Transcripts For CSPAN3 1919 Paris Peace Conference 20240712

Event we havefic had so far and thank you for being with us. I know there is a lot of excitement, as there ought be about this evenings conversation, so thank you for taking time to be here. We are so delighted to have professor Margaret Mcmillan with us. Thank you so much for traveling to be with us. Who else but to help us with that is better equipped than Margaret Mcmillan, emmert as professor of history at the university of toronto. Many and varied roles. Trustee at the Central University and more recently at the Imperial War Museum. Might i offer that we are second only here at the National World war i museum to the Imperial War Museum in terms of history. They began collecting in 1917. We began collecting in 1920. We are further delighted they are having their world war ii galleries reinstalled by the gallery designers of the National World war i museum and memorial. They are very wise i might say. Research specializes in British Imperial history and the International History of the 19th and 20th centuries. She has written many publications and books. I do not want to list those. One of which is particularly tonight, to the topic paris 1919 6 months that changed the world. Which puts her in a position of authority to have the conversation with us this evening. She has been awarded with many distinguished prizes and awards. 2018 lectures on war and humidity, which explored the tangled history and complicated feelings toward it and those who fight. Which is short to say that ladies and gentlemen, we are in the presence of an historical rockstar tonight. [laughter] to 2002, she was a member of the History Department at the university of toronto where she served as chair. She serves on various boards and editorial groups that focus on history and world war i studies. Fellow at saint held his college at oxford and has received recognition from a number of academic institutions may being awarded honorary doctorates. In 2006, professor mcmillan was invested as an officer in the order of king order of canada. For americans, that is a very distinguished award. She was appointed as companion of the order of canada. New yearsueens honest list. Appointed the companion of honor for service to Higher Education and history and international affairs. Sort of a big deal. [laughter] after professor mcmillan has given her lecture, there will be an opportunity for question and answers. Laura will facilitate that. We have some microphones. We invite you to move to those and frame your questions. If you would prefer to ask from where you were, indicate so and laura will help facilitate that. It was almost five years ago we had the honor of welcoming dr. Mcmillan to our auditorium stage. Once again. , we have the opportunity to do so again and we could not be more pleased. The excitement is evident when you started together. It is palpable. If you have not read paris 1919 6 months that changed world, we encourage you to do so. The bookstore tomorrow will be open. You might want to take a copy with you. Thatht, she will expand on topic, on the research she has undertaken and present the thesis of her argument. Please join with me in welcoming our keynote speaker, dr. Margaret mcmillan. [applause] that was extremely kind. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think that is an example of the commonwealth sticking together. It was much too kind. Thank you very much for that introduction. Many thanks to the war museum for inviting me back. This is my third visit here. I have enjoyed everyone. I tell everyone they must come to kansas city and see your museum and your beautiful city. Familylmost becoming a thing. I gathered my nephew was here last fall. The rest of the family might be following along. We have both been so enthusiastic. This is a good time 100 years later. Anniversaries can be useful for looking back. What happened at the end of the First World War is something that has shaped the history of the 20th century and the world in which we live. I think it is useful to use anniversaries to think about what that means, what those great events of the past meant and what they might mean for us today. I think it is quite right in your title you put 1919 peace, question mark. There is a view widely shared that what happened in paris 1919, this was the great peace conference. To try to set a structure for a lasting peace after 1919. What happened in paris after 1919 has often been blamed for the outbreak of the Second World War. There is a simple version of history, which is that the statesman and they were all pretty much men in those days, they met in paris in 1919. Made such a mess of things that europe moved down a tramway with no expert with no escape to 1939. I myself find that much too simple. My short answer to people who say, doesnt 1919 lead directly to 1939 is, what was everyone doing in those 20 years . An awful lot can happen in 20 years. Europe and the world face an awful lot of choices. Perhaps the most influential book in creating that view of 1919 as the doomed peace attempt that set in motion the it events the the events of 1939 is book of john maynard keynes. May 19 19eam was not yet known. He went to cambridge university. [laughter] so we are not surprised by that. He was in paris as an Economic Advisor to the british delegation. He