really involved the reparations that Germany had to pay. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the $132 billion marks that Germany was asked to pay was, by far, one of the largest reparations ever required wasn't it? Especially considering that much of the reparations imposed on the other Central Powers was eventually forgiven; while France refused to forgive hardly any of Germany's reparations. It was largely this debt that caused the German financial crisis and most of the complaints about the treaty. Also, the treaty essentially put all of the blame for World War I squarely on Germany's shoulders. I'd love to hear other peoples thoughts but it seems to me that, yes, the financial and blame burdens of the Treaty of Versailles were exceptionally harsh when compared with most treaties of the time.
You're leaving out that the reparations were lowered twice during the 1920's, and that the United States gave Germany several loans during the late '20's to help pay the reparations. The only reason this didn't work out was because of the Great Depression, which resulted in the United States retracting all their loans. Also it was perfectly reasonable that Germany would have to pay for the Central Powers as a whole, because they were the only Central Power left with a half decent industry/economy, they were the only ones with the MEANS to pay. Austria struggled economically throughout the 20's and 30's, and was reduced to a tiny rump state. Bulgaria became an authoritarian hermit kingdom and Turkey was definetly not in the condition to pay either. Also you're wrong in saying Germany got sole blame for the war. The war guilt clause applied to "Germany and her allies", in the Treaty of San-Germain the war guilt clause was applied to "Austria and her allies".
132 billion marks seems much money, but you can't forget that western France and Belgium was completely devastated. 4 years of trenchwarfare has taken place in these lands which means a lot of landscapes were shaped in these 4 years.
J1any3 Other people already gave several comments on why the war reparations were actually not really high. I Would just like to add that from the figured i found Germany was paying about 2.5% to 5% of its budget annually for war reparations (including raw materials and Equipment given). To compare, after its defeat in 1870 France had to dedicate 20% of its budget annually to pay the war reparations.
Good video. It should be noted that in the Franco-Prussian War German territory was left untouched, and yet France was made to pay reparations in 1871. By contrast, WW1 devastated the industrial heartlands of France and Belgium, and the cost or rebuilding this is what justified the high demands in monetary reparations, almost none of which was ultimately paid. They were also a sort of consolation prize for France which didn't get what it actually wanted, which was to dismantle Germany to prevent another world war. The French were very aware of this danger, and Marshall Ferdinand Foch, furious about the leniency of the Versailles Treaty which left the German potential for warfare practically unaffected, said about it "This isn't a peace, it's an armistice for 20 years".
Me too. Those videos felt better documented in terms of depth and were of better quality in my opinion. But hey it's UA-cam if you don't reach a high enough number of people, dumb down your content
Yes, but the other videos went WAY more in depth instead of generally glossing over the general facts. I commend the work put in to find topics mostly ignored but I feel like they could just be additional info on a topic instead... I mean, if I could write scripts I would, but...
The fact Hungary lost so much in the treaty is even worse when you consider the Hungarian part of the Empire did not want war with Serbia in the aftermath of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and only agreed to support war with the condition none of Serbia would be annexed into the Empire.
and hungary could have been the "bastion" of central europe mostly because hungarians didn't really look for trouble...but the treaty of trianon smashed this idea..and after that the little-entent once more
I dont know why so many Hungarians complain ? I know they were treated very badly but this video is about Germany. This topic will most likely be a part of a different video.
@@wolfsoldner9029 i think because we don't deserved what we got after the war..and why can't we talk about it? the treaty of versailles and trianon was very similar and basically the same war just another treaty...
@@cpt.brexit6392 It just sounds like the germans had no reason to complain just because someone was treated worse. I also feel bad for hungary but this is just a different topic.
Did anyone else noticed how there is always this one guy who is talking bull about others while pretending to know everything better while everything he says is just his own radical opinion he tries you to convince is right while he ignores basic facts? Anyway, congratulations Arnold, you’re the proud winner and defender of the just achieved title. I always have to smile that some people waste their time for hours to convince some strangers in the comment section.
Actually now I see what's going on. At the time I'm writing this comment, the account "Charly Boner" was created 5 hours ago, and then wrote that comment 4 hours ago. And this "Bim Boo" account was created 59 minutes ago, and then wrote their comment 58 minutes ago. Which means these are all the accounts of some one guy, with whom I argued before. You created an account to call me out and then even more to like your own comment, so that others would start bullying me too. Let me save you some time and give your comments a like from me, because I don't care.
@@arnold3768 You do realize turning Germany into a bunch of tiny nations would have easily allowed Stalin to Invade Poland and those german states, right? WW2 would still happen, although under different circumstances
According to wikipedia: "Following the Treaty of Paris (1815), defeated France was ordered to pay 700 million francs in indemnities. France was also to pay additional money to cover the cost of providing additional defensive fortifications to be built by neighbouring Coalition countries. In proportion to its GDP, it's the most expensive war reparation ever paid by a country.[3]"
@@krim7 The only war of aggression started by napoleon was the 5th coalition war, the rest was britain funding any and everyone willing to declare war on france, which they did 5 times with one just being every kingdom in europe declaring war on the newly formed republic 'cause fuck peasants.
@@simsportif the 5th coalition war wasn’t even started by Napoleon. None of the coalition wars were started by Napoleon. The Coalition started the wars, Napoleon finished them.
The only thing I agree with mustache man but probably on different grounds. The treaty was a joke. Instead of rehabilitating the German economy, it punished them pretty hard which caused a breeding ground of radicalization. Not saying the treaty is the sole reason for mustache man taking power but yeah. WWI Marshall plan would have been ideal.
The treaties of Austria-Hungary and Russia have been different from the German treaty though, because Russia and Austria lost lands where mostly people from different peoples lived. Russia lost lands in eastern Europe where almost no Russians lived and that wanted independence for a long time, so new countries were formed for these peoples. Austria-Hungary was divided by borders that already existed and new nations were formed on regions, where very few German-austrian people lived with the exception of Siebenbürgen, where a bigger part of the population was ethnically German. They lost some of their core lands to Italy though. But mostly it was more like a loss of colonies to Austria than a loss of their own land. By the way: these lands wanted independence from Austria for a long time, too and were opposing the austrian government, partly violent, for a while by then. The German situation was different, because they lost a big chunk of their coreland. Even a big part of Prussia, which had a hegemonial position in the political structure of Germany. It wasn't mostly peoples getting their own country to be independent, it was Germans who had to live under a foreign government from there on. This lead to ongoing tensions. Another big aspect that was overlooked here is the structure of society. In Germany the military was a central element of the society even in peace times. It was considered normal to serve in the military for a few years to "build the character" in higher class but also in the middle class. The extreme shrinking of the German military did not just leave them defenseless against their neighbors, it changed the whole structure of society. It was mentioned in the video that the reperations Germany had to pay where as high as 20 years of government money. That's not particular true. It would have been 20 years with the economic output Germany had before the war. After the loss of a lot of territory, including wealthy areas in the North and the Southwest, and the temporary loss of the strongest industrial area in the rhineland it would have taken much longer for Germany to make so much money. All in all, the treaty of Versailles was harsher than it is concluded here.
@@yeetspageet6707 that's just not true. The only region where the majority of people were non-Germans was in northern Schleswig, which was conquered from Denmark 1864. In Elsass-Loraine the population was very mixed, too and many people wanted to be part of France, but only after the treaty because they saw how harsh the conditions for Germans have been. The biggest parts of Land that were lost from Germany has been in the east though and that's all been majority German populated land where the majority of people wanted to remain in Germany. That was a big part of the conflict that started WW2 in Europe.
@@jop7955 the Eastern lands were majority polish, not German. The city of Danzig was majority German, but the rest was Polish, and had been taken from Poland by Prussia during the partitions of Poland.
Historian Victor Davis Hansen said that the Treaty of Versailles was "simultaneously too harsh and not harsh enough." In that the treaty would have been better with a full military occupation, like after WW2
You only ever touched upon a fraction of what the treaty versailles actually decreed. Not only did the germans lose several times the amount of inhabitants and land that France lost in the franco-prussian war, they also lost all of their colonies, and temporary control of their rivers. The german military was cut down to a laughable degree as well. The treaty completely forbade a standing army of more than 100.000 men and without conscription, allowed no tanks, no planes, no Battleships, no Fortifications at the border, no artillery emplacements and no arms innovations and no General Staff. Furthermore they limited civilian gunownership and prohibited civilian military associations. Both of those were a blow to german culture which was heavily militaristic at the time. Additionally it restricted germanies right to self determination by forbidding the Anschluss of Austria and joining of the League of nations. And let's not forget the payment of reparations through an absurd amount of money, industrial assets, arms and even the restrictions of germanys civilian trade fleet. How does that in any way compare to the franco prussian war???
But you have to imagine that all the pride the Germans had was in the military. Some people even believed that the strong military was one of the primary reasons for the unification of Germany. And all of the sudden the big and strong military is gone. And with it your pride
This oversimplification overlooks how Versailles impacted Germany's ability to handle the Great Depression. It also brings to mind the old addage that "dead people can't hold grudges".
3:08 I think your underestimating this point,all the other territorial concessions you mentioned except the (Hungarian one) did not contain a majority of the nations signature ethnic group.
The same is mostly true for Germany, much of the Land lost had a Polish majority population in the other territories there was a significant population of other ethnic groups.
the ww1 treaties were also pretty stupid or malicious as you could have made countries around ethnic lines for ONCE but no, let's just give the land that is dominantly either German or Hungarian to some random people. Who could predict that this would lead to conflict, adding the hypocrisy of claiming that this war was to establish self-determination of the European people.
@@adamboh393 that isnt really true tho. elsaß Lothringen was nearly completely german and a lot of the land that Poland got had more than 50% Germans in it + add on top that Germany was cut off and the most important city of Prussia which was majority German (and the first place were the NSDAP won) was given to the Poles. What also is not considered her is that it is not really about the treaty for the German Kaiserreich, but for the German people. Czechoslovakia got heavily industrial lands that were mainly inhabited by germans.
@@alexg4711 While many in Alsace-Lorraine spoke German, their allegiance was a not so certain. Many in the region rather wanted to re-join France instead of being under the Prussian yoke (as they saw it). France actually managed to fuck that up in the years afterwards but in 1918, a significant part of the people of Alsace-Lorraine didn't want to stay within the German Empire. Ethnicity is not everything.
@@alexg4711 "a lot of the land that Poland got had more than 50% Germans in it " And how do you count that? Regarding Silesia - the split was a result of a plebiscite - with "some" amendments made - Poland actually did not receive many rural areas were it won, but on the other hand it received cities, were it lost. The split wasn't easy - as the area was pretty much German cities surrounded by Polish countryside. But that is Silesia. In the Posen region - the Census of 1921 showed 83% Polish majority vs 17% Germans; Pomern - Poles 81%, Germans 19%. It was no coincidence that these two regions were awarded to Poland directly (without a plebiscite like in Silesia).
This is like when you tell the guy that the textbook is way too expensive and then he says "No actually you see all textbooks are priced like this so this is actually a fair price
Fun Fact. The Treaty of St Germain banned landlocked Austria from having submarines. And the Treaty of Neuilly forced Bulgaria to drop its claims on Egypt and Marocco. And this shows why everything ended in a shitshow, when you cant bother to put effort into peace deals
@@ricardoguanipa8275 yes the British were afraid that Bulgaria will take away it's colonies what imbeciles i wonder how odd this must have felt for the Bulgarian ambassador's 😂
France was broke, where do you expect them to get the money from? From Tree's? Germany started this Bloody war and they should expect to lose a lot if they lose.
@@godlovesyou1995 Then the Prussians should have asked for 20+ years of Gov income as reparations. Furthermore even planning to Balkanize a budding Germany. To lose 10% of their population compared to 2%.
