We could not make this show without your support on Patreon. If you pledge to support us now, we will send out original WW1 postcards signed by the team. Patreon supporters can also chat with us live on Discord after every episode. More details: patreon.com/thegreatwar
Thank you for all the hard work. I have been watching this channel since 2016.....and spent 6 months binge watching to catch up to get current by 2017.
one question, why de image on the 4:51 there's a picture of the spanish king, Alfonso XIII, and a shield with the symbol of castilla? the league of nations reunited in spain?
A cartoon at the time showed Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau exiting from Versailles while to the left a naked infant is weeping - it has on its back "Class of 1940".
This is also another one: One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans - Otto von Bismarck (1888). Edit: 1898
@@jacklang3314Bismarck also said in 1898 that the German Empire will collapse in 20 years and colonies are tumours to the Empire, soo, yeah. Now you know how Bismarck always have a plan.
I've studied the Great War for half a century and this is one of the most concise presentations in any media that I've found. Excellent research and marvellously presented!
*My Father in Law Fought in that 'Great War' Alfred Collington (38605) Bombardier Royal Garrison Artillery at the Somme, Arras and Liévin (Near Lens) where he lost his leg but survived to later father his daughter - my wife today. 2 Sons 1 Daughter and 6 GrandChildren.*
One fact that I believed that he missed is that the US Congress never ratified the Treaty of Versailles due to the fact that they saw it as a time bomb for another war, rather instead the US chose to make the Knox-Porter Resolution in it's place.
@Wh0_Am_ 1 - the American government at that time was run by progressive democrats that were more interested in persecution of blacks and isolationism than they were about the fate of Europe.
I would say Versailles failed due to 2 things: 1) Germany's expectations for peace were conditioned by their near victory in the war. Their hopes were so high that the idea that they would be punished was unimaginable. 2) France's expectations were conditioned by them believing the alliance of 1918 would continue indefinitely. So, they expected that they could enforce the treaty terms with the full armed weight of France, UK and US.
So i guess for a treaty to succeed, the victor would have to raze the opponent’s country to the ground to not give them a false hope of a possible victory, as what happened to germany in the second world war. Which is why the UN is successful
@@marksantiago9841 The Entente Powers could have stationed troops in Germany without razing them to the ground and achieved the same effect. Razing an opponent's country to the ground after victory sounds like something Daenerys would do, given that she burnt down King's Landing after their surrender.
Germany knew they would be punished, they came close to a victory but ultimately lost. They were probably hoping that they would get an equivalent punishment to Napoleonic France, and to be fair, that is probably what should have happened. However, no one in Germany expected how harsh the treaty of Versailles was. I am a British, but damn, the Germans had it rough.
@@TheCimbrianBull It doesn't only affect us in europe. Look at the middle east. How many conflicts arise there because the british and french painted borders on their maps after the great war? The current wars in the middle east are not only america's doing but also a relict of ww1
Except this time France won so they wouldn't have to sign the humiliating 1871 Treaty of Versailles again, which was filled with all those war reparations designed to destroy France.
The reparations listed in Treaty of Versailles of 1871 were measured on what Napoleon imposed onto the German Kingdoms in early century to keep French war machine going. Those were not meant to destroy France at all, in fact, it managed to pay them back before schedule. If Germany would impose reparations measured on those of WW1 upon France.. France would have to pay for the rest of it's history.
Germany and France's back and forth really only led to centuries of conflict and alienation between two societies that were pretty similar. In the end two nations, or their leaders figured out it was better to cooperate with one another then keep fighting pointless wars
@@ilFrancotti No, the Treaty of Versailles was intended to remove France as a military power and threat to Germany by using crippling reparations. However, this didn't work because France's economy exploded, and were able to shrug off the reparations and remain a huge threat to Germany. The Germans meanwhile, endured the Great Depression, which destroyed the Capitalist economies.
The US Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles; the US made a separate peace with Germany in 1921. Thus, the US had no interest in the enforcement of the treaty. The British thought the terms of the treaty too harsh and were reluctant to enforce them. The French sought revenge, but alone lacked the power to enforce the treaty. So the Treaty of Versailles insulted the Germans and barked at them but had no teeth to bite.
The british were very hypocrital there. They got everything they wanted from the treaty (colonies, german navy neutralised) and then criticized the french for trying to ensure their future security through land acquisitions and limitations on german military. The British were safe forever while the French future prospects were still very grim with Germany having a stronger industry and larger population.
Surviving of Russia would be better for everyone of it s allies, and would be very bad for Turks...But this requires shorter war and more determined actions from its allies, Russia needed to be saved...
The Rhineland was occupied by the allied forces from November 1918 until June 1930! The last installment of the reparation was paid on the 3 October 2010, 92 years after the end of the WW1, in the amount of 200 mio Euros. Does that looks like "no teeth"?
@@MWWick Not enough teeth. They did nothing when Germany re-armed in violation of the treaty. When germany remilitarised the Rhineland they only made token protests. When Germany entered Austria as was expressley forbidden by the treaty they shrugged. Yeah the French occupied the Rhineland for a bit but the USA and British both pressured them to stop, and they cancelled a lot of Germany's reparations.
you all seem to forget the prussian-french war of 1870 the war reparation france had to pay was 100 time worse and they annex territory in europe from france
1815 - Europe says they will never have a war for 100 years 1914 - *World War I* 1919 - Europe says they will not have a war for 20 years 1939 - *World War II*
"Jesus" chose interests. DLG is on record, strutting around his hotel room, "evil emperor"- like dreaming about oil...."yes, yes, *yes* oil, oil, OIL..." ROTFL...
@@10karamel37 I think if Germany had been denied any armed forces at all, that would have hampered, somewhat, their ability to re-arm in secret. But even though Foch was correct in his assessment, his judgement was a minority one.
@@Norvik_-ug3ge yea but you cant just leave that big of a country without army they would most likely not accept the terms of that peace treaty and war would continue
It was Germany the one that first attacked Russia, France and Belgium, starting the Great War. The Austrian conflict with Serbia was just regional, and no one could guarantee that the hundreds of thousands of Russian and French soldiers who were already mobilizing near the frontiers of Germany and Austria were going to attack.
Asasas as if the mobilization of Russia, Belgium, and France wasn’t a gesture of aggression already? The war started the moment the Serbs decided to murder the Archduke. Germany was acting as a faithful ally. With hundreds of thousands of Entente troops arriving in The west and east, Germany was pushed into a position where the only option was to attack first. Versailles brought nothing but shame to Germany and did nothing to build a better world.
@@NoahWeaverRacing You could interpret it as an aggression, but by this logic the simple existence of any other country in the world with a military force is a gesture of aggression. Russia was moving troops across his own borders. There is no way to prove that they were going to attack. And in any case, they were nearly Austria-Hungary, a country that had just declared a unillateral war against Serbia. The Serbs didn't murder the Archduke, or at least there is no proof of it. One Serb did it, with support of a few other nationalists. Then Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to the Serbs, with 10 shameful points to humilliate Serbia. And they had just 48 hours to respond or there will be war (despite being no proofs of Serbia complicity with the murder). But fortunately, with pressions of Russia and France, Serbia accepted most of the ultimatum, with the notable exception to not let Austrian police do whatever they want in their country. This wasn't enough for Austria, and then they invaded Serbia. Still, Russia didn't inmediatly declared war on Austria, and waited several days, until finally Germany declared war on everyone.
Also remind, that between 1300 and 1870, there had been numerous invasions of middle Europe by France, with France annexing rougly 1/3 of its todays territory, with basically no mayor invasion of France by German powers, starting in ~1350 with the annexion of the Dauphine, and ending in the 1700 with the annexion of what was left of Lorraine.
@@w1darr please France had to defend against english hundred year war invasion, Habsburg holding territory in spain and belgium HRE etc. My point is Europe was up for the taking. Look at Prussia all the land they invade in the east. England and Prussia are well known to attack without declaring war.
This is how all countries everywhere view their opponents. The biggest problem was the Allies weren't willing to offer Germany a treaty that matched the power the Allies had to enforce it.
Wilson, the dude who presented the "Glorious" 14 points as basis of everlasting peace only to be completely complacent in the Versailles debacle and then call out David Loyd George for "Not having Morals". And people ask why some hate Wilson...
@@andreidodu5581 Who had a role? If I were to shoot the President of the United States somewhere in the world today, wouldn't he attack that country? It was the internal affairs of two peoples, with all of Europe involved. It was just an excuse to draw a map of Europe again.
“One may deprive Germany of its colonies, depress its armaments to a mere police force, and depress its fleet to the strength of a fifth-tier power. Nonetheless, if it feels that it was treated unfairly in the 1919 peace, Germany will ultimately find means to force its overcomers to be repaid. […] In order to receive remuneration, our conditions may be strict, they may be harsh and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so fair that the country to which we impose feels that it has no right to complain , But injustice and arrogance, displayed in the hour of triumph, will never be forgotten or forgiven. [...] I can't think of a stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, which must have proven to be one of the most powerful and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never been before stable government was able to establish itself, but each contained large amounts of Germans who wanted to reunite with their home country. " Loyd George For my taste the best quote.