got fed up with what he felt were the mistakes they were making. He was also going through something of a personal crisis in his life. He went back to england in the summer of 1919 and wrote a book, which took him six weeks. It is a polemic it is a a polemic. It is a successful polemic and has been translated into many languages. It has a. Rather dull title. It is called the economic consequences of the peace. If you read the book, it is condemning everything going on in paris. Let me read you a little bit of it to give you the flavor. Paris was a nightmare and everyone there was morbid. A sense of impending catastrophe overhung the frivolous scene. The futility and smallness of man for the great event confronting him. The mingled insignificance and unreality of the decisions. Levity, blindness, confused crying without. All the elements of ancient tragedy where there. The statesman, he claimed in this book, were hypocritical or subtle and dangerous spellbinder is engaged in empty intrigue. The treaty of versailles, a treaty with germany, which was probably the most difficult to negotiate and helped to set the template for other treaties, the treaty of versailles was imbecile greed, oppression, dishonorable, ridiculous and injurious. He wrote devastating portraits of the three key statesman who were at the center of the decisions they made in paris. The french Prime Minister pretrade he portrayed as an angry ape who sat in his chair thinking only of revenge on germany. And Woodrow Wilson he pretrade as a booby he portrayed as a booby. In england, they call a blind mans bluff. You put a scarf around someones eyes and they do not know which direction they are going. This is how he described wilson. Naive and foolish, being spun around by the devious europeans. The british Prime Minister he portrayed as half man and half goat who came out of the welsh myths with. No moral sense whatsoever his mother made him take some of the router passages out the ruder passages out. This was a powerful piece of work. It helped to set a picture of what happened in paris as being futile and dangerous, condemning europe and the world to a Second World War. I will not deny that not all the decisions in paris were good. They did make mistakes in their division of the arab territories in the middle east and the treatment of the Ottoman Empire. They showed a carelessness and shortsightedness, which has really caused problems from much of the 20th century. I do not want to defend everything that happened, but i want to say that we need to understand what it was they were dealing with. When we write history and when we look at history, we must ask ourselves, what would we do if we were in that situation . What would we be facing . It is all very well and say, they should have known there was a young german corporal called adolf hitler who was going to season the treaty of versailles and help him and his nazi party get into power. What we always have to remember when we write history and we think about history is what people had to deal with at the time. How much power did they have, what constraints did they have, what is it that they were dealing with . Theink we need to look at paris peace conference, which came at the end of a great catastrophe and try to understand what the circumstances were. What i would like to do is make a few general points about wars. Ending wars is never easy, especially if those wars have been great and the level of destruction has been very high. Apart from anything else, the greater the war, the greater the expectations and the greater the desire someone or something should pay for what happened. This was certainly the case at the end of the First World War. The war had shocked europe and had shocked most of the world partly because the 19th century had been such a good century for europe. Europe had known terrible wars in its history. Most centuries had been marked a wars in europe. The 19th century was one of the most peaceful and prosperous and progressive centuries in european history. Perhaps the most peaceful, prosperous and progressive europe had ever known. There had been a number of short wars in the 19th century after the napoleonic wars ended in 1915. Those wars were short. They were usually fought between two countries like the francoprussian war or the war between prussia and austria. The usually resulted in a clear result and peace was reestablished. Europeans had come to think by the beginning of the 20th century they had somehow changed and they were going to go on living in a Peaceful World and they were going to go on building peaceful and progressive and prosperous societies. That this piece and progress was going to spread around the world. We look back and say helpful wish that was, but this is something any people were thinking before 1914, which made the shock of the First World War all the more greater. A war they had hoped would be sure and decisive, after four years of a dreadful war, a look at the lives that had gone. 9 million men, possibly more. Mostly it was meant in the First World War it was men in the First World War. The loss of human potential, the loss of human talent, money that had been gone, the empires that had gone. Three great empires disappeared as a result of the First World War. Russia, which was an empire as well as the state fell to pieces in the