The Treaty of Versailles: 100 Years Later

The Treaty of Versailles was signed in June 1919. Did the treaty lead to the outbreak of World War II? Was the attempt to creat a new world order a failure?
A lecture by Margaret MacMillan, University of Toronto
04 June 2019 6pm (UK time)
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
A century has passed since the Treaty of Versailles was signed on 28 June 1919. After WWI the treaty imposed peace terms which have remained the subject of controversy ever since. It also attempted to set up a new international order to ensure that there would never again be such a destructive war as that of 1914-18. Professor MacMillan, a specialist in British imperial history and the international history of the 19th and 20th centuries, will consider if the treaty led to the outbreak of the Second World War and whether the attempt to create a new world order was a failure.
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/

[@joeyk9578]

I could listen to her all day and not be bored!

[@blocklit]

Another brilliant talk from this outstanding historian. She has this uncanny ability to explain complicated matters in such a way that anyone can understand. Remarkable.

[@jameshodgkins559]

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.

[@ray_glaze]

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

[@jameshodgkins559]

@@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 .

[@jameshodgkins559]

@@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.

[@ray_glaze]

@@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.

[@imsosmart942]

Who ever knows or thinks about all these consequences of War and the aftermath?? I learned so much in this lecture! Prior to it, I watched Paris 1919, a movie on KZbin. The lecture dovetailed nicely!

[@mjm5081]

I watched Paris 1919 recently on KZbin as well. I found it enjoyable and informative.

[@greggross8856]

I’m glad she mentioned Japan, which saw itself dismissed and disrespected at Versailles. This led directly to the rise of strident militarism in Japanese politics, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, and ultimately the Pacific war.

[@Christian-qu8zi]

History is not a single pre-determined road which you cannot leave, so far I agree. What doomed the Versailles treaty though was the fact that all wonderful new principles declared by the Allies for the time after the war were not to be granted for the defeated. Self determination for all people - except Germans. German-speaking Austria could not unite with Germany despite having lost all economic means to survive as a separate state. The Sudetenland with its majority of Germans in the population had to be part of Czech-Slovakia because it contributed a lot of industry (70%) which this new state desparately needed. The Germans in Southern Tirol and their entire country were moved to Italy because this was one of the few promises made by the British to the Italians as payment for joining the war which was not broken. A system without any form of justice and a house so divided is not supposed to stay. This is exactly what happened.

[@seraphthegatekeeper]

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

[@rb3058]

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.

[@anuvisraa5786]

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

[@guntherjager5085]

@@rb3058 100% is quite the exaggeration

[@rb3058]

@@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.

[@tom-kz9pb]

Hellish nightmare and millions of deaths might have been avoided, had a tad more compassion and a tad less vindictiveness been shown, than the Treaty of Versailles. Those who assume that they have the upper hand in power and are entitled to dictate all terms as the spoils of victory, can underestimate the bitter wrath of the vanquished, and how balances can shift, once again.

[@lizroberts1569]

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

[@SC-gw8np]

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

[@Mrch33ky]

Great lecture. History is always more complicated than we have been taught in grammar school.

[@Enlightenedpersona]

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

[@brucedownunda7054]

Benjamin Freedmans Speech Willard Hotel 1961

[@eriklapparent4662]

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

[@daniellavy1777]

Of course

[@meibing4912]

Having participated in peace talks myself I can only say that hindsight is wonderful. The key problem was not that Europe was complex, it was that no-one on the winning side had lasting European peace as their main objective during the talks - except maybe Wilson who however was out of touch with reality. This was also the main objection of Keynes btw. You can agree or disagree with his analysis of what it would take to make a lasting peace, but he was 100% right to point out that the negotiators of the Treaty had - and put - other priorities than lasting peace first - and that was the ultimate failure of Versailles.

[@cuqrious]

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.

[@user-bm8uw8oj4k]

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.

[@carlfrye1566]

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

[@chelsey1ize]

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.

[@gregusmc2868]

I like the fact that she explores different ideas however, I think on this topic, she should start with a disclaimer: “David Lloyd George was my great grandfather.” As a historian myself, I have to be aware of the fact that I have my own biases, and I need to ask myself if it’s POSSIBLE that my personal biases are coloring my own work? 🤔🤷🏻

[@fabiengerard8142]

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.

[@Khairuldean-vz4mp]

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

[@brunodelsalle9558]

That is sure that the British version is biased.

