No, the Treaty of Versailles did NOT lead to hyperinflation OR the Nazis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- The Treaty of Versailles has been universally condemned for being too harsh on Germany. Reparations supposedly crushed the economy, caused the Weimar Hyperinflation, weakened the economy before the Great Depression, then led to the rise of National Socialism. But is this really the case? Well, no.
This is BankWars: The Weimar Hyperinflation, Episode 4. For the other videos in this series, check out this playlist: • BankWars: Weimar Hyper...
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need awesome graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Weimar Hyperinflation Bibliography docs.google.co...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from TH-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
What Causes a Recession or Depression? • What Causes a Recessio...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
I blame Ramesses 3 for defeating the Sea peoples which eventually lead to the nazis.
Maybe if the ancient Sumerians were nicer the nazis wouldn't have started the war
This is fact.
Kuh, hit Guh over the head, killing him and thus unintentionally ending the Neanderthal, which eventually lead to the Nazis.
I blame amoebas. If they hadn't originally multiplied, it wouldn't have led to Nazis
@@seandonoghue2347 Unicellular organisms owned nothing, but they were happy. Simpler times.
Some of the quotes around the Versailles Treaty often miss other points of context...
Foch did say that the treaty was an "armistice for twenty years," but he said it because he felt the treaty was too SOFT on Germany, not because it was too harsh. Yet, in some popular narratives of the end of the war, it's often thrown in there with elements of Keynes' criticism as though the criticism from both was for the same reasons.
He said it because the German Army had not surrendered in the field and thereby acknowledge its defeat.
He knew they would say "we were never beaten" and that they would be back. The treaty did nothing to address the fact that Germany capitulated while German troops were still on foreign territory. He, like many others, felt the war should be prosecuted into Germany to force its capitulation at gunpoint on German soil so that there could be no doubt.
The treaty was a retroactive Band-Aid. Although everyone of importance knew Germany had been beaten, that defeat was not visible at home. Thus, the fuel for conspiracy theories...
@@ToolTimeTabor - Agreed, but that's still where my prime point in that a lot of histories will use Foch's quote as though he agrees with Keynes's economic argument.
@@SamuelJamesNary Ah, that makes sense.
Indeed. The indemnity imposed on Germany was actually much softer than what Prussia had imposed on France in 1871. Which understandably made the French angry, because the majority of WWI had been fought on their soil and their means of economic production had been devastated by the war while Germany's had been relatively unscathed.
@@ktgiffin8147 Not true. The reparations the Entente acknowleged Germany had paid were five times higher than the reparations France had to pay after 1870/71. Fifteen times higher if one accepts german claims what has been paid. And that's only the monetary part. The territories Germany lost (including economic values of those territories) easily outwheighed France losses. Simply because Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France and everything else Germany had to cede was on top. Ridiculous to claim Versailles was softer.
Me and my wife now say "but is this really the case " on the daily basis. Thanks 👍
do you say it with a british accent?
Yes! Another Bank Wars! While I do love your Battlestorm content, I find myself absolutely fascinated and intrigued by this new series. I plan to read "confessions of the old wizard" and "vampire economy" soon, after you mentioned them in your previous videos. Keep up the great work TIK!
The Vampire Economy is a fantastic source on the grassroots economy of the Third Reich. Schacht's "Confessions" book is a bit more problematic, so read it with a critical eye. In fact, I would encourage you to read Aly's "Hitler's Beneficiaries" first if you haven't already.
I definitely prefer the political/economic content, not gonna lie.
you can find the tanks elsewhere, but you can't really find a reasonable take on the economics OR the politics.
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks for the tip!
@@TheImperatorKnight finished the vampire economy just yesterday, as a 19 year old university student (with a wife and a child actually) and a monetarist economic background, nothing in that book made a big time revelation to me, it's almost laughably sad how deeply blind and bad faithed one would be to even think that way.
The book was GOLD.
Just received my copy of the Vampire Economy a day or two ago after finding the Mises Institute was keeping it in print.
My favorite thing about Keynes is the fact that he's supposed to be the ultra great economist but yet somehow he made just exactly the right decisions to nearly bankrupt himself and tank all his fortunes twice with two completely opposite predictions regarding the German economy. And people still believed he was right about economics and especially of the German economy.
Maybe it is national economics that is not that great a field.
Ideologically driven
Turns out that Keynes was wrong.
As usual the economist that actually know their stuff are either from the Austrian or Chicago school of economics.
These are the same people who think Paul Krugman is a genius, what with this "internet" fad only being as impactful as fax machines...
he was also a pedophile who toured north africa to screw castrated little boys. He also was a closet Bolshevik (Fabian society member) and was permitted to travel places within the Soviet Union that were even denied to presidents of communists nations within the SU. Henry Hazlitt's "Failure of the New Economics" is a line by line refutation of Keynes' "General Theory" and it is absolutely devastating.
I had two mandatory Economics classes in my mid-1970's Electrical Engineering Technology curriculum. Both classes utilized Keynes both in his books and contributions to the textbooks. I was more attentive to my electronics classes - since the economics courses were "mandatory electives". Even though I was an economics "know nothing" - the Keynes writings I read made no sense to me. Then in the mid-1980s I discovered Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and the entire Austrian Economists theories. Suddenly economics was easily understood, and the "Keynesian" school of thought rendered irrelevant. But oh the damage he had already done by then.
Ach an engineer and economics!
20/20 hindsight my friend. Nearly every engineer I know has a rather mechanistic view of the world.
But things are not quite so clear cut in economics! You have to understand these people were often passionate or responsible experts in their fields who had to make the best decisions available in the limitied time they had (no internet back then mind you) as best they can.
There's a reason economics is referred to as the dismal science! You engineers have it too easy, I think, cause reliably precedes effect.
But how on earth do you get such reliable science from a massive, chaotic system which you're a part of, and your very efforts to understand it changes its nature!
I think you are perhaps being a little unfair on MrKeynes.
Keynes worked until it didn't.
@@dreamcrusher112Neo-Keynesian economics literally got us out of the 2008 financial crisis ☠️
Austrian economics are easy to grasp by dull intellects incapable of grasping more complex ideas.
@@yamatocannon1Exactly! And similar crisis is just brewing under the surface.
Glad you did this one, a few years ago I read Keynes book and it came across a bit "simping for Germany" but the more I've heard of him since had only painted him in a darker and darker light (such as his obsession with eugenics, as the most red Pilling example) so I'm glad to have had a detailed counterpoint show up in my recommendations to make more sense of it
Also, can I say that his writing falls into the typical prat fall of leftist writing in that it is fuckin terribly written and such a chore to read that he clearly doesn't want anyone to actually pick apart what he's saying, but to try to bamboozle the average reader into feeling intellectually inferior and just go along on the assumption that they are smarter and probably right. It's a classic confidence trick that seems to be the bread and butter of the left. As Douglas Murray once put it, "they write terribly because they think terribly".
Technically Serbia started the war. They drew first blood. They should've paid reparations aswel.
I actually wrote my bachelor based on this topic, it is very interesting :D However I dont really agree with everything you state in the video, since the versailles treaty and the topic of reperations had many more consequenses than just the amounts paid. The currency the reperations was to be paid in, and the political consequenses of the lack of german payments is just as important to keep in mind, especially for Germany. There is also the topic of the treatys impact on international economic coorporation, which was also affected by the treaty of versailles. This again impacted the world economic crisis due to lack of international coorporation in many instances. However it is important to underline that the treaty itself was not what caused the economic crisis in Germany, and the world, it was an element that made it worse. Germany among other things, had become heavily reliant on exports to US and loans mainly from US to get foreign capital, to pay reperations and remain liquid/competetive. When the crisis hit, the german banks had major issues to replenish their reserves either from foreign loans or the reichsbank, which contributed to the crisis in the country.
"Germany among other things, had become heavily reliant on exports to US and loans mainly from US to get foreign capital, to pay reperations and remain liquid/competetive."
I would argue that it wasn't Versailles that did this. They didn't pay the reparations (or very little) and so this wasn't a factor. What was a factor was that many countries had financed WW1 through currency printing. This resulted in a drain of gold reserves and capital from places like France and Britain to the United States. The world needed dollars and gold to pay back their loans, which is why these countries (Germany, France and Britain) were all heavily reliant on exports to the US and took out US loans. Then the US decided to print a ton of dollars and lower interest rates throughout the 1920s, creating an artificial boom, which then resulted in the Wall Street Crash of 1929. That's what led to a major crisis in the 1930s, and the abandonment of the Gold Exchange Standard.
Hes just trying to paint the Germans as irredeemable savages who didn't need any reason to react in that manor because he probably has some interest in doing so. Rather the Germans throughout History have been noble and good people. And they produced more humane leaders than most European nations like Frederick the Great and so on, which they even try to demonize today despite him being of greater moral character than any leader in Europe of his time. Like that one NATO guy said, one of the Goals among others of themselves is to *keep the Germans down* and the Britons out, and the Americans in
One thing I found interesting. When the Marshall Plan paid by the U.S. Tax payers is adjusted for inflation. It equals exactly what Germany was supposed to pay for WW1 reparataions. Since hardly anything regarding Marshall Plan was ever paid back to the U.S. In a way the USA stepped up and rebuilt Europe, what was expected out of Germany, without much complaint.
That's a problem of the socialist Weimar government, not the treaty, at this point you are 100% agreeing with Lewis on this.
Then again, you're talking about the economic crisis of the early 30's that hit heavy everywhere. Not about the hyperinflation of the crisis year 1923.
