Lessons from the Paris Peace Conference - Michael Neiberg 

Love his lectures

I love this presentation. To paraphrase “ never in the field of human endeavor have so many great men done such a disservice to mankind while trying to do good”

Ho Chi Minh was there to plead his case for Vietnamese self-determination. Don't think he got past the parking lot.

Excellent talk! One conclusion that the end of WW I may have been 1989 was very interesting to ponder.

Brilliant talk. Great speaker.

Outstanding presentation, should be a “must see” for anyone learning/studying WWI..thank you sir.

The David Llyoyd George part (at 17:54 ) is great. One of the highlights is "I don't think I did to badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon."

1919: "Let's end all wars. Let's start by not inviting everybody..."

The so called Polish Corridor was mostly populated by Poles. The Polish delegation to the conference presented that clearly. They showed German phone books from the region with majority of Polish names in them. Gdańsk was mostly populated by Germans. Hence it became a free city (for the second time in history btw.)

Clémenceau did not just "care far less" than Lloyd George for the empire, he cared not at all as he was an avowed anti-imperialist.

I am reading Dance of the Furies. It is an excellent book.

At the turn of the century (1900) the Ottoman Empire was "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. It was 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, and in 1939 there were 2 (note, *two,* not one) who challenged "the system" set up at Versailles... Stalin gave Hitler a "blank cheque" to invade Poland. Hitler gave Stalin a "blank cheque" to invade Poland. And there was another world war.

Factual error: 11:30 the map on the left pictures the Kingdom of Hungary (inside the Habsburg Monarchy) and only the left is a map of Romania.

Quite brilliant.

great lecture and smart observations. I wonder if there would also be a section to discuss how both the French and British colonized the Middle East and grabbed the oil. it would be great is someone be honest about it for a change. as it stands, the blood shed in those parts is still going on. Thank you again.

Why was there such a military tradition in germanian countries vs. other countries?

i understand the reason for the Polish Corridor because they had been screwed over so many times in the past. But I don't understand the stated justification of allowing Poland access to the Baltic. The Poles had no cultural tradition as a sea power. Also, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were not given access to the sea.

The treaty was the biggest cock up in modern times!

21:50-forgot Schleswig-Holstein?

Le Tigre said describing Woody, "God only had 10."....... hahahahahahahahahah

Wiki: "Article 231 was one of the most controversial points of the treaty. It specified: 'The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected *as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.' (end of)"* The pathetic intention behind the highlighted clause is an obvious attempt by those powers who did not avoid the war, at "washing own hands in innocence". The clause highlighed sorta sounds like "poor innocent little us had a war forced upon poor innocent us, which was totally and wholy unexpectedly", even though it was a war of choice (aka "preventive war") allround, for all the great powers. *There were no innocents amongst any of the major powers.* Although the article doesn't mention the word "guilt", the fact that it stated "imposed upon (us)" without acknowledging own responsibility, means that by exclusion they might have well have stated "it's all your fault". Today, the formulation usually found acceptable for the new post-2000 generation of historians re. "Who started it?" is "No one nation is entirely at fault for WW1" (with the added "although Germany bears more guilt than others" sometimes added). *If that is as close to the truth as one can get today, it was also true in 1914.* The way the "winners" tried to absolve themselves "per signature" in 1919 was truly cowardly. An exercise in "washing hands in innocence" at a time those in power knew what they had done (enter into preventive war, either by declaration, or deceit). They had sent millions to their deaths, and were not wiling to accept any responsibility themselves. Suggestion: Stay away from such leaders. Support of such "pass the buck"-turncoats and opportunists will do nobody any good. Lesson learnt? I fear not.

The separation between mainland Germany and East Prussia with the Polish corridor was the surest way to guarantee another war in the near future, was it intentional? Probably.

Around 14:30 ....the old "poor France" narrative. [From wiki] "In 1913, it had been announced that Poincaré would visit St. Petersburg in July 1914 to meet Tsar Nicholas II. Accompanied by Premier René Viviani, Poincaré went to Russia for the second time (but for the first time as president) to reinforce the Franco-Russian Alliance. On 15 July, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, Count Leopold von Berchtold, informed foreign countries through a back-channel of Austria-Hungary's intention to present an ultimatum to Serbia.[24] When Poincaré arrived in St. Petersburg on 20 July, the Russians told him by 21 July of the Austrian ultimatum and German support for Austria.[24] Although Prime Minister Viviani was supposed to be in charge of French foreign policy, *Poincaré promised the Tsar unconditional French military backing for Russia against Austria-Hungary and Germany.[25]"* Yup, sounds like a "blank cheque" to me... [Continued] *"In his discussions with Nicholas II, Poincaré talked openly of winning an eventual war, not avoiding one.[21]"* So much for the "we just want peace" narrative... [Continued] *"Later, he attempted to hide his role in the outbreak of military conflict and denied having promised Russia anything.[21]"* Yup. Straight out denial. [From wiki] The leaders of France could have avoided the developing "3rd Balkan War" from turning into the "Continental European War"-phase, by declaring their neutrality. Note, without endangering their own population, or security interests. Just like in 1908, they could have stayed out of Balkan issues. They didn't want to. So they got the war they wanted.

to guess if the treaty of Versailles is deemed good or bad you have the look the last name of the historian talking, if it has a German origin guess what...The treaty was terrible and the allies are guilty of stupidity and responsible for WW2 The problem was not the Versailles treaty by the fact two of the main three designers of the treaty did not care about enforcing it.

The idiotic idea of giving Poland the Polish Corridor so it could survive by access to the sea was short sighted. If the Poles couldn't survive without access to the sea, which they didn't previously have anyway, they should have ceased to exist.

The Allies should have driven all the way to Berlin and divided and occupied Germany like they did the second time, and that's the real failure of the Treaty of Versailles.