TerenceTheGreat what this video failed to mention though is the period of time on which the war reparations were to be paid. In 1871, France was asked to pay the equivalent of 5 years of Government income but only in 3-4 years if i remember correctly. France did massive borrowings to honor the treaty so that the germans who were occupying most of Northern France leave (they were occupying it to make sure they would receive the money). Meanwhile the war reparations asked to Germany after WW1 were very quickly reduced until Hitler arrived in 1933 and just stopped the payments. To compare both situations, France war reparations after 1871 represented about 20% of its annual budget, for Germany i found figures going from 2.5% to 5%.
I think that it is also important to stress that northern France and Belgium were completly devastated because most of the fighting on the western front took place there while in Germany not a single shop window had been broken
Remember that the treaties in Hungary and Russia took away land that was mostly different ethnic groups joinging their own nation or founding a new one, whereas much of Versailles was Germans being forced into a foreign nation (note how post treaty there were many calls to take back places like west prussia but not nearly as much alsace-lorraine).
Depends on what do you mean by "mostly" different ethnic groups. It was not as clear cut as you think, some areas which were taken away might have been occupied by those ethnic groups but a lot of territories were included where the hungarian population was well over 60% sometimes as high as 90% but of course they lost so they wanted to punish them so nobody really cared apart from Hungarians.
Yes and no. They tended to be regions that had a mixed German-Foreign that was only populated by Germans due to the Crusader states of the Teutons and Livonians. East Prussia was a Baltic cultured region until the Teutons came knocking. So countries like Lithuania and Poland would have greater territorial claim to the region, if not an ethnic one.
I knew this video was BIASED as all hell when he FAILED to mention this one factor, land taken there were Germans STILL in it, while Hungarians still kept with other Hungarians AWAY from other ethnic groups, it’s like people don’t believe race is a real thing and it pisses me off, Asian here seeing a lot of race wars in “diversity” influenced areas
Versailles did impact the German industrial capacity, the loss of Upper Silesia and the Saarland resulted in a 50% loss of the nations coal. Additionally the loss of Lorraine was about 2/3 the iron resources in Germany. Add to that the seizure of the Rheinland and the coal reparations and we can understand why German industry immediately went into a depression
Twas a weird situation where Belgium and France devasted by the war itself in their own industrial heart sought the german ressources to be able to rebuild, but at the same time those ressources couldve been used by Germany to pay the debt it owed France which in return would be used to pay the rest that France owed others namely the US and UK. However for France that still meant their industrial heart was still destroyed and would not quickly recover while they saw as injustice thzt the Industrial capacity of Germany was globally left intact if unused due to depression and change in everything else. Ultimately theres no right and wrong in Versailles, only bitter nations looking to end the fight that costed a generation
@fanis141414 Austria lost over 90% of its lands and was reduced to a puny little state with no power, the entirety of the ottoman empire got abolished and turks wouldve almost ended up with no homeland if it wasnt for further resistance. Whats up with germans claming germany was all alone to get blamed? Their allies got punished way worse.
@@Deguu68 Germans claim that they got all the blame for the war because it was specifically spelled out like that by the Allies. The Turkish almost ending up with no homeland is fiction and fantasy.
@@Deguu68 You're making it too easy for yourself. By the time the war ended, Austria-Hungary was a failed state anyway, which ceased to exist in that form. Just like the Ottoman Empire. Above all, Austria lost territory because the majority of the population was not German. The country was thus transformed into its individual ethnic parts. The Ottoman Empire also ruled many different cultural areas, while the German Empire also lost many parts of the country, with the German population being the majority.
"This is not a peace , this is an armistice for twenty years" Marechal Foch Treaty of Versailles was castrophic at most for France, England and USA allied themselves against France (France wanted to destroy Germany, and reverse it into separate state like before 1871, but England [balance of power ] and USA [ large german community, mercantilism and keynesianism] wanted that Germany remained intact and almost untouched. That treaty provocked many frustation especially in the french army (officers or soldiers who tought they fight for nothing, and they were right). So the victim was Austria Hungary (treaty of St Germain) because USA and England didn't care about the former Empire, and beside Wilson enjoyed his delusionnal dream of his 14points. Beside during the Congress of Versailles, England sided with USA because France was at risk to became too powerful (annexion of the Rhine and destruction of Germany) on the continent and England with his "balance of power" couldn't accept it. The final treaty was accepted because Clemenceau was anglophilic, he also believe in the future Society of Nation. But the treaty was a abomination in the french army. Foch: "This is not a peace , this is an armistice for twenty years", Marshall D'Esperey, commander of the Oriental Force (Serbia, Fr, Eng and Greece) agreed with him.
I don't believe for a second that splitting up Germany again would have prevented another major war. Germans would have tried a unification again, and just like in 1870/71 with war if necessary.
Britain and the U.S. conceded to French demands as the war was in their country. Nobody feared France becoming more powerful as a stable France meant security in Europe.
Barffield French only defend their land and heritage from invaders , France is the oldest country of Europe , the French are the oldest people to , all the country you see around France are frabrication with no real history they have only myths , legend and mythology in their history , they fought against France during 1500 years to grab some part of the land , look the history of France which start with the Franks so many invaders !
It can’t be understated that the Brest-Livosk treaty had the potential to neuter the Russian Empire, which probably would have been good for the future. But who knows the butterfly effect it would have on other things.
The Versailles Settlement was so strange because it was a combination of old-fashioned post war land grab, and new Wilsonian self-determination settlement
Another recommendation people may enjoy is The Economic Consequences of Peace my J Keynes. An incredibly well written analysis, regardless of what you think of "Keynesian theories"
@@freewal Oh really? I wasn't aware of that! I more enjoyed it from a historical, primary source perspective and it was a really entertaining read. Though, given it was written so long ago, I didn't really expect the quantitative results it reported to be of a super high quality. Care to cite any authors or papers?
2:22 Just want to point out a tiny but significant blunder. The Rhineland was demilitarised, and the Saar was given to the French for 15 years. Hope it clears anybody’s confusions (if they had any anyway).
Dont forget that Germany also lost all their colonies in Africa and Asia.
And the German part of Austria-Hungary wasn't allowed to join Germany.
@@callummason6589 lol
Like most of this treaty, the loss of the colonies was a blow to pride but had very little effect on the German economy. Or rather, it was better for their economy because basically all of the colonies ran financial losses.
Well big deal they lost a singe sausage factory in tanganyika
Well, Austria-Hungary lost all their's too, except their colonies were all in Europe and considered part of Austria and Hungary. Sorta how US historians say that the US wasn't imperialist until they gained overseas land after the Spanish-American war, despite the US spending the 19th century buying and conquering the rest of what it is now.
the French general Foch said of the Versailles peace treaty: This is not a peace treaty, this is a 20 year truce. He was off only a few months....
EDIT Dec. 2022: I have since changed my views after the responses I received plus further research and this no longer reflects my thoughts. However, I'm going to leave this comment up in case anyone else was pondering what I was thinking.
If anything, the treaty was not harsh enough, even if it had some of Foch's recommendations. Germany should have been split up entirely into at least four nations (Hanover, Bavaria, Rhineland and a new smaller Prussia), with a 50-year ban on reunification. ALL of East Prussia should have been given to Poland, not just the corridor (this would have made the region 10x more stable). These measures would have gone a long way in preventing a demagogue like Hitler and would have (for the most part) simply reverted Germany back to it's pre-1870s status. I've never understood why France or the other Allies never considered this. If Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans could be dissolved, why not Germany?
@@thunderbird1921 Because Germans had the feeling that they were one people (even including Austria). Mainly because they all had the same language (German). The peoples in the Austrian-Hungarian empire did not feel Austrian-Hungarian at all. They spoke many different languages. Splitting up Germany into four parts would have caused another war even sooner, I fear.
@@thunderbird1921 Germany wasn't that diverse as compared to Austria Hungary or the Ottomans... moreover the dissolution of the Austro Hungarian and the Ottoman Empire was mainly because of seperatist movements. Germany didn't have any. The people considered themselves as being Germans rather than Prussian or Bavarian.
@@thunderbird1921 Man, giving ethnically german land to poland will just fuck them up even more.
When the Allies in 36 appeased, the treaty isnt harsh anymore
The Treaty of Versailles struck the perfect balance between being just harsh enough that the Germans would want to start another war over it, and just lenient enough that they had a reasonable shot at winning it.
Agreed to avoid them starting a Second World War it needed to be actually harsh. That said, as bad as WW2 was, without it it would be hard to say how atomic bombs and their usage would have developed. Our WW2 may have actually prevented an Atomic War happening in the 20th Century.
The treaty wasn't lenient enough for them to get this strong. They broke the treaty numerous times before the second world War begun, but brittish foreign policy refused to punish Germany for doing so, and intervened on their behalf for anyone who tried to. Britain was solely responsible for the treaty failing.
yes
@@xartecmana yes.
They don't even say that the anglo-saxons prevented France from entering Berlin and occupying it as it should have.
For me, the main responsible for these wars are the british
@@wertyuiopasd6281 And France
Second Reich: we lost a lot of territory. This was super unfair.
Austro-Hungarian empire: you guys still have territory?!
At least Germany's territory had Germans in it
@@whitezombie10 tyrol was austrian
@@r.o.b8728 nope, it was part of the conquered Italy
@@whitezombie10 are you dumb
south tyrol was a part of the austrian-hungarian empire look at a map
and that area is full of germans not italians
@@r.o.b8728 it isn't the only area with Germans
France in 1806: Bruh what if we broke up the Holy Roman Empire?
France in 1918: Bruh what if we broke up Germany and recreated the Holy Roman Empire?
SSH-40 love this
France in 1945: Bruh what if we broke up Germany and recreated the Weimar Republic?
Good one! Turns out the HRE worked. It kept all the battles on German soil.
@@Dayvit78 Militarily speaking? Maybe. Politically speaking? No. The HRE was pretty much a complete mess.
@@Gamerguy826 Yep, I was talking about from the French perspective. It kept the wars off French soil.
The big problem is that the Germans didn't really feel like they'd lost. The entire war had been waged outside of Germany, and the German government sued for peace before they were really pushed back. So the German people felt like they shouldn't be treated like a conquered nation. By contrast, most of the other, harsher treaties were imposed on countries that had actually been conquered, or at least successfully invaded. And probably the harshest part was the moral effect of being forced to accept sole responsibility for the war, which is an obviously idiotic assertion to begin with. More responsible than other major powers, maybe - but only slightly so. Nobody in Europe was free of blame for setting up WW1 to start and be unbelievably horrific.
Regardless of your opinion on how harsh the Treaty of Versailles was, though, I think we can all agree that World War I was a really bad idea for everybody involved.
Thats so true
And for the record the germans were wrong,they had been uterly defeated and thats the only reason their government sued for peace.
In fact an allied general said that after the german armh had disintegrated in the last weeks of the war they should have pushed into germany so that there arent any illusions about who won as there was nobody stopping them
Austria got completely dismantled though. The treaty was arguably harsher for them.
Besides, the war was lost on what, for the commoner, seemed like impssible circumstances: the germans had just defeated the russians, and by bringing this massive force from the east were now much better prepared on the western front. If, without this forces, they had been able to withstand for so long, with them, victory seemed certain. And consdiering that as soon as this forces arrived the germans launched the Kaiserschlacht which was a huge success at first and broke the stalemate, it would seem that victory was at their hands. And all of a sudden... they lost. Like, for a commoner... out of fucking nowhere. One day they were just about to walk on paris and the next they had just lost the war. It seemed like cheating. Partly due to the fact that german's defeat on WW1 is an extremely unusual one as I have explained, and partly due to that the reasons why germany lost were very new kind of reasons, uncommon on wars before the era of industrialization: germany kept winning battles on the spring offensive, but its supply line was strained and its lack of resources dampered its industrial capacity, all concpets that were relatively new for the art of war and that a commoner would never understand. For them, assessing the reasons of why germany lost was completely outside their comprehension, and thus a simplier explanation was crafted: the "stab in the back" myth, used both by bolsheviks and nazis to blame different parts of the nation for the defeat.
@@meandmetoo8436 I'd point out that the Habsburg empire was already collapsing before the armistice was implemented, so the treaties merely formalised the dissolution of the empire.
