My great grandfather who lived in the weimar republic during the hyperinflation told me stories about how he brought a wheelbarrow to collect his sallary
My grandfather would walk out of the shipyard ever week with a wheelbarrow full of dirt after a few months the security guard eventually asked him why are you stealing worthless dirt every week he replied I'm not stealing dirt I'm stealing wheelbarrows 😂
The treaty clause 231 blamed the whole war on the Germans and no one else, which made no sense, everybody knew that the Austrians and the Russians had mobilized their armies before Germany, because of that clause the winners though they were justified and plundered pretty much everything that had any value in Germany including part of the fishing fleet, the whole railway system, half the national bank administrators had to be foreigners and the British food blockade was kept up until June 1919, causing hundreds of thousands of civilians to starve to death, no wonder they didn't take the defeat gracefully! Versailles was one of the worse mistakes ever committed by a so called peace treaty, the Germans weren't even invited, there were no negotiations and they signed under duress, they were perfectly justified considering that treaty null and void.
"The treaty clause 231 blamed the whole war on the Germans and no one else" Incorrect. The exact same clause appeared in every treaty decided upon at Paris. Clause 231 _was_ misinterpreted by Germany (deliberately?) when it was presented to German populace. I'm not even going to bother dismissing the rest of your article, since you haven't bothered responding to such dismissals on other channels where you have repeated your claims. Maybe you can respond to this one by quoting article 231 and 232 for us?
@@bolivar2153The treaty was wrong,most people know this! The English economist John Maynard Keynes, who had attended the peace conference but then left in protest of the treaty, was one of the most outspoken critics of the punitive agreement.
Germany had intentionally shaken up the balance of power before WWI, figuring that it could win a major European war and come out as the dominant player. Let's see what they did to make war more likely: - Give Austria-Hungary a blank check. Basically, they lent Austria unconditional support for anything it did, even if this meant starting a war. - Hold onto Alsace-Lorraine, even though every second they did so made a war with France and its allies more likely. - Pick a naval arms race with the British. There's no better way to make the UK feel threatened than to challenge the one military advantage it had, and render it vulnerable to invasion at the same time. - Make enemies of Russia. This was especially stupid given that France and Russia were allies, and that Germany would be doomed to fight a two-front war if it had to fight both at once, but they did it anyway.
@@Aristocles22 No -There was no blank check, the Kaiser wrote that he thought something hads to be done about Franz Ferdinand's murder but that he couldn't get involved in Austria's wars, only if Russia attacked he would mobilize. Did you read the actual text? -In 1870 it is France who attacked Prussia, Alsace Lorraine was more German than French. To be fair the Kaiser should have taken only Lorraine but the French had lost a war they had begun, they had no reason to want revenge. -The German fleet was never powerful enough to represent any threat to the British, as the Kaiser built one ship, the British built two. -They didn't make enemies with Russia, because Germany was very advanced industrially and economically, the Kaiser thought it would be more advantageous to forge economic ties with a strong USA than with a backwards Russia. When France saw that she saw an opportunity to begin surrounding Germany and when Britain saw that alliance, she saw an opportunity to crush the competition, so she secretly associated with her traditional enemy, France, and by associating with Russia, she protected the north of India from a Russian invasion. The alliance with France was only revealed to the government two days before the war began, many ministers were so angry, half the government almost resigned but Edward Grey knew that this would never be accepted by the people, so he denied it 3 times and finally admitted it, taking all of Europe by surprise, too late for anyone to adjust properly. You have to remember that the Kaiser had never been at war in his whole life, he was not a war monger. What really bothered Britain were Germany's incredibly fast commercial growth, her growing empire and the Berlin - Baghdad Railway, that would have given Germany a direct access to huge oil reserves, and that was absolutely out of the question, so it was sabotaged and never finished.
@@rosesprog1722 The Kaiser wanted war, and he got it. You sound like you're an apologist for Germany. Let's clear a few things up. - Prussia manipulated France into attacking by modifying the Ems dispatch. France bought into the trap Bismarck had set, but it was ultimately Prussia which set it. Yes, Alsace-Lorraine is ethnically a Germanic area, but if that was justification enough for a war, Germany would have conquered Austria and most of Switzerland too. It was a naked grab for the region's iron and coal, as well as whatever manpower it could provide. - You didn't deny that Germany made enemies with the UK, you only said that they lost the naval arms race, which they did. Losers. - Germany also enabled Austria in the hopes that it would start a war and that Germany- which wanted a war but did not want to look like the aggressor- would get dragged into. - Germany clearly wanted to seize huge amounts of land, especially in the east. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave them control over much of the Russian Empires' previous supplies of grain, iron, and coal. The war was obviously a land grab on their part. - And yes, Germany made enemies of Russia in the late 1800s. It was bound to happen as long as they supported the Hapsburgs, who were rivals of the Russians and who kept many Slavs as unwilling subjects.
The reparation payments were paid for by foreign loans, which were later repudiated (aka not repaid). Was that really the cause of economic devastation? Or was it the reckless money printing to pay for big social programs?
Remember: History is written by the winners. My father, born in 1905, a simple man, had the choice of left wing, right wing or messy middle of the road politics. He and his family were near starvation because of factors in this video and the consequences of the great depression in the USA. Hitler seemed to offer a way out. Of course we know it was not. 20/20 hindsight is a great way
Most parties in Germany were offering austerity as a solution but the Nazis handed out beer and sausages. To starving people they were much more appealing.
@@kiwitrainguy I have pictures of my father. Skin and bones. Any change would look appealing. Can not imagine that world. I do not know how I survived. Mother dead, father prisioner of WW2. Things got better after 1950. Germany was no fun from 1930's to 1950's.
No - simple or sophisticated we all know when a politician offers hate as a ‘solution’ and are obliged by duty to eschew such evil. A bribe - a gold bar or sausage with beer - does not excuse abandoning that Duty.
@kjbenham6625 They weren't offering hate as a solution to poverty. They were offering socialist economic policy, inflation and government handouts. To a starving person, these are too tempting to pass up. The racial ideology isn't what made the Nazis so appealing, it was their promise of immediate solutions to very real problems that people faced. If you and your family haven't eaten in three days and your entire life savings was wiped out by inflation, when someone offers you a meal, the last thing on your mind is their opinion on geneticism.
Wrong-the Allies, particularly the French, were unreasonable in their demands at Versailles. These demands were intended to so weaken the German economy as to make it impossible for Germany to wage 'aggressive' war ever again. They failed miserably and rather ensured that Germany did wage aggressive again in less than twenty years.
The reparations Germany was required to pay to the several allies exceeded their total GDP before the war. John Maynard Keynes who was part of the UK negotiations opposed the excess and upon the conclusion asserted that the Allies had just laid the foundation for the next war
"I'm not talking about the Treaty of Versailes. That was basically fine." Falls at the first fence.! You won't find many historians of that period, if any, who would agree with that statement.
Very interesting summary, however, the German army was not 'obliterated' by the end of the war, although it was very short of food and equipment. Many would also disagree that the terms of the Versailles Treaty were lenient.
They might disagree, but I have heard that the common perception of the Treaty of Versailles is wrong. As far as I know, the Treaty does not contain a War Guilt clause blaming Germany exclusively for the War (it instead says that Germany would take responsibility for the damage that it caused). I have heard that the text was deliberately mistranslated into German by the Weimar government in order to whip up outrage against the foreigners. I've also heard that the reparations payments were paid for through foreign loans which Germany eventually repudiated, effectively meaning that they didn't actually end up paying for them at all.
@@CantusTropus yes you are correct that there was no explicit 'war guilt' clause and that the reparations clause 231 was initially mistranslated, although depending how you read it, the blame for the war was implicit in the last sentence of clause: '.....as a consequence of the aggression of Germany and her allies'. Germany was also threatened with a continuation of hostilities unless she signed with no opportunity of negotiation. Germany used US loans to partly help pay reparations but also used the money to re-build its industry and politically stabilise the country, thereby avoiding a communist style revolution and further instability. You are also right that the payments were reduced, but this was by agreement; Germany did not default on these payments and did pay off these debts. Weimar Germany did eventually become more stable and a successful democratic regime up until the Great Depression (mostly caused by incompetent US politicians, financiers and greedy bankers) and when Hindenburg made the catastrophic mistake of appointing Hitler as chancellor, even though the NSDAP never got anywhere near a majority in any free election. V good video though and we need to learn from this period in history.