[@philipfontaine740]

Read her book Paris 1919 and this is a great synthesis. Great historian and presenter. Thank you for putting this video up

[@shauncavanagh722]

nice to hear someone speak about this with a critical mind.

[@user-un2ws5xg4i]

They, like her know everything. Afterwards.

[@RobRoyBoaz]

Love her to bits. My absolute favourite historian. Never a bad presentation. Her books are a treat as well.

[@sherrylhendrickson6861]

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.

[@itinerantpatriot1196]

@@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.

[@aaronkahland9896]

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

[@LB__1]

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.

[@howdydo5760]

@@aaronkahland9896 either suggest a book or get lost

[@ajknaup3530]

An oft forgotten point of the Treaty is that Germany signed under extraordinary distress: even after the armistice the British blockade was in place. German citizens were starving by the 10's of thousands. & we are surprised that the Treaty failed?

[@albertoborrero8306]

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

[@ted1091]

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.

[@ted1091]

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

[@Anton-kp3mi]

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.

[@clovisra]

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.

[@davidlally592]

Mm one aspect of the Versaille negotiations was the then attempt by Irish nationalists to get a hearing. But the victorious UK wouldnt recognise their requests. Thus the 1919 post WW1 UK General Election, bringing a majority of Sinn Fein MPs into being (from the island), led to the then resultant 1919- 1921 Anglo Irish independence war and Irish partition.

[@sugarkane4830]

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.

[@conors4430]

This was really good. I’m a big student of both world wars and there was some stuff in here I had never heard or considered. Thank you

[@jdrancho1864]

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.

[@cuqrious]

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

[@michaeladekunle3857]

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

[@tomburton8239]

What an outstanding and excellent lecture!

[@sukhdevsohal5172]

The World War I was the war of the 19th century but fought in the 20th century. So was the Treaty of Versailles 1919. Lord Keynes, an economist, could foresee what the diplomats could not see. It exposed arrogance of the victors. It revived the French humiliation of 1871. Historian is more descriptive and less analytical.

[@pablopeter3564]

Great presentation. As an Austro-Hungarian descendant I would like to thank your very much. Greetings from Mexico City.

[@gr12751]

Wish Margaret had been my history teacher 50 years ago. Wonderful presentation thank you.

[@tolyamochin4066]

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

[@robleach1335]

MM taught me history in the late 70's at Ryerson in Toronto She was loved by all and I have watched her career with great admiration.

[@mjoelnir1899]

The point to the End of the WW1 is not only the treatment of Germany. But the destruction of Austria. Parcelling out the Austrian Hungarian empire is still giving trouble today. Where a lot of nations are intermixed it is difficult to produce nation states.

[@dieterbarkhoff1328]

@@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.

[@jameshodgkins559]

How about The Balfour Declaration & the problems that caused

[@dieterbarkhoff1328]

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

[@LB__1]

I was listening to a lecture about the Paris Peace Conference on the Modetn Scholar Series. It was fascinating how those six months in 1919 would set the events for the entire 20th Century. It didn't just lay the foundation for World War Two, but the conflicts in Asia like Korea and Vietnam, as well as the issues in the Middle East. Every statesman and diplomat can learn a great deal from this .I really got a lot out of this video and hope to see more from her.

[@FPZ72]

I very much enjoyed Professor MacMillan’s presentation. Her perspective is interesting and enlightening. I would like to point out something though: In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, France was technically the aggressor. It was France that declared war, and pretexts aside (Bismarck’s manipulation of a telegram and disputes regarding the succession to the Spanish throne), the bottom line is that the French state was willing to go to war in order to prevent German unification. I’d also like to add (and I’m not trying to be cynical), that the war had a silver lining for France: It took a century after the French Revolution and a war with a foreign power to put to rest the monarchy and autocracy and establish the French Republic permanently (what also can be said about Germany after its defeat in 1945 - albeit in this case it took direct administration by foreign powers for this to happen).

[@briskyoungploughboy]

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.

[@chicagofineart9546]

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

[@dieterbarkhoff1328]

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

[@dieterbarkhoff1328]

@@chicagofineart9546 BAH BAH BLACK SHEEP...

[@Talyrion]

"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.

[@wreckingrich3788]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... All the talk about Germany, and yet the nation of Hungary had suffered the biggest punishment in the form of truncation to 28% of its pre-war size. Somehow the punishment was not proportional to the "crime committed".

[@davidcousins3508]

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.

[@michaelswami]

Wow. What a powerful presentation.

