It was a complete surrender. Not only was it a complete surrender, but Versailles was a humiliating treaty, guaranteeing another war. Kaiser Wilhelm had to abdicate, the German Empire was dismantled, elections were held, Emperor Karl of Austria was forced to abdicate, the Austrian Empire was dismantled, elections were held in those nations which were formed by it's fall as well. AND, as if all of that wasn't enough, Germany had to pay punative war reparations to France as well as accept blame for the war.
It seems that Versailles fell short of its ambitions because of explicit and tacit mismanagement of expectations: 1) Wilson bit more than he could chew. Most of his 14 points were included in the Treaty but they were often ambiguous and it resulted in misunderstandings. The resulting compromises in the Treaty were probably not the worst but they needed a strong LoN to oversee their application and Wilson mismanaged his home front. With the United States out (+ Soviet Union/Russia and Germany), the United Kingdom could have better cooperated with France but decided otherwise and considered its ally as a rival. 2)Tacitly, the format was supposed to be Vienna 1815 but after having opened so many can of words and with the pressure of national crowds calling for victors' spoils or for social revolutions in the defeated empires, such a format became impossible to envisage.
Vienna 1815 and all the realpolitk maneuvering over the following 100 years largely preserved the peace among great powers but post WWI was seen as one of the causes of WWI, so people was consciously trying to do thing differently, this wasn't just an Wilson or even American thing. but whatever treaty/system would never have worked since there was never any enforcement mechanism other than "world opinion", i mean, even within a nation, you need cops with guns to preserve public order, public opinion alone never works, that's not idealism, that's delusion. Plus, 14 points fractured eastern europe which fatally weakened France's position immensely even though technically France won the war: so many independent small states removed deterrence against Germany on Eastern Front AND aggravated Soviet Union since lots of which were carved out of old Russian Empire land, they gave a common enemy/grievances to unite Germany and Soviet Union, they separated Soviet Union from Germany and vice verse physically/effective removed threat of 2 front war, at least for a while, and these states were far away from Britain/France/US so they couldn't be directly supported even if the west nations wanted, without risking a world war. basically idealism created set of rich and weak targets while at the same pissed off / united the 2 strongest nations on Europe: Germany and Soviet Union, it'd never have worked
Wilson cut a devil's deal with Lloyd George and Clemenceau: abandoned a constructive peace (the 14 Points, agreed to by Germany @ the Armistice) in return for their - and other - signatures on his fatuous League of Nations, then himself signed onto the Anglo-French Diktat....result: same war all over again and even worse, w/in 20 years.
That is how IR works, it is a give and take. It is far too simplistic to blame WW2 on the Treaty of Versailles. This forgets that there were 20 years of decisions and evolution between the two landmarks, and also serves to remove the agency from the decision makers in Germany to go down a path of evil in the 1930's.
Wilson put himself in an impossible position with the 14 points anyways, trying to push for an ideological middle ground which was inherently unstable. He abandoned the 14 points wholesale when he gave shandong to the Japanese
Is history teleological? If there is no God or Creator, then, no. If, yes, then, there is. But, if the answer is no, then can there really be accountability?
Everything is possible without the existence of "God." People who say that things like morals or accountability cannot exist without the existence of "God" fail to prove why. The very existence of "God" has never been proved to begin with. The onus is on people who claim something exists to prove it, not on those who know it doesn't to explain why it doesn't. As far as your question's base, I would say no because history is just the past, not a designed set of occurrences; events just simply happened and "history" is human summation of those events. For something to be teleological it would have to be by design, like something in nature being especially adapted to it's surroundings or a tank having been designed with armor which was specifically developed to repel an enemy's current designs on their idea of armor piercing shells.
Great conversation by all. Michael Neiberg is a really terrific speaker and historian
Very interesting presentation.
Thanks for Uploading.
41:16 Love seeing a fan of the bow tie. Looking sharp, sir.