@@meandmetoo8436 but the people in the Austrian empire WANTED to be free
One thing you forgot about was that East Prussia was cut off from the German mainland. Most people could only get from one part of Germany to the other via plane or boat, which both were pretty expensive.
Or Rail, as one rail link apparently remained; a bit like rail links between W-Germany & W-Berlin decades later.
where did you got that from?
In the map it shows the separation, but good to mention it
Poland was granted access to the sea. Over the preceding centuries, before the Partition, Germans had been cutting off Polish access to the Baltic.
@@Vitorruy1 From a map you fucking peanut
The Treaty of Versailles was seen as harsh because this wasnt the time of multi ethnic monarchies anymore, but the time of nation states. The Entente acted like they cared about the self determination of people, but in fact they split up many parts mostly inhabited by Germans and even forbid the remains of Austria to unify with Germany, even though this was the wish of the people at that time. In in contrast to that, Russia/USSR would "only" have lost regions not predominantly inhabited by Russians in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They also forced the Central Powers to take all the blame for the war, which was obviously not true and made the people in these countries very angry.
Sorry. And what territories did the Germans lose and why are they German? If the Germans settled the territory where the Slavs lived, then it became primordially German? Do you know the etymology of the word Prussia and Berlin? I can assure you that they are not of German origin.
@@ReSSwend What about territories that Germans once settled from Slavs that the Slavs once had settled either from Germans or other peoples? How far back do you want to go with this, exactly? And why stop arbitrarily at only the first settlement by Germans?
@@ReSSwend Probably the people that lived there in 1918 and not the slavic tribes that lived there 800 years earlier. Culture borders in Europe have shifted more times than anyone can count and no people have a primordial claim to any peace of land. There was always someone before, and there will be someone after. Especially in the case of the lands around Brandburg and Berlin which were Eastern Germanic before the great migration period.
Exactly.
Hunhary was carved up based on populations who wanted to be indipendant.
Germany though was just punished for no other reason then punishment
@@ethribin4188 Except for the Poles and the Danes
I had a heart attack when you didn't mention James Bisenette first.
Ah, Comrade Ponomarenko
Me too! I thought they might have had a falling out. James Bisenette and History Matters go together like dead characters and the *THUD* sound!
And I thought I was the only one who watched these videos for the patrion list :)
Spoilers!
But then everything feels familiar again once he hits you with the "...and Ike."
Harsh enough for them to do a epic sequel
Which they epically lost as well.
@@arnold3768 And lost even more territory, lmao
@@scan4707 third time's the charm
@@scan4707 only because they had to fight two fronts with little help. Everybody knows that 1v1 Germany would have destroyed the allies. Those pussies couldn´t fight on their own.
@@lialunare8196 "We didn't want it anyway!"
The great depression arriving while germany was already strugling with the reparations and then France occupying the rhur valley with its industry also has a lot to do with the perception of the treaty.
The depression started in 1929 (and really reached Europe in 1930). The French occupation of the Ruhr was long over by then, it had been in 1923 to 1925. In fact France and Britain reacted to the depression by cancelling the demands for reparations first partially, then completely in 1932.
This. The video was one of the weaker ones by the author. Only the video about king Leopold of Belgium was worse (from those I've seen so far).
Rhineland being occupied AT THE SAME TIME that Germany was supposed to cough up the money, led to a catastrophic inflation.
Also France tried to gin up a movement in the Rhineland to separate it from Germany, during their occupation. (That secession was not espoused in Versailles, so arguably France violated the treaty first, and also-arguably we cannot blame Versailles for it. But you leave troops in someone else's country, eventually someone is going to try what the Soviets will try in East Germany.)
Wow, I'm pretty shook at just how radically different this is from what I learnt in school. Context really is king.
The video completely ignored the fact that Germany had to give up all of its collonies, got harshly demilitarised and was forced to give up the entirety of its navy. Add to that the fact that no enemy had stepped foot on german soil for the entire war and the stupid decision to pin the blame for the war on Germany and you can see that the treaty really was ridiculous.
Err nope. Germany was the aggressor. They are solely to blame for the British and the US being in the war, and gave Austro-Hungary a diplomatic blank check to invade Serbia; ensuring the war with Russia [& thus France] in the 1st place.
Germany brought it upon themselves, and had no intention to be generous to France (et al) had they won.
@@fanis1414 German colonies were peanuts in their economy anyway. As for the « blame » put on Germany for the war, that is actually not true at all. The sentence just says that Germany and her allies are responsible for the damages they made in the Entente countries, it was just to justify the war reparations. There is actually the exact same sentence in the treaties with Austria and Hungary, which proves that Germany was never declared as the sole responsible for the war, which again was not even the Point of the sentence. As for no fighting taking place on german territory, well blame it on german generals who preferred to stop the fight before, Germany was doomed anyway, its Army was in Full retreat and all its allies had surrendered.
@@jimtaylor294 the war didn't have one agressor. Every participante was an agressor in its own right, that's why you can't blame anyone for starting it. Every state is to blame for it.
@@Juan444tv Even the Serbs that opposed the annexation of Bosnia, eh?
One of the reasons that the Treaty of Versailles was seen as harsh was because the frontline never entered in German territory, which sounds like a good thing but at the eyes of many germans the war wasn't lost yet.
Now knowing how brutal that war was I wouldn't have complained, but for someone that have been in a society focussed on the war and with a lot of war propaganda it's a different story.
@Fabian Kirchgessner the whole point of the video is Germany wasn't all that harmed, but felt is as a loss of pride. All I can say to that is "get over it."
Sean Kennedy Except that what you're spewing is a load of bullshit. Imagine fucking believing a propaganda made a century ago
@Fabian Kirchgessner It was normal after what ! Germany declared war, Germany lost, Germany destroyed 80% of Belgium and 20% of France. Germany had no factories destroyed, and Germany refused to pay its indemnity. It was not too hard. it was deserved, and UK and France made a fatal error by not destroying Germany by going to Berlin to show the reality of the defeat to the German People. Then Hitler played on this after saying that in Reality Germany was not defeated. France and Belgium was on the knees, with a lot of industry completly destroyed. The East region in France was the one producing coals, the energy source of the country and Germany had destroyed it. So no, Versailles was fair and deserved after the 1871 treaty, the annexation of Alsace and Moselle, and the indemnity paid after Vienne in 1815. As the video said, it was not harsh for Germany, it was justified. And Germany not even payed the war indemnity.
Fabian Kirchgessner the allies would have been to Berlin because Germany was exploding staring summer 1918. Massive mutiny, General strikes everywhere, no more support for the military dictatorship in place, and riots in several cities. Germany was doomed. Few months before Austria was too. So Germany was isolated vs the Allies.
I don’t like that some Germans still find some excuses for Nazism emergeance like the Treaty of Versailles. The Habsburg lost completely their Empire, Austria was nothing like the one it was. This was harsh. Germany kept a lot of its territory, and it’s industry which was absolutely key at the beginning of the 20rh century. Germany could have pay the war indemnity but they refused. In my opinion to avoid The Second World War, the best thing to do was to split German Empire in 2 countries : original Prussia and the rest of German states and put war infemnities in Prussia which was always the responsible for wars such as 1871 and 1914. Plus during the WWII, Prussians officers were the most favorable to Hitler in the Werchmact. Bavaria, Saxony, Ségur, Westphalia, Tyrol, were ok together like in the Confederation of the Rhine. But a top powerful Germany means Wars. Today I’m still not happy with the unified Germany and I think it could lead to problem in Europe sooner or later. Mitterand and Thatcher were against the German reunification. I think they were right. Prussia was always one thing and other German states another.
@@freewal Separating German Reich in 2 entities with their its parent country, Prussia, basically dismantled and forced to pay for everything would've been seen as utterly outrageous, even more so than the the OG peace treaty, considering the fact it wasn't even Germany nor Prussia who have started the war. There's no way the government would've agreed to this even if they were faced with an imminent Entente invasion of Germany and pretty sure population would've went along with the continuation of the war if Entente (but probably mostly France) wanted to do it that way.
Moreover, the question of Alsace-Lorraine, yeah, it was 70% etchnically German, spoke German, was part of the Holy Roman Empire just 150 years earlier and was took away by force from HRE. If anything, Germany's claim to Alsace was more ground-to-earth than France's.
Just wanna note that the northern part of Germany, Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark via local voting, the rest of Schleswig and Holstein decided to stay German
Also E. East Silesia and Southern E. Prussia voted to remain in Germany/Poland.
And Southsliesia was also occupied eith just the Tip wanting to join Poland and also south Eastprussia, where the whole place wanted to stay (exept for a few villages)
And Eupen-Malmedy might be rigged as the votings were open and people feared that if they vote to stay in Germany they won't get food from the occupying foces
@@DK-tv6rk because of German elite propaganda and because they used jerrymadering
@「 Deadpoppin 」 literally is. Upper silesia was majority polish linguistically. Who knows how many germanised poles there were there that just didn't speak Polish. Either way the German minority there owned the major institutions and used propaganda posters and teachers teacher students hard ethnic hatred of the Polish state
@@juniorcrusher2245 Silesians are not Poles first of all, and second of all they were at that point integrated into German culture.
This comparisons aren't fair because
1- the lands lost by Germany had significant German populations unlike the other treaties especially Trianon and Brest litovsk
2- it was the stupidly high reparations much much stronger than other central nations or France faced that made the treaty so infamous. Even British economists like John Maynard Keynes predicted starvation and revanchism
France was broke, where do you expect them to get the money from? From Tree's? Germany started this Bloody war and they should expect to lose a lot if they lose.
No and No lmao
@@zupnanazwa debate 100
1. Both other treaties still ceded lands that had large ethnic ruling populations in those areas. What, where do you think modern Russia gets its russian-speaker claims to Ukraine and all that? Was it only ever the Soviets who tried to Russify the western lands?
2. "Stupidly high" yeah its called the first world war for a reason
1. The worst part of Versailles was not the loss of land but the lie that Germany had started the war and was to blame which still is believed by most people today. Did Germany order the assassination of the Austrian arch-duke? No, Serbia/Russia did. Was Germany the first nation to declare war? No, Austria-Hungary did. Was Germany the first nation to mobilise its army? No, Russia and France did.
2. You can't compare the other treaties of Paris with Versailles as Germany lost lands which were predominantly inhabited by ethnic Germans while Hungary and Austria lost parts which where inhabited by non-Hungarians like Slovakia and Croatia. Same goes for Brest-Litovsk: That treaty gave independence to nations that had been under Russian rule but had non-Russian ethnicities.
Glad to see someone is of the same opinion. I've only recently started really taking an interest in WW1, and that was was the first thing I noticed, Germany didn't start it.
The treaty never states Germany started the war. In each treaty to a Central Powers country, they say "x country's name and her allies". They never singled out Germany.
Your second point is incorrect. The Polish corridor was mainly Polish, the 1920 independence vote lost them majority Danish North Schleswig. Only Alsace Lorraine(which was only recently part of Germany, didn't want to be part of Germany and treaty as a colony more than anything), the harbour city of Danzig(which was turned into a free city because Germany would be able to cut off Poland's access to the sea if they didn't have the port city) and 2-3 villages to Belgium to repay them for the war crimes and sheer destruction Germany caused on their lands.
Also, both Alsace Lorraine and the Russian Eastern European colonies had tons of French and Russian minorities so that straight up isn't true, they had been part of those countries for centuries and were heavily integrated. Alsace Lorraine was a integral industrial part of France.
France had a very close connection to Alsace Lorraine. It had been part of France for 200 years before that point and people were pretty mixed. That's like Mexico invading parts of the southern US and people saying it's okay because they're mainly Latino or were part of Mexico first.
@@tylersmith3139 Your points are incorrect. Alsac lorraine was a recent addition to france, being a bit over 100 years added to the french empire and, still to this day, is culturally german, despite many attempts by the french to change that. The Saarlands, which were quite close to Lötheringen, overwhelmingly voted to remain german, and Elzas Lötheringen would have done so as well, if given the chance.
