How fair was 'The Treaty of Versailles'? [Illustrated] 

My dude the RU-vid algorithm isn't doing you justice, you deserve much more views and subscribers

So easy to understand, thanks so much for posting this! The treaty of V was actually not as harrsh as typical history books describe it. I have my IGCSE orals in a month, hope it goes well :)

Omg this was so helpfulllll😭 I have a one on one debate with my teacher tomorrow and I was so confused on which side I should be on but I’m for now :) thank you so so much I’m gonna subscribe 💕💕

This video REALLY helped me understand more about the details of the Treaty and how it wasn't as harsh as most people describe it. That really helped because I have a debate tomorrow about it and I'm on the fair side. Update: MY SIDE WON! THANK YOU SO MUCH!

AMZING DUDEE!

great video.

I nearly imploded because of my exams but I found "peace" in the knowledge of this video. I got a good grade and was rewarded a "treat". This video definitely deserves more likes than my hope to continue my career in dad jokes. Give yourselves a pat on the back!

This was extremely interesting. So, in light of what youve layed out here, i want to ask your opinion on something. It had been my opinion for some tkme, that the percieved unfairness of thevtreaty, which caused economic gardship and nationalistic anger in germany, was a major contributing factor of WWII. In essence, the associated with a weakened economycreated enough upheval to allow Hitler to worm his way up while playing on his countries wounded ego, for lack of a better term,. Is this true? What do you think

During the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire was famously called "the sick man of Europe". By the 1930s, the new "sick men" were London and Paris, desperately trying to hold on to empires, long after the days of "empires" were over. All the events of the 1930s could be called "a bed they made for themselves at Versailles", and in 1939 they had to sleep in it. In 1919 there were 2 who were not invited (Germany and the new SU), and in 1939 there were 2 (note, *two,* not one) who challenged the New World Order set up at Versailles... Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland. Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, and Romania. And there was another world war.

Why is most of your videos about philosophy? I thought polymathy was about a wide range of study, not the study of the nature things? Seems like an interesting channel though. Hope you guys post more videos.

Eupen malmedy speaks german not walloon. this is the reason german is an official language in Belgium

"If you want peace, prepare for dab." 1:37

Thank you save my live

0:37 What about Serbia and Japan?

It was not meant to be fair. But it was also a lot less harsh than what the Germans imposed on Russia at Brest Litovsk.

What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"? It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts... Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy: Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite. Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917-1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians." These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today. Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer *of and over* continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers. These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology). *Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.* The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet? Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC? Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired. *The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).* The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely. No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video. *Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.* ***As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies* tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.

This video sponsored by Churchill publishing

There was no way Versailles was ever going to be enforced, because after the communists started growing the SUs power, Germany was needed to "balance out" the SU. *London was not going to "enforce Versailles".* *Paris would not have acted without the support of London.* Simple as that... That makes any and every "we should done"-logic wishful thinking. Note that if one suggests an alternative history, it should at least be viable at the time. Enforcing Versailles wasn't viable. It was neither politically desirable, nor would it have received support from populations which had just lost millions in a World War. London aimed to "balance powers" on the continent, in an effort to protect their "Empire", and achieved exactly the opposite.

How about Japan

It did more damage in the East

British had a Empire to loot. So Germany had a tempted on this