Here is my question. Why did the allies settle for less than a complete surrender?
It was a complete surrender. Not only was it a complete surrender, but Versailles was a humiliating treaty, guaranteeing another war. Kaiser Wilhelm had to abdicate, the German Empire was dismantled, elections were held, Emperor Karl of Austria was forced to abdicate, the Austrian Empire was dismantled, elections were held in those nations which were formed by it's fall as well. AND, as if all of that wasn't enough, Germany had to pay punative war reparations to France as well as accept blame for the war.
1st-rate discussion, thank you.
It seems that Versailles fell short of its ambitions because of explicit and tacit mismanagement of expectations:
1) Wilson bit more than he could chew. Most of his 14 points were included in the Treaty but they were often ambiguous and it resulted in misunderstandings. The resulting compromises in the Treaty were probably not the worst but they needed a strong LoN to oversee their application and Wilson mismanaged his home front. With the United States out (+ Soviet Union/Russia and Germany), the United Kingdom could have better cooperated with France but decided otherwise and considered its ally as a rival.
2)Tacitly, the format was supposed to be Vienna 1815 but after having opened so many can of words and with the pressure of national crowds calling for victors' spoils or for social revolutions in the defeated empires, such a format became impossible to envisage.
Vienna 1815 and all the realpolitk maneuvering over the following 100 years largely preserved the peace among great powers but post WWI was seen as one of the causes of WWI, so people was consciously trying to do thing differently, this wasn't just an Wilson or even American thing. but whatever treaty/system would never have worked since there was never any enforcement mechanism other than "world opinion", i mean, even within a nation, you need cops with guns to preserve public order, public opinion alone never works, that's not idealism, that's delusion. Plus, 14 points fractured eastern europe which fatally weakened France's position immensely even though technically France won the war: so many independent small states removed deterrence against Germany on Eastern Front AND aggravated Soviet Union since lots of which were carved out of old Russian Empire land, they gave a common enemy/grievances to unite Germany and Soviet Union, they separated Soviet Union from Germany and vice verse physically/effective removed threat of 2 front war, at least for a while, and these states were far away from Britain/France/US so they couldn't be directly supported even if the west nations wanted, without risking a world war.
basically idealism created set of rich and weak targets while at the same pissed off / united the 2 strongest nations on Europe: Germany and Soviet Union, it'd never have worked
Wilson cut a devil's deal with Lloyd George and Clemenceau: abandoned a constructive peace (the 14 Points, agreed to by Germany @ the Armistice) in return for their - and other - signatures on his fatuous League of Nations, then himself signed onto the Anglo-French Diktat....result: same war all over again and even worse, w/in 20 years.
You are right. Germany should have been crushed in 1919.
I don't think he had much of a choice. They, especially France, held way more cards than he did.
That is how IR works, it is a give and take.
It is far too simplistic to blame WW2 on the Treaty of Versailles. This forgets that there were 20 years of decisions and evolution between the two landmarks, and also serves to remove the agency from the decision makers in Germany to go down a path of evil in the 1930's.
Wilson put himself in an impossible position with the 14 points anyways, trying to push for an ideological middle ground which was inherently unstable. He abandoned the 14 points wholesale when he gave shandong to the Japanese
Is history teleological? If there is no God or Creator, then, no. If, yes, then, there is. But, if the answer is no, then can there really be accountability?
Everything is possible without the existence of "God." People who say that things like morals or accountability cannot exist without the existence of "God" fail to prove why. The very existence of "God" has never been proved to begin with. The onus is on people who claim something exists to prove it, not on those who know it doesn't to explain why it doesn't.
As far as your question's base, I would say no because history is just the past, not a designed set of occurrences; events just simply happened and "history" is human summation of those events. For something to be teleological it would have to be by design, like something in nature being especially adapted to it's surroundings or a tank having been designed with armor which was specifically developed to repel an enemy's current designs on their idea of armor piercing shells.