[@andreasbartel3449]

The Germans didn’t declare war on France in 1870; Bismarck provoked the French to do so - but finally France declared war on Germany. Napoleon III was defeated, but the new rulers wanted to continue to fight. By the way, France continuously invaded German territory; Louis XIV. started in 1688, Napoleon… 70/71 was the first time Germany out of defeat brought down France.

[@CautionCU]

Really nice lecture with a fresh perspective.

[@cheardsful]

She's just awesome !could listen to her for hours Bless her!

[@timburr4453]

shs is just a brilliant historian. Love these and thank you

[@windswept17]

What a refresher! Amazing.

[@InfoSopher]

I think an important puzzle piece is still missing: Because of the fragmentation into small states of central Europe, the situation between Germany and Russia moved more towards a power vacuum. Power in this sense is to be understood relatively. In other words: In relation to the large aforementioned neighbouring nations East and West of Central Europe. Since Germany and Russia were in a competition, either side would have profited from moving into this vacuum before the other side, while losing from letting the other side move first. This is a known and well studied game-theoretical situation. The imperatives of both players in this case are clear... You either move or you lose. In a way, in the ensuing decades that region was crushed by the giants bordering it. Just as is the case with Ukraine today...

[@jaedth]

A zugzwang?

[@user-bm8uw8oj4k]

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

[@walhalladome5227]

A very intelligent argument with much relivance today.

[@mohamadkebbewar6827]

Very eloquent and timely. I write these words from Aleppo-a place that still suffers from the failure of the international community.

[@dieterbarkhoff1328]

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.

[@Kodeekat]

I was at Versailles in 1984. All though I knew it was a big deal, it wasn't until the 100th Anniversaries of WW1 just how big. Wish I knew about all that when standing in the Hall of Mirrors.

[@chelsey1ize]

Would really look forward for Margaret MacMillans analysis of the Great Depression. A follow-up might help some of us better understand the role of unemployment, underemployment, hunger, poverty etc and how it contributed to war. What and how, and in what stages,, did things deteriorate, etc It always seems that poverty is the preceding and correlating underbelly to war, often underestimated or ignored, it needs to be more deeply understood.

[@richardcclark3696]

This was a great lecture by the professor and I enjoy watching it and I'm looking forward to viewing some more of her stuff

[@francismuiruri9064]

Very well presented makes it simple to understand and interesting too.

[@terrydillon9323]

Thank you, what a wonderful informative presentation.

[@petrofilmeurope]

Excellent presentation. Thank you from Oslo.

[@albrechtkhuen3039]

The treaty of Versailles? The Germans were not allowed to take part in the negotions. It was all about dividing the loot.

[@docastrov9013]

Well you shouldn't have started it then.

[@TheYeti308]

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

[@Joker-no1uh]

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.

[@SMWBraden]

Professor MacMillan is amazing. This was a fascinating lecture. Thank you.

[@regsmith5972]

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.

[@VladimirLukovRussianHistory]

One of the best lectures on War & Peace. Leo Tolstoy might rise from the grave applauding!

[@mathildejensen3285]

Such an interesting lecture. In 1914 the war was actually not called world war 1, but the great war or the war that would end all war. I knew a lot about this war beforehand, but its so interesting what she is pointing out about public opinion. When you compare the Wienna peace in 1814 to the peace negogiation in 1919. That the powers to be, except for a small nobel elite, did not have to take public opinion in to consideration in 1814, but they had to in 1919. An other interessting point is the groth of new ethnic nationalisms after the fall of several empires, Austria/Hungary etc, as a consequence of the end of the great war. Its great, really informative. 😊😊😊And her last question- no we are not better at making lasting peace - think of the current war in Ukraine- where Russia first had unlawfully invaded the crimerian peninsula, without much interferrence from EU and now a full blown war on european soil, that could escalate to other nations. 😢😢😢

[@iTube22100]

I still don't understand why put all the blame on Germany. Austria sent the ultimatum to Serbia not Germany

[@conors4430]

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

[@user-yk4ey3xl9s]

Austria is to blame just as equally as Germany agreed

[@Anton-kp3mi]

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.

[@iTube22100]

@@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.

[@Anton-kp3mi]

@@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.

[@garry_b]

Another great talk by Gresham College

[@churchview100]

What an excellent comprehensive overview. This was certainly helped me understand more about what happened here in central Europe as I now live here, although I think the treaty of Trianon podcast untold damage and there’s still a lot of resentment hearing hungry about it.