No one said the Treaty of Versailles was lenient. It's considered harsh, in fact, and played its part in the German dissatisfaction that eventually allowed a loon like Hitler to seize power.
The Hundred Days Offensive resulted in the loss of 1.1 million German troops in three months, or those 400.000 were captured, and deep penetrations into the German strategic depth. The German army was broken and defeated. The only difference fighting on would make would be to increase the death-toll and to prolong the war a few months.
In many way's Weimar was truly the Republic nobody wanted. Not majority of german people who never got a say in the proclamation nor the entente who treated it's representatives with the same contempt as they had theimperal government.
Reminder that Weimar's democracy fell a couple years before Hitler's appointment as chancelor, and even before Nazis got a significant majority in the Reichstag.
@@thepedrothethethe6151 there was still a parliament but the entire cabinet was appointed by the President using emergency powers and was ruling using emergency powers under article 49. The state government of Prussia was deposed in I believe 1932.
minute 8:28. "in 1920 a single German mark was worth 65 US dollars; in 1923 "it" was worth 44.2 "billion" -- text seems to be incorrect and mixes up marks and dollars.
I’ll research this, as it makes no sense either way. “A single Mark” could not be worth $65, and certainly not 44 billion. It can only make sense AFTER the dollar inflated & we hit the depression in 1929, but we’re talking about hyperinflation of the Weimar Mark. To me, the narrator’s assertion seems wholly unlikely.
@@darktimesatrockymountainhi4046 Yes, he got the numbers mixed up. Maybe he just threw all numbers into a bag and picked them up by chance, one at a time?
"The German government had built itself a house of cards." You say that as if it was the exception. I believe that it is the job of governments to build card houses, because the alternative is a myth. All societies are social constructions, meaning it relies upon thoughts, wishes, faith and hope. It is the faith or trust that money will still be accepted by others, that gives it its value! There is no other source. It's the same for most of our society, we just don't usually think about it. So think already! It's really interesting!
Weimar is so fascinating with this mix of ultraviolent political moves, and a sense of social and intellectuel dynamism at the same time. I am currently watching "Babylon Berlin" and your video comes just in time: Thanks for this video, liked and subscribed :)
It was a really interesting time when new technologies and the destruction from the war led to whole new ways of thinking. It's weird to say now but at the time movements like fascism and communism seemed to be the future, while democratic capitalism was dying.
@@usedtoexist Yes and if you take a map of Europe in the late 30's and try to see how many countries were turning to authoritarian regimes it makes your point very very solid
Agreed. If you're really interested I have a list of books to take you down a rabbit hole. Here are just a few. A novel by E Remarque, The Black Obelisk; V Ulrich, Germany 1923; A Fergusson, When Money Dies; A Tooze, The Wages of Destruction; R Gerwarth, Nov 1918...; R Gerwarth, The Vanquished; B Hett, The Death of Democracy; C Harmann, The Lost Revolution; E Weir, Weimar Germany.
The treaty of Versailles was not exactly fine. The punitive measures put in by France, occupation of NRW well into the 20s, ... it was incredibly harsh and one of the reasons why the Marshall plan was more succesful after WW2.
The part where you said Hitler being literally Hitler, that's operating on 20/20 hindsight it's a bit disingenuous but that's just nitpicking generally good takes on this video.
angry person getting 20-30% of the population on his side and blaming all of the problems of the country on one ethnic group, and saying he is going to get rid of them all one walking red flag and its hard to tell im even talking about hitler
My father was an American in WW11 in Germany, France, Belgium...I have visited all countries multiple times...last time I went to Weimar. How beautiful it is now. I was on my way to (East) Berlin to see the changes. I then had a few Weimar students come here to SF (CA) to study English with me. No one talked about it!?
Then in the contemporary period, the public in many democracies is complicit in the exponential rise of real estate and asset prices. The property owning middle and upper classes, with the help of their government, are shorting their own currencies when they get mortgages and other collateralized loans. This makes them significantly wealthier, relative to the working class and the poor. From the perspective of workers, prices are “going up”, and their radicalization is understandable.
The racial ideology we associate with the Nazis was already present in much turn-of-the-century German academic scholarship. This fact needs to be acknowledged much more widely than is still the case. In other words, Nazi ideology comes straight out of the early 20th century German culture.
I often think about things like...what if Hitler had been run over while crossing the street in 1920, and was killed? What would have happened in Germany and the rest of the world?
Good luck on your paper! Interwar Germany is a fascinating period and I hope I have helped. I used a lot of sources from the internet that I'm sorry I haven't written down, but probably the single most useful single source was Ian Kershaw's "To Hell and Back: Europe 1914 to 1945". It provides a fairly broad overview of the whole continent during the time period. A lot of the quotes and information came from that book.
Reading through Alan Bullock's biography of Hitler (Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, the 1962 revised edition) really illustrated to me how uniquely complex, confusing, and ultimately human this period was. It was a perfect pressure chamber for someone to take the reins and give the frustration that Germany was experiencing a direction. Human support, tolerance, and loyalty is like that. Votes weren't won without effort - yesterday's enemy could be today's ally. There was even a time when the conservative coalition was afraid of possible civil war with the Communists and Nazis on the other side. There really is no way to truly understand just the insanity of the period, and let alone try to pass judgement on people for the result that seems so obvious to us now. Especially having read that account from the perspective of primarily the Nazis, it gave me an overwhelming sense that being in power was never a real possibility, and that the NSDAP would be relegated to the dustbin of history. Superb video mate, this really helped to connect the major events and especially spell out the financial side of things in a succinct manner. Keep it up. Cheers.
With the BGM and the narrators tendency to mumble its quite difficult to make out some of whats being said. But from the bits I can make out it is a very well pieced together mini doc about a really interesting time in Germany's history
I very much disagree with the narrators view that the reparations that the Allies imposed on the Germans was not excessive, The reality was, Germany’s World War I Debt Was So Crushing It Took 92 Years to Pay Off!!! Particularly France asked for WAY too much, and it was the cause of the excessive hardship faced in Germany after the war, which created great sympathy for the position of the hard right, enabling the Nazis to establish themselves
Except it wasn't all hardship. Germany was in bad shape after the war, but got back on its feet and was doing ok until the Great Depression hit. That second economic collapse had nothing to do with Versailles, but rather causes outside of Europe.
@@mikeb5372 The Nazis became the main hard right party in Germany after the Great Depression affected Germany badly. That's pretty obvious. Prior to the Great Depression though they were a small party.
anybody claiming the Versailles treaty and conditions were relatively easy contradicts history and can only be considered .... say highly unqualified. Because of Versailles this republic had no choice. The allies enforced the transition to fascisms, whether intentionally or by stupidity you can decide on your own.
If you compare it to Germany's own Brest-Litovsk treaty it could be considered relatively easy. I don't think the problem was in how easy/harsh it was, but the indecisiveness of it seeing as the big 3 wanted vastly different things from the treaty.
warum plapperst Du diesen Blodsinn nach. Frankreich, die US haben presidiale Macht und ihre Demokratie wackelt viel weniger als in derBRD. @@thepedrothethethe6151
I like how your videos are accessible to those all level of understanding on Weimar Germany. They give a concise and informative overview without bogging down into minute details, which makes these so enjoyable and easily digestible. I am currently trying to start a youtube channel like yours, have you got any tips and recommendation?
Firstly, good luck on your channel! I can't offer any advice on success because I don't really have any, but from a personal point of view I would focus on the areas that interest you. If you think it's interesting it probably is. Also the Internet Archive is great for resources. There's footage, and you can find pdfs of plenty of books for free that haven't always had their contents digitised.
They were a spent force, the only thing that saved them was the armistice. Make no mistake, if they did not sue for peace, there would have been a complete defeat. When you read about the conditions of the last few month, I think obliterated is a bit misleading, yet also justified.
It was the North Sea blockade imposed by the British Royal Navy that cut off supplies to Germany. It was a slow strangulation. The Allies just had to hold the Germans at the front and not bother with the Battle of the Somme and all their other offensives.@@d1g1tvl-0hretor1c
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing. Class A research project!!!
I find it funny how Americans like to compare themselves to Germany during this period Another possibility would be an eternal decline like Venezuela or Russia and not an explosive comeback that shakes the world.
