Great conversation by all. Michael Neiberg is a really terrific speaker and historian

41:16 Love seeing a fan of the bow tie. Looking sharp, sir.

Very interesting presentation.

Thanks for Uploading.

1st-rate discussion, thank you.

Here is my question. Why did the allies settle for less than a complete surrender?

@rockytoptom

16 күн бұрын

It was a complete surrender. Not only was it a complete surrender, but Versailles was a humiliating treaty, guaranteeing another war. Kaiser Wilhelm had to abdicate, the German Empire was dismantled, elections were held, Emperor Karl of Austria was forced to abdicate, the Austrian Empire was dismantled, elections were held in those nations which were formed by it's fall as well. AND, as if all of that wasn't enough, Germany had to pay punative war reparations to France as well as accept blame for the war.

Wilson cut a devil's deal with Lloyd George and Clemenceau: abandoned a constructive peace (the 14 Points, agreed to by Germany @ the Armistice) in return for their - and other - signatures on his fatuous League of Nations, then himself signed onto the Anglo-French Diktat....result: same war all over again and even worse, w/in 20 years.

@jezalb2710

2 жыл бұрын

You are right. Germany should have been crushed in 1919.

@CJ87317

Жыл бұрын

I don't think he had much of a choice. They, especially France, held way more cards than he did.

@joshwhite3339

Жыл бұрын

That is how IR works, it is a give and take. It is far too simplistic to blame WW2 on the Treaty of Versailles. This forgets that there were 20 years of decisions and evolution between the two landmarks, and also serves to remove the agency from the decision makers in Germany to go down a path of evil in the 1930's.

@benoplustee

Жыл бұрын

Wilson put himself in an impossible position with the 14 points anyways, trying to push for an ideological middle ground which was inherently unstable. He abandoned the 14 points wholesale when he gave shandong to the Japanese

It seems that Versailles fell short of its ambitions because of explicit and tacit mismanagement of expectations: 1) Wilson bit more than he could chew. Most of his 14 points were included in the Treaty but they were often ambiguous and it resulted in misunderstandings. The resulting compromises in the Treaty were probably not the worst but they needed a strong LoN to oversee their application and Wilson mismanaged his home front. With the United States out (+ Soviet Union/Russia and Germany), the United Kingdom could have better cooperated with France but decided otherwise and considered its ally as a rival. 2)Tacitly, the format was supposed to be Vienna 1815 but after having opened so many can of words and with the pressure of national crowds calling for victors' spoils or for social revolutions in the defeated empires, such a format became impossible to envisage.

Is history teleological? If there is no God or Creator, then, no. If, yes, then, there is. But, if the answer is no, then can there really be accountability?

@rockytoptom

16 күн бұрын

Everything is possible without the existence of "God." People who say that things like morals or accountability cannot exist without the existence of "God" fail to prove why. The very existence of "God" has never been proved to begin with. The onus is on people who claim something exists to prove it, not on those who know it doesn't to explain why it doesn't. As far as your question's base, I would say no because history is just the past, not a designed set of occurrences; events just simply happened and "history" is human summation of those events. For something to be teleological it would have to be by design, like something in nature being especially adapted to it's surroundings or a tank having been designed with armor which was specifically developed to repel an enemy's current designs on their idea of armor piercing shells.