Austria (With Sudetenland) wanted to join Germany but the Entente said no while at the same time granted such wishes to Czechs and so on. Double standards - for me the wrong side won and we got Stalin, Hitler and all the horrible stuff in return along with supid borders drawn by France and Britain that still make problems today.
@@yolomanolo2601 Honestly the Central Powers winning would’ve been better for the world. Only place that would have any issue would probably the Balkans and the Middle East with the ottomans, but with Austria Hungary and Bulgaria existing in the Balkans I doubt the ottomans would get much, and either way the Balkans suffered from Yugoslavia and the Middle East suffered from colonization and decolonization so its not like either place did well in the real world.
@Friedrich Alexander Unlikely. Unlike Germany, France couldnt have even attempted to overturn the peace treaty, no matter how militaristic or dictatorial it became. Alt history scenarios about a communist or fascist France are unrealistic, because German terms wouldve made defense of France itself impossible, let alone assaulting Germany.
Not only was Wilson the first sitting US president to visit Europe - and he spent SIX months at the Peace Conference. George Bush didn't send six minutes on America's exit strategy.
@@doomie21 Plus he was a starry eyed idealist in love his own potential to solve other people's problems. Washington has been in love with war ever since.
Not really: he knew he had a fight ahead of him in the US to get the Treaty ratified by a newly Republican-controlled Senate. He had accomplished the Paris part of his mission in getting agreement to the League which was to smooth any postwar difficulties: ironic that his own country was the one holdout.
Greetings from a German who oriented himself on the left side of the political spectrum an also serves his country as a soldier. Congratulations to such a well researched and neutral view on history with much detail but not so much that you would lose your viewers. You didn't try to put your point of view into your viewers but you let the historian figures speak for themselves and then us to make up our own very minds and get an oppinion about what that treaty was back then. Chapeau! Oh and also you got a new follower. I am looking forward in seeing more from you guys about the past of our world in the future.
I don't think Memel was ceded to Lithuania in the Versailles treaty itself. It was placed under French administration until 1923 when the Lithuanian government staged a 2014 Crimea-style "revolt" and annexed the Klaipėda region.
@E Fig We're talking about the part North of Neman. While you're right about the local popullace not being too excited about the annexation, the area was heavily mixed with about 1/3rd being German, 1/3rd Lithuanian and another having a more local Memellander identity. The German Empire wasn't as homogenous in the East as you may think.
This truly is one of the best videos you have ever produced, very insightful and clear display of sources, you've helped my understanding of this event greatly.
@@TheGreatWar Then you need to point out that they too had 'sole guilt' clauses naming them 'and their allies' as being responsible and that such a clause was not unique to Germany as was later claimed.
In 12th class we had a homeworkin history. Do a comparison of the treaty of versailles and the treaty of brest-litowsk. After that I understand that the germans did a much more brutal peace-treaty with russia.
@@RedbadofFrisia yes,its not uncommon for older generations in Hungary.Luckily majority of the younger generations including me are not really bothered by it and want peace.
@@jannikmuller5195 Da ist find ich aber auch die Steuerpolitik der fraglichen Parteien ein Faktor drin. Würde beispielsweise keine Partei wählen die weitere Steuervorteile für Großverdiener durchbringen will, wäre aber interessiert an welchen die eine anständige Erbschaftssteuer für Großfirmenerben, wie sie ja vom Finanzministerium gefordert wird und auch in der Verfassung von Bayern drinsteht, einführen will.
Bulgaria signed its peace treaty at the townhall of Neuilly in Paris. I visited the place in 2017. Up to this day we say that Bulgaria was "chopped into pieces" back then... I hope that the wounds are healed and we can create a stronger and peaceful Europe.
Bulgaria did bad choices back then. But that is the past and we have move forward. I am always astonished by the hate and the ressentiment from some countries of the treaties, particularly Hungarian. Hungary fought for the wrong cause and they did not want to see their local minorities enjoying the same relative autonomy they had from the Austrians. And at the end they cried of the consequences and still today consider that their territory has been stolen by their neighbour
@@walideg5304 De ugye tudja,hogy ez PROPAGANDA????Nem akarok történelem órát tartani,mert akkor sokat kellene mondani. Röviden: Magyarország olyan ország volt-ahol a MAGYAROKAT ELNYOMTÁK. Például 1850-1910 között 1 000 000 magyarból lett román.
Personal Opinion: Woodro Wilson and his spin on manifest destiny, pardon... Wilsonism, was perhaps the most damaging and damnding thing possible at this point in time in world history.
Introducing ethnic self determination as a guiding principle in a region that is historically very much ethnically mixed and that in the middle of War where everyone uses force to enforce this principle will create a bad situation for everyone.
@ Serbia got what they want and finally lost at the Yugoslav War. Only Tito and probably some leaders managed to give life support to this broken nation.
And also Wilson says this when the United States is a country of immigrants like if this was true then the United States would split up in small countries for all the immigrants that were there
I've always wondered, from a military point of view, what would have happened if after 7 months of peace British and French troops that had suffered so much for 4 years both mentally and physically and had just felt 7 months of peace were told to get back so to speak in the trenches and start fighting again. Especially if Germany left all French territory and made it overwhelmingly clear to everyone that as far as they were concerned the war was over. What then would have happened if Germany had just said no to signing. Would those same extremely war weary British and French troops, facing a Germany that had now left all French lands and made it clear they just wanted peace actually have fought. Would they not rationalize to themselves that fighting a now non aggressive Germany that openly sought peace not make them into what they had been fighting??? I think the allied generals would have a very hard time of it. Especially considering that there were already massive grumblings while the war was still being waged. How do you get men to suffer and die for reparations, for money???
There were some high ranking allied officers who opposed invading Germany due to the potential of house to house fighting, plus the reasons you mentioned.
@@johnwotek3816 It was not French Territory at that time. And the Food situation was much better at that time + fighting on their home turf would have made the Germans fight harder.
Germany was short food, because Germany was short fertilizer, because of the British embargo. The embargo stayed on until the Germans signed. It should have stayed on until the Germans paid the reparations.
Great video, and thanks for your work ! The Chinese delegation refused to sign the treaty because of the "Shandong problem". Germany had had colonies in the Chinese Shandong province since the end of the 19th century, and when WW1 broke out in 1914, Japan captured them. At the end of the war, China asked for them to be returned, supported by the US delegation, but at the peace conference, it was agreed that they would be transferred to Japan instead. This sparked outrage within the Chinese population, especially the young intellectuals, creating nation wide protests known as the "May 4th movement". As a result, the Chinese delegation was pressured into not signing the treaty, being the only one to do so.
Britain always seems to get a really great outcome in treaties while laying the blame at others (People blame France for Versailles when the greatest benefit went to England - no competing colonies and no navy).
@@gagagagagagagaism So what? A sovereign loan is a debt that has to be repaid, and France hasn’t repaid a penny to Britain since 1931. It’s official excuse for not paying is poverty, and clearly that claim lost any credibility a long time ago because it’s always been a lie.
I believe it was the great Winston Churchill who stated after serving in the First War, " the conflicts of our future generations won't be fought between nations, no for they shall be wars between ideologies. " Now that is one heck statement that echoes through these times.
@@heneraldodzz4978 In fact Hungary was ruled by Austria, Austria started the war, and they, escepically Hungary had a much worse treaty. 70% of its land was stolen. Even Austria got some lands... Whila poor Hungary couldn't fight because liberal and communist idiots dissolved the Hungarian army so Romania could easily occupy it.
I have to hand to this remarkably well reconstituted “Great War” condensed documentary which was undoubtedly very well presented and narrated by a perfect presenter. I’m instantly a subscriber and look forward to your Patreon supporting subscription options. Bravo, très fort et quel présentation.
The Treaty of Versailles had a huge impact on China that people in the West don’t know about. I think some mention of the May Fourth movement would have been appropriate.
To be fair France were the ones who declared the Franco-Prussian War in aggression. Yes Bismarck goaded them into it but it was the French who fired the first shots
Lets not pretend that Bismarck wouldn't have initated a war against France, if France didn't fire the first shots. Both France and Prussia were itching for a fight in 1870 and it was gonna happen sooner or later regardless of what you change about history. Prussia was just much more ready for it than France
@@larslundandersen7722 It's probably true that he would have sought war with France, but the fact of the matter is that France declared war. I don't think we can discuss history in terms of hypotheticals. France declared war. France was the aggressor.
@@RagingGoblin Aggressor or defender are notions that have no value in law or in a military aspect. It's only a political and ethical point of view to legitimate war. A country always saw itself as a defender, even when it attacks first for defending its interest. It's often the result of the war itself and the propaganda of the winner that create the aggressor or the defender.
@@vortex1603 Exactly, and as such the word 'aggressor' has meaning -- politically *and* jurisprudentially speaking, which aren't that far off each other anyway. Many treatises in the 20th century (between nations) boil down to 'who was the aggressor'. Anyway, I disagree with your point about the ethical point of view, and the populace; regimes around the world have always pretended to be the defending nation *because* it is essential to the people who attacks first. Would the Entente have found a justification for another variation of Versailles in the hypothetical event that Russia had marched across the border first? Yes. But history -- at least -- would view the document even more harshly than it does today -- and the people who made it.
Which was what Bismarck wanted. Another factor is that France expected the southern German states to side with them,but much to France's shock,they sided with Prussia.
