The Treaty of Versailles: 100 Years Later

Nothing can be perfect and neither was this 'Peace' or 'War'--take what you like--Conference at Versailles. However, Ho Chi MInh was the only one, at least to my knowledge, who stood up and demanded freedom for his country. He was rebuffed by the European leaders and pleaders and everybody knows where did he end up as and how Viet Nam won two significant victories just like Afghans in recent years. Asians know their history very well but better to avoid mass hysteria of nationalism, arms build-up and racial divides or everybody will lose. One point which I would like to know more about but which has so far eluded my grasp, is how come countries or societies which value 'individual' freedom generate huge amounts of soldiers as dictatorships in times of war: Is that the result of nationalist propaganda prior or at the start of a war or is it due to genuine desire of large numbers of young people to die for their country?

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

wrong in the end it was only jews in great britain, jews in america, jews in france that decided germanys fate.

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

I have many research studies on it n i can tell you everything.

Tov i can be passed again in front of u. Its virus u need to know. Themes of WW ii and I have same base. I live opposite mgmt u live n all these things r seen clearly. U r based on highs n me on lows. Give me a chance.

She looks like a 3d animation at first 😅

When are the Brits and other ex-colony powers going repay the ex-colonies as reparation for the material and life-safety pains-sufferings?

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.

When Europeans talk about struggles they were facing during conflicts with each other hoping for sympathy. I as a part european, keep thinking of all the tragedy they were causing all over the world in non-European countries/territories during those times. I find it impossible to sympathise with them. They are not innocent at all and simply unworthy of any sympathy.

Great content cheers Frank DetectiveOfMoneyPolitics

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

Leave the nations alone and there is no need to bring them into the community of nations. It’s none of anyone else’s business

What an outstanding and excellent lecture!

The treaty was too light for Germany and not pressed hard enough

Alles von Deutschland

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

Wow. What a powerful presentation.

She is a fascist

Hungary …. Never forgets

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

And it is happening again. We never seem to learn from the past. Poor education on world history leads to uneducated opinions and decisions. Power, greed, racism, lack of understanding and empathy all lead to the same thing, war!

Let me unload my frustration here: as usual, it’s was the French: hundreds of years later France is a cesspool of dirts and Germany is still standing strong.
France has never won a single war on their own without attaching themselves to another nation as allies. And yet they alway manage to inject their demands and offering nothing in return.
I mean can you believe it, Germany didn’t really lose the First World War, it was more of a fatigue and battered Down moral among the German elites, for France to have asked that German be broken into smaller states is just preposterous, they have always been envious of German achievements, and it pieces me off that they are still hanging on to their colonies years on after colonialism supposedly ended. This is parasite nation that constantly latches on to other, dump all your French friends, for they really have nothing better to offer you

The Versailles Treaty was planned to create another world war. Germany did not lose the First War, the German Emperor who seemed to be in the plot, just declared that "We have lost" and he went to hide in Hague to be untouched and not responsible for all this scam. Germany did not lose the First War, all the more than in 1917 Lenin won the Bolshevik Revolution and in the Brest Litovsk peace treaty the new Russian communist regime withdraw from the War. So the Germans should have won; the declaration of the German Emperor of "We have lost" was a fake, part of a scam to prepare Germany for a next war. The Versailles Treaty was a dirty scam to create misery in Germany with the Reparation Payments. Then came the scam by the Allies, they made promises to Germany to rule the world after a new war, a common rule of Germans and English. This scam of a plan by the English double-crossed the Germans into finally remaining alone to make a war against the misery caused by the Versailles Treaty. Then the Allies found this "wonder guy" (Adolf) and with another sneaky plan by an "International Bank Of SEttlements" they financed Adolf to build up a new military and create the "Economic Miracle", which seemed to the German public as a miracle created by Adolf to end poverty in Germany. So the English drew Germany into a scam, financed by a bank in secret, and then, when Adolf prepared his new military, the English did not move, leaving Germany alone, double crossed. They don't teach all of this in school, that is, that the "Allies" with a dirty scam prepared Germany for a second war. The German Emperor (Kaiser Wilhelm, who in fact was a cousin of the English King at the time. I learned most of this info from my father in 195O in Hungary, Eastern Europe. I disliked Adolf, I am only telling here that the Allies were not saints, they actually built up this war scheme, promising Germany to rule the world together with England, and the Russians were meant to be slaves after a second war, and they fooled the Germans with this promise. This is the truth, I learned all of this from different sources, including my own father. This dirty scheme was known in Eastern Europe, and my father knew it. All politics is a heap of dirt, and at school they don't teach us the truth.

She's disproving a deterministic view of history no serious historian would ever make. What's the point of this?

The treary was fair.

Margaret MacMillan is a masterful historian..one of my favourites when discussing WW1 ..along with Christopher Clark and David Stevenson 👍

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

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

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.