[@JasonCunliffe]

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

[@emmettmcintyre9607]

You cannot understand current events if you have not read this woman's book on the Versaille Treaty: "PeaceMakers - Six Months That Changed the World", by Margaret MacMillan

[@pinakichakraborty3706]

A great lecture.

[@LeeGee]

Any chance of a lecture on Trianon? Too soon...?

[@seetharaghavan]

1. American sentate voted out Woodrow wilson's proposals. So US Wasn't a part in the League when it was created. 2. The amount given to European nations by US during war was not from tax payers but from private bankers, so a committee was setup on how to collect them back. 3. The initial installments left a huge burden on other European nations, and it gave Germany every chance to default on the reparation payments. 4. Germany was in fact preparing for the next war during these years, with the help of Russia, they produced munitions, commercial planes to be turned to airforce planes with minor modifications. 5. France raided Ruhr valley inspite of the peace talks to get the reparations. 6. The League was so hypocritical when it comes to the matters of their own interests. 7. Woodrow wilson's nation self determination led to the balkanization of europe and promoted mutual bitterness.

[@abduljabarabboodi7690]

هل بالإمكان ترجمتها للعربيه لنستفاد من الدروس التي تتضمنها ونبدي حولها ملحوظاتنا ؟ وان يشمل ذلك بقية المحاضرات تحيه للاستاذه المحترمه٠

[@thetdchannel]

She is one of my FAVORITES!

[@williamdodge4762]

This was absolutely fantastic.

[@EamonCoyle]

I think the reason the world is destined to repeat it's failings is that war is fought by soldiers but peace is fought by politicians !!

[@johannesolofsson221]

peace is never given freely, it has to be a fight to accomplish peace.- A.H

[@fleurs1234]

Interesting lecture.

[@stephanebelizaire3627]

Bravo, Very Instructive !

[@Prosegoldmusic]

so interesting and expertly woven . this woman is a master .

[@canman5060]

She is the most important writer on the subject.

[@McIntyreBible]

This subject of the Treaty of Versailles is MacMillian's chief expertise.

[@frank327]

Such an engaging speaker, superb

[@gsilcoful]

Thank you.

[@boss180888]

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

[@edgabel6814]

Unfortunately I must agree with your conclusion. Some of our leaders think it’s fun to dance on volcanoes.

[@MegaTrivial]

What happened to YUGOSLAVIA, wasn´t the 90-ties war in Yugoslavia a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, as well?

[@MrRedcarpet02]

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

[@tangosmurfen2376]

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

[@user-yk4ey3xl9s]

100% Yugoslavia never should have been created.

[@michaelplunkett8059]

Would retaining Austro-Hungarian empire been better?

[@MegaTrivial]

@@tangosmurfen2376 - Is capitalism garanty for peace?

[@Angelfeather100]

Exceptional!

[@NSBarnett]

"For various reasons" ? ? ? (20:52) I wonder what those could have been! ! !

[@joaquinpraveenvishnu8509]

Love it every bit!

[@PLee-vu6mp]

her last sentence to end the session... how haunting, hearing that in 2023.

[@harry-thepug76]

History is who we are & why we are! Well in my opinion!

[@seanlander9321]

Interestingly when German reparations were renegotiated, Australia didn’t agree on the debt of £426.0M owed, which is $275.0Bn in todays dollars. Wonder if Germany will ever pay?

[@michaelginever732]

A brilliant talk. It doesn't seem to dissuade me from the view that the treaty lead to WWII. However, she does make very clear how the victorious nations made the decisions that they did. Indeed, I am much more sympathetic to them now. Before listening to her talk I had felt that they had been almost foolish to impose such punitive measures on Germany. Of course from our view here in the early 21st century, we enjoy the contrast with the end of WWII; the Marshall plan and how MacArthur handled occupation of Japan.

[@rb3058]

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.

[@freddieclark]

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.

[@rb3058]

@@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.

[@freddieclark]

@@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.

[@ruchitiwary]

I appreciate your take on all the aspects. I feel the Mahabharata perspective was a little misinformed, but to each his own.

[@UfoDan100]

Years ago , I was told Ho Chi Minh was my enemy and I had to register for the draft. Glad my draft numbers were always high. Ho was old 55 years ago when we were told he was the enemy.

[@robertmoore6149]

Macmillan is a great writer as well. Her books that bookend the Great War are wonderful to read. Informative and fun.