Also it was industrialized by the germans, not by the french, which can be seen by the fact that the railways still drive on the right there, instead of the usual left in france, because they were build by germany, not france.
It is like russia conquering the baltics, forcibly inserting russians there, and now claiming it because of the "russian minority". Dont forget france invaded the german kingdoms 27 times in the two centuries leading up to 1870)
Yes, a small part was given to belgium as compensation, but no one is stating that was too harsh.
@@tylersmith3139 The Polish Corridor has a roughly equal amount of Germans and Poles, splitting core Prussian land off from the German heartland is impractical and honestly stupid.
1:53 Stalin's glare... he's not holding the Soon sign, but he's thinking it.
he’s trying to see if Simo is hiding in the trees
im commenting to remember this comment
Surprised that you didn't compare it to the Congress of Vienna where France was able to keep all of its original territory.
It even kept a few possessions it gained through war
which of the several treaties of vienna?
@@Ajee02 After Napoleonic wars
@Trz That and some of the Victors didn't want to weaken France too much, fearing that doing so would only further upset the Balance of Power in Europe, the Restoration of which was the whole point of the Congress.
@plentyness One major factor was that France's instability was blamed for the French Revolution, which threatened the monarchies of Europe and allowed someone like Napoleon to rise and spread war over the entire continent. At the Congress of Vienna, the general consensus was that Europe needed to be made stable. Napoleon had spread all of France's liberal ideas and even dismantled the traditional feudal nobility, which left most of Europe very unstable. The idea was that if a lasting balance of powers was to be made, Europe needed France stable since the French People weren't simply going to go away.
2:38 damn, this was really unexpected. i was frightened for a moment.
me too i was looking away and was shooook
Yes
The treaty includes no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe - nothing to make the defeated central empires into good neighbours, nothing to stabilise the new states of Europe, nothing to reclaim Russia; nor does it promote a compact of economic solidarity among the allies themselves; no arrangement was reached at Paris for restoring the disordered finances of France and Italy, or to adjust the systems of the old world and the new.
-Keynes
One of the few who realized the mistake in Paris early on. It doesn’t matter how harsh a treaty is compared to another, the context is important. This includes also the role a country has in a system, like the central powers had in the economy of Europe. In the end, it would be enough to not just be a burden on europe but especially on the young Weimar Republic. It would became a perfect breading ground for radical ideas and ideologies, especially when the life’s of millions are heavily affected by it. A machine doesn’t work when their parts are broken. The best way to compare it is a jenga tower, you can take but it will destabilize you. You take too much and the entire thing will come crushing down at you, in one way or another. The best way would have been by not taking much or nothing it all and instead stabilizing it and prevent others to take pieces out of it. It was this lesson the world had yet to learn, just good they did and created the EU, it was this concept that was needed at the time. Not being harsh or even more harsh, but deciding for a solution that has solidarity in it.
It certainly ruined future diplomatic relations as well as it scrapped Europe’s economy. Especially when we look at the Weimar Republic, one of the most liberal democracies at the time, but permanently pushed down by the treaties. The treaty made it a huge problem to stabilize the country, using the remaining armed forces to “solve problems” was another portion of oil into the fire. They tried to extinguish the flames but couldn’t because the source was simply too hot. The most impressive thing about Germany at this time was that they actually managed, for a short time, to successfully manage the huge problems of the treaty. Still, just as people like Keynes predicted, it was dangerous. The stability (they seriously called it the golden years of the Weimar Republic) was very thin. It needed just one accident to drag the entire nation back to the start, back into the chaos. Imagine we end up in a conflict with China and propose a Versailles treaty, (or even more laughable) an even harsher treaty on them. The economy and so the entire world would collapse into unforeseen chaotic consequences. Their population would in no way be able to preserve enough food and other needed resources. Their government would fail at managing the damage. Term after term they fail until people are so tired of it they start listening to radicals. This treaty was a bad idea, for everyone.
Very good analysis! I totally agree with you that the aftermath of WW2 with the Marshall-plan and the Franco-German alliance initiated by de Gaul was what has ensured peace in Western Europe for more than 70 years. In essence, one has to ensure that all countries will be interested in upholding the status quo. By isolating and severely punishing Germany after WW1, it was inevitable that Germany would do anything to change the status quo.
True. It was a lesson which the world had to learn. And somehow, we managed to learn it some decades before weapons of mass destruction became "widely" available. I pitty the alternative realities where phycicists, engineers and mathematicians were ambitious enough to produce nuclear weapons before the world experienced the terrors of a global war (twice).
I am glad we were able to leave the savage thirsty for revenge behind and create a new peace deal that would secure a safer future for all members involved. Altho on the very few months of allied occupation they did imposed crippling taxes on germany but thankfully that was abandoned.
The years from 1910 to 1941 had several of the worst politicians in power ever.
Hitler, Wilhelm II., Stalin, Chamberlain, Wilson...
What were you thinking?! :O
Allies: You lost the war?
Germany: yes
Allies: oof yeah there's gonna be a tax for that
Nice oversimplification there buddy
Taking jokes from oversimplified huh...
Yep off with your head
Tax for loosing the war ovesimplified?
Stealing jokes from Oversimplified i see...
Yep there is gonna be a tax for that
Stealing jokes from oversimplified?
I like it.
Do you think : "When did people stop wearing wigs ?" could be a good idea for a video ?
I think after the French Revolution.
British law courts still require wigs for lawyers and magistrates.
@@peterwindhorst5775 Very pathetic. Little things like that which artificially maintains the divide in the legal system between the common people and the legal professionals.
Still happens
Yes
I think a major difference between the treaty of Versialles and the other peace treatys is, that Austria-Hungary and Russia would have lost most of those territories anyway in the next few decades, whereas in a considerable amount of the former german territory a mayority of ethnic germans lived. The multiethnic state of Austria Hungary had many revolts of the different ethnic groups and barely held together until the end of WW I. Russia became a few years later the soviet union. The countries merged in the soviet union had common foreign politics, but beside that they acted more like independent countries than a unified nation.
A little bit late, but two very important points you forgot to mention are:
1. While France occupied the Rheinland they instigated a few confrontations between Democrats and Communists(if I remember correctly one was nearly civil war) and made it difficult to keep the heavy industry running.(Not good for monetary reasons)
2. The great depression. Every western nation involved in the treaty was suddenly fucked. All of them needed money and demanded the reparations, even when the Weimar Republic couldnt pay them. And even back then german economy was greatly focused on exports, but nobody could buy(because no money).
So while most western nations only had to carry their own population through the crysis, germany had to pay those massive reparations. And the population knew this. There are many things to reconsider.
So no, the treaty wasnt exceptionally harsh for the time, but the circumstances made it much worse than being butthurt.(there is so much more, but most of it is already in the comments)
Actually the Great Depression led to the Entente powers forgiving the German debt entirely by 1932.
@@zarlg Yes and no. While the reparations had been canceled, it was so that Germany could pay back the loans it took to pay the reparations. To put the value of those loans into perspective, these were paid back in 2010.
But since the great Depression started 1929, there still was a lot of money put into paying reparations. Money, that Germany needed in other places, even before the Depression.
@@Mittelalterfreak93 I'm pretty sure the only country that didn't cancel both reparations and loans was the United States, those loans being repayed in 2010 were paid to the US.
Germany also got poor because wars are expensive.
German people also felt very upset by the treaty because they actually had the feeling that they were on the winning side and that it would just take some more time until victory. You have to remember that the war was fought almost the entire time (at the western front) on french or belgian soil.
And that State Propaganda was lying to their teeth to the very end (Every Nation did that but it didn't worked out well for those who lost the war obviously)
Finally, someone says it.
State propaganda and the fake backstab theory. Both leaded to Hitler’.
And also that the whole blame was put on Germany alone.
@@littlerave86 Did you even watch the video? The whole blame wasn't put on Germany, that's just pre WWII propaganda.
1:51
Finland's independence was already granted before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed.
also, that suspicious Stalin...
LOL, Stalin has plans for Finland!
@@WG55 though it would be 7 years before he took power.
Papa Stalin has a list, he checks it twice, he knows who's naughty or nice
He's not holding the Soon sign, but he's thinking it.
Stalin has plans of his armies getting their asses kicked by skiers.
Britain didn't want Germany carved up because that would make France the strongest power in Europe
Exactly.
To be fair Austria-Hungary and The Ottoman Empire literally stopped existing so Germany ended up better off.
I thought James Bissonette had stopped his Patreon for a moment and got quite anxious!
Glad to see someone else has noticed that particular reoccuring name
James Bissonette became his outro
LOL
No Adam Harvey though
I hope even if he does stop he keeps thanking him for his original support in legitimising the channel.
If you defeat a enemy, either hit him so hard that he will never be able to retaliate or let him go unharmed so that he won't have the willingness to attack you
Versailles did neither
It humiliated Germany to a point where hatred agenst France was insured for Generations while not stripping it of his industrial capacity to fight further wars
Actually, for 15 years the industrial part of Germany was occupied while Germany was still expected to pay the reparations so in this case, Versailles hit Germany way too hard.
While it didn't help them stop ww2, it didn't directly cause it
@@leonpaelinck to me this is such a great topic to discuss on yt comments... but I think that's arguable... one thing is clear, easiest way to get germany industry on track was using it for military and once you build the military what to do? the original motivation seems to be to take slavs land and kill all slavs (that one is pretty clear to me) while the war against france was "oversight"... I think Hitler thought that invading Poland he will get away with it with the politics of appeasement he had the experience for 6 years...
@@vranasm the only reason Hitler invaded France was because France and GB declared war on Germany in response of the Poland invasion
@@leonpaelinck he did it on purpose, he knewd about the french guarantees, he really wanted to occupy france
what do you think he remilitarized the rhineland for
That person has to put those spinning plates down someday, I salute their efforts
I think one of the main things bothering the Germans was that the treaty gave them complete and sole responsibility for starting the war.
It didn't. But that's how they interpreted it. Germany was called "the agressor" which she was.
@@leonpaelinck Wasn't Austria the aggressor? And Germany was just helping because treaty?
@@mariustan9275 Germany invaded Luxemburg, Belgium and France without provocation.
@@leonpaelinck They invaded Luxembourg and Belgiun without provocation. France was an ally of Russia which backed Serbia and declared war on Austia-Hungary.
@@leonpaelinck The provocation was the general mobilization of Russia and subsequently it's ally France and the fear that not doing anything will leave them crippled in case they started to attack. Given the instability, and so many countries being on the verge of war not entirely unsubstantiated..
Russia mobilizing and saying it won't start a war is, as we now know, not too reliable
Britain & USA: let's go a little easy on Germans with the treaty
France: no lmao
Well they were the ones that had to face the worse of the war directly at there border, and Belgium had it even worse considering they were a neutral nation that didn't want to get involved and war, but Germany invaded them anyway just because they refuse military access through there lands. You can understand why either of these governments weren't find of the Germans after that.
The north-east of France was utterly ravaged by the war though.
Britain&USA : "hey France don't ask too much war reparations from Germany."
Also Britain&USA : "oy France you owe us money."
It was actually more like “ugh fine.” As referenced in the video, France’s original plan was literally to dissolve Germany into multiple separate countries. They got negotiated down by the other Entente members, something which obviously came back to bite all of them a couple decades later.
@@pokefan20001000 Yeah, just dissolving Germany in several independent states is like giving continental Europe hegemony to France, something the British would never accept, and how exactly are you going to demand that the Germans break up their own country without occupying it first? Sure, the entente can do it, but remember the conditions of the moment, revolution in Russia, soldiers organized in councils, the Home Front tired of war, the USA with the idea of self-determination; Even if Germany were dismembered, it would take force to prevent a reunification, not to mention the great possibility of the Communists taking over all of Central Europe.
Germany- Versailles was so harsh
Hungary...
Hey Kaiser!
Hungary: "Welp, better red than dead!"
