My notes: The terms of the treaty. GARGLE GUILT, Germany had to a take full responsibility for the war. War Guilt clause, article 231. This made them humiliated (keyword) ARMS, All of Germany's armed forces was limited. 100,000 soldiers, conscription was not allowed, couldn't own armed vehicles (tanks, submarines and the military could not use plans) REPARATIONS, France, Britain, and Belgium. This was to pay for the damage caused during the war 6.6 million British pounds. Way too much, wouldn't be able to pay it back until 1984, 65 years after the way. Germany could not pay the amount, lead to the occupation of the Ruhr by France and Belgium GERMAN TERRITORY, lost overseas colonies to mostly Britain and France, Alsace Lorraine went back to France (taken from France in Franco Prussian war). Lost control over the Saar, valuable coal mining area. - They were deprived of the materials that could help repay the reparations West Prussia and Upper Silesia were taken away and given to Poland. Danzig was put under control of the league of nations, Poland used them as a seaport. Reuniting with Austria was forbidden. LEAGUE OF NATIONS, The league was set up to sort out international disputes. Germany was not invited until it could prove they wanted peace. E France was really pleased with the treaty, although some thought it wasn't harsh enough. Most of the British public also agreed with France-Lloyd George was seen as a hero- however, some British people were worried if the treaty would work and how Germany would react to it. Most people were satisfied. Most of the British public thought the Germans were complaining for no reason (After the Franco Prussian war, under Germany's harsh terms France rebuilt its economy within a decade) The Germans were displeased with the treaty. They had no say while writing it. If they didn't the war would have restarted they had no choice but signing. Many Germans didn't feel they had started the war on their own they felt it was unfair that they had to sign the war guilt clause. They were humiliated. The government that signed the treaty (the weimar govenment) was not the same as the one who started the war. The Kaiser Wilhelm the second had abdicated and left the country, a new govenment was set up with an inexperienced leader, Ebert. The treaty had taken away 10% of Germany and 12.5% of its population. These Germans were living in other countries due to the redrawing of national borders. Millions of former germans were ruled by foreigners (look up Hitlers thought about "real germans" and who is superior) East Prussia was cut of from the rest of Germany by the polish corridor Fair? Final terms was much less hard than the public opinion in the peacemaker countries. The leaders of the countries had held back, the French public wanted to separate Germany into smaller states to completely ruin them. German would have most likely been worse if they won. The germans had been really harsh on Russia in the treaty of brest litovsk. Sources produced at the time showed that the german policy was to spend lots of money during the war, win the war and then earn back the money for the war depts through high reparations. They would have done the same thing. The treaty was not the only reason for germany's future problem, the new government struggling to run Germany after 4 years of war was another reason for the problems- Streseman was able to fix Germany quickly Not fair? Punished the wrong people, the german government that was forced to sign the treaty was not the same government who started the war. Some people claim the treaty should have helped the new government. The war guilt clause shouldn't have been created it wasn't only Germany's fault. The treaty damaged Germany enough to cause anger and humiliation, to seek revenge however it did not damage them enough to prevent war.
hi Mr.Allsop I'm writing in November and my source bades paper is on how effective was the USSR's control over eastern europe... any help would be welcome! thanks for the info.btw
because at that time 6.6 billion was 6.6 million million or 6,600,000,000,000 rather than 6,600 million or 6,600,000,000. so in short at that time 6.6 billion was 1000 times bigger than it is now and so if you said 6.6 billion you would be saying the wrong number
this is very informative, but I really don't agree with one of your arguments for the treaty. "Germany probably would have done the same". that's not very scientific m8. i think most people agree that they could have done better with the treaty, becuase the way to peace isn't really revenge, is it. but then I'm pretty sure that's what everyone was doing at the time ah honestly, I've just been studying all day and I'm frustrated and tired. ignore me. war is shit
This is history, not science. The point is that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk suggested what Germany might have imposed on the Big 3 and their allies if they had been victorious. So you have to consider the argument that Germany probably would have done the same in that context.
@@MrAllsopHistorythat was very sassy. you're probably right though. I think I'd just been looking at it from a "why was this wrong" point of view and not like "why did they actually do it", if that makes sense
My notes:
The terms of the treaty.
GARGLE
GUILT, Germany had to a take full responsibility for the war. War Guilt clause, article 231. This made them humiliated (keyword)
ARMS, All of Germany's armed forces was limited. 100,000 soldiers, conscription was not allowed, couldn't own armed vehicles (tanks, submarines and the military could not use plans)
REPARATIONS, France, Britain, and Belgium. This was to pay for the damage caused during the war 6.6 million British pounds. Way too much, wouldn't be able to pay it back until 1984, 65 years after the way. Germany could not pay the amount, lead to the occupation of the Ruhr by France and Belgium
GERMAN TERRITORY, lost overseas colonies to mostly Britain and France, Alsace Lorraine went back to France (taken from France in Franco Prussian war).
Lost control over the Saar, valuable coal mining area.
- They were deprived of the materials that could help repay the reparations
West Prussia and Upper Silesia were taken away and given to Poland. Danzig was put under control of the league of nations, Poland used them as a seaport. Reuniting with Austria was forbidden.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS, The league was set up to sort out international disputes. Germany was not invited until it could prove they wanted peace.