Wow! This is a truly excellent and well-done explanation of a bit of history that most people today no longer remember. I'm amazed at how small your channel is, I expected well over 10K subscribers when I went to look. Hopefully the channel will grow quickly! Subscribed!
There are numerous falsehoods in this video. Seems likenthe author is a far left lib who wants to oush a little propaganda. Sorry idiots but the national socialist party wasn’t “right wing.” Absolute horseshit.
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. My grandparents also fled Weimar for a better life in the US, then ran smack into the Great Depression here. It’s sobering to think of some parallels today, the scapegoatism, the demagoguery, the “Let’s make our country great again” movement, dehumanization and threats of violence against others who don’t agree. Be forewarned, America, you may get what you wished for.
There are tons of similarities, although in at least one respect, the US is even worse. In the US, our own politicians sell us out to the highest bidder. The working class of both nations suffer through economic hardships through no fault of their own, but in Germany, at least the parties pretended to care about the citizens they claimed to represent. MAGA isn't really comparable to the Nazis beyond some superficial similarities. Both are nationalist populist movements broadly supported by the working class, but the core ideology is totally different. MAGA is, at its core, a liberal movement with some Christian conservative influence. The Nazis were socialists, trade unionists, geneticists and racial supremacists, things which MAGA is not.
Yes the singing is too distracting. Really awful!!!!! The allies obviously neglected post-war Germany far too long, and diplomacy went into over-drive in late thirties in hope of resolving Hitler but in any case to ensure intervention would have support.
I really admire the courage of the young communist who is facing a paramilitary firing squad with his arms folding and facing them with an expression of contempt. I have seen active service in the British army, but I doubt if I could face a firing squad with the courage of that man.
Excellent content, except for the Terms of the Treaty of Versailles being lenient - they were not. But can you record the voiceover again ? You talk in a monotone - which is boring. And non-stop, with no normal pauses which public speakers are trained to make. If you would speak slower, with some pauses, and a bit more varied expression, this video would be fantastic.
The narrator has made another video explaining those claims about the Treaty of Versailles th-cam.com/video/OgO9OdhLQlQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=UsedtoExist
There was in fact a democratic majority - the SPD (social democrats), Zentrum (Catholics), and the small liberal party. They won most elections and ruled most of the time. Before the Depression there was only one right wing government, Stresemann’s in 1923, and two short-lived non-partisan chancellors Cuno and Luther. The rest were all SPD and Zentrum. The real problem was the disastrous response to the Great Depression by Zentrum chancellor Bruening. Today governments would rush through a stimulus package, these days so blunt as to send a cheque to every household. But Bruening was terrified of debt and inflation which had tormented Germans in the early 20s so he pushed through extremely harsh austerity budgets that reinforced the collapse in demand and collapsed the economy resulting in mass unemployment. It is really that situation that discredited the moderate ‘establishment’ parties and opened the door for the enemies of republic to attract the votes of the desperate. After WW2 Adenauer united the Protestant parties with the Catholic Zentrum to form the CDU, which with the 5% bar, for the first time united the centre right into one party capable of challenging the SPD. So much so that most postwar West German and German governments have been CDU/CSU.
This emotive clip shows Adenauer giving a speech to Silesian exiles, who with other displaced eastern populations were a major force in West German politics, followed by scenes from the terrible period of the German evacuations and expulsions from the eastern third of Germany. th-cam.com/video/DkRumQyyFwk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=aXt-ASCpCponnqBe
They probably would have been better off under a Kaiser constitutional monarchy. Government would have been more stable, might have prevented Hitler. I've been watching videos and the Kaiser gets a bad rap. He was actually a good man!
@@thepedrothethethe6151 he was Better than the other WW1 leaders especially that a hole Wilson. Also Germany was a democracy under Kaisar, ruled by a chancellor and a legislature!
While containing much truth, this is a distorted presentation- it says that the Treaty of Versailles was fine and 'reasonable'. It wasn't. Germany itself only took the colonization and search for empire of the other great European powers to its logical conclusion. Germany lost millions of people during the war and suffered economically, yet Germany was forced to pay reparations. The Treaty of Versailles was a vehicle for revenge by England and France. One need only look at the aftermath of World War 2 and the Marshall Plan to see the difference that a non-punitive treaty would have made.
I think that the fact that the Eastern block was right on their side, so the threat of a socialist revolt was always present, that played a role in the non-punitive approach of WW2. I would like to think it is also because they have learned their lesson, but one would be disappointed when most of the times, people didn't really learn their lesson
5:38 I dont understand how there were Germans outside of Germany. Wouldn't all people living in Czechoslovakia consider themselves Czech? Why did Wilson think it was so important for Europe to have each ethnic group govern itself, when that apparently wasn't practical for Europe and he was president of a country that has all kinds of different people living next to each other?
In the case of Czechoslovakia it is because Czechoslovakia seceded from the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the end of the war, and kept its internal borders from the empire (Think California seceding and keeping its current borders). Rather than try and redefine the borders of the new state the allies simply recognised the country as it was. At the time, the German and Austrian nationalities were considered the same, since language was the basis for national identity. As Czechoslovakia was surrounded by German speakers, there was a ring of Germans inside the borders of the country that had settled there in previous centuries. This was fine when it a multi-ethnic empire but difficult when nationality defined where borders should have been. Wilson believed that dividing Europe into nation states would prevent future wars as each country would have no excuse to expand anymore. He hoped to combine this with the League of Nations as a diplomatic forum to ensure future disagreements would be resolved peacefully. It's also worth bearing in mind that the US was far more homogenous at the time than today, and Wilson was supportive of racial segregation. Basically he did not believe in equality, but he did believe the world would be more peaceful if everyone stuck to their own areas.
@usedtoexist I knew Wilson was profoundly racist. I was wondering if that informed his beliefs about how each country should be defined or organized. I did not realize language was considered the defining feature of nationality. So Austria was considered the same country as Germany because they both spoke German? Maybe this backstory about language is why there have often been debates over how required english should be as an official language in the USA or why the importance of immigrants wanting to retain their language vs being accused of not assimilating or learning english fast enough. It never seemed very consequential to me whether other random people not talking to me were saying stuff I could understand or not.
Austria was recognised as a seperate country to Germany, but the Austrian people were considered Germans. Similar to North and South Korea. They are two countries with a shared ethnicity and language, and are all Koreans. This made integration between Germany and Austria very easy for Hitler
Also, what were the paramilitary groups fighting for? Why were they fighting the Polish in addition to communists, were Polish considered to be allied with the communists? Was every faction trying to take over the government instead of agreeing to try to make the democracy work? Did people not want democratic government?
The Freikorps paramilitary groups were fighting the Polish in land with German minorities, and that had been ruled by Germans for centuries. Despite the Polish majority they still considered the territory German. The Polish were certainly not aligned with communists and were actually fighting their own war with the Soviets at the time, but they weren't German and that was why they were fighting. The factions within Germany were fighting because there was no time to establish a proper democratic transition. The more conservative groups wished to keep the emperor in power, while the communist factions believed democracy was simply a means for capitalists to rule by proxy and so they were trying to overthrow it. And they were fighting one another because their views are inherently opposed
The Entente: let‘s topple the monarchy, introduce a system these people don‘t really care about, then give them a ridiculous amount of debt, territorial loss, occupy the main industrial sector, and reduce their army. What could go wrong!
13:30 why did modern art have a backlash from conservatives? What did they see wrong with it and what kind of art expression was there that remained conservative? And what did the Nazis have to do with bashing modern art like conservatives, seeing as it's mentioned later the conservatives didnt like the Nazis.
Generally modern art was associated with communism, as the communists encouraged modern art as a break with the old traditions. Abstract art like the Dadaist and Surrealist movements were the sort of thing conservative groups opposed. The conservatives and nazis did dislike one another, though they had a shared dislike of modern art and were willing to work together towards shared goals. Interestingly though, early Italian fascism was deeply associated with avant-garde art, which is something I'm going to talk about in a new video I'm making
@@usedtoexist So then the Nazis could be considered socially conservative? Is that where the common idea that they were right wing originates? Because their economic policies were pretty socialist, not quite as far left as communists but still pretty close in the de facto sense. It's well documented in this video. th-cam.com/video/mLHG4IfYE1w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PWepWn_bRrKcy9Qj
Look the fact is that a left-right dichotomy doesn't really allow for the degree of nuance required to assess them. They were socially "conservative" in some senses, but Hitler hated the aristocracy and the emperor and quite likely the Christian religion. They certainly didn't fit with the progressives but that doesn't necessarily mean they align with the groups most would call conservative. Likewise, the Nazis considered capitalism a means of Jewish influence over the country, but despite their name they were certainly not socialist, even going so far as to ban trade unions. When it comes to Nazi economics there wasn't really a coherent ideology so much as there was different interests groups exerting control over their own areas
@usedtoexist that video from Tik points out it's a popular misconception Hitler banned trade unions. He prohibited existing trade unions so he could replace them with his own preferred trade unions. Kind of like how (I think it was) Henry the 8 disavowed the Catholic Church. Not because he hated religion or was atheist but so he could start his own Anglican churc.