No word about the Balfour declaration? The stab in the back which you at times mention and attribute to have come from within Germany was directly linked to the Balfour declaration. It was also settled at Versailles and was of key importance.
It's pretty hypocritical of Wilson to accuse anyone of not having principles given that he abandoned most of his to get the League of Nations included in the treaty. At least the United States Senate saw the Treaty for the abomination it was and refused to ratify it, making peace with Germany in a separate treaty. Personally, the Treaty of Versailles has always reminded me of Caudine Forks.
@The Great War Hey, guys -- thanks again for the great show. I would like to add a few observations. Concerning Versailles, I have to admit that the argument that the treaty was the best it could have been fails to respond to the claim that it arguably did break with the spirit of the fourteen points. On a related note, the word honour did not without reason appear even in what few excerpts you presented; for German academics of the time, honour was a central and integral part of the way they viewed the world and gauged a person's behaviour, including their own. To illustrate the extent of this belief, a regulated form of honour duels with live arms (mostly blades) and limited protection was not only extremely common around the time, but also looked upon with approval, thought to nudge youth towards responsible behaviour. (-> Germany's academic circles and clubs) I do not mean to imply that Germans were a thoroughly honourable bunch, but to attack what they perceived as their honour was something they were absolutely unable to withstand. Breaking the spirit of an agreement -- and how else could one possibly call at least the dismissal of self-determination -- did just that. The terms, from an economic standpoint, might not have been impossible to meet, but the attack on what they perceived to be their honour was sure to leave some kind of wound, and it was the height of folly to instil this humiliation when there was no need for it. Speaking of recent trends in research and unravelling some of the arguments having been made as of late, I personally feel that some authors (one of which you have cited) try to make the point that any peace Germany could have realistically stomached would not have been too hard. I cannot help but find this almost too cynical to comment on. It's worthwhile debating that Germany might have been able to uphold the economic punishment it had been dictated, but that too fails to address the question if it should have had to or should have been made to do. The unbudgeable determination to dismiss the amended response of the German delegation on principle, just on the War Guilt Clause (which, incidentally, in its first form had been a part of most major peace treaties of the time) and -- indeed -- what the Germans could only perceive as an audacious and intentional worsening of the insult stands the test of time, for me at least, and even despite the Germans rather pathetic attempt to shift the entire blame on Russia, as cold-hearted calculation driven by neither rationale nor the honest wish to elevate the (diplomatic) spirit of humanity but instead as an embarrassing unveiling of those egocentric and imperial politics that had led Europe into the war in the first place. Germany was obviously in the wrong to annex Alsace-Lorraine in an otherwise mostly reasonable treaty with an equally war-enthusiastic (and, in fact, formal aggressor) France, but almost fifty years later, it is hard to argue that France was in the right to retake what was now a swath of land dominated by a German majority (~90%) that actually did treat the French minorities fairly well, at least until the war. The French callous dispelling of more than a hundred thousand Germans only to resettle the land with Frenchmen from the Province does come reasonably close to a fictional scenario in which Germany announced claims on Polish territories in 2009. The sheer absurdity of such a scenario, despite the obvious parallels, should serve to illustrate the point. All in all, I agree that the academic community has put too much emphasis on Versaille in the past, especially insofar it concerned its destabilising impact on Germany's political landscape, but that does in no way take away from the fact that the Treaty of Versaille very much was(!) a feeble document that, at least in parts, was pervaded by a menacing and petty ghost of revanchism and imperial aspirations that the victors so hypocritically admonished Germany for.
Nationalism probably even fascism would have probably still happened in Germany with the Great Depression even if there hadn't been the terms of Versailles (which as admitted were mostly unenforced).
Very cool episode! The signing of the Treaty of Versailles was a crucial moment for the 20th century and this episode really helps to understand the post-war years in Europe.
Wow! Excellent insightful video, and shows me all sides, all perspectives of the most decisive event in human history! Very impressive presentation and I say "Thank you." because I love such views of why we are where we are today.
In our classroom for history, we have a huge map on the wall with the title: "Der Erste Weltkrieg und das Dikat von Versailles", or translated: "The First World War and the dictate of Versailles". I love it because it gives the impression that even in a modern and democratic Germany we´re still not over it.
What kind of dictate ? You deserved it, because of you Germans many French were killed and many cities were destroyed, and 20 years later you did it again at a much larger scale. You Germans should be very happy and lucky because Germany still exists to this day, after all this bullshit Germany should have been erased froms maps and divided between countries.
Germany had the option to not sign the treaty, and keep their honor. Instead, they signed it, and violated their national honor on every one of the treaty provisions.
@@DonMeaker so you agree that germany signed the treaty at gunpoint. also, germany didn't start the war. serbia did. france and russia were spoiling for war. germany's only crime was being too eager to appease austria-hungary
18:50: "Gen. Gruener didn't think the civilians would be able to hold out: version of the stab in the back theory" - this misses a vitally important aspect of the situation for Germany. The cumulative effects of the Hunger Blockade, which had continued after the Armistace the same as during the war, meant that the civilian population was malnourished and dying in droves already. Another round of war would make it worse. Nothing to do with stabs in the back. It's a question of starvation and disease.
@@valentintapata2268 Right. Germany outfought Britain, France and Russia. But it was like a siege, where the defenders are starved out rather than beaten in battle.
This kind of war are against Germany influenced German nation building I think. The idea of acquiring living space gets much more attractive to people who are being starved to death. So the allies unintentiously set the nature of the next war
@@johannbrrr8065 Even the Allies recognized that the "peace" terms would lead to another round of war. The whole project was insane from the start. No one knew exactly how bad it would get in the next round, but somehow they just kept making it worse.
Haven't read it yet, looking forward to it. Working on my own book based on letters of Ordinance Capt. Wilson Galloway, who in Paris, 1918 codesigned the accounting system used by the AEF to calculate material expenditures in the war and headed the report drafting team from 1/1919 to 7/1919. Like Gen. Foch, he predicted the premature end of the war would lead to new war in 20 years. I believe Wilson's policies led to the "settlement not victory" policy that still guides American war conduct today, to our great jeopardy. I'll post again after reading this series.
Regarding "The best treaty that could have been achieved at the time", I might have believed that in 1918, but with today's hindsight that sounds more like an attempt to create a new and interesting opinion than it does as any sort of new understanding of the events. That will need a lot of evidence to be convincing. I would love to see a series of videos on it (since that would certainly take many videos).
Problem with hindsight, is that people do not tend to benefit from it at the time events are unfolding.... Which is why historical events should NEVER be judged through hindsight but always by keeping in mind that contextual thought of 'what did they know/think AT THE TIME? To do anything else is not History but revisionism.
The Versailles Treaty was the inevitable result of the unresolved anger and indecisive conclusion of the Great War. Had Germany been crushed the Allies could have dictated terms with less difficulty. This was not the case and the allies let emotions govern their actions. They wished stability in Europe and but they wanted revenge on Germany, to put the blame and _odium_ of the war entirely on Germany. They didn't appreciate that these ends might conflict down the road. I didn't realize that war threatened in 1919 because Germany was reluctant to sign. Thanks for the video.
Yes indecisive That was rectified in 1945 when USSR decisively eradicated Prussia once and for all. Few European cultures have ever been so completely annihilated.
Do not forget to study the "Balfour-Declaration", what was signed in november 1917 by the british foreign minister Balfour and Lord Rothschild, because it was a dirty deal, to get the USA in the war.
@@vanlendl1 Ohh...my friend. If only you knew...Sadly, I don't have much time to fit it in, in a more perfect world, I would have. I'll have to come back to it when discussing the creation of Israel.
By 1919 the insight the Banks had into the Financial aspect of war had been well grasped and cannot be underestimated! The war essentially continued as a financial one...
being used to see documentaries about more recent things, like 9/11, this makes me think of this war as not so strange to the actual world, almost as if those things could happen today aswell
I'm just going to call this a "Complicated Peace." That is how I will refer to the Versailles treaty. And also I'm probably always going to feel that the allies could've done better. Great job.
@@johannbrrr8065 half measures with Germany. Opposing France reconstruction penalty, allowing Germany to recover and destroy Europe 25 years later. And also looking to undermine France and Britain colonial empire. The US presented France demands as too harsh but we must not forget the war in the west developed on French soil mostly, 1/4 occupied and ransacked during 4 years. France northern economy collapsed.
@@dominiquecharriere1285oh don't underestimate the german's idiocy, the hyper inflation period after ww1 was almost entirely self inflicted and they still managed to blame everyone else but themselves. But i do agree the americans were fools who constantly favored germany against their literal allies and the british really didn't help. The state of the comment section on this channel is proof that this propaganda worked on americans and therefore the internet at large as you can see how the most upvoted comment are the ones defending germany. Modern historiography very much disagrees with this popular pro german view. Historian william R.keylor has a book called "the demonization of versailles. Annika mombauer wrote in an article that while there is currently no consensus for who started the war, the crisis was manufactured in vienna and berlin with the entente playing a reactive role. I quote from annika mombauer july crisis article: "if all leaders are considered responsible, then arguably they were not equally so. In the governement of the central powers, a deliberate decision was taken to use the "golden opportunity" of the sarajevo crime as a trigger for a war that they had long wanted to fight [...] Moreover, a diplomatic victory was considered worthless and was deliberately ruled out by vienna [...]"