The intention to de-industrialise and hold down Germany after WW1, was explicitly stated, especially by the French, it was not somehow "read in the tea leaves" by intellectuals. At the end of WW2 the US also espoused the intention to do the same to Germany and Japan. The US initially proposed the Morgenthau plan which would do this. The importance to the west of Germany as an industrial power to oppose Soviet power in Europe, with the onset of the Cold War, meant the Morgenthau plan was still born. The US occupation of Japan also followed this course until the intensification of the Cold War led to something called the "reverse course", which was to build up Japan as a military-industrial power to counter Soviet-Chinese power in the Pacific.
Correct.
What this video is doing is underplaying the role of Versailles (which is just as dangerous as overplaying it). Yes, the treaty was nowhere near as harsh as traditional history proclaims it to be, but making it look like a small, easy to overcome, inconvenience on Germany is taking things too far to the other side.
@@leoarc1061 Yeah, TIK is being ridiculous in this vid
First off, Morgenthau was the Secretary of the Treasury, and while did propose this, It was never actually adopted or accepted by the Either Roosevelt(Roosevelt did toy around with it, but never actually commited himself to the plan) or Truman. And its more important to note what actually happened which was the Marshall Plan, which among other things, Made America pay reparations for its own allies in the form of Re-industrialization. The Marshall Plan allowed the entirety of Western Europe to recover and flourish(especially since they would no longer need to maintain huge standing armies, they had half a million American Soldiers frontlining against the Soviets.)
@@lazyidiotofthemonth I know all of that, but that does not change the politics of late war, neither does it have any bearing on my point. BTW on a separate matter - The US had a dollar gap and acted to boost its own exports as well as helping Europe so it was not really an altruistic act. In fact it was an act of power politics, as economic chaos was feared to spread the rule of communism over Europe and the exclusion of the USA from the European economy which at that time was the centre of gravity of the world economy, in which and through which the US had large investment and trading interests. In return the US got a permanent military occupation of Europe from which it could protect its investments and interests in Europe and hold back the spread of communism which threatened to close the doors of trade and investment on US business.
France definitely had that aim but the end treaty was softened/confused by the stance of the British and US who didn't want Germany completely obliterated for their own reasons. That is probably a big reason why it was so ineffective - the three victors couldn't agree on what they wanted out of the treaty. The end result was a treaty that seemed harsh but was enforced so little that it didn't matter and the treaty could have said whatever it wanted.
Tik is a great example of someone not needing a degree and mountains of debt to be a good historian.
By all measures he is more successful than myself and 99% of graduates. I have not used my degree for history ever and here he is making great videos and series that 10s if not 100s of thousands get to learn from.
A tip of the hat to you good sir.
Thank you, although I do have a degree in history (see the bottom of the description). It's true though, the degree is completely pointless and it's not needed at all in order to study history or work in the field. I've also never needed to show my degree to anyone, and I don't recommend that people get history degrees because they aren't worth the inflated tuition fees.
@@TheImperatorKnight I was gonna say... whaaaat? hahaha. Of course TIK has a degree in history. Smh.
Tikk is right that the abuses of Jewish power (including the Jewish revolution led by Rosa Luxemburg as well as the transgender filth of Magnus Hirschfeld) were more responsible for the rise of a pro- gentile government than some weird libertarian economic theories.
There is just one huge problem with this video. Its wrong on almost every level. WWI was huge, there was a lot of conflicts and it's complicated why and reasons behind to just say something in 25 minutes.
John Maynard Keynes appears to be one of the greatest villains in history but in the background.
Interestingly, this actually reminded me of something. Versailles responsible for WWII? So why wasn't the post WWII reparations the leading cause for WWIII? A lot of people forget that after WWII, Germany faced Reparations light years worse than even Versailles, and Germany is still paying those reparations today, yet is among the ten largest economies in the world.
Actually members of NATO declined to make the then Western Germany pay reparations. That was during the Cold war in the 50's. Since then Germany has steadfastedly refused to even discuss the subject for reparations, even for specific war crimes. Seeing a pattern here?
Lol, them starting WW3 would have been a LOT different than when they started WW2. Just a wild guess, but they probably wouldn't be all that into the idea of being turned into glass alongside the rest of the world, and if they were, the US would have nipped that bud.
" So why wasn't the post WWII reparations the leading cause for WWIII?"
It almost did.. but.. well in the other direction. German money and tech funded the USSR war machine.
Something pretty much everyone always forget is that war is incredibly expensive. Poor countries don´t go to war, they can´t afford it.
But countries that go to war, become poor.
Maybe we should think about that when we feed loads of money into china
The Germans reparations after World War II were never paid in money. They were paid in industrial assets and territory according to the Potsdam Conference. The only money that Germany agreed to pay, was under separate bilateral agreements in the 1950s for compensation to Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands individually, for the return of territory they had initially annexed from Germany after the war.
@@Edax_Royeaux well.. military should not be involved in business
It amazes me that Keynesian thought is still seen as valid. Then I remember every generation has to re learn the lessons of the last all over again. Is there a name for this phenomenon?
His economic theories keep being borne out, his foreign policy not so much.
@@Adiscretefirm Keynes' economic theories are shocking. For example, Shrinkflation isn't meant to be a thing, according to Keynes. That's why many Keynesians today aren't Keynesian, but "neo-Keynesian" because his theories don't hold up.
"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.” - Mussolini
@@TheImperatorKnight and yet his fundamental argument that Smithian theories on price and labor costs not scaling up as the economy grew in size and complexity are valid. Governments keep trying supply side solutions to downturns without the promised results, demand is easier to prop up than supply can be supported and yeilds faster results. Of course, both sides of the aisle forget government spending should sag during expansion instead arguing over where to spend rather than if to spend.
Anyone who explains a important concept in the economy as the outcome of “animal spirits” should be ignored
In 1871, France had to pay 5 billion gold francs to Germany. 25% of it's GDP. No one objected.
You blow my mind with every new video you make, even our schools don't teach this and it's mind-blowing how many people have been fed this propaganda and still continue to pretend that they aren't immune to it
Don't want to be a killjoy but really? Most don't teach this stuff cause it wasn't a thing. Most of the details contained are simple pantomime factoids that bare little understanding or reasoning to what actually occurred. For anyone who can read. Most libraries still have newspaper microfiche of the events. Just by reading a few of these you quickly get the sense of scale and what was to be achieved.... always be mindful of the quite smirking English man. And the yanks with their rules and favorites.
If you can find em listen to the man who was literally at the tables while this thing was drawn up. He also holds the record for being imprisoned the longest ever. In an American 'jail.'. Ezra Pound..... didn't like him spilling the beans.maybe.
You can still find recording of ben Friedman. The dude who passed around the draft copies before the germans and the politicians got involved. Right under sleepy alain imaidiot Frenchman.. which actually is very rude of me. Cause its the French in their many official and unofficial critiques shed the most light to what actually went down. Sleepy my arse. Just powerless
it took decades for Germany to pay off the rest of its reparations debt. At the London Conference, West Germany argued it shouldn’t be responsible for all of the debt the old Germany had incurred during World War I, and the parties agreed that part of its back interest wouldn’t become due until Germany reunified. Once that happened, Germany slowly chipped away at the last bit of debt. It made its last debt payment on October 3, 2010-the 20th anniversary of German reunification.
London Agreement on German External Debts 1953
'The total under negotiation was 16 billion marks of debt resulting from the Treaty of Versailles after World War I which had not been paid in the 1930s, but which Germany decided to repay to restore its reputation. This money was owed to government and private banks in the U.S., France and Britain. Another 16 billion marks represented post-war loans by the U.S. Under the London Agreement, the repayable amount was reduced by 50% to about 15 billion marks and stretched out over 30 years, and compared to the fast-growing German economy were of minor impact.'
'Part of her back interest...'
In actuality was fully half of the total interest and principal
The French had been forced to pay reparations to Prussia after the 1870 war. The French tightened their belts, and paid them. In 1919, they expected the Germans to do the same.
Did you read some books about the Dreyfuß era? From 1871 to 1914 there was only one thought in all french military and political circles:
Revenge. They paid baring their teeth. But you´re right of cause. Germany should have done the same(they only bared their teeth paying even less).
Yes. But Germany actually occupied some French territory. In 1919 it was just a piece of paper that forced them to pay.
@@sam74mummthis is German projection, the french weren't bursting for revenge like the Huns were after ww1. News papers in 1913 reported on how most young french people didn't care about Alsace-Lorraine, when Germany declared war on Russia (on a false pretext btw) France moved it's troops back 10km from the German border, hardly France being wanting for war
@@billyosullivan3192 You sound like the polemic tabloids with your "huns" rhetorics. Some people never learn.
@@sam74mumm the Germans were vicious nationalists following ww1 who went on to commit the worst Genocide in human history, my rhetoric is justified when you compare Frances reaction to defeat in 1871 to Germanies reaction to defeat in 1918.
Tik should do a special called 'Debunking national socialism'.
He already has a very long video about it. No need to repeat yourself when you covered most points in a >3 hour video
@@PyatPree88 Hitlers socialism
@@PyatPree88 He's referring to the 5 hour Hitler's Socialism video which has a section dedicated to "National Socialism's Fundamental Ideological Flaw" th-cam.com/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/w-d-xo.html (see the timestamps in the description)
@@TheImperatorKnight Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Now I'll spam that link everytime I see a wehraboo.