Wow, what an incredibly insightful video! I can't believe I was wasting time not knowing about the intricate workings of the Weimar Republic. The way you explained its complex industrial landscape and the role of demos was truly eye-opening. It's like you took a toolbox of historical knowledge and painted a vivid picture in turquoise hues, bringing the past to life. The way you connected the dreams of the people with the harsh realities they faced, and how everything eventually went outta control, was masterfully presented. The analogy of the egg, fragile yet powerful, really hit home. The fists of fury that shaped the nation's destiny were always in the background, waiting to ignite like firewood. Your narration took me on a journey through time, allowing me to envision the tan landscapes of the era and the struggles of everyday life. The checklist of historical events you covered was so comprehensive; I feel like I've gained a second home in this period of history. The silent meadow of the Weimar Republic's rise and fall is no longer static in my mind. Your video transformed it into a dynamic field of knowledge, where each blade of grass holds a story. Thank you for this enriching experience and for ripping through the complexities to make history feel so alive. You've created a masterpiece that I'll be revisiting often to remind myself of the lessons it holds.
Germany was a democracy, and even before in the Kaiser's times(better than the UK it had unrestricted vote, except in Prussia that had a three classes vote ) with a social protection system unique in Europe !So there were democrats since long, you cannot say:"without democrats"! But latent antisemitism and fear of bolchevism, and misery through the great inflation followed by great unemployement 6 years later...
Yes Germany does have a long history of democracy and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. The title was in reference to a saying at the time making fun of the large number of authoritarian political groups in Germany following the war
Indeed the German Empire had the most democratic votings system before WW1 (with exception of Prussia, as your wrote). Even more democratig than the Netherlands.
hearing historical people describing Berlin in between wars as rich reminds me of current year Moscow - it is a modern rich city, but I wouldn't judge the whole country based on capital.
Did the narrator mis-speak? "In 1920, a single German Mark (the Papiermark) was worth 65 USD; In November 1923, it was with 44.2 Billion." Shouldn't that be the other way around? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He lost me by the 4 minute mark. Germany's loss was more of an economic defeat, not a military defeat. Hitler used this to his advantage and also used this to enrage the population against the Jews because the banks had refused to give the government more loans to keep the war going. Many of the banks were Jewish. The Germans would have lost anyway in the long run.
Watch Ka-Da-We: Our Time Is Now. That was set from 1918 to the start of the Second World War. It was centred around a Jewish owned upmarket department store. The owner's son gave it away to his non Jewish best friend once Jews weren't allowed to own businesses, and then he fled to the USA.
RIP Rosa. The SPD did them dirty bro. Although I wish the revolution went better, in hindsight they just didn’t have the juice that the Russian revolution had.
A German revolution is one of the great historical "What-ifs". Germany just wasn't under the same strain that Russia was to allow the Bolsheviks to take power. Maybe if they had tried during the war, or after Versailles they would have had more luck.
@usedtoexist The primary reason why people didn't want a Bolshevik revolution was because the Bolshevik revolution was currently underway and the Germans could see its horror in full view. Even the SPD couldn't convince themselves that would be a good idea.
I'll try to come back and make this comment more detailed in the future. What's the fastest to say let this video inaccurate concerning the treaty of Versailles. To the point it's pretty much an inaccurate video. For instance Kaynes refused to continue to support the American delegation due to the treaty being so punitive. What's the founder of modern economics. Great Britain felt it was too punitive. France Force the signature essentially a gunpoint, after the Germans had already surrendered their heavy artillery. Hyperinflation kicked in from inflation, it is clearly after the treaty of versa. Furthermore the treaty of Versailles removed colonies which removed raw imports the material needed for production. I could go on. And I'm still always learning. The treaty was intended to punish Germany. Thus the war guilt clause. And it did and it directly led to the rise of the Nazi party
My great grandfather who lived in the weimar republic during the hyperinflation told me stories about how he brought a wheelbarrow to collect his sallary
The wheelbarrow was probably worth more than the money in it
Was your great grandfather or grandfather a nazi?
@@usedtoexist- Yes. I once heard a story where the barrow was stolen, leaving the money tipped onto the sidewalk
Yeah and the wheel barrows where not cheap
My grandfather would walk out of the shipyard ever week with a wheelbarrow full of dirt after a few months the security guard eventually asked him why are you stealing worthless dirt every week he replied I'm not stealing dirt I'm stealing wheelbarrows 😂
The treaty clause 231 blamed the whole war on the Germans and no one else, which made no sense, everybody knew that the Austrians and the Russians had mobilized their armies before Germany, because of that clause the winners though they were justified and plundered pretty much everything that had any value in Germany including part of the fishing fleet, the whole railway system, half the national bank administrators had to be foreigners and the British food blockade was kept up until June 1919, causing hundreds of thousands of civilians to starve to death, no wonder they didn't take the defeat gracefully!
Versailles was one of the worse mistakes ever committed by a so called peace treaty, the Germans weren't even invited, there were no negotiations and they signed under duress, they were perfectly justified considering that treaty null and void.
"The treaty clause 231 blamed the whole war on the Germans and no one else"
Incorrect. The exact same clause appeared in every treaty decided upon at Paris. Clause 231 _was_ misinterpreted by Germany (deliberately?) when it was presented to German populace.
I'm not even going to bother dismissing the rest of your article, since you haven't bothered responding to such dismissals on other channels where you have repeated your claims.
Maybe you can respond to this one by quoting article 231 and 232 for us?
@@bolivar2153The treaty was wrong,most people know this!
The English economist John Maynard Keynes, who had attended the peace conference but then left in protest of the treaty, was one of the most outspoken critics of the punitive agreement.
Germany had intentionally shaken up the balance of power before WWI, figuring that it could win a major European war and come out as the dominant player. Let's see what they did to make war more likely:
- Give Austria-Hungary a blank check. Basically, they lent Austria unconditional support for anything it did, even if this meant starting a war.
- Hold onto Alsace-Lorraine, even though every second they did so made a war with France and its allies more likely.
- Pick a naval arms race with the British. There's no better way to make the UK feel threatened than to challenge the one military advantage it had, and render it vulnerable to invasion at the same time.
- Make enemies of Russia. This was especially stupid given that France and Russia were allies, and that Germany would be doomed to fight a two-front war if it had to fight both at once, but they did it anyway.
@@Aristocles22 No
-There was no blank check, the Kaiser wrote that he thought something hads to be done about Franz Ferdinand's murder but that he couldn't get involved in Austria's wars, only if Russia attacked he would mobilize. Did you read the actual text?
-In 1870 it is France who attacked Prussia, Alsace Lorraine was more German than French. To be fair the Kaiser should have taken only Lorraine but the French had lost a war they had begun, they had no reason to want revenge.
-The German fleet was never powerful enough to represent any threat to the British, as the Kaiser built one ship, the British built two.
-They didn't make enemies with Russia, because Germany was very advanced industrially and economically, the Kaiser thought it would be more advantageous to forge economic ties with a strong USA than with a backwards Russia. When France saw that she saw an opportunity to begin surrounding Germany and when Britain saw that alliance, she saw an opportunity to crush the competition, so she secretly associated with her traditional enemy, France, and by associating with Russia, she protected the north of India from a Russian invasion. The alliance with France was only revealed to the government two days before the war began, many ministers were so angry, half the government almost resigned but Edward Grey knew that this would never be accepted by the people, so he denied it 3 times and finally admitted it, taking all of Europe by surprise, too late for anyone to adjust properly.
You have to remember that the Kaiser had never been at war in his whole life, he was not a war monger.
What really bothered Britain were Germany's incredibly fast commercial growth, her growing empire and the Berlin - Baghdad Railway, that would have given Germany a direct access to huge oil reserves, and that was absolutely out of the question, so it was sabotaged and never finished.