I've been watching hours of people diving in pools, animals, science and I ended up here. And i've gotta say, I'm glad I did. Although the ads every 3 min made it a task to finish.
The entente powers did not march into German territory, they just forced the Germans out of territory they had occupied. Germany was not invaded on its own soil, and so the Germans didn’t feel like a truly defeated people. Hence such harsh peace terms were a shock.
Joke about youtube advertising policy is a great one;), but this one (04:20) is even better: "I am seriously afraid, that the Great Power from whom we have the most to fear in the future is France." Ricky Gervais style (guy from original "Office") :D keep the great work felas :D
I did my 10th year final presentation on the treaty of Versailles. Hours and days and weeks of work and now I see a video that accurately and concisely summarises all my research….
After watching this video. I'd have to same one of the main issues with the treaty was not wether it was too harsh or not, it was that the allies did not have a united front. In particular the British attitude "that the treaty was too harsh" , seems to have fueled the fire of the stab in the back theory. This attitude was linked to the British looking out for themselves and the historic view of the French being the "real" enemy. I can understand this attitude from the older British Generals, but you think an economist like John Maynard Keynes would look at the stats.The French population had grown very slowly in the 19th Century and it was unlikely they would be starting a major war soon.
Keynes had almost everything wrong in his book. Still it’s considered as a basis today because he predicted a war, like Foch. But Foch analysis was far better and far more accurate. I think he regretted to not push to Berlin at the end, but he was a republican and had to apply the wish of Clemenceau. Between a marshal and an economist, the soldier won.
Very well presented. I was scepitcal at the start for your obvious copy of Indy of your set, but you did make a well presented video of a topic I know well. Bravo.
Not really. I agree that people exaggerate how harsh it was, but I wouldn't call it lenient either. Germany gave France a more lenient treaty in their previous war.
@@yoloswaggins7121 just read Brest Livtosk and you will see what harsh means. Versailles was fair and the best treaty possible because of allies unalignement. The Germans forced the soviets to sign an humiliated peace.
Foch was a hard case but had his points, too. Germany was never going to accept peace without a total Allied victory, which justly or not, Versailles stopped short of delivering.
Yes. I feel liek this was the heart of the issue. The Germans didn't feel like they actually lost as much as the French felt like the earned their win.
We could not make this show without your support on Patreon. If you pledge to support us now, we will send out original WW1 postcards signed by the team. Patreon supporters can also chat with us live on Discord after every episode. More details: patreon.com/thegreatwar
Thank you for all the hard work. I have been watching this channel since 2016.....and spent 6 months binge watching to catch up to get current by 2017.
keep up the wonderful work with telling the stories of war and peace and if you need help to translate any danish documents then I will gladly help
What happened to Idy
one question, why de image on the 4:51 there's a picture of the spanish king, Alfonso XIII, and a shield with the symbol of castilla? the league of nations reunited in spain?
@@Daniel-or4yh shellshock and now he lives in the future
"This is an Armistice that will last 20 years"
That's one hell of a prophecy
A cartoon at the time showed Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau exiting from Versailles while to the left a naked infant is weeping - it has on its back "Class of 1940".
And true
This is also another one: One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans - Otto von Bismarck (1888).
Edit: 1898
@@jacklang3314Bismarck also said in 1898 that the German Empire will collapse in 20 years and colonies are tumours to the Empire, soo, yeah. Now you know how Bismarck always have a plan.
@@gsacelm7753 Bismarck knew Walpole was behind this ;)
"UA-cam's advertising policies are about as effective for a war history channel as an Italian offensive in the Alps."
sensible_chuckle.gif
,😂😂😂😂😂
I don't often make jokes on the show, but when I do...
Jesse Alexander Keep up the great work, you’re a worthy successor!
@@UnfriendlyZone Thanks!
Everybody: *LMFAO!* 😂🤣😅
Cadorna: *confused Pikachu meme*
I've studied the Great War for half a century and this is one of the most concise presentations in any media that I've found. Excellent research and marvellously presented!
Thanks Roger!
*My Father in Law Fought in that 'Great War' Alfred Collington (38605) Bombardier Royal Garrison Artillery at the Somme, Arras and Liévin (Near Lens) where he lost his leg but survived to later father his daughter - my wife today. 2 Sons 1 Daughter and 6 GrandChildren.*
One fact that I believed that he missed is that the US Congress never ratified the Treaty of Versailles due to the fact that they saw it as a time bomb for another war, rather instead the US chose to make the Knox-Porter Resolution in it's place.
@Wh0_Am_ 1 - the American government at that time was run by progressive democrats that were more interested in persecution of blacks and isolationism than they were about the fate of Europe.
@@joeb.3931 *Are you 24601 ? - Google it if not sure*
I would say Versailles failed due to 2 things:
1) Germany's expectations for peace were conditioned by their near victory in the war. Their hopes were so high that the idea that they would be punished was unimaginable.
2) France's expectations were conditioned by them believing the alliance of 1918 would continue indefinitely. So, they expected that they could enforce the treaty terms with the full armed weight of France, UK and US.
So i guess for a treaty to succeed, the victor would have to raze the opponent’s country to the ground to not give them a false hope of a possible victory, as what happened to germany in the second world war. Which is why the UN is successful
Germany's expectations for peace were conditioned by - as it was stated in Brockdorffs speech - Wilson 14 points plan and the diplomatic notes.
@@marksantiago9841 The Entente Powers could have stationed troops in Germany without razing them to the ground and achieved the same effect. Razing an opponent's country to the ground after victory sounds like something Daenerys would do, given that she burnt down King's Landing after their surrender.
Germany knew they would be punished, they came close to a victory but ultimately lost. They were probably hoping that they would get an equivalent punishment to Napoleonic France, and to be fair, that is probably what should have happened. However, no one in Germany expected how harsh the treaty of Versailles was.
I am a British, but damn, the Germans had it rough.
@@ZeroMirrorr
obviously you dont know how ROUGH the french civilians had it
A greater understanding of WWI and its aftermath is critical to understanding WWII and its continuing aftermath.
Agreed. It still affects us today.
Yes that shapes every nation internal and foreign policy
@@TheCimbrianBull It doesn't only affect us in europe. Look at the middle east. How many conflicts arise there because the british and french painted borders on their maps after the great war? The current wars in the middle east are not only america's doing but also a relict of ww1
@@meganoob12
Exactly!
In effect the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles cost for Europe and not only, another World War , The Cold War and a lot of war connected to.
Treaty of Versailles...overall 2/10 would not sign again
Except this time France won so they wouldn't have to sign the humiliating 1871 Treaty of Versailles again, which was filled with all those war reparations designed to destroy France.
The reparations listed in Treaty of Versailles of 1871 were measured on what Napoleon imposed onto the German Kingdoms in early century to keep French war machine going.
Those were not meant to destroy France at all, in fact, it managed to pay them back before schedule.
If Germany would impose reparations measured on those of WW1 upon France.. France would have to pay for the rest of it's history.
Germans loose because they insist on playing by the book and with honor, when will they learn.
Germany and France's back and forth really only led to centuries of conflict and alienation between two societies that were pretty similar. In the end two nations, or their leaders figured out it was better to cooperate with one another then keep fighting pointless wars
@@ilFrancotti No, the Treaty of Versailles was intended to remove France as a military power and threat to Germany by using crippling reparations. However, this didn't work because France's economy exploded, and were able to shrug off the reparations and remain a huge threat to Germany.
The Germans meanwhile, endured the Great Depression, which destroyed the Capitalist economies.
The US Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles; the US made a separate peace with Germany in 1921. Thus, the US had no interest in the enforcement of the treaty.
The British thought the terms of the treaty too harsh and were reluctant to enforce them.
The French sought revenge, but alone lacked the power to enforce the treaty.
So the Treaty of Versailles insulted the Germans and barked at them but had no teeth to bite.
The british were very hypocrital there. They got everything they wanted from the treaty (colonies, german navy neutralised) and then criticized the french for trying to ensure their future security through land acquisitions and limitations on german military. The British were safe forever while the French future prospects were still very grim with Germany having a stronger industry and larger population.
Surviving of Russia would be better for everyone of it s allies, and would be very bad for Turks...But this requires shorter war and more determined actions from its allies, Russia needed to be saved...
The Rhineland was occupied by the allied forces from November 1918 until June 1930! The last installment of the reparation was paid on the 3 October 2010, 92 years after the end of the WW1, in the amount of 200 mio Euros. Does that looks like "no teeth"?
@@MWWick Not enough teeth. They did nothing when Germany re-armed in violation of the treaty. When germany remilitarised the Rhineland they only made token protests. When Germany entered Austria as was expressley forbidden by the treaty they shrugged. Yeah the French occupied the Rhineland for a bit but the USA and British both pressured them to stop, and they cancelled a lot of Germany's reparations.
you all seem to forget the prussian-french war of 1870 the war reparation france had to pay was 100 time worse and they annex territory in europe from france
1815 - Europe says they will never have a war for 100 years
1914 - *World War I*
1919 - Europe says they will not have a war for 20 years
1939 - *World War II*
Europe should have said, Europe will never have war again. maybe then it would have worked
u forgot about the franco prussian war
Germany and the Soviet Union
@@handsomelyditto4215
It means major war. The Franco Prussian war doesn’t count as a major war.