No one that needs to see it will bother watching it.
"As a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies"
Saying Germany imposed the war on the allies definitely means they're saying the war is Germany's fault. Kind of silly to state otherwise.
Germany and her allies. It was a treaty made specifically for Germany. Of course they will focus on Germany
And Austro-Hungary became allied with Germany for the same reason the Anglo-French-Russian alliance was created. They feared that if they opposed Germany in any way it might lead to another "unification" war witch they would loose alone.
Yeah, maybe words have new meanings now. TIK losses objectivity when he tries to put those Marxist pigs in their place. If a judge uses those words in a murder one sentence, you'll be riding the lightning very soon. Funny how TIK and the Marxist have the same opinion about dying:. They wouldn't like it is 😂😂
I’ve been watching your stuff for many years man. The myths you uncover are - I don’t know what to say - breathtaking? So much of the core of what people are taught in school on this is wrong. And this myth in particular has characterised the wars massively. Thanks so much for what you do
Good video but there are a couple of things that don't seem to fit.
1) If the allies just let Germany get away without paying then why did the french occupy German territory to punish a lack of repayments?
2) The limitations on the German military were way too extreme, no tanks, no planes and 100,000 strong military. The allies also blocked German efforts to put down socialist/marxist uprisings leading to the weimar republic depending on freikorps which would later lead to further political instability and the weakening of the weimar republic's authority in its own nation.
As for Versaillies leading to the Nazis, those are two points where the treaty is absolutely to blame and definitely helped the Nazi rise to power.
There's more that needs to be mentioned.
3) Belgium cannot be considered neutral, she violated the previous agreements by becoming an Empire (pursuing colonies), and also by starting to collaborate with Britain and by making preparations for war
4) A huge portion of the so called german atrocities were fake, made up
5) It was Britain (and France) who encircled Germany (and Austria) by making alliance with Russia and therefore the Central Powers felt cornered.
6) TIK unfortunately didn't mention the "national" aspects of the treaty that Germany and Hungary got cut into pieces and the newly created nation states treated very badly these "guilty" people. Remember that WW2 broke out because of the unresolved Danzig issue.
@@den343 Just off the top of my head you are wrong on Belgium.
They didn't peruse colonial holdings, their king Leopold the 2nd obtained personal control over the Congo. He then committed such horrible crimes in the Congo that other European powers forced him to hand over control of the Congo to Belgium.
As for 'preparing for war', they were allowed to do that. Belgium agreed not to peruse war against other nations or military alliances. They didn't agree to be a pacifist state with no military nor to sit back as all of Europe went to war and not increase military readiness. Switzerland was also arming up at this point in history to ensure no one tried anything to them. This paid off as at one point in WW1 were threatened with invasion by Germany. Switzerland pointing out that they were ready for a fight to scare the Germans off.
@@lext2770 Belgium became an informal empire and Britain supported her and used her against colonial rivals. The balance of power shifted in favour of Britain and against Germany. This situation has some similarities with Ukraine where the West apparently (legally) may not be in war with Russia but in reality it is.
Also there's the german claim that they found evidence of joint war plans during the invasion.
@@den343 Belgium became and actual empire, everyone knew and nobody cared. As for the balance of power, that is also just so wrong. The brittish were pissed at Germany because they had been building a modern fleet that could threaten them. THIS was the germans breaking an unspoken agreement the brittish had with european powers. They didn't challenge the brittish navy and the brittish stayed out of european affairs. The brittish even lodged official complaints with germany about their ship building program, complaints that were ignored.
As for the joint war plans, their discovery was announced but somehow they were never published... because they never existed, after all it wasn't until the german invasion of belgium that the brittish even began building up their millitary. That is AFTER war had been declared. The german invasion of Belgium was something that had been planned shortly after their last war with france. Trying to figure out a way to invade france that would get past their border defenses. The germans went ahead with this plan even though they knew the brittish were guaranteeing belgium independence because the brittish army at the time was under a hundred thousand men. Compared to the german, french, russian and sustrian armies that all numbers in the millions, it was nothing.
Figuring that the tiny birttish army would be brushed aside and expecting a quick war. The germans went ahead, unfortunately the war wasn't quick at all and thanks to that the brittish had plenty of time to build up their army. Then to explain to their own people why they had invaded a neutral country and drawn a massive empire into the war they made up bullshit that the brittish were planning on invading. Despite the fact that the combined brittish and belgium armies were less then a quarter of the german army. Then there is the fact that their defensive alliance with itally and austria would have kicked in.
So no, that is just all sorts of wrong.
@@lext2770 "The brittish were pissed at Germany because they had been building a modern fleet that could threaten them."
Do you honestly think this argument is valid? Britain and Britain alone entitled to rule the world (or most of it)?
Am I missing something that this is some kind of "'world truth" everybody agreed upon?
And whoever challenges this - Germany wanted parity - will be proclaimed aggressor, disturber of peace or worse.
I am not a fan of either Wilhelm's or Hitler's Germany, but in reality they wanted the world to become multipolar and not to be ruled only by Britain.
Now it is the exact same situation with different powers (its Russia versus the world hegemonist US).
I am from the Ruhr area and my great grandfather worked just almost everybody there in a metal factory until it literally was taken apart and then transported to France after the war. This resulted in thousands of people being unemployed. There are unbelievable pictures of the theft and the resulting unemployment rate. Furthermore Family members were expelled for Alsass-Lothringen. The great frustration led to extremist parties rising in popularity.
I therefore refuse to believe this.
Was this during the Ruhr crisis, or as a result of the Treaty of Versailles?
Also, the unemployment rate skyrocketed as a result of the Ruhr crisis and the currency printing, not the Treaty of Versailles
This guy loves to cherrypick his sources and read things into them that may or may not actually be there.
He will not even attempt to seriously rebut you because he knows that he can't dance around the issue or throw cherrypicked quotes and documents at you. Because you have a relative that lived through the event that he's made this video about, he knows it's impossible to use ""sources"". He will instead attempt to gaslight you about what your relative really went through/what they really said.
Tldr, TIK is a quack.
@@inurmomsbedroom123 France and Belgium had their industries stolen by the Germans. Everything from cattle to dogs was taken from Belgium and chemical gas was shelled on civilians in villages by German artillery AFTER the signing of Treaty. But no. It was the Evil French being mean to the poor poor Germans. Read a history book will you?
I had a great grandfather who lost all his savings during that period. This video marginalizes the impact the losers during that period. If you lose your savings and/or job during hyperinflation, you PERMANENTLY lose your trust in government and financial institutions. Especially when others in society seem to benefit.
Just because the German government never really paid their full obligation in reparations, it does not mean german citizen's weren't harmed. People lost savings, went bankrupt. That's pain that lasts a lifetime.
Hi TIK, can you continue this series, it's fascinating. Thank you for your work, a real eye-opener.
We should coin a law/rule...
"when Keynes said it, it's wrong."
The "war guilt" clause had nothing to do with morality. It was a prerequisite for reparations. The allies needed to formally establish German financial responsibility for the war, otherwise any payment demands would have been extortion.
Tik, I notice you don't mention the word "causing" from article 231. The usual use of the word in common speech would assume guilt. "Johnny drove recklessly, causing all the subsequent damage" would infer Johnny's guilt, would it not?
Concur. TIK's "war guilt myth" refutation is the weakest point of his 3 part thesis. Scheidemann resigned rather than sign the treaty. The requirement to accept all blame as indicated in article 231 figured prominently in his decision.
TIK's near exclusive focus on reparations (GDM or in-kind) whether fully paid or not, discounts the embarrassing disarmament, occupation, and territorial concessions required of the defeated Germany. Anger and resentment about all TOV impacts played a major role in making NSDAP agendas and rhetoric more attractive to the German people. The TOV may not have been the proximate cause of hyperinflation but the average German likely connected the two. I think Hitler, et al may have mentioned the TOV in writings/speeches a few times?
TIK has a clear distaste for anything Keynesian. Keynes' book on the Versailles conference (where he participated): "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" was published in 1919 as a cautionary work before any of the major and minor downstream impacts occurred.
Who was going to read it and who did it matter to?
Heck say a certain censor bar mustacheo man did nothing wrong and see how people react when they think he did.
The German text in this regard is even more precise: Urheber meaning originator. Comparing the different language versions is a good option to gain insights.
@@davidk7324Germanies territorial conversions were small, they lost the same percentage of area and population as Finland did in the winter war, and people consider Finland a victor
@@billyosullivan3192 Finland didn't have to pay crushing war reparations until 2010
Most ironically it was Ludendorff asking German government to make peace as soon as he saw that the final German offensive had failed and that there were no more __resources__ left to to defend Germany against the Allied Hundred Days offensive, in which the German Western front was finally overrun by the Allies. On Sept 28, 1918, Ludendorff decided to use the German left party SPD and its various supporters (who would soon found their own parties) as scapegoats for the German defeat ... The Great Divide of Germany between Left Wing and Right Wing movements characterized the entire next two decades.
In some way it was a "mistake" to end WWI "prematurely", just before Allied troops were about to enter German soil. Thus, the myth was able to take hold. Had Germany been defeated beyond any doubt like in WWII, there would have been no such myth. But that is just my little what-if.
Germany only lost WWI because of the entry of the USA
The USA only entered the war because of the Balfour declaration - signed between the British government and the Rothschilds
If Germany had conquered France and Belgium, Hitler would have died in 1932 and the wars in Congo, Vietnam and Algeria would not have taken place 😉
Yeah. I've heard that some generals said that the German population would never accept defeat before enemy troops would occupy Berlin.