@@rosesprog1722 The Kaiser wanted war, and he got it. You sound like you're an apologist for Germany. Let's clear a few things up.
- Prussia manipulated France into attacking by modifying the Ems dispatch. France bought into the trap Bismarck had set, but it was ultimately Prussia which set it. Yes, Alsace-Lorraine is ethnically a Germanic area, but if that was justification enough for a war, Germany would have conquered Austria and most of Switzerland too. It was a naked grab for the region's iron and coal, as well as whatever manpower it could provide.
- You didn't deny that Germany made enemies with the UK, you only said that they lost the naval arms race, which they did. Losers.
- Germany also enabled Austria in the hopes that it would start a war and that Germany- which wanted a war but did not want to look like the aggressor- would get dragged into.
- Germany clearly wanted to seize huge amounts of land, especially in the east. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave them control over much of the Russian Empires' previous supplies of grain, iron, and coal. The war was obviously a land grab on their part.
- And yes, Germany made enemies of Russia in the late 1800s. It was bound to happen as long as they supported the Hapsburgs, who were rivals of the Russians and who kept many Slavs as unwilling subjects.
As an American living in 2023, the social/political unrest and inflation sound eerily relatable. These are not the happy days.
Wait a year or two, we might be saying they were the happy days
It's gonna get worse too buckle up
@mistermonsieur2924 totally. In the end 2024 is gonna be worse than 1968
@@mistermonsieur29242024
But the future will be
You seriously downplay the devastating consequences of the Versailles treaty.
Compare it to Saint-Germain, Trianon and Sèvres, the other peace-treaties of ww1, and it won’t seem so devastating.
The reparation payments were paid for by foreign loans, which were later repudiated (aka not repaid). Was that really the cause of economic devastation? Or was it the reckless money printing to pay for big social programs?
Lol typical conservative talking point
Shut up @@m3gAnac0nda
@@jvelez5381 genius comment
Did this guy just say the treaty of versaille was "fine"? LOL
👃
I thought I miss heard it.. but wtf..
Many (but not all) reputable historians today would disagree....
he also explains it, if you keep watching
He also glossed over the attempted coups in the early 1920s by communists. It was essentially a civil war.
Remember: History is written by the winners. My father, born in 1905, a simple man, had the choice of left wing, right wing or messy middle of the road politics. He and his family were near starvation because of factors in this video and the consequences of the great depression in the USA. Hitler seemed to offer a way out. Of course we know it was not. 20/20 hindsight is a great way
Most parties in Germany were offering austerity as a solution but the Nazis handed out beer and sausages. To starving people they were much more appealing.
@@kiwitrainguy I have pictures of my father. Skin and bones. Any change would look appealing. Can not imagine that world. I do not know how I survived. Mother dead, father prisioner of WW2. Things got better after 1950. Germany was no fun from 1930's to 1950's.
Yes, but that is always how this works. Included in that offer was violent antisemitism and hatred.
No - simple or sophisticated we all know when a politician offers hate as a ‘solution’ and are obliged by duty to eschew such evil. A bribe - a gold bar or sausage with beer - does not excuse abandoning that Duty.
@kjbenham6625
They weren't offering hate as a solution to poverty. They were offering socialist economic policy, inflation and government handouts. To a starving person, these are too tempting to pass up. The racial ideology isn't what made the Nazis so appealing, it was their promise of immediate solutions to very real problems that people faced. If you and your family haven't eaten in three days and your entire life savings was wiped out by inflation, when someone offers you a meal, the last thing on your mind is their opinion on geneticism.
Wrong-the Allies, particularly the French, were unreasonable in their demands at Versailles. These demands were intended to so weaken the German economy as to make it impossible for Germany to wage 'aggressive' war ever again. They failed miserably and rather ensured that Germany did wage aggressive again in less than twenty years.
"[...] Germany did wage aggressive again in less than twenty years."
"Again"? Care to explain your thought process on that one?
It was Germany that invaded Belgium, not the other way round.@@bolivar2153
The reparations Germany was required to pay to the several allies exceeded their total GDP before the war. John Maynard Keynes who was part of the UK negotiations opposed the excess and upon the conclusion asserted that the Allies had just laid the foundation for the next war
Shouldn't have waged unreasonable war in the first place. No matter what, Germany failed. Germany itself made sure of that.
The treaty of Versailles was horrible.
dude who made the video is a jew
Woe to my poor Opa born in Bavaria in 1914. He never stood a chance and he left in 1936.
"I'm not talking about the Treaty of Versailes. That was basically fine."
Falls at the first fence.!
You won't find many historians of that period, if any, who would agree with that statement.
hes jewish
Very interesting summary, however, the German army was not 'obliterated' by the end of the war, although it was very short of food and equipment. Many would also disagree that the terms of the Versailles Treaty were lenient.
They might disagree, but I have heard that the common perception of the Treaty of Versailles is wrong. As far as I know, the Treaty does not contain a War Guilt clause blaming Germany exclusively for the War (it instead says that Germany would take responsibility for the damage that it caused). I have heard that the text was deliberately mistranslated into German by the Weimar government in order to whip up outrage against the foreigners. I've also heard that the reparations payments were paid for through foreign loans which Germany eventually repudiated, effectively meaning that they didn't actually end up paying for them at all.
@@CantusTropus yes you are correct that there was no explicit 'war guilt' clause and that the reparations clause 231 was initially mistranslated, although depending how you read it, the blame for the war was implicit in the last sentence of clause: '.....as a consequence of the aggression of Germany and her allies'. Germany was also threatened with a continuation of hostilities unless she signed with no opportunity of negotiation. Germany used US loans to partly help pay reparations but also used the money to re-build its industry and politically stabilise the country, thereby avoiding a communist style revolution and further instability. You are also right that the payments were reduced, but this was by agreement; Germany did not default on these payments and did pay off these debts. Weimar Germany did eventually become more stable and a successful democratic regime up until the Great Depression (mostly caused by incompetent US politicians, financiers and greedy bankers) and when Hindenburg made the catastrophic mistake of appointing Hitler as chancellor, even though the NSDAP never got anywhere near a majority in any free election. V good video though and we need to learn from this period in history.
No one said the Treaty of Versailles was lenient. It's considered harsh, in fact, and played its part in the German dissatisfaction that eventually allowed a loon like Hitler to seize power.
@@joesterling4299 Interesting you say the treaty was harsh, some historians would say it was actually very lenient!
The Hundred Days Offensive resulted in the loss of 1.1 million German troops in three months, or those 400.000 were captured, and deep penetrations into the German strategic depth. The German army was broken and defeated. The only difference fighting on would make would be to increase the death-toll and to prolong the war a few months.
In many way's Weimar was truly the Republic nobody wanted. Not majority of german people who never got a say in the proclamation nor the entente who treated it's representatives with the same contempt as they had theimperal government.
Reminder that Weimar's democracy fell a couple years before Hitler's appointment as chancelor, and even before Nazis got a significant majority in the Reichstag.
The communist party of Germany tried to launch an armed overthrow of the government in 1918
Not really
@@thepedrothethethe6151 what does that even mean
@@thepedrothethethe6151 there was still a parliament but the entire cabinet was appointed by the President using emergency powers and was ruling using emergency powers under article 49. The state government of Prussia was deposed in I believe 1932.
Reminder: Better go back and study some history books because you are 100% dead wrong!
minute 8:28. "in 1920 a single German mark was worth 65 US dollars; in 1923 "it" was worth 44.2 "billion" -- text seems to be incorrect and mixes up marks and dollars.
Correct, it's the other way around. I was about to write the same. Thankfully this mistake was so obvious that it didn't affect the rest of the video.
Came here to say that 😉
I’ll research this, as it makes no sense either way. “A single Mark” could not be worth $65, and certainly not 44 billion. It can only make sense AFTER the dollar inflated & we hit the depression in 1929, but we’re talking about hyperinflation of the Weimar Mark. To me, the narrator’s assertion seems wholly unlikely.
@@darktimesatrockymountainhi4046 Yes, he got the numbers mixed up. Maybe he just threw all numbers into a bag and picked them up by chance, one at a time?
