The Treaty of Versailles: 100 Years Later 

Not one mention of The Balfour Declaration & the impact that would’ve made to every Jews thought process in Europe or even around the world. She might of mentioned it but i must of farted & I missed it . Also The Ottoman Empire was I think mentioned once or twice but was massively swerved. Who controlled the oil in what was the Ottoman territory is always missed out by these ‘great’ historians.

​@@jameshodgkins559 it is necessary to be selective when giving a one hour lecture. The topics you raise are not central to this lecture.

@@ray_glaze , well to reality they are . The Balfour Declaration was the seed that started the ‘stab in the back’ & the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire & control of the oil fields within their old territories was the key prize at the hall of mirrors. Yet the so called historians serve it like neither ever happened. I wonder why .

@@ray_glaze , also not one mention of the Sykes Picot Agreement, which if it wasn’t for the Russian Revolution no one would’ve known about it . Conveniently swerved.

@@jameshodgkins559 I don't disagree with your comments. I'm only suggesting that this lecture need not include them. The focus of this lecture is the treaty of Versailles. And that is enough to fill a 45-minute lecture.

I watched Paris 1919 recently on RU-vid as well. I found it enjoyable and informative.

History is made complicated ...but goethe and hegel made it simple...isnt it?

Benjamin Freedmans Speech Willard Hotel 1961

Very wise,thereis official truth,and true truth...

Of course

But hardly surprising after the suffering, fine words but would you be less vindictive.

I hope the balances shift again, soon. Germans are the most brilliant and best of us. Certainly better than their treacherous Anglo counterparts.

There wasn't an introduction. I recognize her and believe she's the granddaughter of Lloyd George but can't remember her name. Not mentioned in tge heading.

@@sherrylhendrickson6861 Her name is Margaret MacMillan. She wrote two excellent books on WWI, "Paris 1919" and "The War That Ended Peace." I think she is the best WWI historian going. I don't know if she's still teaching there but she was a professor at The University of Toronto. If you haven't read her books, I highly recommend them, especially Paris 1919 which I think is the best book on the Treaty of Versailles.

@@itinerantpatriot1196 if you think the apologist, MacMillan, is the best historian on the outbreak of the war then I pity your reading list.

She is an excellent historian. I rank her right up there with Barbara Ruchman, who wrote The Guns of August, which gave a comprehensive account on the opening months of the First World War.

@@aaronkahland9896 either suggest a book or get lost

One generation handed the next a world-redefining war because of expediency.

You forgot areas like Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen etc with almost 100% German speaking population. Poland should never have been given access to the Baltic Sea, there was no Polish majority there. Not to forget the loss of the German colonies. What nation would have let that happen to them? The English would have demanded revenge in such a situation after 10 years, not after 20 years like the Germans.

you also have to ad the dismantlement of the german merchant navy so Germany could not compete with USA and England

@@rb3058 100% is quite the exaggeration

@@guntherjager5085 I wrote "almost 100%". Some very tiny areas were partly French-speaking. The Germans there were deprived of their human rights by the French after 1918 and really extreme after 1945 in a way that is unparalleled in Western Europe.

They, like her know everything. Afterwards.

I am so grateful that a lecture like this is available, years later, for me to listen to form thousands of miles away. Thank you, internet. Thank you, Yutuve.

Try considering REAL history -Brest-litvsk demands for a start.

Like which stuff, cos I like viewers comments that’s knowledgeable

Many Germans still don't know what peace is. It wasn't an issue. It was the devastating destruction of life and cost of the b. Germans that was the issue and of course they should have been made to make reparations towards SOME of the cost of their war.

All the warring parties wanted this war. Must read : Barbara Tuchman. The Proud Tower. The wounds inflicted by The Dictates of Versailles and Trianon have not healed yet.