I've always enjoyed your videos and appreciate how in depth you go in your research. You really mastered the Feynman technique when it comes to explaining things so people with very little to no knowledge on the subject can understand. Keep up the great work TIK!
Hayek had praised young French economist Étienne Mantoux, who was killed in action in 1944, but had previously written "La Paix calomniée", a book that I found online, in defense of the Treaty of Versailles.
Hey Tik I know you only really specialize in ww2 history which I absolutely love but just imagining you diving deep into a character like Alexander the Great is so fascinating.
I wouldn't mind covering a topic completely outside of the current range of history I discuss. People have asked me to cover the American Civil War, and I like ancient and medieval history too, so it's certainly a possibility.
@@TheImperatorKnight How about a topic on inflation before XX century. Tho I assume 2 videos would be needed for that, cause there are 2 definitions of inflation now.
@@TheImperatorKnight You should do a crossover with Atun Shei if you cover the Civil War
@@TheImperatorKnight I think it would also be interesting to cover Vietnam. :D. Just putting that out there.
Great video. Was really expecting a mention of the occupation of the Ruhr however. Would you say the influence of the occupation is overplayed? I'd always been under the impression that the occupation worsened hyperinflation and gave more fuel to the fire of growing support for the right in the weimar republic
I don't want to spoil anything at the moment, but I'll explain the Ruhr issue when we get to it. In this series we've only reached the years 1919 and 1920!
@@TheImperatorKnight If history can be ruined by spoilers it must not be good history.
lol
The Treaty of Versailles did not contain any limitations on the victors' financial requirements in order to facilitate additional demands. In 1920, the Western Allies first fixed the amount of reparations at the sum of 269 billion gold marks; then, in 1921, at 132 billion - both unrealistic demands. France made use of this opportunity by occupying additional German cities. This policy of blackmail culminated in the invasion of the Ruhr territory by French and Belgian military units in January 1923. In this way, France hoped to bring about the disintegration of the German Reich. And establish the Rhine as France's eastern frontier. Subsequently, the French occupying forces accelerated inflation in the occupied areas by confiscating printers to print banknotes, and they produced money in unprecedented quantities. This is how France promoted high inflation until the German currency collapsed.The French government, however, did not achieve this objective. Even his British and Italian allies condemned the French attack on the Ruhr as an open breach of the Treaty of Versailles. The paralysis of Germany's economy resulting from inflation, combined with passive resistance, forced the United States to abandon its policy of isolation and to concentrate on regulating war debts.
@@GuilhermeGui-vv1om Did you watch the video, the allied leaders lied the public about the sum of the debt and allied leaders kept making concessions to German demands to pay less, and Germany pretty much paid nothing.
While I agree with most of your arguments in this video, I do have one area of disagreement.
Even though Article 231 does not say Germany was solely responsible for the war, it can be read as a "war guilt" clause without distorting the text. The key is the phrase "...by the aggression of Germany and her allies." If Germany signed the treaty, it would mean rejecting justifications for war put forth in "The German White Book", which presented Germany's argument that it had been forced to act preemptively to stave off a Russian and possibly joint Russo-French, invasion. By rejecting their own legal arguments for war, and accepting that military action was aggression, German was accepting responsibility for causing the war with the help of its allies.
While it was not, strictly speaking, a "war guilt clause", the idea was implied by the text. With that said, there is no defense for the claim that Article 231 claimed Germany alone was responsible for the war. The article clearly presented Germany and its allies as a group of aggressors, not Germany alone.
Another nice video, thanks for keeping them coming.
Well that's an aggression regardless. If you're attacking someone who's not openly hostile towards you, it's an aggression. Whether you aggression is justified is another thing entirely which the treaty specifically did not go into, on purpose, and German officials knew full well, this wasn't what this clause said, they ran with it anyway.
Article 231 is probably deliberately vague in its wording.
Preemptive war is entirely a fiction of the left and of monarchs (who by definition are socialists).
@@karisvenner3892 In the international legal atmosphere of 1914 no, German actions would not necessarily be aggression. For a peace treaty, common usage or dictionary definitions do not matter. The term "aggressor" was included to support the rationale for reparations. By agreeing to Article 231, Germany was agreeing that it was guilty of starting an aggressive war rather than undertaking defensive military actions. German negotiators knew this and protested the wording even before the treaty was signed.
From a legal standpoint at the time, the key documents were the 1899 Hague Convention and the 1907 Hague Convention. The only clause German action violated was Part (III) Article 1, and even then only because it was not made clear that the request for military transit through Belgium was an ultimatum with war as the cost of rejection. At the time nations were given broad freedom in waging war. Germany's official position was that its actions were defensive in intent and undertaken to preempt already mobilizing threats. Preempting a threat was legally within the bounds of allowable defensive military actions at the time so long as the target was duly warned first.
Several contemporary treaties illustrated the uniqueness of Article 231. Although each had a clear instigator, none of the treaties used the term "aggression" in any sense. German negotiators were already annoyed by the wording before the treaty was signed. Given precedent, it was clear that Article 231 was unusual.
Treaty of Portsmouth (1905) ...Russo-Japanese War
Treaty of Lausanne (1912) ...Italo-Turkish War
Treaty of London (1913) ...First Balkan War
Treaty of Bucharest (1913) ...Second Balkan War
The Treaty of Bucharest is especially relevant. Bulgaria both began and also lost the war, unlike Japan, Italy, and Serbia in the other three examples.
It is also worth noting that The German-American Peace Treaty (1921) referred only to "acts", "hostilities" and "operations of war". It also failed to include the Treaty of Versailles' Part VII (where Article 231 was located) among the list of Treaty of Versailles parts America was claiming a right to in the 1921 peace agreement.
@@Knirin The only ambiguity was in the German language version. The French and English versions were quite clear. German diplomats knew this and understood the implications.
Sorry TIK. Love these videos, but reading article 231, I have to agree with Keynes on this one.
If you put a gun to someone’s head and force them to sign that they caused the damage and will pay for it, I don’t see how that’s not forcing them to accept their guilt, whether that guilt is fully justified or not. This was not decided by legal arguments, it was decided by gun to head.
Germany behaved very aggressively in WW1, but no more aggressively than the Allies behaved in certain theaters.
I’m not taking a pro-German view here. The Germans pretty much did the same to the Russians when the Russians peace’d out, and would have done the same to the Western Allies if they could have, especially to France.
Had the British navy been destroyed at Jutland, or had the German 1918 Spring offensive resulted in the collapse of Allied forces, I don’t think Germany would have come bearing roses.
yes, thats where I also disagree with him.
From a legal standpoint, if one party has to pay 100% compensation, this normally means he holds the same amount of responsiblity.
At least it is hard to believe that this clause should not have this psychological effect on a people, who were told throughout the whole war that they were the good guys.
I was taught this same lazy myth in high school, and it's really odd how long it has persisted given that it only takes a surface glance at the German post-war economic data to debunk it.
In the mid 1920's Germany was doing quite well. It's economy was booming, outpacing most of the developed world. It's democracy was stable, with centrists dominating politics. And as you say, the German government would have had little difficulty making reparation payments. Really, if you took a time-machine and went to Berlin in 1926 and said that the Treaty of Versailles had economically and politically ruined Germany, it would be a bizarre argument to make. Germany was doing fine.
What really hit Germany hard was the Great Depression, not Versailles. This was because of how heavily dependent the Germany Economy had become on investment and financing from US banks. Investment and financing which disappeared. The German economy tanked, and politics in German turned radical. But the Great Depression was a global event, and many countries experienced roughly that same narrative. Spain, Italy and Japan were in no way brutalized by Versailles, yet they too fell under military dictatorships.
It's only a compelling myth if you skip from 1923 all the way to 1929 and forget that Germany did in fact recover form the war, and was rather peaceful and prosperous before the Great Depression hit.
People don't get angry like 1930's Germany did for no reason. The slander will never stop...
This may be a relevant point, but still puts the ultimate blame on the bankers who caused the Great Depression, i.e. - largely the same sort of people mister mustache blamed for Germany's destitution. Bankers are the ultimate criminals... there's a reason those engaged in usury were chased out by Jesus and reviled throughout history. It's a despicable practice that inevitably dooms the economic prosperity of any country, but no leader who ever dares fight it manages to live long. Odd, that.
@@haroldfarquad6886 Ooof. Plenty of countries ban "usury". And yet nobody is in a rush to leave Switzerland for Afghanistan.
Perhaps you need to re-think that thesis.
@@Sphere723 And almost no one can afford to live in Switzerland. Usury extracts wealth without economic return, and restricts upward mobility. It is a parasitic practice, nothing more. Switzerland is so nice because it has managed to stand in the middle and help fund all sides of major conflicts for over a century, enriching itself in the process. Switzerland is a fortified enclave for the already rich, not a land where one goes to earn a better standard of living. Invoking that country just proves my point.
Who should I believe? TIK or my lying eyes? It literally says the war was “imposed upon [the allies] by the aggression of Germany and her allies.”
People tend to forget that the newly minted German Empire imposed a way harsher treaty on France after the Franco-Prussian War, which they instigated AND fought on French soil.... Versailles was too harsh to be soft, but too soft to be harsh.
But officially France started that war.
France had to pay 5 billion Francs
(1450 tons of Gold).
Germany had to pay 20 billion Goldmark
(7000 tons of Gold) between 1919 and 1921 plus 226 billion Goldmark imposed on Germany in 1921.