"The German government had built itself a house of cards." You say that as if it was the exception. I believe that it is the job of governments to build card houses, because the alternative is a myth. All societies are social constructions, meaning it relies upon thoughts, wishes, faith and hope. It is the faith or trust that money will still be accepted by others, that gives it its value! There is no other source. It's the same for most of our society, we just don't usually think about it. So think already! It's really interesting!
A truism few could accept because of the cognitive dissonance required to also believe in the house of cards.
Weimar is so fascinating with this mix of ultraviolent political moves, and a sense of social and intellectuel dynamism at the same time. I am currently watching "Babylon Berlin" and your video comes just in time:
Thanks for this video, liked and subscribed :)
It was a really interesting time when new technologies and the destruction from the war led to whole new ways of thinking. It's weird to say now but at the time movements like fascism and communism seemed to be the future, while democratic capitalism was dying.
@@usedtoexist Yes and if you take a map of Europe in the late 30's and try to see how many countries were turning to authoritarian regimes it makes your point very very solid
I started that show. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but that something interfered with my watching of it and then I didn't back to it.
Agreed. If you're really interested I have a list of books to take you down a rabbit hole. Here are just a few. A novel by E Remarque, The Black Obelisk; V Ulrich, Germany 1923; A Fergusson, When Money Dies; A Tooze, The Wages of Destruction; R Gerwarth, Nov 1918...; R Gerwarth, The Vanquished; B Hett, The Death of Democracy; C Harmann, The Lost Revolution; E Weir, Weimar Germany.
The treaty of Versailles was not exactly fine. The punitive measures put in by France, occupation of NRW well into the 20s, ... it was incredibly harsh and one of the reasons why the Marshall plan was more succesful after WW2.
hes jewish
the Treaty of Versailles was 'basically fine' - what planet do you live on?
hes jewish
You glossed over Churchill cutting food from Germany while starving.
Tonnage of British merchant shipping sunk by Germany in WW1 = 8 million
Ditto WW2 - 13 million
(P.s. Britain is an island)
Aww poor Germany
Shouldn’t have bombed London
What about it? Germans didn't know how to farm?
Is your comment about Churchill an anachronism? When did the Weimar Republik end? When did Churchill become Prime Minister?
@0:33 “the Treaty of Versailles was basically fine” hahahah
hes jewish
2:36 blessed with such a based image
The part where you said Hitler being literally Hitler, that's operating on 20/20 hindsight it's a bit disingenuous but that's just nitpicking generally good takes on this video.
angry person getting 20-30% of the population on his side and blaming all of the problems of the country on one ethnic group, and saying he is going to get rid of them all
one walking red flag
and its hard to tell im even talking about hitler
video was made by a jew
My father was an American in WW11 in Germany, France, Belgium...I have visited all countries multiple times...last time I went to Weimar. How beautiful it is now. I was on my way to (East) Berlin to see the changes. I then had a few Weimar students come here to SF (CA) to study English with me. No one talked about it!?
People don't learn. Prices never go up. Governments force the value of their money down.
Basic economics is beyond the ability of most voters to understand.
Then in the contemporary period, the public in many democracies is complicit in the exponential rise of real estate and asset prices. The property owning middle and upper classes, with the help of their government, are shorting their own currencies when they get mortgages and other collateralized loans. This makes them significantly wealthier, relative to the working class and the poor. From the perspective of workers, prices are “going up”, and their radicalization is understandable.
The racial ideology we associate with the Nazis was already present in much turn-of-the-century German academic scholarship. This fact needs to be acknowledged much more widely than is still the case. In other words, Nazi ideology comes straight out of the early 20th century German culture.
I often think about things like...what if Hitler had been run over while crossing the street in 1920, and was killed? What would have happened in Germany and the rest of the world?
that's deep bro
Germany would have done something to be on wrong side of history with their arrogance.
This while having 855 subs and getting only 39k views. Incredible future awaits
I love your videos. It is so sad that you're not more popular. This really teaches you a lot!
Thank you for saying so! The channel is just a hobby so the popularity doesn't matter too much. So long as a few people watch and enjoy I'm happy
@@usedtoexist I am certainly enjoying your videos! I'd love one day to host a channel like this, maybe do some alt history too. You've inspired me!
8:34 you mean 1$ was worth 40mil marks
Yep. He had the mixed up.
imagine, hes jewish and his grasp of the concept of currency is this bad....
Awesome video. Do you care to share your sources. I’m working on a masters paper on interwar Germany
Good luck on your paper! Interwar Germany is a fascinating period and I hope I have helped. I used a lot of sources from the internet that I'm sorry I haven't written down, but probably the single most useful single source was Ian Kershaw's "To Hell and Back: Europe 1914 to 1945". It provides a fairly broad overview of the whole continent during the time period. A lot of the quotes and information came from that book.
Since Plato, the questions have always been: Who are the "public"? And what is the "re-"?
Reading through Alan Bullock's biography of Hitler (Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, the 1962 revised edition) really illustrated to me how uniquely complex, confusing, and ultimately human this period was. It was a perfect pressure chamber for someone to take the reins and give the frustration that Germany was experiencing a direction. Human support, tolerance, and loyalty is like that. Votes weren't won without effort - yesterday's enemy could be today's ally. There was even a time when the conservative coalition was afraid of possible civil war with the Communists and Nazis on the other side. There really is no way to truly understand just the insanity of the period, and let alone try to pass judgement on people for the result that seems so obvious to us now. Especially having read that account from the perspective of primarily the Nazis, it gave me an overwhelming sense that being in power was never a real possibility, and that the NSDAP would be relegated to the dustbin of history. Superb video mate, this really helped to connect the major events and especially spell out the financial side of things in a succinct manner. Keep it up. Cheers.
Treaty of Versailles was fine? 😂
With the BGM and the narrators tendency to mumble its quite difficult to make out some of whats being said. But from the bits I can make out it is a very well pieced together mini doc about a really interesting time in Germany's history
I very much disagree with the narrators view that the reparations that the Allies imposed on the Germans was not excessive, The reality was, Germany’s World War I Debt Was So Crushing It Took 92 Years to Pay Off!!! Particularly France asked for WAY too much, and it was the cause of the excessive hardship faced in Germany after the war, which created great sympathy for the position of the hard right, enabling the Nazis to establish themselves
Except it wasn't all hardship. Germany was in bad shape after the war, but got back on its feet and was doing ok until the Great Depression hit. That second economic collapse had nothing to do with Versailles, but rather causes outside of Europe.
What makes you think it was "hard right"?
@@mikeb5372 The Nazis became the main hard right party in Germany after the Great Depression affected Germany badly. That's pretty obvious. Prior to the Great Depression though they were a small party.
anybody claiming the Versailles treaty and conditions were relatively easy contradicts history and can only be considered .... say highly unqualified. Because of Versailles this republic had no choice. The allies enforced the transition to fascisms, whether intentionally or by stupidity you can decide on your own.
If you compare it to Germany's own Brest-Litovsk treaty it could be considered relatively easy. I don't think the problem was in how easy/harsh it was, but the indecisiveness of it seeing as the big 3 wanted vastly different things from the treaty.
Not really, the Weimar system was more unstable due to a constitution that didn't limit presidential powers
warum plapperst Du diesen Blodsinn nach. Frankreich, die US haben presidiale Macht und ihre Demokratie wackelt viel weniger als in derBRD.
@@thepedrothethethe6151
video made by a jew, are you surprised?
Europa the last battle. All should watch it
I like how your videos are accessible to those all level of understanding on Weimar Germany. They give a concise and informative overview without bogging down into minute details, which makes these so enjoyable and easily digestible. I am currently trying to start a youtube channel like yours, have you got any tips and recommendation?
Firstly, good luck on your channel! I can't offer any advice on success because I don't really have any, but from a personal point of view I would focus on the areas that interest you. If you think it's interesting it probably is. Also the Internet Archive is great for resources. There's footage, and you can find pdfs of plenty of books for free that haven't always had their contents digitised.
Yeah - my advice is that we collaborate
Well done. History presented in a straight forward manner is right up my alley
German Army was not obliterated
....they were on foreign soil on 11 Nov
They were a spent force, the only thing that saved them was the armistice. Make no mistake, if they did not sue for peace, there would have been a complete defeat. When you read about the conditions of the last few month, I think obliterated is a bit misleading, yet also justified.
It was the North Sea blockade imposed by the British Royal Navy that cut off supplies to Germany. It was a slow strangulation. The Allies just had to hold the Germans at the front and not bother with the Battle of the Somme and all their other offensives.@@d1g1tvl-0hretor1c
video made by a jew, are you surprised?