@@handsomelyditto4215 and even more important for Germany, the war of 1866 between Prusdia and Austria.
"The Treaty of Versailles" or "How to make sure there will be war again"
@Rodycaz So true
@Rodycaz WHERES THE LIE THO
Yes, the overly generous terms of the treaty enabled Germany to rearm.
die franzosen haben dadurch zumindest nochmal auf schnauze bekommen
indirectly/directly, literally ww II was planned ;v
Could you do a rundown of the technological Innovations during the war?
Poison Gas, Bomb Brackets on Airplanes, Flame Throwers, Combat Tanks, etc.
"I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon." - Lloyd George on Wilson and Clemenceau.
"Jesus" chose interests.
DLG is on record, strutting around his hotel room, "evil emperor"- like dreaming about oil...."yes, yes, *yes* oil, oil, OIL..."
ROTFL...
That's a very amusing observation by Lloyd George.
The sad part was that "Jesus" wanted the USA to be part of the League Of Nations but the government refused. Those in the government were pagans.
No one should insult Wilson like that.
@@rembrandt972ify true, wilson is more of a satan type.
Foch predicted war because it was NOT harsh enough to prevent a future war, but harsh enough to provoke one.
No, Foch very notably wanted harsher terms, such as the French annexing all territories up to the Rhine river.
@@leris7697 That is precisely what I said. Read my comment more carefully.
@@Norvik_-ug3ge exactly anywy how do you think you could make the treaty of verssiles better?
@@10karamel37 I think if Germany had been denied any armed forces at all, that would have hampered, somewhat, their ability to re-arm in secret. But even though Foch was correct in his assessment, his judgement was a minority one.
@@Norvik_-ug3ge yea but you cant just leave that big of a country without army they would most likely not accept the terms of that peace treaty and war would continue
"UA-cam's advertising policies are about as effective for a war history channel as an Italian offensive in the Alps."
*OOF*
Savage
When you’re largely blamed for a war started by your ally...
It was Germany the one that first attacked Russia, France and Belgium, starting the Great War.
The Austrian conflict with Serbia was just regional, and no one could guarantee that the hundreds of thousands of Russian and French soldiers who were already mobilizing near the frontiers of Germany and Austria were going to attack.
The Entente was definitely gonna attack sooner or later.
Asasas as if the mobilization of Russia, Belgium, and France wasn’t a gesture of aggression already? The war started the moment the Serbs decided to murder the Archduke. Germany was acting as a faithful ally. With hundreds of thousands of Entente troops arriving in The west and east, Germany was pushed into a position where the only option was to attack first. Versailles brought nothing but shame to Germany and did nothing to build a better world.
@@asasas9146 do not play smart
@@NoahWeaverRacing You could interpret it as an aggression, but by this logic the simple existence of any other country in the world with a military force is a gesture of aggression.
Russia was moving troops across his own borders.
There is no way to prove that they were going to attack. And in any case, they were nearly Austria-Hungary, a country that had just declared a unillateral war against Serbia.
The Serbs didn't murder the Archduke, or at least there is no proof of it. One Serb did it, with support of a few other nationalists. Then Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to the Serbs, with 10 shameful points to humilliate Serbia. And they had just 48 hours to respond or there will be war (despite being no proofs of Serbia complicity with the murder).
But fortunately, with pressions of Russia and France, Serbia accepted most of the ultimatum, with the notable exception to not let Austrian police do whatever they want in their country.
This wasn't enough for Austria, and then they invaded Serbia.
Still, Russia didn't inmediatly declared war on Austria, and waited several days, until finally Germany declared war on everyone.
France had been invaded twice by Germany - reminder that unlike 1914- in 1870 France declared war.
And was ruled by someone that didn't deserve to be called Napoleon.
@@AndrewVasirov
The burn is searing
Also remind, that between 1300 and 1870, there had been numerous invasions of middle Europe by France, with France annexing rougly 1/3 of its todays territory, with basically no mayor invasion of France by German powers, starting in ~1350 with the annexion of the Dauphine, and ending in the 1700 with the annexion of what was left of Lorraine.
And the 'imperial french army' lost to a bunch of conscripts :P
@@w1darr please France had to defend against english hundred year war invasion, Habsburg holding territory in spain and belgium HRE etc. My point is Europe was up for the taking. Look at Prussia all the land they invade in the east. England and Prussia are well known to attack without declaring war.
The biggest problem of Versailles is that the opponents viewed each other not as humans, but as enemies.
This is a perfect take on the situation. Thank you
It isn't like the Germans were acting as if they were humans.
@@DonMeaker While Entente yes?
@@tefky7964 Compared to Germany, there was a significant shortage of murders by poison gas on the part of the Entente.
This is how all countries everywhere view their opponents. The biggest problem was the Allies weren't willing to offer Germany a treaty that matched the power the Allies had to enforce it.
Wilson, the dude who presented the "Glorious" 14 points as basis of everlasting peace only to be completely complacent in the Versailles debacle and then call out David Loyd George for "Not having Morals". And people ask why some hate Wilson...
Wilson the hypocrite. That stroke was karma.
Say what you will about his international diplomacy, you have to admit his letters to his wife were the steamiest of all the presidents.
@@Zabi-S Some believe it was the flu that his administration ignored for the war effort. It is possible to get a stroke from the flu.
i mean i hate Wilsons domestic policy.
His 14 points were never going to be accepted. As the main victors, Britain and France had the right to dictate the treaty
"The french wanted it to make rheinland a separate puppet country."
- Oh the irony of fate.
Brest Litovsk treaty
It’s almost sad with what’s to come
The greater tragedy of Hungary losing a majority of its land, especially to Romania
@@wandaperi You mean greater tragedy of Austo-Hungarian(Austria) empire losing a majority of its land.
@@andreidodu5581 Who had a role?
If I were to shoot the President of the United States somewhere in the world today, wouldn't he attack that country?
It was the internal affairs of two peoples, with all of Europe involved. It was just an excuse to draw a map of Europe again.
Also known as "How to set a timer on a bomb instead defusing it. Treaty."
there was a timer!?
@@yanuchiuchihaanimegamesand3907 yes and it was 20 years ;)
Tbh its like the most Human Way that we could imagine "If the Problem is too great, just put a timer so far off that we didn't care about it anymore"
too right
As long as the terms of the Versailles treaty were even partially followed, there was no war. Only when it was abandoned, was war made possible.
“One may deprive Germany of its colonies, depress its armaments to a mere police force, and depress its fleet to the strength of a fifth-tier power. Nonetheless, if it feels that it was treated unfairly in the 1919 peace, Germany will ultimately find means to force its overcomers to be repaid. […] In order to receive remuneration, our conditions may be strict, they may be harsh and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so fair that the country to which we impose feels that it has no right to complain , But injustice and arrogance, displayed in the hour of triumph, will never be forgotten or forgiven. [...] I can't think of a stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, which must have proven to be one of the most powerful and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never been before stable government was able to establish itself, but each contained large amounts of Germans who wanted to reunite with their home country. "
Loyd George
For my taste the best quote.
Austria (With Sudetenland) wanted to join Germany but the Entente said no while at the same time granted such wishes to Czechs and so on. Double standards - for me the wrong side won and we got Stalin, Hitler and all the horrible stuff in return along with supid borders drawn by France and Britain that still make problems today.
@@yolomanolo2601 Honestly the Central Powers winning would’ve been better for the world. Only place that would have any issue would probably the Balkans and the Middle East with the ottomans, but with Austria Hungary and Bulgaria existing in the Balkans I doubt the ottomans would get much, and either way the Balkans suffered from Yugoslavia and the Middle East suffered from colonization and decolonization so its not like either place did well in the real world.
@Friedrich Alexander the only really decent scenario is if we can put someone sensible on the german throne
@Friedrich Alexander
Unlikely. Unlike Germany, France couldnt have even attempted to overturn the peace treaty, no matter how militaristic or dictatorial it became. Alt history scenarios about a communist or fascist France are unrealistic, because German terms wouldve made defense of France itself impossible, let alone assaulting Germany.
@@Cecilia-ky3uw
Wilhelm wasnt in charge of things, the german high command was. He was effectively a puppet monarch for the whole duration of the war.
The intro always gives me goosebumps, keep up the great work!
Woodrow Wilson leaving Paris was the equivalent of George Bush's "Mission Accomplished"
Not only was Wilson the first sitting US president to visit Europe - and he spent SIX months at the Peace Conference. George Bush didn't send six minutes on America's exit strategy.
Woodrow Wilson was against this treaty.
Woodrod Wilson be like *MISSION FAILED! WE GET THEM NEXT TIME!*
@@doomie21 Plus he was a starry eyed idealist in love his own potential to solve other people's problems. Washington has been in love with war ever since.
Not really: he knew he had a fight ahead of him in the US to get the Treaty ratified by a newly Republican-controlled Senate. He had accomplished the Paris part of his mission in getting agreement to the League which was to smooth any postwar difficulties: ironic that his own country was the one holdout.