The Franco-Prussian war had 2 causes
1. France demanded that no Hohenzollern would ever rule Spain.
2. Napoleon III. demanded to annex small German States to the west of the Rhine, which were in a defensive alliance with Prussia.
???? Germany didn't instigate that war?
Just by looking at this title, i can hear the controversy from miles away. And i'm here for it, as you rightfully said, history lies in the heart of debate.
Also, I hope Klaus and WEF start sponsoring you, so that you can make videos about what you like without caring about the whims of the market.
Don't worry TIK, you'll be happy! LoL. Anyway have a good day, sir, you deserve it.
Well said!
I am a German and I want to thank you for enlightening me. I also believed, until now, in a "war-guilt" clause of the Versailles treaty.
It’s literally there…
Versailles did not result in the Nazis nor Hitler BUT it was nevertheless used by Hitler as an 'additional' issue a number of his speeches.
I, as a Belgian, would also like to make a small but important point: Germany, and thus also the whole Ruhr area did NOT have to return all the Belgian equipment transported (stolen) from the Belgian heavy industry. The story is that the Belgian government demanded that in Versailles, but were more or less buggered out. The reason being that the Brits were still angry that Albert I, king of the Belgians, had refused to let the Belgian soldiers take part in a number of British suicide attacks (e.g. Passchendaele). So the German heavy industry never returned the equipment.
Speaking of hyperinflation, the situation got so bad, that employers had to pay their staff at the end of each day (some even at lunchtime, and again at day's end) because the value of money was fluctuating so much that it could have doubled , tripled or halved during a day's trading. There are actually 10, 20 and even 50 million mark coins issued, I've seen one, it's gold coloured and about the size of a Wagon Wheel cookie. The highest value note issued was 100 trillion mark (not even going to try to type that figure out)
If you compare Versailles to other treaties of the time, it was actually pretty standard. Generous to Germany in some ways, since they weren't split apart like Austria-Hungary or robbed of massive amounts of land like Russia was in the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Plus, Germany ignored a lot of it anyway.
The reparations were humiliating and a drain on the German economy, but they found ways to manage and/or get out of them.
And considering they (spoiler)...
.....
...didn't actually pay the reparations, yeah it was light.
My favorite myth is the insult of Alsace Lorraine, which was completely acceptable to Germans when the Treaty of Frankfort took it from France.
@@Adiscretefirm Yes, and according to a couple of sources, many of the people living there at the time wanted to either be independent or return to France.
@@TheImperatorKnight Another interesting point: A lot of people born in Alsace-Lorraine when it _was_ part of Germany quickly came to consider themselves fully French after WWI. They never identified as German.
@@TheImperatorKnight Well, the french goverment give them far better status, like the Concordat, than the german and the Kulturkampf initiated by Bismarck. When i lived in Mulhouse, i have spoken with ederly who where young during the interwar period that told me that their parents where happier with the french goverment than with the german reich. It can be biased by the particularities of Mulhouse, but i have always find it interesting, particulary against the view of independentist and neo nazi from alsace
Even leaving aside the "war guilt clause" (which it clearly was, Germany's success against France in WWI didn't mean it was the "aggressor"), and leaving aside the economics of the reparations (as well as their impact on the psyche of Germans who were "made to pay" - even if on net they didn't actually pay), TIK is avoiding another MAJOR reason for the Nazis and WWII: the post WWI division of Europe on not exactly linguistic/ethnic/cultural lines.
Agree or not with the concept of dividing Europe along linguistic/etc. lines (which Wilson hoped to do), Germany was arguably cheated in the drawing of those lines. Romania also thought it was cheated along these lines, which is why they joined the Axis in fighting the USSR. Hitler exploited the resentment of the lines as drawn, but he didn't create it, and thus someone else might have done the same thing.
Alsace-Lorraine was both French and German and thus couldn't truly be divided, yet it was entirely handed to France. The Sudentenland had more German speakers than Czech speakers; while the concept of including the mountains as defense for Czechoslovakia made sense, it was not in the spirit espoused by a treaty with "no winners" as Wilson envisioned. Poland now included many Germans under the treaty; this was considered unavoidable to give them access to the sea, but still it happened. Furthermore, once the German speaking part of Austria-Hungary was lopped off from the rest, it would have made sense to have Austria as part of the new Germany, but this was not allowed.
Other "punishing" parts of the treaty included the occupation of the Rhineland, the temporary transfer of the Saarland to France (until self-determination could be established about 15 years later), and the limitations on the size of the German military.
TIKs "Treaty of Versailles" video ignores these punishing/humilating factors, and declares "No, the ToV didn't lead to Hitler or the start of WWII". Actually a very good case can be made that it did. While WWII was not inevitable by any means, and the rise of a "Hitler type" was not assured, the ToV clearly had a hand in setting Europe on that path.
THANK YOU for bringing this up. TIK honestly leaves out stuff on purpose, I think.
And, honestly, he is taking huge liberties with the war guilt clause. I think it is obvious that when you read it, it is heavily suggested that they name Germany as being the one that will carry guilt
The sheer amount of context we now know we've been presented by his videos on the bank wars alone is mind-boggling! Lewis, you truly are a man worthy of my respect to you which is immeasurable, just finished reading "vampire economy" yesterday, one of the best of your suggestions, keep up the great work!
So, Tik, I agree with you that germany didn't pay the originally planned reparations
But here is something that Churchill himself said in the first volume of his "Second World War" book: "The economic clauses of the Treaty were malignant and silly to an extent that made them obviously futile. Germany was condemned to pay reparations on a fabulous scale. These dictates gave expression to the anger of the victors, and to the belief of their peoples that any defeated nation or community can ever pay tribute on a scale which would meet the cost of modern war."
And it was Churchill saying that. Not Keynes or the "Central Bankers". Now, I am not english, and I admit that I know little about the history of England myself, but Churchill never really striked me as a keynesianist, as they had opposed views on almost everything during the twenties decade
I also doubt that Churchill would be looking for any reason to justify the nazis by writing something like this. I mean, the guy spent 5 years having to fight them by land, air and sea. There's no reason for him to say something like this that seems to validate one of the foundational pillars of the nazi worldview unless he actually thought it was true
Which leads me to the following question. Do you really think it really would have been posible for the post-war german society to pay "the cost of modern war" as Churchill mentions it? You mentioned in the video something about "various accounts" that showed that with only a small increase in taxation, the reparations could have been paid. Is this really the case?
In 1925 he became Chancellor of the Exchequer and did the hard and unpopular work of bringing back the gold standard. Then he claimed this was his biggest mistake cause printing more money (fiat currency) solves anything as Keynes said, including decline in popularity (big thing in politics). Better ask yourself why after 1945 when Germany was paying for WWI and WWII nothing "gave expression to the anger of the victors, and to the belief of their peoples that any defeated nation or community can ever pay tribute on a scale which would meet the cost of modern war".
He also was the first man to order use of poison gas on civilians in 1920 witch must have not been his biggest mistake.
Churchill is a man of a 1000 quotes. And just as the bible, his believes are not a reliable source of what happened.
German military planning for a future war started as soon as WW1 ended, way before the Nazis were a thing. The Versailles Treaty was a good political/propaganda instrument for certain "conservative" elements to fuel their cause, but I wouldn't necessarily call the Nazis conservatives. Defeat against France is a major national tragedy without the Versailles Treaty (I'm sure any Englishman can understand that). The treaty wasn't the reason, but it was made a reason. It's much like bringing "freedom and democracy" to countries for reasons which are "dubious".
call me crazy but im fairly sure striving towards an Ayran race is more of a Conservative leaning mindset than Liberal
@@silentone6411 Racism/anti-semitism is pure "idiocracy". Unfortunately it's found everywhere, from revolutionaries to monarchists. I don't see it as a political statement but the mindset of assholes.
@@silentone6411 You are hyper focusing on one thing, creating a new social and political order with revolutionary zeal is nothing conservative. The destruction of old political power and radicalism of the party is nothing close to German Junker conservatism. National socialism is revolutionary in nature like Marxism while using conservative ideas as a sort of public goal but in private the inner party was full of esoteric anti Christian madmen.
Also the only ideologies outside of fascists and national socialists that promoted the idea of a new perfect man were marxists...
By the way I find it interesting that for you the reverse of conservative is liberal, are you American by any chance? You do know that there more ideologies in the world than these two...
@@silentone6411 you're a far left Ibtard, so you're crazy by default.
@@Perrirodan1 that's Iibtards for you. everything they dislike is cOnSeRvAtIvE and FaR rIgHt
I have been fascinated with WW2 my whole life, but this channel changed my whole point of view about the war. It's incredible how I always believed in this stuff before finding your channel.
TIK still does the same sort of dancing around the core truth for fear or blind love for the Kabbalists.
Have to disagree with TIK's analysis of Article 231. Even he says (paraphrasing) "you can find guilt if you're looking for it". Nobody really views acceptance of guilt as compartmentalized- people and companies make financial settlements all the time where the official statement repudiates any admission of guilt, but we still view the settling party as guilty nonetheless. So TIK actually agrees with Keynes despite his protestations to the contrary- in the quote presented by Keynes, it says exactly what TIK says, you will find what you want in it and can spin that version to be public.
Victor Davis Hanson makes great points about this. The Treaty of Versailles was a slap on the hand in comparison to the hatchet we took to them after WWII. If anything the victorious countries went too easy on them. But this was the difference between a treaty and unconditional surrender which we demanded from all belligerents of WWII. A lesson learned too late for millions of victims.