Has anyone an idea of the havoc brought to the North and East of France by Germany from 1914 to 1918?
How many victims?Please visit Verdun and you'll understand the position of Pdt Clemenceau in 1918.

Figure that in this aera of France, in the 60's,farmers were killed when ploughing their fields,by explosives of WW I.

Nowadays,there are still hazards in some aera.

In some places,so shelled,nothing grows.

It is known for now,that some French leaders did not want to stop hostilities in Nov 18...and
follow on into Germany.

This might have changed the course of following decades...

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

Great lecture, thank you

It might be added that France and Britain ATTACKED Germany after THEY declared war FIRST, not they other way around, as most Americans have come to believe. These are facts, not opinions. When France and Britain stopped initiating world wrs and supporting Russia/USSR, we stopped having world wars.

They were not so much interested in making peace as in dividing up the world into colonies they could profit from.

History...cut and paste for many thousands of years. Somehow the population was hood winked, We were led to believe that we needed to be " Ruled Over " when in truth we were ALL born to be " Rulers Of " The tool of deception was fear. In fear religion was born. Religion was utilized as a brainwashing and herding device. Government was initiated for the purpose of manipulation and control. fast forward to now...we have the exact same story, as people navigate through their worlds, the other world is quickly steering the World into WW3. We have wrong because we choose wrong. Choose only Love. War is a tremendous insult to the great intelligence which abides in all human beings.

bsht!

An excellent historian but a somewhat broad-brush approach here which may make some viewers fondly remember how the late AJP Taylor could pack in a more incisive survey of events in his programmes.
There’s value in Dr MacMillan highlighting how the leading figures were caught in the cross-currents of domestic public opinion clamouring both for punitive action against Germany and a settlement that would guarantee peace; the perceived threat of the spread of Bolshevism and competing ethno-nationalistic claims. A viewer will need to dig much further to come to an informed view as to whether Clemenceau’s role was “reasonable” (or in France’s long-term interest) at the Paris Peace Conference and subsequently.
Perhaps too much of a flourish with her ending on the note of the lasting peace after 1945 – yes thankfully, Franco-German reconciliation has proved to be enduring but on a global level one assumes Dr MacMillan and her select audience aren’t too bothered or impacted by the numerous proxy “hot wars” one can identify as having taken place within the context of the Cold War.

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.

The Treaty of Versailles is the architecture that guaranteed perpetual conflict in Europe and the Middle East. It's first consequence was the economic destruction of Germany and its reaction which started ww2. It paved the way to never ending conflict in the Middle East and the theft of Palestine so it could be handed over to the Zionists who would and still are carrying out a genocide against its native people. To condone, let alone glorify this monstrous document is an abomination against humanity.

Just a spoonful of sugar makes the communism go down? Treasonous peoples...myth?

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.

I find her interest seems much too drawn to what is "scandalous"/"sexy" and her takes much too consistent with whatever the best take to have would be, if you want to cause a stir.

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

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

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.

What about the influence of the British and European colonies?

Firstly, The western War took place overwhelmingly, in France. They lost more people, and the country was ravaged, DEVASTATED. WHO ELSE was more guilty and responsible, than the Germans.
Besides, France's experience of German agression, by losing the Franco Prussian War of 1870-71, in which massive compensation and retribution was paid, which still rankled. I can fully understand their reluctance to be more conciliatry than the Germans had.

An interesting topic for discussion handled by a historian and academic, should have been handled better. Less than 10 minutes into the talk, I thought "she's talking like the grand daughter of Lloyd George". I was wrong of course, shes only the great grand daughter of Lloyd George. And I learned that by looking up her wiki page. The ill concealed patronising gloating in her talk was not even masked by the barest attempt at neutrality. This attitude was what lead to the badly drafted and harshly implemented Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent events. The hamstringing of the Weimar republic that lead to the rise of National Socialism. The WWI was one major engagement where the moral difference between the two sides was negligible. Germany only wanted to do what GB and France had been doing. Collect colonies.
Here attempts are humour fall flat. For instance the reference to Ho Chi Minn as a sous chef in the Charlton wanting freedom for his 'little' country. The evidence that Minn worked at the Charlton is sketchy at best, but even if he did, it clearly was a port on his journey to become the greatest son of Vietnam. A country that incidentally is larger than Great Britain. This might have split sides a 100 years back, today it only raises eyebrows. The colonies had invested disproportionately to their economic power, in the British military effort. eg The Indian subcontinent sent troops to support the British effort and a 10th of British casualties were subcontinent soldiers. The colonies had contributed to a war that was not theirs and certainly expected some gratitude in the form of various concessions. That I suppose are the 'petitions' MacMillian airily referred to. And her suggestion that the victors couldn't foresee the consequences of their actions is preposterous at best. They wanted revenge and approached the treaty like a war of retribution.
Having said all that, one totally understands the French feeling of vulnerability. In any European conflict, France has suffered the most, unlike des Etats Unis who can pretty much choose their fights and can safely bet on zero civilian casualties.

Tiny hats
Big lies