Thanks for all the effort u put to bring this episode to life
Greetings from a German who oriented himself on the left side of the political spectrum an also serves his country as a soldier.
Congratulations to such a well researched and neutral view on history with much detail but not so much that you would lose your viewers. You didn't try to put your point of view into your viewers but you let the historian figures speak for themselves and then us to make up our own very minds and get an oppinion about what that treaty was back then.
Chapeau!
Oh and also you got a new follower. I am looking forward in seeing more from you guys about the past of our world in the future.
“Mr President this treaty does not spell peace but war. War more deadly then the one we have just ended.”
Who said this?
whos Quote is this
Hon. Philander C Knox
The US didn't really have a big say because they came in quite late. France wanted revenge and Britain wanted dominance
@@abdirahmanidris290 ironically Germany got revenge on France and Britian was begged hitler to stop being so dominant.
Thank you for your hard work
They missed out so much, it barely qualifies as hard work.
I don't think Memel was ceded to Lithuania in the Versailles treaty itself. It was placed under French administration until 1923 when the Lithuanian government staged a 2014 Crimea-style "revolt" and annexed the Klaipėda region.
That matches what I was reading yesterday, yeah.
I also heard it this way
@Danijel Mornarić yeah, the 13th century...right...
@Danijel Mornarić Yeah it is, Germanic tribes were in the region long before the Balts.
@E Fig We're talking about the part North of Neman. While you're right about the local popullace not being too excited about the annexation, the area was heavily mixed with about 1/3rd being German, 1/3rd Lithuanian and another having a more local Memellander identity. The German Empire wasn't as homogenous in the East as you may think.
This truly is one of the best videos you have ever produced, very insightful and clear display of sources, you've helped my understanding of this event greatly.
Will you talk about the Treaty of Saint Germain, the Treaty of Trianon and Treaty of sevres aswell?
of course
@@TheGreatWar Then you need to point out that they too had 'sole guilt' clauses naming them 'and their allies' as being responsible and that such a clause was not unique to Germany as was later claimed.
In 12th class we had a homeworkin history. Do a comparison of the treaty of versailles and the treaty of brest-litowsk.
After that I understand that the germans did a much more brutal peace-treaty with russia.
Was in Hungary for a bit, the unhappines with Trianon is still palpable there to this day.
@@RedbadofFrisia yes,its not uncommon for older generations in Hungary.Luckily majority of the younger generations including me are not really bothered by it and want peace.
"Welche Hand müsste nicht verdorren, die sich und uns in solche Fesseln legte?"
-Phillip Scheidemann
@Fabian Kirchgessner ... Und würde heutzutage als Rechter gebrandmarkt werden!
@@jannikmuller5195 Da ist find ich aber auch die Steuerpolitik der fraglichen Parteien ein Faktor drin. Würde beispielsweise keine Partei wählen die weitere Steuervorteile für Großverdiener durchbringen will, wäre aber interessiert an welchen die eine anständige Erbschaftssteuer für Großfirmenerben, wie sie ja vom Finanzministerium gefordert wird und auch in der Verfassung von Bayern drinsteht, einführen will.
@@jannikmuller5195 wahre worte.
@@jannikmuller5195 Den "Krieg", der im Moment gegen uns geführt wird, können wir nicht überstehen. Diesmal wird es keine Trümmerfrauen geben
Welcome to City Wok
Thank you guys. I really love and appreciate all your work.
Bulgaria signed its peace treaty at the townhall of Neuilly in Paris. I visited the place in 2017. Up to this day we say that Bulgaria was "chopped into pieces" back then... I hope that the wounds are healed and we can create a stronger and peaceful Europe.
Bulgaria did bad choices back then. But that is the past and we have move forward. I am always astonished by the hate and the ressentiment from some countries of the treaties, particularly Hungarian. Hungary fought for the wrong cause and they did not want to see their local minorities enjoying the same relative autonomy they had from the Austrians. And at the end they cried of the consequences and still today consider that their territory has been stolen by their neighbour
@@walideg5304 De ugye tudja,hogy ez PROPAGANDA????Nem akarok történelem órát tartani,mert akkor sokat kellene mondani. Röviden: Magyarország olyan ország volt-ahol a MAGYAROKAT ELNYOMTÁK. Például 1850-1910 között 1 000 000 magyarból lett román.
Personal Opinion: Woodro Wilson and his spin on manifest destiny, pardon... Wilsonism, was perhaps the most damaging and damnding thing possible at this point in time in world history.
Please elaborate.
Introducing ethnic self determination as a guiding principle in a region that is historically very much ethnically mixed and that in the middle of War where everyone uses force to enforce this principle will create a bad situation for everyone.
@ Serbia got what they want and finally lost at the Yugoslav War. Only Tito and probably some leaders managed to give life support to this broken nation.
And also Wilson says this when the United States is a country of immigrants like if this was true then the United States would split up in small countries for all the immigrants that were there
But he MEANT WELL! that lets him off the hook with some people.
You guys are doing a amazing Job! I appreciate you guys!
17:49
A bad painter: hold my art school rejection.
Well at that point you he was a war vetereran. So it would be: hold my asylum papers.
@@pimpinmagicianofprophecy hold my medals*
Red Star Mustachioed Man: Not so fast.
I've always wondered, from a military point of view, what would have happened if after 7 months of peace British and French troops that had suffered so much for 4 years both mentally and physically and had just felt 7 months of peace were told to get back so to speak in the trenches and start fighting again. Especially if Germany left all French territory and made it overwhelmingly clear to everyone that as far as they were concerned the war was over. What then would have happened if Germany had just said no to signing. Would those same extremely war weary British and French troops, facing a Germany that had now left all French lands and made it clear they just wanted peace actually have fought. Would they not rationalize to themselves that fighting a now non aggressive Germany that openly sought peace not make them into what they had been fighting??? I think the allied generals would have a very hard time of it. Especially considering that there were already massive grumblings while the war was still being waged. How do you get men to suffer and die for reparations, for money???
There were some high ranking allied officers who opposed invading Germany due to the potential of house to house fighting, plus the reasons you mentioned.
The british just had to keep the blocade. And german were still in Alsace-Lorraine.
@@johnwotek3816 It was not French Territory at that time. And the Food situation was much better at that time + fighting on their home turf would have made the Germans fight harder.
I think that you have a point. At this point the Germans would have been fighting for survival, they would have had the moral high ground.
Germany was short food, because Germany was short fertilizer, because of the British embargo. The embargo stayed on until the Germans signed. It should have stayed on until the Germans paid the reparations.
Great video, and thanks for your work ! The Chinese delegation refused to sign the treaty because of the "Shandong problem". Germany had had colonies in the Chinese Shandong province since the end of the 19th century, and when WW1 broke out in 1914, Japan captured them. At the end of the war, China asked for them to be returned, supported by the US delegation, but at the peace conference, it was agreed that they would be transferred to Japan instead. This sparked outrage within the Chinese population, especially the young intellectuals, creating nation wide protests known as the "May 4th movement". As a result, the Chinese delegation was pressured into not signing the treaty, being the only one to do so.
And the Chinese people started looking for answers that don’t involve “Praying that the western powers would play nice”.
@@davidw.2791 Please note: Japan isn't a western power.
@@davidw.2791 Those same western powers would save China from being erased by Japan. Thanks Western powers.
@@DonMeaker no, but they allied with them
Wait didnt the US also not sign the treaty?
Such great french pronunciation. Fantastic job on this video TGW.
the german ones too! Absolutley awesome
Holy cow, 13:55! That’s a great transition.
Toni is flexing his muscles in editing.
@@TheGreatWar Toni is cool AF
Very cool. I just noticed. Read your comment then had to go back and look.
Britain always seems to get a really great outcome in treaties while laying the blame at others (People blame France for Versailles when the greatest benefit went to England - no competing colonies and no navy).
But their colonies became so vast they stretched themselves too far and most of them became independent around these times.
No the greatest benefit went to America, and keep in mind that Britain suffered to repay its war loans, while France didn’t pay a penny.
France and Belgium were the
countries that were invaded
and where most of the war
was fought.
@@seanlander9321france paid a much, much higher price during the war
@@gagagagagagagaism So what? A sovereign loan is a debt that has to be repaid, and France hasn’t repaid a penny to Britain since 1931. It’s official excuse for not paying is poverty, and clearly that claim lost any credibility a long time ago because it’s always been a lie.
You know if you reoccupied the Rhine, and annex the rump of Czechoslovakia, you could use the renationalized industry to fund the channel.
Yeah, using the Czech gold is necessary for this to happen.
@@AndrewVasirov as Well as Austrian gold
Fantastic job!!! This was easily one of the best history docs I have seen in some time.
I believe it was the great Winston Churchill who stated after serving in the First War, " the conflicts of our future generations won't be fought between nations, no for they shall be wars between ideologies. "
Now that is one heck statement that echoes through these times.
Everyone forgets that the Austria-Hungaria and Serbia started the war.
Yeah the two of them is chilling in the side line while Germany is taking all the blame.
@@heneraldodzz4978
Well Bulgaria was fucked badly too and Ottomans basically lost everything...
