Why did they pick Versailles, and that moment? Because that was the same date and location where the unified German Empire was constituted in 1871. Creation and dismantling (well, that was the idea) of that German Empire.
There was pretty much no chance the Germans wouldn't sign the treaty. And this had less to do with the military situation than with the internal situation within Germany, which was starting to ominously resemble Petersburg of a year prior. There were food shortages, massive civilian unrest, naval mutinies, and there seemed a distinct possibility of social collapse or revolution. I 100% agree with Zoebelein and Macmillan about Versailles not causing WW2. Those who make such a claim are practicing lazy history as they cheerfully dismiss 20 years of agency and decision of millions of people to get their nice narrative.
She got some things wrong: what Bulgaria lost in the south is not Dobruga. That is a region in the north of the country. Lost to Romania during Balkan Wars.
I am gratified to see a woman presenter. She and Margaret McMillan are the only two I can recall. Interestingly both of them focus on the peace and results thereof. I found both of them to be excellent (without regard to any speaking habits ;-}
On the question what would have happen if the germans had not signed the Versaille peace it should be noted that the German society was in chaos and in front of a revolution like in Russia. If german would have been blocked for food etc. the government would have been smoked and the people starving. There would not have been a need for an invasion or war to crush germany at that stage so the option not signing did not exist.
I thought Jennifer Zoebelein made a great presentation--a concise and clear starting point for somebody who wants to learn more. Even the incessant "Right... right... right..." I found kind of charming after a while!
If I told you that at your trial the judges, the prosecution, the interrogators, the defense, the research team, the clerks, would all come from your enemies and that you weren't invited... at your own trial!!!! Wouldn't you say NOW WAIT A MINUTE! And at the end, when they told you to go to Paris for the final signatures the British food blockade that was maintained until it was time to sign had already killed more than 600,000 of your people from starvation so you were already under under pressure but when you were told that if you refused to sign, your country would be invaded and destroyed, you could have a better example of signing a contract "under duress". Therefore, you couldn't find a better example of an contract invalidated at the very moment it was concluded, a sad parody of justice.
I think that’s why it is important to not engage in total war. Remember, nobody can say that France invaded Germany to start the war. Nobody can say that the British were using submarines to sink passenger ships. Nobody can say that the Americans invaded and brutalized neutral countries because they were on the easier route to their enemy’s capitol. Nobody can say that the Italians were the first to use poison gas in war. Yes, the British blockade was brutal, and in that regard, in a total war context, it was highly effective, imposing costs, constraints and risks on your opponents at limited cost to you. Being outraged that the Germans were signing a peace treaty under duress ignores the reality that most peace treaties are signed under such conditions. More important, it focuses outrage on only the last moments of a horrendous war and ignores the terrible escalating actions taken by the eventual losers. Anyone drowning in sympathy for the Germans should take a look at the peace treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians mere months earlier to understand the values the Germans used to dictate terms on the vanquished.
Thanks for Uploading.
Why did they pick Versailles, and that moment? Because that was the same date and location where the unified German Empire was constituted in 1871.
Creation and dismantling (well, that was the idea) of that German Empire.
There was pretty much no chance the Germans wouldn't sign the treaty. And this had less to do with the military situation than with the internal situation within Germany, which was starting to ominously resemble Petersburg of a year prior. There were food shortages, massive civilian unrest, naval mutinies, and there seemed a distinct possibility of social collapse or revolution.
I 100% agree with Zoebelein and Macmillan about Versailles not causing WW2. Those who make such a claim are practicing lazy history as they cheerfully dismiss 20 years of agency and decision of millions of people to get their nice narrative.
She got some things wrong: what Bulgaria lost in the south is not Dobruga. That is a region in the north of the country. Lost to Romania during Balkan Wars.
What was the name of the region they lost?
Western Thrace
I am gratified to see a woman presenter. She and Margaret McMillan are the only two I can recall. Interestingly both of them focus on the peace and results thereof. I found both of them to be excellent (without regard to any speaking habits ;-}
Right!
On the question what would have happen if the germans had not signed the Versaille peace it should be noted that the German society was in chaos and in front of a revolution like in Russia. If german would have been blocked for food etc. the government would have been smoked and the people starving. There would not have been a need for an invasion or war to crush germany at that stage so the option not signing did not exist.
I thought Jennifer Zoebelein made a great presentation--a concise and clear starting point for somebody who wants to learn more.
Even the incessant "Right... right... right..." I found kind of charming after a while!
Ugggh.
If I told you that at your trial the judges, the prosecution, the interrogators, the defense, the research team, the clerks, would all come from your enemies and that you weren't invited... at your own trial!!!! Wouldn't you say NOW WAIT A MINUTE! And at the end, when they told you to go to Paris for the final signatures the British food blockade that was maintained until it was time to sign had already killed more than 600,000 of your people from starvation so you were already under under pressure but when you were told that if you refused to sign, your country would be invaded and destroyed, you could have a better example of signing a contract "under duress". Therefore, you couldn't find a better example of an contract invalidated at the very moment it was concluded, a sad parody of justice.
I think that’s why it is important to not engage in total war. Remember, nobody can say that France invaded Germany to start the war. Nobody can say that the British were using submarines to sink passenger ships. Nobody can say that the Americans invaded and brutalized neutral countries because they were on the easier route to their enemy’s capitol. Nobody can say that the Italians were the first to use poison gas in war.
Yes, the British blockade was brutal, and in that regard, in a total war context, it was highly effective, imposing costs, constraints and risks on your opponents at limited cost to you. Being outraged that the Germans were signing a peace treaty under duress ignores the reality that most peace treaties are signed under such conditions. More important, it focuses outrage on only the last moments of a horrendous war and ignores the terrible escalating actions taken by the eventual losers. Anyone drowning in sympathy for the Germans should take a look at the peace treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians mere months earlier to understand the values the Germans used to dictate terms on the vanquished.
The Allies didn't totally call off the British naval blockade until the Germans signed it. Thats playing "hard ball" huh?
And a quarter million Germans starved between the Armistice and the blockade end 8 months later.