Europe, WW1, WW2, UKRAINE WAR. If WW2 was Versailes fault, who is at fault for Ukraine? Trump: 4 YEARAMSÜ OF

wonder if sometimes peace, in a current, even though very fallible state is waay preferential and very necessary for saving lives, while having to kick the 'can' on some issues down the road. Maybe in the aftermath of a 'peace' agreement when people have that collective sigh, the timing and action for those necessary revisions that should take place, are often neglected, underestimated, or poorly adapted.

I think her view of the results of the post WW1 settlement is rubbish on stilts. Keynes predicted the results when he resigned from the Treasury and wrote 'The economic consequences of the peace" in 1919.

Should be basic… 🙄 All historians are supposed to be humans, and history is written (and periodically rewritten) by…humans, each one with his or her own biases, consciously or not. Never met, personally, an historian, a scientist, a journalist, or even an academic who wasn’t somehow ‘oriented’. The point is making it clear ‘in limine’, from the start, and being as honest as possible in all our works.

​@fabiengerard8142 10b humans by 2055 Where should areas of conflict be for max efficiency Keep in focus Messianic Era

That is sure that the British version is biased.

Не расстраивайся по поводу истории - твоё время безвозратно ушло. Теперь пиши завещание и готовься к вечной жизни.

Point well made. I was about to write on similar lines. TBH I feel that everyone was spoiling for a fight for many different reasons. As well as the French desire to avenge the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war, Britain wanted to suppress an emerging industrial competitor.

I find this lecture to be so one sided as to be nothing but a piece of finely spoken propaganda.

YES, YES, A TOUSAND TIMES YES. THE TRUTH AT LAST. THANK YOU.

@@chicagofineart9546 BAH BAH BLACK SHEEP...

"the French state was willing to go to war in order to prevent German unification" I'd nuance that by pointing out that the French foreign politics under the Second Empire was pretty erratic, and sometimes kind of directionless. If the above point had been true, France would have entered the war of 1866 - in fact, Austria very much wanted them too. Nor did France declared war on Prussia to prevent them from uniting Germany - in fact, Germany got united *because* France declared war on Prussia. It was mostly misplaced ego that led them to this conflict.

But surely the same thing would have happened anyway? Because Britain was never giving up Ireland in one form or another. But an interesting point and tbh one I was not aware of.

This is an excellent point ..I’m a Brit living in Hungary with Hungarian family..I hadn’t realised the bad feeling that still exists with many regarding Trianon . There are still many who consider themselves ethnic Hungarians and speak Hungarian within their families in the modern states of Slovakia ,Serbia, Ukraine and Romania. I guess this could be the subject of its own lecture.

@@vincentdow5899What Britain and France did to the Middle east - Sykes/Picot - is total proof that mjoelnir is 100% correct. The mess in the Middle east is a DIRECT result of European Colonial ambitions. Until the West faces up and looks itself in the mirror the horrific wars which have resulted from their total greed and stupidity will never end.

How about The Balfour Declaration & the problems that caused

@@jameshodgkins559 Precisely: another example of British White Supremacist Colonialism.

A zugzwang?

Power vacuum aggravated by Yalta and Roosewelt (invasion in France instead of Italie).

Yes, the Western World has yet to come to terms or take responsibility for the plague they visited on post Ottoman Middle East, I.E Sykes/Picot. The West still does not get it that it has no right to colonize, or to interfere in any country but their own. In other words, the mess the Middle east became was caused 100% by the French and the British.

////podcast/// >> forecast (?)

the figure I have read is that 250,000 Germans died of hunger etc as a result of the British blockade.

Excellent point. Somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000 German civilians were starved to death by the blockade in between the armistice and signature of the treaty. The Germans would never forget that- nor would any nation.

@@albertoborrero8306 it was actually between 600,000 and 800,000

Most of Europe suffered of food shortage and famine during ww1. France and Germany both lost about 0.7% of their civilian population due to hunger and disease, but France lost on top of that tens and tens thousands more civilians due to military action and war crimes. Germany on the contrary was left untouched by the fightings and was pretty well off at the end of the war compared to pyrhic victors like France or Belgium.