@@heneraldodzz4978 In fact Hungary was ruled by Austria, Austria started the war, and they, escepically Hungary had a much worse treaty. 70% of its land was stolen. Even Austria got some lands... Whila poor Hungary couldn't fight because liberal and communist idiots dissolved the Hungarian army so Romania could easily occupy it.
Serbian got attacked and fought back hey didn’t attack first
@@criscabrera9098 they killed the emperor...
Thanks for the great episode!
I have to hand to this remarkably well reconstituted “Great War” condensed documentary which was undoubtedly very well presented and narrated by a perfect presenter. I’m instantly a subscriber and look forward to your Patreon supporting subscription options.
Bravo, très fort et quel présentation.
Merci!
100 hours? I thought it took 100 years to make an episode
This is like when you laugh at a friends joke in class and the teacher throws you out.
"A peace too soft for what she has hard, and too hard for what she has soft. "
Jacques Bainville, Les Conséquences politiques de la paix , 1920
Love the decor, suspenders, the clarity of both your speech and content - thank you!
Thank you for doing this amazing channel! Keep up the good work please
The Treaty of Versailles had a huge impact on China that people in the West don’t know about. I think some mention of the May Fourth movement would have been appropriate.
Then led to the communism rise since May Fourth Movement 五四运动 and CCP came to political power in China
To be fair France were the ones who declared the Franco-Prussian War in aggression. Yes Bismarck goaded them into it but it was the French who fired the first shots
Lets not pretend that Bismarck wouldn't have initated a war against France, if France didn't fire the first shots. Both France and Prussia were itching for a fight in 1870 and it was gonna happen sooner or later regardless of what you change about history. Prussia was just much more ready for it than France
@@larslundandersen7722 It's probably true that he would have sought war with France, but the fact of the matter is that France declared war.
I don't think we can discuss history in terms of hypotheticals. France declared war. France was the aggressor.
@@RagingGoblin Aggressor or defender are notions that have no value in law or in a military aspect. It's only a political and ethical point of view to legitimate war. A country always saw itself as a defender, even when it attacks first for defending its interest. It's often the result of the war itself and the propaganda of the winner that create the aggressor or the defender.
@@vortex1603 Exactly, and as such the word 'aggressor' has meaning -- politically *and* jurisprudentially speaking, which aren't that far off each other anyway.
Many treatises in the 20th century (between nations) boil down to 'who was the aggressor'.
Anyway, I disagree with your point about the ethical point of view, and the populace; regimes around the world have always pretended to be the defending nation *because* it is essential to the people who attacks first.
Would the Entente have found a justification for another variation of Versailles in the hypothetical event that Russia had marched across the border first? Yes.
But history -- at least -- would view the document even more harshly than it does today -- and the people who made it.
Which was what Bismarck wanted.
Another factor is that France expected the southern German states to side with them,but much to France's shock,they sided with Prussia.
Thanks!
Excellent coverage, thank you guys!
No word about the Balfour declaration? The stab in the back which you at times mention and attribute to have come from within Germany was directly linked to the Balfour declaration. It was also settled at Versailles and was of key importance.
It's pretty hypocritical of Wilson to accuse anyone of not having principles given that he abandoned most of his to get the League of Nations included in the treaty. At least the United States Senate saw the Treaty for the abomination it was and refused to ratify it, making peace with Germany in a separate treaty.
Personally, the Treaty of Versailles has always reminded me of Caudine Forks.
What a hypocrite Wilson was. Just what were his principles, the principles of his pagan Gods?
@The Great War Hey, guys -- thanks again for the great show. I would like to add a few observations.
Concerning Versailles, I have to admit that the argument that the treaty was the best it could have been fails to respond to the claim that it arguably did break with the spirit of the fourteen points.
On a related note, the word honour did not without reason appear even in what few excerpts you presented; for German academics of the time, honour was a central and integral part of the way they viewed the world and gauged a person's behaviour, including their own. To illustrate the extent of this belief, a regulated form of honour duels with live arms (mostly blades) and limited protection was not only extremely common around the time, but also looked upon with approval, thought to nudge youth towards responsible behaviour. (-> Germany's academic circles and clubs)
I do not mean to imply that Germans were a thoroughly honourable bunch, but to attack what they perceived as their honour was something they were absolutely unable to withstand. Breaking the spirit of an agreement -- and how else could one possibly call at least the dismissal of self-determination -- did just that. The terms, from an economic standpoint, might not have been impossible to meet, but the attack on what they perceived to be their honour was sure to leave some kind of wound, and it was the height of folly to instil this humiliation when there was no need for it.
Speaking of recent trends in research and unravelling some of the arguments having been made as of late, I personally feel that some authors (one of which you have cited) try to make the point that any peace Germany could have realistically stomached would not have been too hard. I cannot help but find this almost too cynical to comment on. It's worthwhile debating that Germany might have been able to uphold the economic punishment it had been dictated, but that too fails to address the question if it should have had to or should have been made to do.
The unbudgeable determination to dismiss the amended response of the German delegation on principle, just on the War Guilt Clause (which, incidentally, in its first form had been a part of most major peace treaties of the time) and -- indeed -- what the Germans could only perceive as an audacious and intentional worsening of the insult stands the test of time, for me at least, and even despite the Germans rather pathetic attempt to shift the entire blame on Russia, as cold-hearted calculation driven by neither rationale nor the honest wish to elevate the (diplomatic) spirit of humanity but instead as an embarrassing unveiling of those egocentric and imperial politics that had led Europe into the war in the first place.
Germany was obviously in the wrong to annex Alsace-Lorraine in an otherwise mostly reasonable treaty with an equally war-enthusiastic (and, in fact, formal aggressor) France, but almost fifty years later, it is hard to argue that France was in the right to retake what was now a swath of land dominated by a German majority (~90%) that actually did treat the French minorities fairly well, at least until the war. The French callous dispelling of more than a hundred thousand Germans only to resettle the land with Frenchmen from the Province does come reasonably close to a fictional scenario in which Germany announced claims on Polish territories in 2009. The sheer absurdity of such a scenario, despite the obvious parallels, should serve to illustrate the point.
All in all, I agree that the academic community has put too much emphasis on Versaille in the past, especially insofar it concerned its destabilising impact on Germany's political landscape, but that does in no way take away from the fact that the Treaty of Versaille very much was(!) a feeble document that, at least in parts, was pervaded by a menacing and petty ghost of revanchism and imperial aspirations that the victors so hypocritically admonished Germany for.
I understood the reference about the Italian offensive in the Alps. I felt proud. :)
Naum Rusomarov I don’t think that’s a very funny joke at all. Rather bad taste in my opinion.
Great video. I would love a video like this with additional information about the rolls "The Round Table Group" members had in it.
King Arthur make all the important decisions there
Really enjoyed your presentations,, thank you for posting!
If only they all knew how correct Jan Smuts was.
One of the most brilliant statesmen of his time who has been air brushed out of history.
Nationalism probably even fascism would have probably still happened in Germany with the Great Depression even if there hadn't been the terms of Versailles (which as admitted were mostly unenforced).
@@christopherhull6540 Nothing but an apartheid clown like you.
Very cool episode! The signing of the Treaty of Versailles was a crucial moment for the 20th century and this episode really helps to understand the post-war years in Europe.
Thanks!
Great Video keep up the great work!
Wow! Excellent insightful video, and shows me all sides, all perspectives of the most decisive event in human history! Very impressive presentation and I say "Thank you." because I love such views of why we are where we are today.
In our classroom for history, we have a huge map on the wall with the title: "Der Erste Weltkrieg und das Dikat von Versailles", or translated: "The First World War and the dictate of Versailles". I love it because it gives the impression that even in a modern and democratic Germany we´re still not over it.
What kind of dictate ? You deserved it, because of you Germans many French were killed and many cities were destroyed, and 20 years later you did it again at a much larger scale. You Germans should be very happy and lucky because Germany still exists to this day, after all this bullshit Germany should have been erased froms maps and divided between countries.
Germany had the option to not sign the treaty, and keep their honor. Instead, they signed it, and violated their national honor on every one of the treaty provisions.
@@DonMeaker what would've been the consequences for not signing it?
@@lordraydens the war would have restarted. Gosh, imagine that, losing a war that your country started.
@@DonMeaker so you agree that germany signed the treaty at gunpoint. also, germany didn't start the war. serbia did. france and russia were spoiling for war. germany's only crime was being too eager to appease austria-hungary
18:50: "Gen. Gruener didn't think the civilians would be able to hold out: version of the stab in the back theory" - this misses a vitally important aspect of the situation for Germany. The cumulative effects of the Hunger Blockade, which had continued after the Armistace the same as during the war, meant that the civilian population was malnourished and dying in droves already. Another round of war would make it worse. Nothing to do with stabs in the back. It's a question of starvation and disease.
I would say that Entante defeated the Central Powers through civilians and economy not soldiers and guns.
@@valentintapata2268 Right. Germany outfought Britain, France and Russia. But it was like a siege, where the defenders are starved out rather than beaten in battle.
Yes, we on the Allied side had a lot of blood on our hands thanks to that.
This kind of war are against Germany influenced German nation building I think. The idea of acquiring living space gets much more attractive to people who are being starved to death. So the allies unintentiously set the nature of the next war
@@johannbrrr8065 Even the Allies recognized that the "peace" terms would lead to another round of war.