Many Hungarians (including myself and my ancestors) were left outside of Hungary too. Pretty gay
@@9wowable I am (and my Ancestors) also left out, and then we have to live in Serbia sadly
@@F22onblockland Hungary went communist right after the war
“Versailles wasn’t that bad”
Military History Visualized: “the occupation of the Ruhr was enough to convince even moderate politicians to support secret rearmament as it was clear to everyone Germany couldn’t protect its own borders...(The Treaty) came across as an attack on Germany’s economy by many companies who lost nearly every customer they had due to the actions of the treaty and the inability to build reserves”
@@arnold3768 “two wrongs don’t make a right”
If you could point me to where I said it was fine to do the whole world war 2 thing that would be great
I didn’t but I’ll wait, my point was that Versailles was more than bad, it was atrociously criminal as vengeance for the bitch slapping they received in the Franco Prussian War and an obvious move by Britain to remove Germany as a European power because Britain could never hope to defeat it alone if push ever came to shove
@@arnold3768 are you stupid austria hungary start ww1, serbia is allied with russia, and russia is allied with french. The war would not start if russia don't guarantee serbia lol.
@@arnold3768 France entered World War I when, after mobilizing on 1 August, its government declared war on Austria-Hungary on 11 August 1914.
@@arnold3768 bitch I’m not German I’m a Freeaboo
And yeah, because when the British wanted to destroy the entire high seas fleet of Germany it was out of leniency for losing and not fear of their own global position
Good thing that fear wasn’t realized when the americans...dethroned them as the worlds largest navy...in 3 years...but that is the power of hindsight
@@arnold3768 Versailles was so lenient it economically collapsed Germany and made the main political problem for Germany the fear that Eastern fucking Prussia could be occupied by Poland and the Germans would have no way to stop them
Also a freeaboo is most easily translated as american (free) fanboy (aboo), you may have heard of a wehraboo, those are the weirdos who think the Wehrmacht could’ve won the war
What few interests but is no less important was France's view and role in the negotiations. During the years 1870/1871 Germany and France had more or less equal populations. Also, France (even after the war) was still the wealthier nation. Even after the loss of Alsace-Lorraine (1871), the amount of resources both countries had was the same.
This is the vital difference between the Peace of Frankfurt and the Treaty of Versailles. Although it resulted in the founder crash, the German actors in the peace negotiations at that time were able to foresee any consequences in advance, which is why they were also able to regulate economic relations between the countries in their treaty. What had to be observed up to 1914 was Germany's achievement. Until then, the country had a population 70% higher than France, and it also developed into one of the leading industrial and trading nations in the world. The technological skill and Germany's ability to produce future wealth were unsurpassed.
France, on the other hand, has never been able to achieve such an achievement. Despite its prosperity and position as a great power, France had a falling, partly stagnating population by 1870. It had also fallen far behind compared to other nations (and their economic opportunities) in terms of the production of future wealth. All of this, with France's existing view, should become an important part of moving towards a draconian peace. France's actors in the negotiations embodied this most significantly. If we summarize Clemencau's view of the world, it quickly becomes clear how this contract could get out of hand. According to Clemencau (who stands for all of Paris / contemporary sources say all of Paris had become morbid by the time the contract was signed) war is an inevitable phenomenon that will occur between all countries. He also saw Wilson's points doomed and so their content. According to him, war is a boxing match: you can win a round, but it won't be the last. Accordingly, a peace treaty should not work towards securing peace for a long time, but should work towards being able to easily defeat the opponent in the next round by weakening it. “Equal treatment according to Wilson inevitably meant that Germany recovered more quickly and threw itself back on France.” - Clemencau This was decisive for France's failure to demand “guarantees”. Each and every one of them increased the anger and anger experienced by the public in Germany. Each individual clause increased the idea of revenge, to which France delegated reacted by drafting new clauses (for each clause). With Clemencau this world view was most strongly represented and completely rejected any other. That the 14 points were only enforced, even met with tolerance, was to reassure the President of the USA. France tried to turn back the clock, after before 1870, this was to be achieved by reducing the national territory and destroying Germany's economic transport routes. Germany's economic position, however, was one, if not the most important, cornerstone of Europe's economic system and population prosperity. That in turn tore the continent into the abyss. France's (Clemencau first and foremost) ideas of the world belonged to the past and were not directed towards the future. One thought only of the conflict between France and Germany, not of peace, not of the human problem. France's leading politicians did not raise the question of the laborious development of European civilizations or the existing system of order. To keep it short: France was mentally in the wrong age. Even then it was foreseeable that a cathartic peace would not be possible and, if carried out, would not hold. The idea of the Versailles Treaty alone was morally reprehensible and incorrect, as Keynes correctly summarized it as early as 1919. For all quarantined students who are thirsty for knowledge and find history difficult, remember the following sentence: You cannot turn back time to restore countries to their original state. In the attempt, the European overall structure was destroyed, as well as the European social order and its institutions.
Some interesting points; but it was still in France's best interest to see Germany broken up. Indeed; had General Pershing had his way the French probably would have got most of what they wanted.
Germany has the UK & US chiefly to thank for that not coming about.
Germany: *cries about Versailles*
Hungary: Boo boo, let me press F on the smallest keyboard of the world
Is it better to be split up, which can always lead to being reunited later on, or to be charged an insane amount of money and resources that ultimately bankrupts you and leaves you unable to buy even bread?
@@InfernosReaper get split up, have a communist government which purges its own people, wage war with several nation to basically live, get looted, then left to starve. 10/8 would choose the german option
@@InfernosReaper Hungary still had to pay ridiculous amounts of money too. We were blamed by all the other nations for EVERYTHING that happened under the old empire.
there is just a small hiccup with the idea that Hungary lost disproportional amount of land. and that hiccup is the fact that most the land it lost was populated by many minorities and not Hungarians. try not to spin this like it was so unfair
@@loranttoth5897 you are right. i said most not all but i get what you are saying.some land (like parts todays romania) were mostly hungarian. all im saying it is not as simple as hungary having its land stolen from it. it lost territory mostly populated by slaves to jugoslavia and chekoslovakia, and some land to romania. the populations of this land were mixed and no simple border could be drawn, like all over Europe and especially former austro-hungarian empire there are many minorities in all of this countries even today. and i get that populations being separated from their nations if a bad thing but it is immposible to draw borders without that being the case
1:53 I love how Stalin is eyeing Finland
Many people often forget that before 1870 - france was the main aggressor in europe. It always tried to annex german lands.
not quite the prussians and austrians were quite aggressive themselves
@@camm8642 prussian Mainly Tried to unite germany and the most aggressive span before Was with Friedrich der Große, Austria was more Diplomatic most of the time. Europes biggest aggressors were france
You kind of forgot a lot of things that happened adding to it.
Like the country being forced into democracy (which many people really didn't want), the abhorrend treatment of the Germans in the territories taken over, losing all the colonies, the massive demilitarisation of the country and the part where a bit later on the economic crisis happened and the french semi-invaded Germany and forced people to work in factories for them.
Simply a difference of skill
Based.
It should've been more like the WW2 treatment of Germany, though.
Poeple like to skip over these parts, don't they?
1 Germany wasn't forced into democracy, they had a revolution, and when the economy stabilized it was actually not that bad, the period was even called the golden 20s 2 if Germany didn't want to lose their colonies/territory, maybe they shouldn't have escalated the conflict. 3 I don't really see why being demilitarized is a bad thing 4 if you're right, then yes, obviously people being discriminated against is terrible but let's not pretend that Germany was any better with its non-german people.
@@DemocraticConfederalist33 i can agree with you mostly but the last point is a little confusing to me. Because yes, of course, Germany was also treating it's non german poeple badly. But that's not the point right now. It's just that the way the french for example behaved around german citizens was shitty and this of course left a mark. Not saying that it was out of the blue. It made sense the french were assholes, Germany made their country literally the battlefield and many poeple lost their lifes. Then again, an eye for an eye and whole world goes blind
The Treaty is not harsh
_unless you're the one its directed to_
🎶Thaaaat's life 🎶
@@maximec.6491 No It's not life It's shity diplomacy
@@maximec.6491 Some people get their kicks, stomping on a dream🎶
Maybe you shouldn't start a world war. Clearly they didn't learn their lesson.
@@DefaultDerrick It was Austria-Hungary dumbass.
The big Problem has been the "Germany is 100% responsible and guilty"-clause. This caused the "harsh" perception.
Germany has no idea how lucky they were France didn't have them be split up like they were before 1870s unification. In fact, that would have been a MUCH more effective punishment. I'm personally shocked the Allies never considered this, after all Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were split up. Make Germany into Bavaria, Hanover, a new smaller Prussia and Rhineland, with a 50-year ban on reunification. That would have also helped stop a totalitarian like Hitler from rising.
@@thunderbird1921 just like before France ,Austria and Denmark got their ass whooped by Prussia , 2nd world war was invevitable
@@thunderbird1921 Was France split up after Napoleon tried to conquer europe and lost the war? Why not? Probably the same reason why Germany wasn't. Balance of power. Nobody in Europe wanted one central power controlling everything. Germany and France balance each other. If one vanishes the other could take control other everything. (Obviously both Germany and France tried to do so). What would happen to all those smaller european countries if Germany and France weren't rivals (or one of them would not existed)? They would probably got "eaten" very fast.
@@thunderbird1921 you do realize that Austria-Hungary fell apart before the treaty was signed, right?
If I Recall Correctly, the Clause States “Germany and Her Allies”, Just as The Treaty of San-Germain States “Austria and Her Allies”. The Treaty Indeed States the War’s Instigation Had Been Austria-Hungary’s Declaration of War.
Before the outbreak of World War I, Europe was truly a complex network: Nations exchanged coal and steel and traded machinery and food. This was made possible thanks to a complex transport system, convertible currencies and low tariffs. The German Empire was the largest economic machine on the European continent. It not only supplied its neighbors with goods, but also a large part of the capital necessary for their development. Germany was the central pillar of the system around which the rest of the European economic system was grouped. The Treaty of Versailles had largely destroyed the economic network, which was decisive for Europe's later development. People who say stuff like „the treaty was too lenient“ do not only understand a single point of basic economics and society as well as history, but live in the same childish dreamworld like Clemencau. No matter how more harsh the treaty would have been, it was foreseeable since 1919 that this decision would end in civil wars, economic disasters and weak governments. Keynes self predicted that the more harsh this treaty was made, the more likely it became that a new war breaks out. Everyone at the peace conference is to blame for the Second World War. They build the stairs for this catastrophe and put up the “where to go”- shields.
@@arnold3768 shut up flathead and read some books. Being simply not smart enough to get the comment does not make your bs right. Stuff like yours was already proven wrong by historians like Christopher Clark. Your the best example of the type of people who don’t understand history. It certainly explains why you’re lingering for weeks (if not even more laughable: months) under a simple history video. Get a life, or even better: get a brain and a life.
@@arnold3768 austro hungary start ww1
@@nexusu0044 are you ok??
Alright, I bought the book and f, I underestimated the treaty. It was much worse. But there is one thing I would like to correct: the economic system of Europe was damaged during the war: But you are completely right, it was hopelessly destroyed when Versailles was made. France and Italy misused their roles as victors when they tried to destroy their enemies. They were closely and indissolubly linked to their victims trough cultural and economic ties. Destroying Germany and Austria-Hungary meant destroying themselves.
Ok actually it meant destroying all of Europe, but you get what I am saying
Let's not forget most of the treaty was not enforced or just thrown away
Exactly
Germany: I lost 10% of my population after the war!
Soviet Union: Big deal. I lost 30% of my population!
???: Amateurs...
Germany: Who said that??
*Hungary with 65% of it's people gone* : AMATEURS!
russians lost more of their civilian population to german massacres than germany lost in territory but the germans were butthurt????????????????????
Russians are liars.