Always a good day when “UsedToExist” uploads!
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing. Class A research project!!!
@4:51 Yes, those ethnic minorities were Germans, particularly Czechoslovakia but less so Austria and Danzig
Another awesome video keep up the good work
Thanks for a video that filled in a lot of knowledge gaps. ... and I still have banknotes from my grandmother for Millions of Marks.
I feel like one more economic crisis and the American Republic will be in a very similar situation.
Since Reagan, the US has become an Oligarchy. Corporate interests have captured both deep-state controlled parties.
I find it funny how Americans like to compare themselves to Germany during this period
Another possibility would be an eternal decline like Venezuela or Russia and not an explosive comeback that shakes the world.
Fascinating time, thanks!
Wow! This is a truly excellent and well-done explanation of a bit of history that most people today no longer remember. I'm amazed at how small your channel is, I expected well over 10K subscribers when I went to look. Hopefully the channel will grow quickly! Subscribed!
There are numerous falsehoods in this video. Seems likenthe author is a far left lib who wants to oush a little propaganda. Sorry idiots but the national socialist party wasn’t “right wing.” Absolute horseshit.
Not really!
No democrats, what a fantastic idea.
Agreed
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. My grandparents also fled Weimar for a better life in the US, then ran smack into the Great Depression here. It’s sobering to think of some parallels today, the scapegoatism, the demagoguery, the “Let’s make our country great again” movement, dehumanization and threats of violence against others who don’t agree. Be forewarned, America, you may get what you wished for.
@@jettjones9889 Slight difference, in that actual crimes were committed more recently.
There are tons of similarities, although in at least one respect, the US is even worse. In the US, our own politicians sell us out to the highest bidder. The working class of both nations suffer through economic hardships through no fault of their own, but in Germany, at least the parties pretended to care about the citizens they claimed to represent.
MAGA isn't really comparable to the Nazis beyond some superficial similarities. Both are nationalist populist movements broadly supported by the working class, but the core ideology is totally different. MAGA is, at its core, a liberal movement with some Christian conservative influence. The Nazis were socialists, trade unionists, geneticists and racial supremacists, things which MAGA is not.
I can’t listen to this with the unnecessary singing making it difficult to listen. Pity.
Yes the singing is too distracting. Really awful!!!!!
The allies obviously neglected post-war Germany far too long, and diplomacy went into over-drive in late thirties in hope of resolving Hitler but in any case to ensure intervention would have support.
Great work, keep it up!!!
Thank you for watching. I'm writing a video on the Empire of Vietnam at the moment so you have that to look forward to.
this channel needs to be popular holly cow.
I really admire the courage of the young communist who is facing a paramilitary firing squad with his arms folding and facing them with an expression of contempt.
I have seen active service in the British army, but I doubt if I could face a firing squad with the courage of that man.
Nowadays, most communists/progressives can't even handle online comments.
Wonderful but i find background music distracting
I'll bear that in mind for future videos. I'm still working out the sound mixing I'm sorry
Esp bcs the song choice is rather questionable :")
Excellent content, except for the Terms of the Treaty of Versailles being lenient - they were not. But can you record the voiceover again ? You talk in a monotone - which is boring. And non-stop, with no normal pauses which public speakers are trained to make. If you would speak slower, with some pauses, and a bit more varied expression, this video would be fantastic.
The narrator has made another video explaining those claims about the Treaty of Versailles th-cam.com/video/OgO9OdhLQlQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=UsedtoExist
Great vid!
Thank you for saying so
There was in fact a democratic majority - the SPD (social democrats), Zentrum (Catholics), and the small liberal party. They won most elections and ruled most of the time. Before the Depression there was only one right wing government, Stresemann’s in 1923, and two short-lived non-partisan chancellors Cuno and Luther. The rest were all SPD and Zentrum.
The real problem was the disastrous response to the Great Depression by Zentrum chancellor Bruening. Today governments would rush through a stimulus package, these days so blunt as to send a cheque to every household.
But Bruening was terrified of debt and inflation which had tormented Germans in the early 20s so he pushed through extremely harsh austerity budgets that reinforced the collapse in demand and collapsed the economy resulting in mass unemployment.
It is really that situation that discredited the moderate ‘establishment’ parties and opened the door for the enemies of republic to attract the votes of the desperate.
After WW2 Adenauer united the Protestant parties with the Catholic Zentrum to form the CDU, which with the 5% bar, for the first time united the centre right into one party capable of challenging the SPD. So much so that most postwar West German and German governments have been CDU/CSU.
This emotive clip shows Adenauer giving a speech to Silesian exiles, who with other displaced eastern populations were a major force in West German politics, followed by scenes from the terrible period of the German evacuations and expulsions from the eastern third of Germany.
th-cam.com/video/DkRumQyyFwk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=aXt-ASCpCponnqBe
I just stumbled upon your TH-cam channel and immediately subscribed! 😊 Im now going on a binge of your work. 😉
Really great synopsis of a complex period of European history. Thanks for making it!
can you make next on of the Don Republic during the Russian Civil War?
I really enjoyed your close 👹 with the German version of God bless America 🎶
They probably would have been better off under a Kaiser constitutional monarchy. Government would have been more stable, might have prevented Hitler. I've been watching videos and the Kaiser gets a bad rap. He was actually a good man!
Not really, the Kaiser wasn't a democrat
The communists were the reason of rise of hitler
@@thepedrothethethe6151 he was Better than the other WW1 leaders especially that a hole Wilson. Also Germany was a democracy under Kaisar, ruled by a chancellor and a legislature!
@@WhiteFang111the inherent evil of the right wing nationalists were the reason
My son has an essay on the Weimar Republic due in AP European History and asked for help, so here I am doing research.
While containing much truth, this is a distorted presentation- it says that the Treaty of Versailles was fine and 'reasonable'. It wasn't. Germany itself only took the colonization and search for empire of the other great European powers to its logical conclusion. Germany lost millions of people during the war and suffered economically, yet Germany was forced to pay reparations. The Treaty of Versailles was a vehicle for revenge by England and France. One need only look at the aftermath of World War 2 and the Marshall Plan to see the difference that a non-punitive treaty would have made.
I think that the fact that the Eastern block was right on their side, so the threat of a socialist revolt was always present, that played a role in the non-punitive approach of WW2. I would like to think it is also because they have learned their lesson, but one would be disappointed when most of the times, people didn't really learn their lesson
5:38 I dont understand how there were Germans outside of Germany. Wouldn't all people living in Czechoslovakia consider themselves Czech?
Why did Wilson think it was so important for Europe to have each ethnic group govern itself, when that apparently wasn't practical for Europe and he was president of a country that has all kinds of different people living next to each other?
In the case of Czechoslovakia it is because Czechoslovakia seceded from the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the end of the war, and kept its internal borders from the empire (Think California seceding and keeping its current borders). Rather than try and redefine the borders of the new state the allies simply recognised the country as it was. At the time, the German and Austrian nationalities were considered the same, since language was the basis for national identity. As Czechoslovakia was surrounded by German speakers, there was a ring of Germans inside the borders of the country that had settled there in previous centuries. This was fine when it a multi-ethnic empire but difficult when nationality defined where borders should have been.
Wilson believed that dividing Europe into nation states would prevent future wars as each country would have no excuse to expand anymore. He hoped to combine this with the League of Nations as a diplomatic forum to ensure future disagreements would be resolved peacefully. It's also worth bearing in mind that the US was far more homogenous at the time than today, and Wilson was supportive of racial segregation. Basically he did not believe in equality, but he did believe the world would be more peaceful if everyone stuck to their own areas.
@usedtoexist I knew Wilson was profoundly racist. I was wondering if that informed his beliefs about how each country should be defined or organized.
I did not realize language was considered the defining feature of nationality. So Austria was considered the same country as Germany because they both spoke German?
Maybe this backstory about language is why there have often been debates over how required english should be as an official language in the USA or why the importance of immigrants wanting to retain their language vs being accused of not assimilating or learning english fast enough. It never seemed very consequential to me whether other random people not talking to me were saying stuff I could understand or not.