The whole project was insane from the start. No one knew exactly how bad it would get in the next round, but somehow they just kept making it worse.
A superb episode put together by a team of consummate professionals, well done Jesse and team⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I love the narration on this channel. Easy to follow and understand
Haven't read it yet, looking forward to it. Working on my own book based on letters of Ordinance Capt. Wilson Galloway, who in Paris, 1918 codesigned the accounting system used by the AEF to calculate material expenditures in the war and headed the report drafting team from 1/1919 to 7/1919. Like Gen. Foch, he predicted the premature end of the war would lead to new war in 20 years. I believe Wilson's policies led to the "settlement not victory" policy that still guides American war conduct today, to our great jeopardy. I'll post again after reading this series.
Regarding "The best treaty that could have been achieved at the time", I might have believed that in 1918, but with today's hindsight that sounds more like an attempt to create a new and interesting opinion than it does as any sort of new understanding of the events. That will need a lot of evidence to be convincing. I would love to see a series of videos on it (since that would certainly take many videos).
Problem with hindsight, is that people do not tend to benefit from it at the time events are unfolding....
Which is why historical events should NEVER be judged through hindsight but always by keeping in mind that contextual thought of 'what did they know/think AT THE TIME?
To do anything else is not History but revisionism.
The Versailles Treaty was the inevitable result of the unresolved anger and indecisive conclusion of the Great War. Had Germany been crushed the Allies could have dictated terms with less difficulty. This was not the case and the allies let emotions govern their actions. They wished stability in Europe and but they wanted revenge on Germany, to put the blame and _odium_ of the war entirely on Germany. They didn't appreciate that these ends might conflict down the road.
I didn't realize that war threatened in 1919 because Germany was reluctant to sign. Thanks for the video.
Yes indecisive
That was rectified in 1945 when USSR decisively eradicated Prussia once and for all. Few European cultures have ever been so completely annihilated.
Or at least not since the Roman Empire. Even Basques and celts have more representation than the 3rd Reich.
Excellent point yes 👍
Yes. That’s why Petain and numerous French generals asked to go to Berlin. The Germans didnot understand that they were beaten.
Just came here after listening to Sabatons new song "Red Baron".
Me 2
Me 3
Me 262
That joke about the Italian Alps made me subscribe within the first 30 seconds.
I loved the Conrad von Hotzendorff
test pattern! What a scream.
Glad to see you guys back on line !! :-)
Aim... to weaken Germany..." wasn't it meant to be an Armistice?
@King of Kings & Ruler of Rulers thats not how wars work, it's not a video game where you capture the enemy base to win
Of course the French, and to an extent British, would want to prevent Germany from making war again.
Germany saw nothing wrong with punitiveness, reparations, loss of territory against an enemy when it had been doing that to Russia.
What a clear and informative explanation. Thank you for all the work that clearly went into this.
World: Germany is the reason for both world wars!
Austria: Looks the other way whistling casually
so true they were one country at that time
@@Djn77645 Hitler is rom Austria
This is today's wanted view. But this is one dimensional.
Serbian: XD
we have to Research if hitler was a serb
I'm teaching about World War I this week. The timing of this is impeccable.
Do not forget to study the "Balfour-Declaration", what was signed in november 1917 by the british foreign minister Balfour and Lord Rothschild, because it was a dirty deal, to get the USA in the war.
@@vanlendl1 Ohh...my friend. If only you knew...Sadly, I don't have much time to fit it in, in a more perfect world, I would have. I'll have to come back to it when discussing the creation of Israel.
Great job explaining a complicated process in a limited time.
By 1919 the insight the Banks had into the Financial aspect of war had been well grasped and cannot be underestimated!
The war essentially continued as a financial one...
being used to see documentaries about more recent things, like 9/11, this makes me think of this war as not so strange to the actual world, almost as if those things could happen today aswell
So much effort put in the set 🙂 Plz switch to indirect lighting and fix your audio situation as well 😊
I'm just going to call this a "Complicated Peace." That is how I will refer to the Versailles treaty. And also I'm probably always going to feel that the allies could've done better. Great job.
If there was someone stupid during the negotiation, it was not Germany, it was Wilson.
Agreed, I hate Wilson though
Why?
@@johannbrrr8065 half measures with Germany. Opposing France reconstruction penalty, allowing Germany to recover and destroy Europe 25 years later. And also looking to undermine France and Britain colonial empire. The US presented France demands as too harsh but we must not forget the war in the west developed on French soil mostly, 1/4 occupied and ransacked during 4 years. France northern economy collapsed.
@@dominiquecharriere1285oh don't underestimate the german's idiocy, the hyper inflation period after ww1 was almost entirely self inflicted and they still managed to blame everyone else but themselves. But i do agree the americans were fools who constantly favored germany against their literal allies and the british really didn't help.
The state of the comment section on this channel is proof that this propaganda worked on americans and therefore the internet at large as you can see how the most upvoted comment are the ones defending germany. Modern historiography very much disagrees with this popular pro german view.
Historian william R.keylor has a book called "the demonization of versailles. Annika mombauer wrote in an article that while there is currently no consensus for who started the war, the crisis was manufactured in vienna and berlin with the entente playing a reactive role.
I quote from annika mombauer july crisis article: "if all leaders are considered responsible, then arguably they were not equally so. In the governement of the central powers, a deliberate decision was taken to use the "golden opportunity" of the sarajevo crime as a trigger for a war that they had long wanted to fight [...] Moreover, a diplomatic victory was considered worthless and was deliberately ruled out by vienna [...]"
First they all wanted a piece ,peace came second place .
I've been watching hours of people diving in pools, animals, science and I ended up here. And i've gotta say, I'm glad I did. Although the ads every 3 min made it a task to finish.
"Wilson accused Lloyd George of having no principles." That's the pot calling the kettle black.
WILLLLLSON!
Wilson's problem was that he was probably TOO principled, with little room for pragmatism.
@ Wilson, as all progressives, wanted to see the world as he thought it should be, and not as it was...
Wilson a progressive liberal, traded principles for utopian one world government.
Wilson was an utter idiot.
The entente powers did not march into German territory, they just forced the Germans out of territory they had occupied. Germany was not invaded on its own soil, and so the Germans didn’t feel like a truly defeated people. Hence such harsh peace terms were a shock.
In fact German territory was occupied, Alsace , Lorraine a part of Rhineland by 1919. But yes they stopped before Berlin. A fatal error in my opinion
Joke about youtube advertising policy is a great one;), but this one (04:20) is even better: "I am seriously afraid, that the Great Power from whom we have the most to fear in the future is France." Ricky Gervais style (guy from original "Office") :D
keep the great work felas :D
Tack!
I did my 10th year final presentation on the treaty of Versailles. Hours and days and weeks of work and now I see a video that accurately and concisely summarises all my research….
At least you collected a bunch of links to sources while you where at it
Thats also an achievement
After watching this video. I'd have to same one of the main issues with the treaty was not wether it was too harsh or not, it was that the allies did not have a united front.
In particular the British attitude "that the treaty was too harsh" , seems to have fueled the fire of the stab in the back theory.
This attitude was linked to the British looking out for themselves and the historic view of the French being the "real" enemy.
I can understand this attitude from the older British Generals, but you think an economist like John Maynard Keynes would look at the stats.The French population had grown very slowly in the 19th Century and it was unlikely they would be starting a major war soon.
Keynes had almost everything wrong in his book. Still it’s considered as a basis today because he predicted a war, like Foch. But Foch analysis was far better and far more accurate. I think he regretted to not push to Berlin at the end, but he was a republican and had to apply the wish of Clemenceau.
Between a marshal and an economist, the soldier won.
"Let's completely humiliate an honorable enemy. What could possibly go wrong?"
Hitler in the Bürgerbräukeller: "Hold my Weißbier."
...honourable?
,,Honorable" , lmao
Very well presented. I was scepitcal at the start for your obvious copy of Indy of your set, but you did make a well presented video of a topic I know well. Bravo.
Wilson telling someone else they have no principals, while he himself turned his back on his own 14 points, is hypocrisy of the highest order
It's because Wilson Dosen't care, his 14 points are pure propaganda.
The Treaty was remarkably lenient compared to older and other peace treaties in recent history.
Not really. I agree that people exaggerate how harsh it was, but I wouldn't call it lenient either. Germany gave France a more lenient treaty in their previous war.
@@yoloswaggins7121 the Franco-prussian war? I'd say That treaty was harsher to France than Vers was to Germany.
@@yoloswaggins7121 just read Brest Livtosk and you will see what harsh means. Versailles was fair and the best treaty possible because of allies unalignement. The Germans forced the soviets to sign an humiliated peace.
@@walideg5304 Again, I'm not saying it was super harsh, but I don't think it was super lenient. They lost quite a bit of territory.
@yoloswaggins7121 they didn't lose German territories, they lost territories which they plundered from France, Denmark and Poland in previous years.
Foch was a hard case but had his points, too. Germany was never going to accept peace without a total Allied victory, which justly or not, Versailles stopped short of delivering.
Foch was completely right and the future proved it. United States and United Kingdom have to be blamed.
Yes. I feel liek this was the heart of the issue. The Germans didn't feel like they actually lost as much as the French felt like the earned their win.