E
France was really pleased with the treaty, although some thought it wasn't harsh enough. Most of the British public also agreed with France-Lloyd George was seen as a hero- however, some British people were worried if the treaty would work and how Germany would react to it. Most people were satisfied. Most of the British public thought the Germans were complaining for no reason (After the Franco Prussian war, under Germany's harsh terms France rebuilt its economy within a decade)
The Germans were displeased with the treaty. They had no say while writing it. If they didn't the war would have restarted they had no choice but signing. Many Germans didn't feel they had started the war on their own they felt it was unfair that they had to sign the war guilt clause. They were humiliated. The government that signed the treaty (the weimar govenment) was not the same as the one who started the war. The Kaiser Wilhelm the second had abdicated and left the country, a new govenment was set up with an inexperienced leader, Ebert.
The treaty had taken away 10% of Germany and 12.5% of its population. These Germans were living in other countries due to the redrawing of national borders. Millions of former germans were ruled by foreigners (look up Hitlers thought about "real germans" and who is superior)
East Prussia was cut of from the rest of Germany by the polish corridor
Fair?
Final terms was much less hard than the public opinion in the peacemaker countries.
The leaders of the countries had held back, the French public wanted to separate Germany into smaller states to completely ruin them.
German would have most likely been worse if they won. The germans had been really harsh on Russia in the treaty of brest litovsk. Sources produced at the time showed that the german policy was to spend lots of money during the war, win the war and then earn back the money for the war depts through high reparations. They would have done the same thing. The treaty was not the only reason for germany's future problem, the new government struggling to run Germany after 4 years of war was another reason for the problems- Streseman was able to fix Germany quickly
Not fair?
Punished the wrong people, the german government that was forced to sign the treaty was not the same government who started the war. Some people claim the treaty should have helped the new government.
The war guilt clause shouldn't have been created it wasn't only Germany's fault.
The treaty damaged Germany enough to cause anger and humiliation, to seek revenge however it did not damage them enough to prevent war.
thats really useful, could you send it to me?
@@santiagolozano9354 no
cuck ducc never mind, i got an A in the exam
Thank you so much for this!
@@santiagolozano9354 savage
Thank you so much!! Had an exam today and everything in your podcasts came up! Knew it all very well, thank you again :)
OMG you are BAE! My history exam is on the 9th and these are really helping me retain information!
how about giving me your number ?
+Game Destroyer you're a fucking weirdo
Dom Kelly thanks man :)
Emily Sullivan I've got mine tomoz😭
i got mine tomorrow lol
THANK YOU I HAVE AN EXAM TOMORROW U SAVED MY LIFE
thanks man i have an exam tmr covering all of this
Very helpful. Thanks Mr Allsop, have an exam tomorrow :)
same here
IGCSE?
U answered 4 years later
Lmao noob
12:10 after a long day of teaching and finally fumbled. lol. thanks a lot man I have my IGCSE mocks right now
How u doing man?)
hi Mr.Allsop I'm writing in November and my source bades paper is on how effective was the USSR's control over eastern europe... any help would be welcome! thanks for the info.btw
Thank you sir! But can you write everything down so i could use as notes, or if you already have please show me the link..
Visit my website at www.mrallsophistory.com for full transcripts
i have my history exam tomorrow paper 1 .wish me luck😆
Beast Angus im from Zimbabwe, Southern Africa
same here
me too two yrs on tho haha
good video very informative
Can someone please please explain why French people didn't elect Clemenceau again even though they were happy with the treaty?
i have an exam tomorrow please wish me luck i am doing the igcse exam i need feedbacks from oneone who did the igcse before
ey tell me the questions
mines on the 5th (tomorrow for me)
Babucarr Faal same
CheapseaChicken same
anyone here writing may/june 2018 igcse?
me
12:11
Congratulations! You listened far enough 😃
@@MrAllsopHistory sorry i had to refer to that moment. Anyways thanks for the vid really helpful
@@akatari7213 no problem. It's the one "Easter egg" I chose to leave in since it was so close to the end. I hope your exam goes well!
boooooooo
wtf is 6 thousand 600 million why not just say 6.6 billion or whatever it is, you can't write that in an exam
because at that time 6.6 billion was 6.6 million million or 6,600,000,000,000 rather than 6,600 million or 6,600,000,000. so in short at that time 6.6 billion was 1000 times bigger than it is now and so if you said 6.6 billion you would be saying the wrong number
but in todays context 6.6b is correct
this is very informative, but I really don't agree with one of your arguments for the treaty. "Germany probably would have done the same". that's not very scientific m8.
i think most people agree that they could have done better with the treaty, becuase the way to peace isn't really revenge, is it. but then I'm pretty sure that's what everyone was doing at the time
ah honestly, I've just been studying all day and I'm frustrated and tired. ignore me. war is shit
This is history, not science. The point is that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk suggested what Germany might have imposed on the Big 3 and their allies if they had been victorious. So you have to consider the argument that Germany probably would have done the same in that context.
@@MrAllsopHistorythat was very sassy. you're probably right though. I think I'd just been looking at it from a "why was this wrong" point of view and not like "why did they actually do it", if that makes sense