[@terry296xy]

Italy was almost ignored by the other powers even though she suffered 650000 casualties. The first armistice was signed between Austria-Hungary and Italy days before the armistice was signed between Germany and the other powers. One of the reasons why Germany decided to surrender was that she feared that Italy was going to invade From the south. Not only the defeated but also the Victor's felt betrayed by this treaty. Which explains Mussolini and Fascism

[@phanoutoshi8]

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

[@thornil2231]

Almost all todays crisises can be traced to that evil treaty and its little castles bothers, Saint- Germain, Saint-Clout, Sevres...

[@chriswilde7246]

What a great lecture, certainly puts it all in perspective. To think though, all this happened because two people got blown away....

[@GoldSilverShop]

Great lecture, thank you

[@2cartalkers]

In Lexington, Kentucky they have a road by this name. However, the Hill-Williams there call it VER-Sails.

[@johnmoulton9728]

Wonderful soo very interesting, thank you

[@jaixzz]

3:00 1917 w.wilson: Is this a private fight or can anyone join in ? Everyone else: Stay Out ?

[@LenBerman]

Fascinating. Wasn't it typical before WWI that debts for armaments between allies was forgiven. Could this be why the US insisted it was NOT an ally? So we could collect

[@jeffrey7938]

Excellent!

[@kahhowong3417]

What about the influence of the British and European colonies?

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Huge amounts of resources were supplied to Germany which allowed them to aquire the hardware.

[@moustaphadiallo600]

You can't talk about that part.

[@filmnoirnyc]

Thank you! Hope that you will address the other failure in that treaty, namely the Sykes Picot plan.....

[@davidknox5929]

Lloyd George prophetically saw the consequences of the Treaty of V!!

[@TRUTHANDCONSEQUENCESWILLNEVER]

Nobody liked the outcome of it, the Germans thought it too harsh and the French thought it not harsh enough.

[@orabera]

small complaint, those reflective large earrings were not the best choice, kind of distracting if watching, if just audio who cares? Great content.

[@mjm5081]

Thank you for sharing. ✌ ❤ 🌎

[@brianeduardo1234]

Excellent lecture whether you agree with her or not

[@skeeterhoney]

The domestic political pressures back home for every delegate cannot be overstated. Political power is based on the interests of each politician's coalition, and will thus determine the positions of any leader who wants to remain in power, regardless of what would e in a country's enlightened best interest.

[@leoroverman4541]

At 12.19. forgetting of course that Russian troops had in fact invaded Prussia in 1914 and had threatened Berlin. Everyone forgets the linkage between France and Russia set up c 1905. The reality is that Germany signed the armistice, they did not surrender until the terms had been signed. They were excluded from the discussions, something that did not happen to France at the Congress of Vienna a century before under Napoleon. The spin is still there.

[@Anton-kp3mi]

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.

[@leoroverman4541]

@@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.

[@2CPropertiesTeams]

That was awesome.

[@dangood8470]

The allies imposed an « unconditional surrender » based on experience of Treaty of Versailles ».

[@emmanuelrobert208]

The conference buggered up the Middle East and Africa.

[@Jozamendo]

If representatives came to ask for independence, why did the allieds gave themselves territory instead, France took Indochina, the British took the middle east and parts of the ottoman empire, not just that they divided more of Africa between themselves. The only ones that didn't get much was Germany and Russia.

[@netizencapet]

I read this article a while back that really dismantled the idea that the debt placed on Germany laid the foundation for the rise of Fascism. After the war, Germany was let off the hook like 10 times for failure to make payments, and many other financial leniencies were extended the Weimar Republic, not least the Dawes Plan... extended with a blind eye towards known rearmament.

[@bjornwenzel2683]

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

[@texasforever7887]

Let's face it the United States ultimately wanted the cost added up and to be paid back. It's my personal opinion that the only reason the United States entered the war was it feared an allied loss after the Russians pulled out and a GB, French default on their loans.

[@rossbuchanan3720]

Well, I mean surely that was a factor but German U-boats destroying American tankers, fishing vessels, cruises and trading ships killing countless American civilians is probably the bigger reason. Even today if a nation started using submarines to destroy American ships irrespective of whether they were military or civilian crafts you would find yourself very quickly at war with America.

[@logaandm]

Why no WW III (yet): MAD, Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, massive expansion of international trade. The next 20 years will test that structure. Only history professors have long memories. People and institutions have forgotten the horrors of war and the value of our crazy system in preventing them.