@ً The treaty of Versailles was harsher than originally agreed on in the truce 1918. So it was objectivelly badn
Tfw Turkey needed to rebirth after Serves treaty
Pfsif "Russian Collusion"
You should have mentioned the impact on the colonial territories, the restrictions on the arms industry, airforce and navy, conscription and number of men, dissolution of the general staff , types if arm/calibers they're allowed... I think was more than just a peace treaty exchange of territories
Yes, he could have at least mentioned that Germany lost all their colonies.
^This
The problem was that there were a great many other factors to the treaty most of which were open ended. There was no "100.000 man army for 20 years" or something, it was essentially in perpetuity. This was a treaty that was absolutely guaranteed to fail at some point. Treat a major power, even a defeated one, like a puppet-state and there will be consequences down the road.
@@hothoploink1509 exactly. the only problem with versailles was that it didnt go far enough. the allies should have gone for complete victory and dismantlement.
@@atlasbailly5439 i think you missed the point of the comment they went TOO far
@@atlasbailly5439 no they shouldn't have
You have no respect nor humanity
It couldn't be justified anyway
The treaty was unfair because it marked germany as the true and only country in guilt for what has happened. I as a German can say, that Germany for sure didn't act right in the years leading to WWI, but other nations like France or the UK also did some terrible mistakes that led to it. Everyone was basically up for a fight, like a barrel of gunpowder, that could be ignited by any small spark. The mindset in entire Europe was, that war was inevitable. So germany wasn't the only one, guilty. The only difference was that they'd lost, so they were to be blamed entirely. And this was poorly handled by the allies. Austria Hungary was a slightly different case as it was an empire that also had territories of many other people who were suppressed and couldn't be their own country.
In the end, i personally am happy that because of the ww1 loss, countries like czechia, poland or yugoslavia could finally become independent. But back then, many people felt humiliated. This does NOT justify anything that the nazis did in the 2nd WW, but it made germany very unstable and gave room for nazism.
That's what everyone is taught in school, that everyone was equally responsible for the sake of reconciliation. But if you read up a bit on the July crisis you'll find it's not true at all. In reality Germany escalated this regional crisis into a European war all the way, while France for example genuinely did not want war and did what it could to attempt to prevent it.
@@zarlg hahahaha that was funny joke France didn’t want war. It’s not like from 1872-1914 French politicians voiced anti-German sentiment and active voiced for open war with the German Empire for Elsass-Lothringen to be returned to them.
@@soundwavegamer2321 It is indeed not like that. Revanchists were a fringe party that was never in government. Saying the French wanted war is like saying the Germans today want to leave the EU because the AFD exists.
@@zarlg so the fact that when the former Empress Victoria made a visit to France and had to leave due to how violent a lot of the protests for her being there got means anti-German sentiments were fringe? France after their defeat in the Franco-Prussian war felt like their pride had been lost they had gone from one of the most powerful nations on the continent with a military rivaled only by England to a nation beaten by a nation that had only just been on the rise. They lost territory they had their pride shattered and now their new neighbors were seeing economic growth on a large scale. A kind of sounds familiar doesn’t it? The Frankfurt Treaty of 1871 was the moment in history were France went from being the sworn enemy of England to the sworn enemy of all Germans they despise Germans as they were a reminder of their defeat. It’s why after the war so many in the Rhineland when Hitler rose to power supported him because the abuse they had under French rule all for being German was horrific.
@@soundwavegamer2321 What "horrific abuse"? Point to me exactly what this "horrific abuse" was that the French supposedly committed? Anything that even begins to compare to the large scale massacre of civilians committed by Germans during WW1? The main thing that the Germans complained about regarding the French occupation of the Ruhr was that occupation forces included Negro soldiers, which offended German ideas of racial supremacy. And of course the Germans, who still believed their wartime propaganda about being on the verge of winning the war until the very end and were still high on the aggressive German nationalism that started the war in the first place, refused to accept they had lost which is why they resorted to conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot.
Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria: *Am I joke to you?*
And in some Parts of Silesia, that were given to Poland, were big and important coalmines (one fourth of German coal came from there) so there definitely was a big impact on an industrial level. The occupation of the Rhineland by France while Germany struggled to pay the reperations also kicked the industry down the road
These parts of Silesia given to Poland had Polish population which wanted to be the part of newly formed Polish state. They even started three Silesian Uprisings because they were so tired of "Prussians" telling them what to do.
Zogo 974 The division of Silesia between Germany and Poland was ultimately decided by the League of Nations with a commission consisting of Belgium, Brazil, Spain, and China not the treaty of Versailles.
The uprisings were while the poles were held and the only thing I can find is that an international comitee overlooked the division of Silesia that was written down in the treaty of Versailles. I would be very happy, if you could tell me, were you found that, (for serious, no irony)
To be clear: the area was split between Poland and Germany and the coalmines were also split: Poland received 63 coal mines, Germany kept 19. Poland received 9 steel mills (Germany kept 5). Also, as you said, Germany before the war received 1/4 of its coal from Silesia. For the newly independent Poland the Polish part of Silesia was 3/4 of its coal.
Actually, Germany had no problem paying, it just didn't want to. They crashed their own economy and paid people in the Sarre region to not cooperates to gain points with the revanchists.
A big problem with comparing the loss of "x" percent of the population is that in all the examples given here the lands lost aren't always majority populated by the dominant ethnic group of the nation losing them.
Alsace-Lorraine was majority German though, the only reason the French took it in total is due to its economic and strategic importance. If it was divided along ethnic lines then only the outer half of Moselle and a small slither of Bas Rhin would've been granted to the French. The region that Belgium took was also questionable. The only regions that were explicitly divided along ethnic lines were the lands granted to the newly-created Polish Republic and the South Jutland County granted to Denmark.
@@thehumanoddity overall it was, but not all of it. the southern and north western parts were majority French speaking.
@@a6s3 All of the ethnic maps I've seen show only the southern part of modern-day Moselle and only a little bit of modern-day Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin as French-speaking.
The most devastating part was the attack on the German economy, as many of its industries had been limited explicitly or implicitly
then how did they recover so fast?
It did cause WW2.
@@arnold3768 Why do you keep on replying to all the comment threads about how Germany should have been balkanized. Are you French or something?
@@arnold3768 Weird thing to want but okay
@@arnold3768 Bold of you to assume that. I think Versailles would have been reasonable if Germany could have kept their regions in Poland, The Germanic parts of Alsace Lorraine, and Eupen-Malmedy. I'm mostly against your frankly stupid idea of turning Germany into a second HRE. Tell me, how do you divide an ethnically homogeneous nation? Unlike Austria-Hungary, There weren't other ethnic groups.
@@arnold3768 crippling a nation so it is unable to start any wars sounds extremely stupid. You'd just create a hermit kingdom similar to North Korea. And Stalin would have still invaded poland and those crippled german states and start WW2.
Go on the Fascism Wikipedia article, press Ctrl+F, and type in Japan. It only appears once in a footnote about Imperialism, which was Japan's Ideology. And you still didn't mention my rebuttal to your claim of Japan turning "Fascist" after WW1. It annexed Korea far before WW1. Also, being Racist =/= Being Fascist. The Confederates weren't Fascist, even though they had similar views.
Crash Course states in their WW1 video that Russia was the first to pre-emptively mobilize. They didn't attack first, but they were the first to prepare.
@@arnold3768 Stalin would have still invaded Poland. Just because he invaded it later didn't mean he would have never. Eastern Poland had a large amount of Ukrainians and Belarussians Stalin wanted in the USSR. And don't forget the Polish-Soviet war. Stalin would have still tried to take those lands. Who knows, maybe he'd help the Spartacists form a socialist german state that he'd use to extend influence into western Europe. Your fractured Germany idea would only allow extremism to quickly spread and take over multiple small states.
First of all, I was looking at Fascism's page itself, which lists the HISTORY of Fascism. Second of all, Imperialism doesn't equal fascism. The Spanish and Japanese Empire treated foreign people very terribly, but neither were Far-Right economically. Fascism isn't just being racist.
CrashCourse is a channel with over 11 million subs. Also, In 1913, Nicholas II approved an increase in the Russian Army of over 500,000 men. They also had plans to take Istanbul from the Ottomans and turn it into Tsarigrad.
Germany: WINNER
Hungary: WINNER
Bulgaria: also here
Ottomans: WINNER
Russia: you tried
Wait what?
2:30
Lol
When the Ottoman Empire is a winner and you just get a participation award, that's harsh.
@@peterg76yt True
1919 and the German Empire...is dead *thud*
Technically 1918. Kaiser Wilhelm II jointly abdicated the Prussian and Imperial German Crowns on the 9th of November and the last German monarch, William or Wilhelm II.... of Württemberg abdicated on the 30th, and also on the 9th Philipp Scheidemann, a prominent member of the SPD declared a Republic
1938 and the German Empire...is alive again
@Hik :\ I'm aware, Nazi Germany referred to itself as the Third Reich. The Second Reich was the German Empire.
@Hik :\ Are you okay? Nobody but you mentioned anything about a king.
@Hik :\
You should do a little more history buddy, starting with the kingdom of Germany...
The Treaty of Versailles was more or less the reason for WW2. They punished Germany way to hard. Many people even say the plan was to destroy the country completely through the treaty of versailles. Taking away Germany’s military (from 4 mio to only 100 thousand) was a big humiliation for them. The country had one of the most advanced military and it was definitely one of the biggest prides of the nation. Another problem was that in the territories that got taken away from them there lived many ethnic Germans who didn’t want to belong to the neighboring countries (obviously). Also Germany could’ve never payed the allies with the money they demanded from them. The country itself was in a huge economic crises. It was only a matter of time before another war would break out. (And don’t forget that they lost all of their colonies in Africa and Asia)
It was also not fair that Germany had to accept all the war guilt for a war they didn’t even start in the first place.
Liebe Lina... Die 4 Millionen Mann die du meintest, waren aber nur die aktiven Truppen, die bei Kriegsende im Feld standen . Das ist ein voll mobilisiertes Heer, dass in Friedenszeiten, nie so groß war. Tatsächlich hatte in Westeuropa im letzten Friedensjahr, Frankreich dass größte stehende Heer. Deutschland, dass mit 70 Millionen Menschen, die bei weitem größte Bevölkerung hatte (mal von Russland abgesehen), leistete sich nur die 3. größte stehende Armee. Ich finde das sehr bezeichnend. Vor allem, wenn da immer von deutschem Militarismus die Rede ist...
It was the reason 😅
Conclusion: Not that harsh.... even tough it was more than 5 times as harsh as the peace germany enforced in the Franco prussian war. A war France started, and lost totally.
Also the peace that the Germans enforced on the Russians, was more a break up along cultural lines rather than outright annexation. Aka you could argue that the land Germany was taking wasn't all that Russian to begin with.
I think the largest problem with Versailles is Danzig, the fact that it created a large chunk of disconnected land, pretty much insured a future war with Poland.
Let me correct something: France started the Franco-Prussian war after the Ems dispatch was send all over Europe by Bismarck, which was a way to make France attack, so I don’t think it’s super accurate just to say they started it (the major defeat of France is the same at the end of the day whatever...)
Except ukraine which was actually mostly russian but after this f*cking war they suddenly started these national tendencies along with using their new language. If not for that we wouldnt be facing this sh*t now.
Ngl, if i was ukrainian under russia, and then have to starve under stalin, i’d prefer 100% to be a german puppet
And i’m a scientific socialist just to prove how much the ussr sucked😂
After a few treaties, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth basically stopped existing so...that seemed kinda harsh.
Then we have the Ottoman Empire...
@Yeahweat thebuffet How did you come to this conclusion?
Ottoman Empire was known as...the Turkish Empire?
@@mbogucki1 The Levant and Egypt were mostly Arabic and the lands beyond the Dardanelles were a mix of Greek and various Balkan principalities that the Ottomans conquered over the centuries. I doubt I need to mention Tunis being Tunisian. I don't think any actually Turk-majority lands were lost.
@Yeahweat thebuffet Oh, that is what you mean. I understand.
@Yeahweat thebuffet well turks fought a war to keep their turkish lands, look up treaty of sevres
@@MyVanir You could argue that half of todays Greece and large Parts of Bulgaria were inhabited by a turkish Majority.