Not really. Germany lost more territory in WW1 than in WW2 if you include colonies. Economically speaking, WW1 was more devastating .
@@aleksazunjic9672 it wasn't you moron, the inflation ruined Germany not a money they didn't pay and a land they didn't live on.
Note that WWII policies were all exterminarion ones (that were withdraw with rise of Eisenhower and the come of the cold war), and in anykind any policie that is no direct to support the reconstruction of the defeated side and repair of their national proud is an unjustified act of coercion. This only may be exceptued of the population did have a generalized desire for war so that they force the goverment for it (like the Nagorno Kalala War), but this clearly can't apply to a country were at least 66% definitive did no support Hitler and the party, and any possible support fof the war is based in lies and indoctrination.
@@aleksazunjic9672 *" if you include colonies"*
Why would you include colonies aside from building a faux argument, though.
Their economic value, relative to eg. Silesia, coupled with the sheer amount of empty spaces and the notion that colonies were a net financial drain makes it look like you are satisfied by rather meaningless amount of square kilometers.
Then there's a simple comparison of Germany in 1918 and Germany in 1945 - cities, infrastructure, industry, resources, supply chains. Which one of those involves a pile of rubble?
@@aleksazunjic9672 right
The treaty DIRECTLY lead to both hyperinflation and Hitler. It humiliated a nation of people that really hadn’t suffered as the battle lines were in Belgium and northern France. It laid all the blame on Germany, a nation that didn’t start the conflict in the first place. It also separated German people and prevented Austrian unification during a time of sweeping nationalism.
TIK, would you ever be interested in doing a WWI series? I find that portion of history so interesting to learn about
Been waiting for another Bank wars video for some time, and I have been thoroughly rewarded. As always great content TIK.
The Great War channel is an amazing resource for anyone interested in WW1. It will take a while but watching all of the weekly episodes will give you a better understanding of WW1.
yeah no thx. they're leftist
The Versailles treaty was so rough that the crushed Germany conquered all of Europe as a result of it. It made Germany so poor and beleaguered her industry and armies conquered the greatest swathe o land in european history in mere months.
Actually the Treaty worked. When Barbarossa faltered the Germans had no trained reserves to mobilise because conscription was banned. The Soviets on the other hand simply called up former soldiers, who were already trained, as they had finished their period of conscription, handed them weapon's, and off they went. A new army raised in a couple of weeks.
It soild have no worked if Hitler were a Capitalist.
But germany did do conscription
@@Edax_Royeaux : Yes you have identified one part of the fundamental paradox the Germans found themselves in.
They set themselves three targets Leningrad, Moscow and the Ukraine, moving along three axis of advance, with effectively two and a half Army Groups and no reserves. Only Army Group Centre was strong enough to carry out its task. Army Group Norths Panzer Army was weakened to strengthen the centre. Army Group South, although having more divisions, many were from Allied Countries which were much weaker than the German ones, making it a mish mash not strong enough to shatter the opposition.
Because they had spent the previous twenty years building an army to fight lightening war, in Countries immediately adjacent to the Reich, where logistics did not really matter, " they had to win within days or a few weeks or lose " they were simply unprepared for what they had to do.
As you point out and TIK pointed out in his Stalingrad Series, there is no point sending extra troops when you cannot supply the ones you already have. This paradox was never addressed, never mind resolved, and turned Barbarossa into a s**t show, everything else stemmed from that.
@@wtice4632 obviously they did are you dumb? His point is that if they had had conscription from the end of the first world war they would have conscripted more men by the time of barbarossa and therefore would have more trained soldiers in total.
I understand your point about war guilt in the treaty, but what matters more than the words of the treaty is how the populace about both sides felt about it. The general public on both sides seemed to see it as a war guilt admission. (You discussed some of this later in the video)
The numbers on the reparations were fascinating! I appreciate you getting all the numbers together on this!
Yeah but that's not enough to start a war for
The fact still remains that Keynes fears were well founded. Your scholarship is pure sophistry.
To be honest, in a round about way I'd say "YES" Regardless. Similar to the effect Prussia's defeats against Napoleon reshaped the Prussian Military, and helped introduce German Nationalism. The Franco-Prussian war had a similar effect on the French. I'd say of course losing, and given cruel terms would do the same to post WWI Germany. Though, to defend the British/French post WWI, the Franco-Prussian war saw some pretty harsh terms and even reparations forced upon the French by the Prussians. So what you see with Versailles was more common than people think, and should of been expected, though I still think the terms were too harsh. I just don't believe an entire nation should be punished for the decisions of it's leaders. All you do is give ammunition for political extremist to use.
Now is the Treaty of Versailles responsible for Hyper Inflation? I'd highly doubt it, as it's mostly caused by internal economic decisions not external. I mean, without all the military spending, you'd think Germany could afford the reparations? So the Versailles treaty kind of gave Germany the ability to pay those reparations, even if they were high reparations.
Problem was that Germany already economically devastated by the war (same as other participants), then they lost territories and colonies, then there were reparations, and then they shoot themselves in the foot by hyperinflation which actually devastated domestic small creditors (debts not in gold marks) . After that, path for NS was open.
Collective responsibility is a completely Marxian concept. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the real thinking behind the Treaty. The 1971 treaty was partially a revenge for the Napoleonic Wars in Prussian and German territories, one cannot forget the cost borne by those small states and Prussia during that period. England basically reaped all rewards from that period as the German peoples were not united in a nation state to be singly represented--a situation favored by the British for very good reasons, although as it turned out, impossible to maintain.
@@CB-vt3mx Not really. Collective responsibility is an old concept that is mentioned even in the Old Testament (collective punishment for enemies of Israelites) . Marxists and other just picked it up from there.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it wasn't harsh enough. Germany still felt strong, and felt insulted. Machiavelli said that if you need to offend someone, make sure that they cannot seek revenge.
But it was in line with a very European way of War. Winner imposes reparations on the loser, maybe takes some territory, then in 20 or so years, it happens again, to get revenge or to take more. Just look at the history of wars in Europe. It's not surprising that WW2 happened. It was the way things were.
Only after particularly nasty wars, like WW2 or the Napoleonic Wars, have European Kleptocrats been afraid of their own destruction, and laid off the war mongering for a while.
Actually the war was the fault of the Russians when they refused to leave it as a local conflict between Austria/Hungary and Serbia. Also you forget that war was declared before any attacks happened. Woodrow Wilson also stated that the treaty would cause a war of revenge by the Germans.
I think it's hard for any country to lose land, as an American, I can't fathom what my country would turn into if we had to lose a state or two.
Nazi Germany x1000000000 more xenophobe
I might debate kalipornia...
This, I'd drown the continent in a sea of blood to retake California or Texas or even little Rhode Island. Honestly if WW2 was just WW1 2: Electric Boogaloo and all it involved was the German Empire trying to restore the 1914 borders I'd have a hard time arguing against it without being a hypocrite.
@@theeccentrictripper3863 Wars begin when you like, but they do not end when you like. It is war itself that teaches us to value peace.
@@shorewall What peace would there be in the Union fragmenting? A single step down the road to ruin would start a chain reaction that would lead to billions dead and probably at least a few nuclear weapons going off around the world, we have to remain strong and totally secure in the homeland.
Wonderful videos, thanks TIK. Keep up the great work. Not many have the balls to talk frankly about history like this. Whether you chose to believe on face value or study further, these videos set people in motion to look deeper and learn. Awesome stuff!
No mention of the boycott of German goods? Disingenuous reporting.
Writing my history paper about how the Treaty of Versailles led to Hitler's rise to power... I'm using this video as evidence for my counterclaim bc this did not persuade me to think differently
Well, please, the article 231 is saying -in different words - that Germany is guilty: guilty of starting the word ("imposed") and guilty of the destruction that followed
You have the greatest history channel. One of the only historians I've ever heard quote Mises. It's a shame that he was smashed by propaganda. We can't have people deciding for themselves now can we/sarcasm . He solved the economic calculation problem, which in turn solves all other economic problems, yet nobody with power will even consider his solution. They would have to give up some power, so....
Tik I once again have to thank and congradulate you for another fantastic and informative video.
I too at the time of doing my GCSE's was taught that the treaty lead to hyperinflation and the rise of Hitler, and thus am glad that videos such as yours are helping to inform people better.
Wow, I was taught this version of events in school as well. I can't believe that the Nazis themselves weren't even using the harshness of the treaty as their main argument. This is a very important video.
I can understand that maybe economically speaking the treaty was a it impotent -
but the territorial changes where surely more provocative to the German people.
Yes. Exactly the point. It barely mattered economically, but it LOOKED like it hurt a lot.
Losing the colonies was actually the best thing to happen economically.
Good video, TIK. Thanks.
A follow-up video ought to explore the reasons of Keynes and others outside Germany (and often themselves citizens of the Entente countries) to fabricatinate the myth.
From what I've read, the USSR expected Germany to fall to socialism. In fact, Lenin and others senior Soviet leaders thought the worldwide socialist revolution hinged on Germany - it was a genuine proletariat country having the wealth and know-how needed. Rather than handing wealth over to greedy capitalist, imperial Britain and France, the socialists wanted Germany to preserve as much wealth as possible for the socialists themselves to seize soon enough and use for their cause. Ostensibly, their public opposition to reparations was these funds would prop up the capitalist countries
On 1 January 1922, the Communist International (Comintern) issued an appeal to ‘working men and women of all countries’ calling for the creation of a workers’ united front to fight the ravages of capitalism.
