Short Talks on Big Subjects - The Treaty of Versailles with Michael Neiberg

The Treaty of Versailles ended more than the First World War. By putting a final end to the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires it also raised questions about the future of the Jews who lived in those empires. I
n our continuing series, Short Talks on Big Subjects, Michael S. Neiberg, author of The Treaty of Versailles: A Very Short Introduction, discussed the watershed events of 1916-1919 and their connection to the Jewish people today.
Presented by: Center for Jewish History, Leo Baeck Institute & Oxford University Press

[@AlbertSchram]

[06:31] OUP [10:05] Lecture starts

[@Paeoniarosa]

Good grief, Thank you.

[@phanoutoshi8]

Definitely a great historian ! And he is right.. great question from the audience

[@paulcasey5204]

Brilliant. Had to keep replaying bits of it because of the racket of all the pennies dropping in my mind.

[@joanofarc6402]

Thank you so much for showing the slides discussed in this lecture. This is so interesting!! 😇😇🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@AhmetwithaT]

43:55 imagine being the Muslim guy who came to welcome this guy when you hear THAT declaration.

[@leebarry5686]

Without putting justice as the first principle for research , one can never have a genuine outcome

[@ralphbernhard1757]

*For the British Empire, commencing roughly the year 1900, every "victory" was in fact a nail in the own coffin.* The following essay will explain how first London, and then Washington DC used mainly divide and rule/conquer strategies at key watershed moments throughout history in order to effect world domination, mainly facilitated by a geographical advantage. Unlike conventional wisdom suggests, such policies were not only implemented in overseas territories and colonies, but were indeed also used against the continental European powers, within the limitations of the power balance at any given time in history. In order to first become and then later stay the world hegemon, distance coupled with a financial and technological edge, were converted into political means (policies) by London power players. Up to the early-20th century, these realities gave London that slight edge over their continental rivals which were already divided due to a variety of reasons. As time progressed and war ravaged Europe in the first half of the 20th century, technology advanced further, so that the geographical advantage once enjoyed by London, passed over to the USA and Washington DC's power players. After World War 2 the multipolar world up to the 19th century turned bipolar, then unipolar as the Cold War ended or the systems morphed. Historically, European conflicts between systems based on structurally similar dynasties, turned into a struggle between ideologically different systems. Rather than the previous limited wars up to the early-20th century, wars then became total. The different systems tended to strive to overpower, marginalize, integrate or destroy other conflicting systems if symbioses was not possible. The key to success here, and the novelty of the theory presented, was that the core means employed were strategies resembling divide and rule/conquer. The systems which had the geographical advantage, either allied with, beguiled, befriended or otherwise favored other systems if useful for own gain. What set these loose alliances of friendships or ententes apart from other systems which also united, was a lack of obligation to react in any specific way during times of crises or wars. The distinct advantage of geography being that those with such a competitive advantage would not have to fear an existencial threat to the own systems and could be more bold in international relations, or delaying actions in crises or wars until a favorable point on the timeline, based on the technological standpoint humanity had reached at the point in time. Such divide and rule strategies were in fact standing London policies, disguised by careful use of language in policies. Since the logic of balanced powers to avoid great wars was widely accepted within the framework of the Concert of Europe, no other capital city seemed to have noticed or objected. Rather than aiding relative peace, which persisted in most of Europe for around a century after 1815, London's policy standpoint as sole "balancer of powers", resulted in an ever greater risk of a total war of the systems. At the core of Europe, these older continental European systems grew in extent and power in the leadup to 1914, under constant stress in efforts to balance power due to the fact that land borders resulted in more exposure to danger from a neighboring system: placing continental powers in a situation of a relative geographical disadvantage while engaging in crises or wars. While London could always find a power to temporarily ally with on the continent, the reverse was not possible (on Britain), because the UK had achieved an early unification process. The "decider" would always be London. Continental powers therefore faced the geographically disadvantageous locations with regards to expansive aims. This was directly opposed to faraway systems which had the geographical advantage of distance from this core of the Old World. Few seemed to have noticed the potential for MAD as time passed. Due to her geographical advantage, and at London's sole discretion, the "balancer" London stood aloof. The technological standpoint at the time meant she was detached from all danger to the own heartland which was England. A role which was guarded by the Royal Navy. London was the "sole divider and sole decider of wars". That eventually lead to the unintentional end of European world rule and domination, including their own. It was a careful use of language which meant that most of the above did not need to be kept hidden, but the words used indeed reveal a standing policy of "divide et impera". In fact, most of it happened out in the open, in newspaper articles, treaties, conferences, political summits, etc. and for all current witnesses to observe and study because just like today, it is possible to drive multiple policies in parallel. Most observers simply did not recognize the events for what they were, or they noticed and considered the status quo as a meritocracy or a well-deserved own right, or they did not pay attention. Distinct systems with many similarities and many differences employing strategies as a way to achieve greater gain for the own system. The theory comes in two parts, that of 1) divide and rule, in which case the dividing power is actually in a position to exploit an imbalance in power, to impose a ruling on another side by ensuring the continued rift between opposing systems, and the more common 2) divide and gain, where the power intent on creating an advantage for its own system, has to suffice with splitting potential unity in the making apart, but lacks sufficient power to impose a ruling. Divide and rule/conquer is revealed by events. Unlike human beings, *events* don't lie, steal, or kill. *Unlike human beings, events which are proven to have happened, and are not disputed to have occured, do not deceive, manipulate, or "tweak" the own perceived "truths" in order to generate positive feelings in a flurry of "99% ancillary details", which then distorts vision...*

[@ricardojordanjordan2216]

Fantástic !

[@johnmacdonald1878]

Oh dear lord, a 10 minute introduction?

[@Paeoniarosa]

Agreed.

[@johnmacdonald1878]

Interesting lecture, On one aspect of how Versailles managed to screw up the world. To this day the British have a strained or strange relationship with Israel and the Arab states, The British appear to have been favourable to Jewish immigrants to Palestine, until local problems started to arise. The unforeseen consequences of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Oddly by comparison to Most of Europe. The pre 1914 Muslim world appears to have been much more tolerant. Zionism existed prior to 1914 and Jewish migration into the region was already underway. One wonders if today’s problems in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, ect were inevitable results of migration or not. Or just taken another form.

[@norbertblackrain2379]

To balance things a bit Christians of all flavors served also in all armies of the 1st World War. So the argument could be made that also Christians could be seen as enemies of all nations in World War 1. Maybe this fact shows more how "normal" Jews living in Europe, especially in the middle or western part, were and that they were "reasonable" well - compared to the centuries before - they were integrated. Russia might have been an exception. And than the Nazi madness destroyed it all.

[@adamketch587]

I get what you’re trying to say. However, Christians are not an ethno-religious group of peoples (i.e. the Jews would be), they are strictly a religious group. Therefore, I do not feel your correlation makes any sense to what the professor is stating. Plus, if you do the history of the Jewish peoples in Europe you will find consistent occurrences of anti Semitic behavior for the “almost” entire history of Christian ruled European lands (if you look it up you will be disgusted by the sheer volumes and consistency of these occurrences). The assimilated Jewish people’s and periods of time were tolerated at best until fairly recently (some behavior even today is only to latex in places, at least in most areas overt anti Semitic behavior is better). Nazi Germany didn’t not create anything new, they unfortunately only brought it (anti Semitic behavior) to the extreme.

[@cjking451]

"the United States is going to win this war..." Well that is the Hollywood version

[@Tralala691]

Ten mins till she shut up! Omg!!!!!