It's hard to say though, they mixed a lot with the Greeks.
Every second Greek has turkish Blood running through their Veins. Even if they don't like to admit it.
Yes the territorial losses of the Treaty of Versailles were pretty "par for the course" in terms of similar treaties. It's already been said in the comments that Trianon and Brest-Litovsk were worse by far. And yet, most of the complaints about the Treaty of Versailles really involved the reparations that Germany had to pay. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the $132 billion marks that Germany was asked to pay was, by far, one of the largest reparations ever required wasn't it? Especially considering that much of the reparations imposed on the other Central Powers was eventually forgiven; while France refused to forgive hardly any of Germany's reparations. It was largely this debt that caused the German financial crisis and most of the complaints about the treaty. Also, the treaty essentially put all of the blame for World War I squarely on Germany's shoulders. I'd love to hear other peoples thoughts but it seems to me that, yes, the financial and blame burdens of the Treaty of Versailles were exceptionally harsh when compared with most treaties of the time.
You're leaving out that the reparations were lowered twice during the 1920's, and that the United States gave Germany several loans during the late '20's to help pay the reparations. The only reason this didn't work out was because of the Great Depression, which resulted in the United States retracting all their loans.
Also it was perfectly reasonable that Germany would have to pay for the Central Powers as a whole, because they were the only Central Power left with a half decent industry/economy, they were the only ones with the MEANS to pay.
Austria struggled economically throughout the 20's and 30's, and was reduced to a tiny rump state. Bulgaria became an authoritarian hermit kingdom and Turkey was definetly not in the condition to pay either.
Also you're wrong in saying Germany got sole blame for the war. The war guilt clause applied to "Germany and her allies", in the Treaty of San-Germain the war guilt clause was applied to "Austria and her allies".
132 billion marks seems much money, but you can't forget that western France and Belgium was completely devastated. 4 years of trenchwarfare has taken place in these lands which means a lot of landscapes were shaped in these 4 years.
J1any3 I would also add that by 1932, Germany was freed to pay any reperations at all
J1any3 Other people already gave several comments on why the war reparations were actually not really high. I Would just like to add that from the figured i found Germany was paying about 2.5% to 5% of its budget annually for war reparations (including raw materials and Equipment given). To compare, after its defeat in 1870 France had to dedicate 20% of its budget annually to pay the war reparations.
It was 269 billion
Good video. It should be noted that in the Franco-Prussian War German territory was left untouched, and yet France was made to pay reparations in 1871. By contrast, WW1 devastated the industrial heartlands of France and Belgium, and the cost or rebuilding this is what justified the high demands in monetary reparations, almost none of which was ultimately paid. They were also a sort of consolation prize for France which didn't get what it actually wanted, which was to dismantle Germany to prevent another world war. The French were very aware of this danger, and Marshall Ferdinand Foch, furious about the leniency of the Versailles Treaty which left the German potential for warfare practically unaffected, said about it "This isn't a peace, it's an armistice for 20 years".
Precisely.
Harsh enough that they started building the Death Star and the Stormtroopers had to burn books to stay warm.
I love these I just wish they were still 10 minutes...
Me too. Those videos felt better documented in terms of depth and were of better quality in my opinion. But hey it's UA-cam if you don't reach a high enough number of people, dumb down your content
But youtube also pays more for 10 minute videos. It's the quality of learned content not the quality of knowledge taken from it...
I feel the same but I feel like he is talking faster to get these videos out, and plus the animation takes time making new ones, etc
Yes, but the other videos went WAY more in depth instead of generally glossing over the general facts. I commend the work put in to find topics mostly ignored but I feel like they could just be additional info on a topic instead... I mean, if I could write scripts I would, but...
@@matanuskabutler7566 He was probably feeling burnt out from the insane amount of research that went into a 10 minute video versus a 3 minute video.
The fact Hungary lost so much in the treaty is even worse when you consider the Hungarian part of the Empire did not want war with Serbia in the aftermath of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and only agreed to support war with the condition none of Serbia would be annexed into the Empire.
and hungary could have been the "bastion" of central europe mostly because hungarians didn't really look for trouble...but the treaty of trianon smashed this idea..and after that the little-entent once more
@@cpt.brexit6392
they also got invaded multiple times to stop the monarchy from returning
I dont know why so many Hungarians complain ? I know they were treated very badly but this video is about Germany. This topic will most likely be a part of a different video.
@@wolfsoldner9029 i think because we don't deserved what we got after the war..and why can't we talk about it? the treaty of versailles and trianon was very similar and basically the same war just another treaty...
@@cpt.brexit6392 It just sounds like the germans had no reason to complain just because someone was treated worse. I also feel bad for hungary but this is just a different topic.
Did anyone else noticed how there is always this one guy who is talking bull about others while pretending to know everything better while everything he says is just his own radical opinion he tries you to convince is right while he ignores basic facts?
Anyway, congratulations Arnold, you’re the proud winner and defender of the just achieved title. I always have to smile that some people waste their time for hours to convince some strangers in the comment section.
Gee thanks for noticing me, now I'm a superstar.
And something you do is not considered a waste of time if that person is enjoying it.
@@arnold3768 lol get a life weeb
@@bimboo8101 at least I don't create another account just to tell someone to "get a life".
Actually now I see what's going on. At the time I'm writing this comment, the account "Charly Boner" was created 5 hours ago, and then wrote that comment 4 hours ago. And this "Bim Boo" account was created 59 minutes ago, and then wrote their comment 58 minutes ago. Which means these are all the accounts of some one guy, with whom I argued before. You created an account to call me out and then even more to like your own comment, so that others would start bullying me too. Let me save you some time and give your comments a like from me, because I don't care.
@@arnold3768 You do realize turning Germany into a bunch of tiny nations would have easily allowed Stalin to Invade Poland and those german states, right? WW2 would still happen, although under different circumstances
1:55 Stalin standing there like: “soon….”
While Finland: shit just give up please
According to wikipedia:
"Following the Treaty of Paris (1815), defeated France was ordered to pay 700 million francs in indemnities. France was also to pay additional money to cover the cost of providing additional defensive fortifications to be built by neighbouring Coalition countries. In proportion to its GDP, it's the most expensive war reparation ever paid by a country.[3]"
@@krim7 Wrong. Educate yourself and you'll see it's Britain who started the Napoleonic Wars by declaring war on France in 1803
@@krim7 The only war of aggression started by napoleon was the 5th coalition war, the rest was britain funding any and everyone willing to declare war on france, which they did 5 times with one just being every kingdom in europe declaring war on the newly formed republic 'cause fuck peasants.
@@krim7 this is absurdly of ignorant
@@krim7 Oh boy u are so brianwashed. As much as I love britian. Its a fact that Britain started all those wars
@@simsportif the 5th coalition war wasn’t even started by Napoleon. None of the coalition wars were started by Napoleon.
The Coalition started the wars, Napoleon finished them.
According to the man with fancy mustache this treaty was evil as hell
@Akram Labidi who invaded russia in winter?
@@superbstream8361 He wasn't that short but he did made a mistake by attacking Russia
The only thing I agree with mustache man but probably on different grounds.
The treaty was a joke. Instead of rehabilitating the German economy, it punished them pretty hard which caused a breeding ground of radicalization. Not saying the treaty is the sole reason for mustache man taking power but yeah. WWI Marshall plan would have been ideal.
@@madaz952 his mistake was in beginning an unwinnable war. The second that Britain declared that they would not surrender, Germany lost.
I don't think a tooth brush mustache is really a fancy mustache but other than that ok
The treaties of Austria-Hungary and Russia have been different from the German treaty though, because Russia and Austria lost lands where mostly people from different peoples lived. Russia lost lands in eastern Europe where almost no Russians lived and that wanted independence for a long time, so new countries were formed for these peoples. Austria-Hungary was divided by borders that already existed and new nations were formed on regions, where very few German-austrian people lived with the exception of Siebenbürgen, where a bigger part of the population was ethnically German. They lost some of their core lands to Italy though. But mostly it was more like a loss of colonies to Austria than a loss of their own land. By the way: these lands wanted independence from Austria for a long time, too and were opposing the austrian government, partly violent, for a while by then.
The German situation was different, because they lost a big chunk of their coreland. Even a big part of Prussia, which had a hegemonial position in the political structure of Germany. It wasn't mostly peoples getting their own country to be independent, it was Germans who had to live under a foreign government from there on. This lead to ongoing tensions.
Another big aspect that was overlooked here is the structure of society. In Germany the military was a central element of the society even in peace times. It was considered normal to serve in the military for a few years to "build the character" in higher class but also in the middle class. The extreme shrinking of the German military did not just leave them defenseless against their neighbors, it changed the whole structure of society.
It was mentioned in the video that the reperations Germany had to pay where as high as 20 years of government money. That's not particular true. It would have been 20 years with the economic output Germany had before the war. After the loss of a lot of territory, including wealthy areas in the North and the Southwest, and the temporary loss of the strongest industrial area in the rhineland it would have taken much longer for Germany to make so much money.
All in all, the treaty of Versailles was harsher than it is concluded here.
All the lands lost by Germany with very few exceptions were ethnically non-German or didn’t want to be german
@@yeetspageet6707 that's just not true. The only region where the majority of people were non-Germans was in northern Schleswig, which was conquered from Denmark 1864. In Elsass-Loraine the population was very mixed, too and many people wanted to be part of France, but only after the treaty because they saw how harsh the conditions for Germans have been.
The biggest parts of Land that were lost from Germany has been in the east though and that's all been majority German populated land where the majority of people wanted to remain in Germany. That was a big part of the conflict that started WW2 in Europe.
@@jop7955 the Eastern lands were majority polish, not German. The city of Danzig was majority German, but the rest was Polish, and had been taken from Poland by Prussia during the partitions of Poland.
@@yeetspageet6707 That only came after the forced relocation after the second world war.
@@user-yj7ve5zv9n not true, you can look at imperial German censuses to prove it.
Historian Victor Davis Hansen said that the Treaty of Versailles was "simultaneously too harsh and not harsh enough." In that the treaty would have been better with a full military occupation, like after WW2
1:55 Stalin eyeing Finland
@GameB Awesome _*Soon*
You forgot, that germany lost all of their colonies
Nah, We invited them in!
NOT HARSH ENOUGH
Comrade Hellas the treaty was too harsh u anti German French sympathizer
@MrRodpec yeah.. dismantling the whole army and forcing krauts into submission for 30 years would have prevented any attempt of revenge
@MrRodpec - What two chances? The first war you lost, the second war you were saved by the west and the cold war you got your asses handed to you.
2:11 132 billion marks is like 1 loaf of bread 2 years afterward
Germany: demands harsh concessions in Brest-Litovsk
Also Germany when France demands harsh concessions in Versailles: *surprised Pikachu face*
You only ever touched upon a fraction of what the treaty versailles actually decreed.
Not only did the germans lose several times the amount of inhabitants and land that France lost in the franco-prussian war, they also lost all of their colonies, and temporary control of their rivers.
The german military was cut down to a laughable degree as well. The treaty completely forbade a standing army of more than 100.000 men and without conscription, allowed no tanks, no planes, no Battleships, no Fortifications at the border, no artillery emplacements and no arms innovations and no General Staff.
Furthermore they limited civilian gunownership and prohibited civilian military associations. Both of those were a blow to german culture which was heavily militaristic at the time.
Additionally it restricted germanies right to self determination by forbidding the Anschluss of Austria and joining of the League of nations.
And let's not forget the payment of reparations through an absurd amount of money, industrial assets, arms and even the restrictions of germanys civilian trade fleet.
How does that in any way compare to the franco prussian war???
It might not compare to Franco prussia but if you compare it to sevr or any other treaty after ww1 it is quite lenient.
But you have to imagine that all the pride the Germans had was in the military. Some people even believed that the strong military was one of the primary reasons for the unification of Germany. And all of the sudden the big and strong military is gone. And with it your pride
If I was german at the time I would be angry as hell so I understand people which were supporting Hitler.