_'Through the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and related treaties, the war’s victors had sought to impose on the vanquished powers a new world order: redrawing borders, creating new nation states, and redividing the world into new spheres of influence. But rather than ensuring a stable and lasting order, the Versailles system had the opposite effect. The most immediate cause of this instability was Germany’s inability to pay the massive war reparations imposed by the Versailles Treaty. Numerous financial conferences and meetings were held during these years to work out new payment plans. When none of these worked, the victorious powers resorted to outright theft. In early 1921 French troops were sent to occupy the Ruhr region - Germany’s main coal-producing district - in an attempt to seize this valuable resource.'_
You should look at the Russo-Polish War, specifically the Battle off Warsaw 1920. It's not surprising, that by 1922, the Bolsheviks would be calling for uprisings, since by that time the prospect of military intervention was all but over.
I like to say this is when all prospects for Communism failed (at least in Europe); if only as a slight troll to bring light on what I believe was a pivotal chapter in history that does not receive nearly enough attention.
guilt gĭlt noun
1. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense; moral culpability. synonym: blame.
2. The fact of having been found to have violated a criminal law; legal culpability.
3. Responsibility for a mistake or error.
So, they were required to take responsibility for the commission of an offense (an act of aggressive war). Kinda sounds like guilt to me. But maybe the OED defines it differently.
TIK: Article 231 doesn't say that Germany was responsible for the outbreak of the war, it doesn't say it!
Article 231: ...as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies
Me: ???
Yeah this, Did TIK even read his own quote? Article 231 implies that Germany and her allies started the war when it was a Serbian secret society entangled with the Serbian military/government who killed Franz Ferdinand leading to an Hapsburg invasion of the country.
Having the central powers (including Germany) assume the full guilt of the war IS a war guilt clause. WW1 is complicated and I definitely think that the Central Powers did their part but the actions of Serbia and Russia in the beginning definitely constituted as aggression and they deserve some blame.
Ive an open mind but that still sounds like a "War Guilt" clause to me. Indeed Tik then goes on to say that Germany WAS guilty.
Very good video, as always. I do think the myth of the unfair Versailles treaty was also fed by the military restrictions put on Germany (which TIK unfortunately does not cover). Those restrictions made it very easy for any nationalist to paint the treaty as victimizing the German people - and there is nothing more dangerous than a group with some measure of power, but who still considers themselves to be victims.
Yes, and I also didn't mention Danzig or some of the other parts of the treaty. They're something I could do in a future video though. For this video, which is part of the Weimar Hyperinflation series (which is also covering the origins of Hitler and National Socialism) I was more forcused on the economic impact on Weimar Germany and also Hitler's rise to power.
The military restrictions were economically helpful to the German people - a war-machine is a very expensive thing.
@@Edax_Royeaux France didn't lose large swathes of land, their entire colonial empire, their navy and army.
The problem with Versailles isn't just economic.
it was main stream German policy to try and reverse the territorial losses of Versailles. it's wasn't a particular nazi policy.
Also France were to pay Germany 2,5 billion dollars in war reparations in 1871. Germany was to pay over 31 billion dollars in 1921. that's over 10 times as much, not counting for inflation.
@@Edax_Royeaux interesting. What tool do you use for your calculations?
Would you care to address my main points?
@@nikolajwinther5955 Your main points are already leaking due to this hilarious misrepresentation of financial burden.
I'll add another issue of misrepresenting French colonial empire as equivalent of garbage German colonies. Not the same loss.
The same goes for comparison between Alsace & Lorraine and eastern territories, filled to the brim with angry Poles.
Oh, and France didn't have to lose its army as it was already demolished and sent into amateur hour territory by the end of the war.
So, what are you left with? Ships that would go obsolete before ww2?
Re: Did not pay back $12.5 billion in gold marks by 1921/22.
I thought that was why France occupied the Ruhr in 1923, as a response to default.
I cannot recall the occupation being raised in the video, I may be wrong or my powers if recollection stunted...
But if I'm correct, wasn't thus the consequences of default, and the outcome was the 1924 Dawes Plan?
I would argue that the Treaty of Versailles was indeed an important factor for the eventual rise of the Nazis, but it wasn't the most important one, nor was this the necessary outcome. But it is very clear that the treaty and its revision dominated german politics between 1919 and 1933. Virtually every political party wanted to revise the treaty's restrictions - only the methods and specific goals were different. Streesemann's foreign policy (resulting in the Treaty of Locarno) was one of these strategies.
I think the key to understand this issue is how the treaty was received in Germany. The important thing was the infamous "war guilt" clause. From the perspective of the allies, it was "necessary", because Germany was the only central power that could pay reparations (the other countries were either dissolving or too poor). The guilt clause was "just" a legal necessity in order to make the reparations possible. But the disastrous actions of the head of the german delegation in Versailles, Brockdorff-Rantzau, resulted in a different interpretation: a moral condemnation of Germany. This had never been the intended purpose of the clause and it wasn't seen as a big problem from the perspective of the Entente. But the german public interpreted this clause as an unfair condemnation, which poisoned the whole political atmosphere of the Weimar Republic. Essentially, the Germans created this problem themselves by getting the treaty "in the wrong throat". (However, there is SOME unfairness in the creation of the treaty. The way the german delegation was treated was almost unprecedented; there were no real negotiations between the Germans and the Entente and the signing of the treaty was a deliberate humiliation. This certainly worsened the political effect of the treaty).
Source: Eberhard Kolb, "Der Frieden von Versailles" [The Peace of Versailles], 2005, Publisher: C.H. Beck (Munich).
The Nazis rise very suddenly in 1930 from being a very small party to being a major party. This was a long time after the treaty and by this time it had very little practical effect what so ever. Psychological effect.. that is a other thing.
The rise of the nazis on the other hand was really an effect of terrible internal politics. Socialism leading to socialism in a country that have a democracy that really wasn´t working
An event with little real impact on a society dominating the political discussion during a time of economic trouble? Golly I can't believe it. Surely the powers that be wouldn't use such a thing as a deflection from destructive economic policies so voters blame an external enemy rather than their rulers for their economic woes.
@@josephahner3031 I'm sorry, but apparently, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just look at the original contemporary sources. The Treaty of Versailles was one of the major political issues of the Weimar Republic. As I said: It's not about the objective economical impact, but about the political/publicy perceived/moral impact.
Also the polish coridor and danzig was just a future crisis waiting to happend... The peace made it impossible for germany to move on and focus on anything other than "taking back what was theirs by right"
France got off easy in the napolionic wars and was respected. Those peace talks made almost 99 year years of "peace".
Versailles was just hands down a bad peace deal in many aspects and the way it was made was just stupid with the "no negotiations" part
Honestly disepointed in how this video ignores almost tries to place the blame soly on germany for not taking the peace with a big smile
What about this? "In 1995, following reunification, Germany began making the final payments towards the loans. A final installment of US$94 million was made on 3 October 2010, settling German loan debts in regard to reparations."
Hello I think I’m early. Love your videos.
Glad you like them!
Really hard to believe that Germany was allowed to default without any repercussions.
Great video, Tik.
Might also be worth mentioning that Germany didn't just borrow a lot of money after the war, but during it too. Their plan was to fund the war with money it borrowed and have the Allies pay it back in Reparations when they won (strange how that part is rarely mentioned, and how was never viewed as "unfair"). And they also got rid of the gold standard for this.
Of course they lost, and had to pay back the debt + the reparations - even though it wasn't 55 billion.
And, naturally, the same mercantilist fallacies Mises pointed out (11:55) led them to think they could print as much money as they wanted with no consequences.
So: hefty foreign debt + getting rid of the gold standard + excessive printing + utterly false propaganda = disaster.
So who did they borrow from during WW1?, certainly not the English, French, Russia or USA.
For context people should made comparision between Versalies Treaty and Breat-Litovsk Treaty forced on Russia by Germany and Austro-Hungary.
Great video Tik!
I've been trying to find more info regarding the management of the German economy during the reign of the Third OHL (1916-1918). Will you ever do a video on it or recommend any sources on it?
Thanks again, the Bank Wars are my favorite series!
French proposals after WW1 are pretty much what happened after WW2 - split up Germany, and make it militarily a non-entity. Britain (and America) were so dead set against French dominance of the continent that they basically let Germany off the hook and never were committed to enforcing even the weakened treaty terms that were implemented, essentially leaving France (which had borne the bulk of the cost and damage of the war) on her own - only later to go back and blame the French for what was their own perfidy and accuse them of being weak and cowardly. (whilst hiding behind the sea and thus protected from any real danger).
Very informative as always, however I do wish you brought up the french occupation of the Ruhr as part of your analysis, even if must admit it would probably have blown the script out of proportion to cover this topic aswell.
Got a lot to think about after this. Great video, really appreciate the effort to offer more clarity.
To me, the word "aggression" is pretty clearly placing blame.
Still in the first point, but some discussion that I would like to have already…
While I certainly agree that the article didn't directly onsay that Germany is guilty of starting the war, but it didn't sound like a simple "pay for the damage" either, since it also says that they are responsible for the "consequences of the war", which was also clearly stated to be started by Germany's aggression. Now, not saying any of these is an unfair assessment, but it sounds only one step away from declaring Germany guilty of starting the war to me…
As of the second point, I can see how Germany didn't pay nearly as much as people thought, but comparing borrowed money to what they paid felt disingenuous. Borrowed money, while capable of warning up the market by increasing money supply, is after all not their wealth, and massive borrowing would only increase inflationary issues. It would be much better to compare to their government budget in those years instead.