Sanctions now the equivalent name used for blockade are still used againt countries and its people. Worse is that it is used against poor countries without a declaration of war as a form of imperial dominance to make the people, civilian people including children, suffer. Presently many countries are under sanctions. Evil empires do evil things.

gsilcoful if you knew anything about what happened you’d know that was just a formality and Bismarck planned it all

I'd say so. While deeply flawed, the 1919 treaties are the most influential in history outright. Because they dealt with so many issues and broadly in most theatres of the world

Yugoslavia’s problem was socialism. When you do not have track of economic profitability everyone will be convinced that they are subsiding everyone else.

100% Yugoslavia never should have been created.

Would retaining Austro-Hungarian empire been better?

@@tangosmurfen2376 - Is capitalism garanty for peace?

Well meant is unfortunately the opposite of well done. It was clear that there would be another war after Versailles. I am surprised that it took 20 years. The Germans were really patient.

What 'punitive measures' ?? Germany basically reneged on almost all of its obligations under Versailles and the payments that they did make were loans from American Banks that they never repaid.

@@freddieclark Germany lost huge territories after the first world war. This meant that the right of nations to self-determination was broken in an unbelievable way, which inevitably led to the Second World War. Alsace-Lorraine had more than 90% Germans, the Baltic Sea/Danzig was purely German, etc etc. Today, more or less no one in Alsace-Lorraine speaks German anymore, and it goes without saying that the French were only able to enforce this with the most serious violations of human rights. Moreover, Germany lost all its colonies after WWI. The Rhineland was occupied....the list is endless and today hardly imaginable or comprehensible.

@@rb3058 You do realise that 'Germany' was a product of Bismarck and that many of those territories were not in any way happy about being forced into the construct that Bismarck wanted. The right of nations to self determination?, what planet are you living on. When did Bismarck give a hoot about national determination when he attacked Austria or Denmark, please get real. Germany actually benefitted from the loss of its colonies as none of them were (at that time) net contributors to the German state coffers. You also seem to forget that the peace terms of the Franco-Prussian war were far harsher, yet France managed to pay them off almost immediately. I would mention the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the absolutely demeaning demands the Germans placed on Russia, but I am guessing you are not aware of them either.

Well you shouldn't have started it then.

It has been proven by time , Germany wasn't the instigator .

What loot? The war was fought in Belgium and France in the West. Germanys treaty with Russia was much more ruthless than Versailles. Remind me again how much Germany ended up paying in reparations? France lost 40% of its manufacturing, mines, and the highest percentage of young men.

iTube22100 mostly it had to do with the fact that there were communications between Austria and Germany making it pretty clear that Austria wouldn’t have moved if Germany wasn’t going to back it. The second probably more important factor in terms of western Europe was that, Germany invaded Belgium which was a country that was neutral by agreed collective treaty of all major powers in Europe, who did nothing to Germany or Austria or Serbia. Basically it proved that there were no lines the Germans wouldn’t cross in order to win even if it was aggression against a nation that wasn’t even involved. The first could have been forgiven, the second couldn’t. It’s one thing to have a war time enemy or alliances, that was an understood part of the rules of war, it was another to invade a nation that wasn’t taking sides completely in the opposite direction of where the actual fighting had started to just get to France who also haven’t declared war on Germany. You fight your own enemy not a third party

Austria is to blame just as equally as Germany agreed

Germany not only allowed this war by giving full support to Austria-Hungary, but it was Germany who extended the conflict by provoking 5 countries at the start of the war (Germany declared war on France, Russia, Belgium and invaded Luxembourg, pushing Britain to declare war), including 3 of the greatest world powers of the time. Not to mention the United States, which eventually entered the war in 1917 following attacks by German submarines on its passenger and merchant ships.

@@Anton-kp3mi Because the terms of the covenants came into effect. US provided war material, which is against the rules of neutrality (as they are doing even now) and for this they were attacked. Any way, they weren't the only ones responsibe.