Germany: *W I N N E R*
Hungary: *W I N N E R*
Bulgaria: *A L S O H E R E*
Ottoman Empire: *W I N N E R*
Russia: *Y O U T R I E D*
This oversimplification overlooks how Versailles impacted Germany's ability to handle the Great Depression. It also brings to mind the old addage that "dead people can't hold grudges".
Obviously not harsh enough.
It wasn't enforced
3:08 I think your underestimating this point,all the other territorial concessions you mentioned except the (Hungarian one) did not contain a majority of the nations signature ethnic group.
The same is mostly true for Germany, much of the Land lost had a Polish majority population in the other territories there was a significant population of other ethnic groups.
the ww1 treaties were also pretty stupid or malicious as you could have made countries around ethnic lines for ONCE but no, let's just give the land that is dominantly either German or Hungarian to some random people. Who could predict that this would lead to conflict, adding the hypocrisy of claiming that this war was to establish self-determination of the European people.
@@adamboh393 that isnt really true tho. elsaß Lothringen was nearly completely german and a lot of the land that Poland got had more than 50% Germans in it + add on top that Germany was cut off and the most important city of Prussia which was majority German (and the first place were the NSDAP won) was given to the Poles.
What also is not considered her is that it is not really about the treaty for the German Kaiserreich, but for the German people. Czechoslovakia got heavily industrial lands that were mainly inhabited by germans.
@@alexg4711 While many in Alsace-Lorraine spoke German, their allegiance was a not so certain. Many in the region rather wanted to re-join France instead of being under the Prussian yoke (as they saw it). France actually managed to fuck that up in the years afterwards but in 1918, a significant part of the people of Alsace-Lorraine didn't want to stay within the German Empire.
Ethnicity is not everything.
@@alexg4711 "a lot of the land that Poland got had more than 50% Germans in it " And how do you count that? Regarding Silesia - the split was a result of a plebiscite - with "some" amendments made - Poland actually did not receive many rural areas were it won, but on the other hand it received cities, were it lost. The split wasn't easy - as the area was pretty much German cities surrounded by Polish countryside. But that is Silesia. In the Posen region - the Census of 1921 showed 83% Polish majority vs 17% Germans; Pomern - Poles 81%, Germans 19%. It was no coincidence that these two regions were awarded to Poland directly (without a plebiscite like in Silesia).
I'm losing it at the small (heh) under the Brest in Brest-Litovsk at 2:30
This is like when you tell the guy that the textbook is way too expensive and then he says "No actually you see all textbooks are priced like this so this is actually a fair price
Thats one hell of a comparison lmao
Except you already sold someone your old textbook to someone else and spent all money on alcohol.
2:06 6 billion Marks (Russian reparations) is *a third* of 132 billion Marks (German reparations)???
I‘m not a math genius either, but …
The Allie’s expected to receive a third of 132 billion marks, not that 6 billion is a 3rd of that.
3:19 need a video on that
Fun Fact. The Treaty of St Germain banned landlocked Austria from having submarines. And the Treaty of Neuilly forced Bulgaria to drop its claims on Egypt and Marocco. And this shows why everything ended in a shitshow, when you cant bother to put effort into peace deals
Bulgaria had a claim on Egypt and Marocco? Now that is some Crusader Kings 2 Level shit
@@ricardoguanipa8275 yes the British were afraid that Bulgaria will take away it's colonies what imbeciles i wonder how odd this must have felt for the Bulgarian ambassador's 😂
@@Dourios_96 Drat! There goes our plans at colonizing!
@@friendlywobbly9903 we were this close 👌
@@Dourios_96
"I will never forgive the -japanese- british"-the bulgarian ambassador, maybe.
Explanation in this video is wrong. The Treaty of Versailles was definitely harsh and was responsible for World War 2.
France was broke, where do you expect them to get the money from? From Tree's? Germany started this Bloody war and they should expect to lose a lot if they lose.
That really sucks that Germany lost all that territory!!!
Not really
It did give Poland its independence at least
@@isaywhateveriwantandyougot7421 yes, but Germany had certain territory, especially in Prussia, for years and years.
Where's James Bissonette??
oh ok...
wait
where's David Archaeologist???
What happened
@@Bradley2806 one of his most loyal patreon supporters wasn't mentioned
@@VinceOliver04 yeah thats a bit strange
Germany: So, how much are you going to make us suffer with this treaty?
Entente powers: Yes
Yeah kulturkampf and rugi pruskie was great...
The Treaty wasnt harsh enough.
@@godlovesyou1995 Then the Prussians should have asked for 20+ years of Gov income as reparations. Furthermore even planning to Balkanize a budding Germany. To lose 10% of their population compared to 2%.
TerenceTheGreat what this video failed to mention though is the period of time on which the war reparations were to be paid. In 1871, France was asked to pay the equivalent of 5 years of Government income but only in 3-4 years if i remember correctly. France did massive borrowings to honor the treaty so that the germans who were occupying most of Northern France leave (they were occupying it to make sure they would receive the money). Meanwhile the war reparations asked to Germany after WW1 were very quickly reduced until Hitler arrived in 1933 and just stopped the payments. To compare both situations, France war reparations after 1871 represented about 20% of its annual budget, for Germany i found figures going from 2.5% to 5%.
Guguss remember that France didn't lose all of its colonies, while Germany did
This was something that I was interested in but never knew how to research... Thankyou for doing the work for me and being brave enough to share.
I think that it is also important to stress that northern France and Belgium were completly devastated because most of the fighting on the western front took place there while in Germany not a single shop window had been broken
Remember that the treaties in Hungary and Russia took away land that was mostly different ethnic groups joinging their own nation or founding a new one, whereas much of Versailles was Germans being forced into a foreign nation (note how post treaty there were many calls to take back places like west prussia but not nearly as much alsace-lorraine).
Depends on what do you mean by "mostly" different ethnic groups. It was not as clear cut as you think, some areas which were taken away might have been occupied by those ethnic groups but a lot of territories were included where the hungarian population was well over 60% sometimes as high as 90% but of course they lost so they wanted to punish them so nobody really cared apart from Hungarians.
Yes and no. They tended to be regions that had a mixed German-Foreign that was only populated by Germans due to the Crusader states of the Teutons and Livonians. East Prussia was a Baltic cultured region until the Teutons came knocking. So countries like Lithuania and Poland would have greater territorial claim to the region, if not an ethnic one.
@TeutonenKrieger09 they moved freely of their own accord, because brutal conquest of war secured the land in the first place.
I knew this video was BIASED as all hell when he FAILED to mention this one factor, land taken there were Germans STILL in it, while Hungarians still kept with other Hungarians AWAY from other ethnic groups, it’s like people don’t believe race is a real thing and it pisses me off, Asian here seeing a lot of race wars in “diversity” influenced areas
Prussia and est Germany is rightfully Polish since XI century buddy ! As Alsace Lorraine who was stole from their mother France! They deserved
Versailles did impact the German industrial capacity, the loss of Upper Silesia and the Saarland resulted in a 50% loss of the nations coal. Additionally the loss of Lorraine was about 2/3 the iron resources in Germany. Add to that the seizure of the Rheinland and the coal reparations and we can understand why German industry immediately went into a depression
Twas a weird situation where Belgium and France devasted by the war itself in their own industrial heart sought the german ressources to be able to rebuild, but at the same time those ressources couldve been used by Germany to pay the debt it owed France which in return would be used to pay the rest that France owed others namely the US and UK. However for France that still meant their industrial heart was still destroyed and would not quickly recover while they saw as injustice thzt the Industrial capacity of Germany was globally left intact if unused due to depression and change in everything else.
Ultimately theres no right and wrong in Versailles, only bitter nations looking to end the fight that costed a generation
This is a great video, well done.
The thing that angered German's the most was the fact that the Treaty put all the war guilt onto Germany alone, which lots of people disagreed with.
because Germany was the only one gaining land , Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans were losing land deep in their core territory
@fanis141414
Austria lost over 90% of its lands and was reduced to a puny little state with no power, the entirety of the ottoman empire got abolished and turks wouldve almost ended up with no homeland if it wasnt for further resistance. Whats up with germans claming germany was all alone to get blamed? Their allies got punished way worse.
@@Deguu68 Germans claim that they got all the blame for the war because it was specifically spelled out like that by the Allies. The Turkish almost ending up with no homeland is fiction and fantasy.
@@Deguu68 You're making it too easy for yourself. By the time the war ended, Austria-Hungary was a failed state anyway, which ceased to exist in that form. Just like the Ottoman Empire. Above all, Austria lost territory because the majority of the population was not German. The country was thus transformed into its individual ethnic parts. The Ottoman Empire also ruled many different cultural areas, while the German Empire also lost many parts of the country, with the German population being the majority.
Entente: Germany, you lose the war and you are extremely poor and destroyed
Germany: I know
Entente: *_now pay 132.000.000.000 billions marks_*
"This is not a peace , this is an armistice for twenty years"
Marechal Foch
Treaty of Versailles was castrophic at most for France, England and USA allied themselves against France (France wanted to destroy Germany, and reverse it into separate state like before 1871, but England [balance of power ] and USA [ large german community, mercantilism and keynesianism] wanted that Germany remained intact and almost untouched. That treaty provocked many frustation especially in the french army (officers or soldiers who tought they fight for nothing, and they were right). So the victim was Austria Hungary (treaty of St Germain) because USA and England didn't care about the former Empire, and beside Wilson enjoyed his delusionnal dream of his 14points. Beside during the Congress of Versailles, England sided with USA because France was at risk to became too powerful (annexion of the Rhine and destruction of Germany) on the continent and England with his "balance of power" couldn't accept it. The final treaty was accepted because Clemenceau was anglophilic, he also believe in the future Society of Nation. But the treaty was a abomination in the french army. Foch: "This is not a peace , this is an armistice for twenty years", Marshall D'Esperey, commander of the Oriental Force (Serbia, Fr, Eng and Greece) agreed with him.
I don't believe for a second that splitting up Germany again would have prevented another major war. Germans would have tried a unification again, and just like in 1870/71 with war if necessary.
Yeah you are right we need to see the reality France have no friends only interest and we see this everyday ! VIVE LA FRANCE MOTHERFUCKERS !!!
Britain and the U.S. conceded to French demands as the war was in their country. Nobody feared France becoming more powerful as a stable France meant security in Europe.
@@54356776
Imagine saying that and looking at France's warmongering history.
Barffield French only defend their land and heritage from invaders , France is the oldest country of Europe , the French are the oldest people to , all the country you see around France are frabrication with no real history they have only myths , legend and mythology in their history , they fought against France during 1500 years to grab some part of the land , look the history of France which start with the Franks so many invaders !
It can’t be understated that the Brest-Livosk treaty had the potential to neuter the Russian Empire, which probably would have been good for the future. But who knows the butterfly effect it would have on other things.
Thank you! Very well framed as well!
The Versailles Settlement was so strange because it was a combination of old-fashioned post war land grab, and new Wilsonian self-determination settlement
Not saying James Bissonette's name causing alarm in me makes me realize that I've been conditioned to hear his name to signal the outro.
Another recommendation people may enjoy is The Economic Consequences of Peace my J Keynes. An incredibly well written analysis, regardless of what you think of "Keynesian theories"
Keynes was really based. He knew from the start the problems and negative consequences of this "peace treaty".
This book was full of errors and specialists criticise it. He made grave calculations errors for instance.
@@freewal Oh really? I wasn't aware of that! I more enjoyed it from a historical, primary source perspective and it was a really entertaining read. Though, given it was written so long ago, I didn't really expect the quantitative results it reported to be of a super high quality. Care to cite any authors or papers?
@@lol-xs9wz He was not. He promoted the idea of Germany being 'victim' and treated badly by allies with was used by Hitler to gain power.
2:22 Just want to point out a tiny but significant blunder. The Rhineland was demilitarised, and the Saar was given to the French for 15 years. Hope it clears anybody’s confusions (if they had any anyway).