Also, comparison to the French economy and payment was lacking some context to be more convincing. What is arguably more important is the ratio of each nation's economy relative to each other at the time.
I believed this was the case for a long time, thanks for covering it.
I had my doubts about the reparations being so harsh that they caused them to print currency, which then led to the hyperinflation, because I knew they couldn't pay external debts with domestic currency, only gold and other commodities. But I didn't doubt the rest of the narrative until I started doing reading for this series, and realized that I should have read Mises' "Omnipotent Government" years ago. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort!
@@TheImperatorKnight Mises has been great for helping me understand all these fascist economic systems in ways I never thought possible.
It was one of many causes. First the war itself, then loss of territories and colonies, then reparations, and finally hyperinflation which wiped the savings of many middle and working class Germans. This naturally led to rise of NS.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Did you not watch the video? German hyperinflation was because of failed Socialist policies, not because of the treaty as the reparations were more then sustainable for post-war Germany
@@LlibertarianGalt Usual TIK BS :D Hyperinflation was caused by money printing, and reason for money printing was to pay all the obligation state had (mostly towards its own citizens) . At that point in time German state was simply not solvent, and could either print money or declare bankruptcy.
TIK, I don't dispute the evidence you present, but the difference between Versailles and the Marshall Plan HAS THE APPEARANCE of creating a Germany that wants war versus a Germany that wants peace. Clearly (as always) it is more complicated than that. Could you address this in a future video?
The real difference is that after WW1, Germany thought they could still go. After WW2, Germany knew that they couldn't. That's the big difference.
If WW1 had continued until Allied Soldiers were marching in the streets of Berlin, with the German cities and countryside having been devastated, I doubt there would have been a WW2.
It's the same with Japan. People argue if it was even the Nukes that caused them to surrender, needing the Soviets to also declare war. This after a complete blockade, destruction of their navy, and Carpet Bombing of their cities.
Both Germany and Japan were martial countries with proud heritage, and populaces who were loyal to their country. You can't just give them a couple of licks and tell them to stand down. An insult like that will just lead them to hate you. You must deconstruct them, demolish them utterly, and rebuild them.
As always a great video with great insights and a coherent analysis. My own Great Grandfather was a German officer and a veterinarian tasked with a very special job that was an essential part in the whole story ofmaking reparations to the French. there were for example a certain number of horses that Germany had to provide, they were of great importance and considerable value as indispensable helpers for the French agriculture and to draw carts with all kinds of stuff, to do delivery service inside of cities for example. My ancestors expertise was neede to make absolutely sure that not one single horse that was still healthy and young enough to do even the smallest amount of work would ever leave Germany to set foot on French soil. You can probably imagine what sort ofpoor, downridden mangy crowbaits were in that selection that finally got the approval to be handed over as reparation. The funny thing was this, there was never heard a worrd of complaining from the receiving side, andwhy not, it looked all fine and well on the paperwork 1 horse owed, 1 horse delivered, 1 horse received, end of story.
One must inevitably come to the conclusion that somehow, somewhere somebody was able to turn all the hides and glue "on the hoof" into some very healthy private profit. I can assure you it was not my Grandma's Dad who was that person. He and his family were soon to become multi billionaires in inflation money only to start literally at zero, shortly after the exciting days where one needed a wheelbarrow, to bring the cash to the bakery to exchange it into one loaf of bread. It was at this time where the serial killer Haarmann occasionally would sell of some sausage of his own special recipe to customers at a surprisingly low price. I got this little rhyme from my dear Grandmother it was from these days in the early 1920's out of her own childhood:
"Warte, warte nur ein Weilchen, dann kommt Haarmann auch zu dir! Und mit seinem Hackebeilchen, macht er Leberwurst aus dir"
Do you want to hear how Great Grandpa stole an entire train from the Russkies to bring himself and his entire company of soldiers back home to Berlin? Or how my Grandpa ended up with contributing some of his money to a soup kitchen of the SA during the height of the depression? I could tell you about how he became friends to Ernst Udet the formidable WW I German flying fighter ace? The story of how the British military intelligence found out everything about the German secret underground army that stood ready to strike at day1 of the start of WW II? Or what to say when being introduced to someone and you're told, "I'd like you to meet Prince Eberhard von und zu Werdenfels-Neuklingenstein, Graf zu Dödeldingen und Edler von Falkenhayn"? Or the proper return when being greeted with the German salute, with outstreched right arm and "Heil Hitler!"? Why these are the worst and why these are the best days to live in. The most important rule that needs to be ingrained in our culture to turn us into an (almost) perfect society.
Great job Tik. I think some of the British politicians were also looking to keep a balance of power and they feared France would become too strong if Germany was seriously weakened, so it may have been tempting to listen to Keynes.
Thank you again. Please continue to bring these thought provoking gems forward. I am saddened your information is still not common knowledge. For myself, I find your videos enlightening, if frightening in their content and implications.
Thank you very much for the decent subtitles again! My goodness, wished all the other channels would even bother to add ANY subtitles at all... Another thumbs up here!
Tik I’d be interested to hear, what do you make of schools pushing this narrative or others like it? At GCSE the treaty of Versailles causing ww2 was taught to me as fact, not even as the most logical argument but a fact on the same level as the holocaust, with no room to question it.
Blame the exam boards which only recognise certain knowledge as creditable. I teach this at Y9 and there's lots more scope for nuance when AQA aren't breathing down your neck.
03.10.2010 - Germany pays the last instalment of reparations for the First World War. It's a long story: 92 years after the end of the First World War, Germany is paying the last instalment for its war debts.
Wrong on myth 1. It does say it. It’s just worded slightly different, that’s what the term aggression is meant. You failed on myth #1.you are falsely arguing a strawman. It’s only slightly different wording - you are making a difference without significance. Sorry TIK, YOU ARE WRONG.
It is completely laughable and ludicrous how people on the extreme libertarian right always try to make out that Keynes and Keynesian economics are either Marxist or something to do with Marxism. This shows the most profound ignorance of both general western economic theory and of Marxist theory. The two are completely at odds. Keynes was in his private life and in his economics work, an out and out capitalist. He made his own personal fortune on the markets as a capitalist. Keynes's work was intended to rescue western liberal, capitalist economics from crises which could destroy it. He simply pointed out the falsity of ideas such as production creating its own demand (Say's Law), which had been exposed as rubbish by the Great Depression. In other words the macroeconomic system does not always solve its own problems but sometimes gets trapped in a rut of low growth, low employment, for which there was ample historical evidence. In this case it is possible for government intervention to boost the economy onto a more positive trajectory. This evolved from the end of the 1930s on into counter-cyclical management of the economy by governments to prevent economies either overheating or going into slump. It works well and is still being done today, almost universally. Unlike Keynes's theories which are based on price theory, supply, demand etc. Marxian economics is based on the labour theory of value. It considers the effects of monopoly and the changing organic composition of capital on the stability and growth of the capitalist economy. It has a completely different framework and language of its own, unlike Keynes, whose language and framework are those of western, liberal, capitalist economics.
I’d say the only negative (I’ve come across so far) about reading economy without history is that you never know whether the sources are true; the treaty of Versailles is touted in the books I read, including my own history books, as being one decently big part of the hyperinflation, that the bleeding of the German economy accelerated the printing of money and thence caused people to request more money printed, leading to more inflation. That this is not true is both fascinating and scary; how can I trust my own knowledge I ask myself? I must rely on Tik and hope that he makes vids on them, for if I look on my own sources, how do I knownwhich are true and which are erroneous/maliciously wrong?
That's the problem with history. The only option is to use multiple sources from all different perspectives to overcome this issue. See this video th-cam.com/video/PvpJEc-NxVc/w-d-xo.html
You built this persona TIK. Now when you accidentally mislead us you'll get crucified.
Since virtually every German political party in the Weimar Republic opposed the Versailles treaty, it did not help the Nazis rise to power.
Thanks for an analytical dissection of the myths. While you are strictly correct about Article 231, I consider the intent is to blame Germany for starting the war, otherwise why would a Germany accept responsibility for the war other country started? And when you add the phrase “war imposed upon them by the aggression…” it clearly lays the blame for the war at their feet!
"Welche Hand müsste nicht verdorren, die sich und uns in solche Fesseln legte?"-Philipp Scheidemann 12.05.1919
Yup, its very obvious that part of the treaty was to shift away any blame of the war. Also better not ask Brittain/France why they thought it was a good idea to continue the war in 2015, after the first big disasters.
He also says that Germany attacked "unprovoked", which seems kinda ridiculous if you see that Russia and France were both mobilized, and Russia was about to attack Austria, which wouldve triggered the alliance system and start WW1 either way.
@@termitreter6545 1915 😉
@@sam74mumm Oh no, wrong war xD
Germans were historically educated enough to know that the looser had to pay reparations and it was clear, that these payments this time would be extraordinary high. But their selfesteem could not accept the humiliation of being declared alltogether a criminal nation and to be treated so by the allies (until the Ruhr occupation 1922) . The Versailles Treaty was not negotiated but imposed with the threat to occupy Germany completely if the signature was refused. With a pistole pointing at you, you "agree" to any regulations only as long as the pistol is pointing at you.
before i watch , my opinion always has been that french/belgium invasion of reihnland was the catalyst.