@@iTube22100 If Germany had not given its full support Austria-Hungary would have thought twice about invading Serbia. Germany was the most powerful nation in continental Europe at the time, and Austria-Hungary was a bit like its little brother. Austria-Hungary was the one who wanted to waged war against Serbia, however the Austro-Hungarians needed the support of Germany. The Germans knew perfectly well the chain reaction that an invasion of Serbia by Austria-Hungary supported by Germany would provoke at the European level but the Germans themselves wanted a war with Russia which was the main ally of Serbia. The Germans were worried about the rise of the Russian army during the beginning of the 20th century and wanted a war with Russia as soon as possible to break up the Russian army before it became stronger than the German army. The Germans also knew perfectly well that a war against Russia would meant a war against France since France was Russia's ally, but the Germans thought that a victory against France was easily achievable. The Germans had also planned as early as 1905 to invade France through Belgium and Luxembourg, and they knew that by doing so they would also inevitably risked to trigger Britain to enter into the war as the British had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839.

Fully agreed. Italy e tering into war had a strong impact on victory fixing many Austro hungarian and German troops. The role of Italy is as important if not bigeer than the role of American troops arriving in late 1917

You can't talk about that part.

The Russian troops stayed only a month in Prussia and went no further than Olsztyn, a town which is in Poland nowadays and which is located nearly 500km from Berlin. That's not what I would call "threatening Berlin". By comparison German troops occupied and devastated northern France throughout the war and approached Paris by only 60km, directly bombing the French capital. The north of France was so much devastated that there is still a huge area today known as "zone rouge", spreading over several hundred kilometers from Lille to Nancy, which is still considered as impossible to clean and impossible for human life. Regarding the participation of Germany in the discussions of the Treaty of Versailles, let us remember that the First World War was the greatest war in history at the time and still is one of the two largest wars in history today and Germany was the direct cause of it. Germany not only allowed the war by giving full support to Austria-Hungary, it also extended the conflict by provoking 5 countries at the start of the war including 3 of the greatest world powers of the time. Germany declared war on Russia on 1 august 1914, then invaded Luxembourg on 2 august, then declared war on France on 3 august, then invaded neutral Belgium on 4 august, pushing Britain to declare war in turn on the same day. Not to mention the United States, which eventually entered the war in 1917 following attacks by German submarines on its passenger and merchant ships. And as mentioned in the video Germany fought only on the territory of its neighbors and saw almost no combat on its own soil. As for the comparison with the Napoleonic wars not only did the Napoleonic wars cause much less death and destruction while they lasted 8 years longer, but in detail it was a series of 5 wars led by coalitions of European monarchy against Napoleon and Napoleon was the initiator of hostility only during the 3rd and 4th of these 5 wars. And if France was allowed to participate in the congress of Vienna it was because it was led by king Louis XVIII, brother of Louis XVI who had been guillotinned by the french people during the revolution. Louis XVIII had been installed on the throne of France in 1814 by the coalition of monarchies which had defeated Napoleon. So if France was allowed to participate in the congress of Vienna it was solely because Louis XVIII was an ally and kind of a puppet of other European monarchies.

@@Anton-kp3mi I would refer you to your first paragraph, however far they got it was still an invasion and they were defeated by the Germans at the Battle of the Masurian lakes and Tannenberg in 1914- one of my Great uncles died there. They got no further because they were defeated as was Russia in 1917. As to your point about submarine warfare, please note that whilst the Americans were claiming neutrality, which involves not getting involved in any way, they were supplying the allies. What ever the Political rights or wrongs of sinking the Lucy the plain fact that is frequently ignored was that the Germans pointely asked people not to sail on that ship from New York. The establishment knew she was a marked ship, but it justified Americas entry into the war, just at the point when the French were about to Mutiny, The British were on their uppers and the Russians were going too. Finally, the French were permitted to take part, irrespective, the Germans at Versailles were not. end of.

That’s because at least some of the allied nations understood the treaty was one sided and too harsh on Germany.