Austria was recognised as a seperate country to Germany, but the Austrian people were considered Germans. Similar to North and South Korea. They are two countries with a shared ethnicity and language, and are all Koreans. This made integration between Germany and Austria very easy for Hitler
“Golden age” 😂
You appeared on my algorithm and I'm not disappointed just subbed on your channel Hope to see more of your work
Also, what were the paramilitary groups fighting for? Why were they fighting the Polish in addition to communists, were Polish considered to be allied with the communists?
Was every faction trying to take over the government instead of agreeing to try to make the democracy work? Did people not want democratic government?
The Freikorps paramilitary groups were fighting the Polish in land with German minorities, and that had been ruled by Germans for centuries. Despite the Polish majority they still considered the territory German. The Polish were certainly not aligned with communists and were actually fighting their own war with the Soviets at the time, but they weren't German and that was why they were fighting. The factions within Germany were fighting because there was no time to establish a proper democratic transition. The more conservative groups wished to keep the emperor in power, while the communist factions believed democracy was simply a means for capitalists to rule by proxy and so they were trying to overthrow it. And they were fighting one another because their views are inherently opposed
Haydens masterpiece plays softly in the background
The Entente: let‘s topple the monarchy, introduce a system these people don‘t really care about, then give them a ridiculous amount of debt, territorial loss, occupy the main industrial sector, and reduce their army. What could go wrong!
13:30 why did modern art have a backlash from conservatives? What did they see wrong with it and what kind of art expression was there that remained conservative?
And what did the Nazis have to do with bashing modern art like conservatives, seeing as it's mentioned later the conservatives didnt like the Nazis.
Generally modern art was associated with communism, as the communists encouraged modern art as a break with the old traditions. Abstract art like the Dadaist and Surrealist movements were the sort of thing conservative groups opposed. The conservatives and nazis did dislike one another, though they had a shared dislike of modern art and were willing to work together towards shared goals. Interestingly though, early Italian fascism was deeply associated with avant-garde art, which is something I'm going to talk about in a new video I'm making
@@usedtoexist So then the Nazis could be considered socially conservative? Is that where the common idea that they were right wing originates? Because their economic policies were pretty socialist, not quite as far left as communists but still pretty close in the de facto sense. It's well documented in this video.
th-cam.com/video/mLHG4IfYE1w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PWepWn_bRrKcy9Qj
Look the fact is that a left-right dichotomy doesn't really allow for the degree of nuance required to assess them. They were socially "conservative" in some senses, but Hitler hated the aristocracy and the emperor and quite likely the Christian religion. They certainly didn't fit with the progressives but that doesn't necessarily mean they align with the groups most would call conservative. Likewise, the Nazis considered capitalism a means of Jewish influence over the country, but despite their name they were certainly not socialist, even going so far as to ban trade unions. When it comes to Nazi economics there wasn't really a coherent ideology so much as there was different interests groups exerting control over their own areas
@usedtoexist that video from Tik points out it's a popular misconception Hitler banned trade unions. He prohibited existing trade unions so he could replace them with his own preferred trade unions.
Kind of like how (I think it was) Henry the 8 disavowed the Catholic Church. Not because he hated religion or was atheist but so he could start his own Anglican churc.
The narrator speaks as though smashing communism is a bad thing .
Ok fascist 🐖
@@m3gAnac0nda
OK ,Scumbag .
@@m3gAnac0nda🤓
A rarely acknowledged fact is that communist East Germany was even more authoritarian than Nazi germany was.
Versailles apologism
Really well done!!
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative content cheers Frank 😊
Too difficult to listen to you with the music in background. Pls decide what’s important? Correct in reload !
Wow, what an incredibly insightful video! I can't believe I was wasting time not knowing about the intricate workings of the Weimar Republic. The way you explained its complex industrial landscape and the role of demos was truly eye-opening. It's like you took a toolbox of historical knowledge and painted a vivid picture in turquoise hues, bringing the past to life.
The way you connected the dreams of the people with the harsh realities they faced, and how everything eventually went outta control, was masterfully presented. The analogy of the egg, fragile yet powerful, really hit home. The fists of fury that shaped the nation's destiny were always in the background, waiting to ignite like firewood.
Your narration took me on a journey through time, allowing me to envision the tan landscapes of the era and the struggles of everyday life. The checklist of historical events you covered was so comprehensive; I feel like I've gained a second home in this period of history.
The silent meadow of the Weimar Republic's rise and fall is no longer static in my mind. Your video transformed it into a dynamic field of knowledge, where each blade of grass holds a story. Thank you for this enriching experience and for ripping through the complexities to make history feel so alive. You've created a masterpiece that I'll be revisiting often to remind myself of the lessons it holds.
Thank you Skeen2284 for that earnest, slightly creepy assessment
@@usedtoexistlol
Germany was a democracy, and even before in the Kaiser's times(better than the UK it had unrestricted vote, except in Prussia that had a three classes vote ) with a social protection system unique in Europe !So there were democrats since long, you cannot say:"without democrats"! But latent antisemitism and fear of bolchevism, and misery through the great inflation followed by great unemployement 6 years later...
Yes Germany does have a long history of democracy and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. The title was in reference to a saying at the time making fun of the large number of authoritarian political groups in Germany following the war
Indeed the German Empire had the most democratic votings system before WW1 (with exception of Prussia, as your wrote). Even more democratig than the Netherlands.
hearing historical people describing Berlin in between wars as rich reminds me of current year Moscow - it is a modern rich city, but I wouldn't judge the whole country based on capital.
Did the narrator mis-speak?
"In 1920, a single German Mark (the Papiermark) was worth 65 USD; In November 1923, it was with 44.2 Billion."
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Excellent documentary
I'm sure this is great but my brain is split into two by the background singing. It's just not necessary as you have a great voice.
at 14:11 it sounds like he says "in 1939" or 'turtee nine"rather than 1929 in referring to the great stock market crash
@8:08 inflation always works in the short-run, that's why is so attractive to populist regimes (Zimbabwe, Venezuela, recently Russia)
Background music is colontwisting.
They should’ve used exponents on their money to save on the paper! 😂
Weimar 2.0 nowdays in Germany it seems like.
i think you missspoke the exchangerates when talking about inflation
A truly depressing fate. From brief prosperity and the possible prospect of a return to the Empire to a radical hellhole.
It was a good video but I think you understated how bad the treaty of Versailles was for Germany.
wow, what an awesome video!
If you enjoy being misinformed, you'll love this piece of garbage.
Voluptuous Panic is a book that sums up the social atmosphere of the time period
This is propaganda however the truth will out
He lost me by the 4 minute mark. Germany's loss was more of an economic defeat, not a military defeat. Hitler used this to his advantage and also used this to enrage the population against the Jews because the banks had refused to give the government more loans to keep the war going. Many of the banks were Jewish. The Germans would have lost anyway in the long run.
“Light terms of the Versailles treaty” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 what a ridiculous statement
Watch Ka-Da-We: Our Time Is Now. That was set from 1918 to the start of the Second World War. It was centred around a Jewish owned upmarket department store. The owner's son gave it away to his non Jewish best friend once Jews weren't allowed to own businesses, and then he fled to the USA.
RIP Rosa. The SPD did them dirty bro. Although I wish the revolution went better, in hindsight they just didn’t have the juice that the Russian revolution had.
Communism wouldn't have been good for Germany either
A German revolution is one of the great historical "What-ifs". Germany just wasn't under the same strain that Russia was to allow the Bolsheviks to take power. Maybe if they had tried during the war, or after Versailles they would have had more luck.
Good riddance to that scum.
You say this like it would have been a good thing !!!
@usedtoexist The primary reason why people didn't want a Bolshevik revolution was because the Bolshevik revolution was currently underway and the Germans could see its horror in full view. Even the SPD couldn't convince themselves that would be a good idea.
I enjoyed that. Very informative. Thank you.
I'll try to come back and make this comment more detailed in the future. What's the fastest to say let this video inaccurate concerning the treaty of Versailles. To the point it's pretty much an inaccurate video. For instance Kaynes refused to continue to support the American delegation due to the treaty being so punitive. What's the founder of modern economics. Great Britain felt it was too punitive. France Force the signature essentially a gunpoint, after the Germans had already surrendered their heavy artillery. Hyperinflation kicked in from inflation, it is clearly after the treaty of versa. Furthermore the treaty of Versailles removed colonies which removed raw imports the material needed for production. I could go on. And I'm still always learning. The treaty was intended to punish Germany. Thus the war guilt clause. And it did and it directly led to the rise of the Nazi party