course of the russian revolution. Austriahungary, the huge multinational empire at the center of europe, which had created stability toward the centuries, fell to pieces. Germany, which had been an empire. Fell. Olish lands to pieces in the months just wasr, the Ottoman Empire going to fall to pieces and disappear as well. It was a very different political and social landscape the europeans looked at in 1918 than they had seen in 1914. They had also shaken their position in the world. Before 1914, europe had been the most powerful part of the world. Directly or indirectly, European Countries had controlled most of the world. European finance was what you needed a few wanted to build anything. If you wanted. Money, you came to europe. If you wanted fashion ideas, you came to europe. By 1918, the europeans no longer had that sense that their civilization was superior. In addition to all the other things it had done, the warhead shaken european confidence. The great french writer and thinker said something is broken and we will never be quite the same again. Will be like those other empires of the past that disappeared. Names now that mean nothing like babylon. Lee know what it is going to be like to go into the abyss of history. N that war ended, with, ended, there is the sense of doom and a worry that the war was ended but the fighting had not ended. As we heard this afternoon, fighting went on in the center of europe and much of the middle east till the mid1920s. There was also the fear the social upheavals, which had taken place in russia, will going to spread westwards and that european societies will going to be swept away. That was part of the atmosphere in which the peace conference met. What also affected the decisions of those put tremendous pressure on the peacemakers because they worried unless they sorted things out soon, things might get much worse. Unless they dealt with some of the pressing issues in europe, they would see more of people. What also put pressure on the peacemakers was their own public. This was a conference engaged in by democratic powers. They were having to think of the next election. At the congress of vienna, which had taken place 100 years previously, to wind up the napoleonic wars, that is not something the peacemakers had to worry about. They represented on it represented oligarchies and monarchies and had fewer people to answer to. The pressure was much less than they were going to be in paris. What the public wanted was not always compatible. The public wanted someone to pay and someone to take responsibility for the war. The french felt strongly about this. Often in the literature it is said how unreasonable the french were. We need to remember the french had been invaded twice by German Forces in the lifetimes of many people. In 1870, the German Confederation had invaded france. Nasty battles had been fought on french soil. France had been defeated had to pay a large fine. Onmany had declared war france. And invaded france in 1914. The french did not start the First World War with germany. The german started it with france. Most of the war on the western front was fought on french soil or belgian soil. The war was not for on german soil. The damage that was done by that were and i am sure many of you have been to the western front where you can see that damage. The damage had been done to belgium and france. Done to their economies. Belgium was stripped bare. Much of its agriculture and wealth. Belgian historians will tell you belgium has never really recovered from the german occupation. The war in france was far in would have been the most industrialized parts of france. French factories were destroyed. French Production Capacity was destroyed in the fighting in the First World War. French mines, french bridges. Thecan understand why public looked over at germany, which was largely unscathed by the war, which the infrastructure and not suffer that damage and said, they can pay. Why should we pay to do the demo to pay for the damage which germany has done to us . The British Public felt much the same. So did the american public. Woodrow wilson was worried about what he felt to be the antigerman feeling among the american public. The pressure he felt to inflict a harsh peace on germany. Allies wanted someone to pay. They thought germany was the government. To pay austriahungary had fallen to pieces. Only a tiny austria. Countries that did not see themselves as being on the losing side. The Ottoman Empire was not able to pay anything. Bulgaria was not able to pay. Germany was. There was a desire on the part of the public, which put real pressure on statesmen in paris to get something out of germany. You also had a willingness and a longing. It was not just allied publics. It was also in the wider world. It was in asia, africa, north america. A desire that out of this dreadful war which had caused such suffering, whose consequences were so momentous, that out of this war, Something Better should come. What allied publics and other publics wanted was a new world. A new peaceful order. Some sort of institutions or ways of doing things that would prevent the world from having a war like this ever again. Statesmen had been pushed in different directions. They had to think of their own national interest. It is a commonplace letter and important one that at the end of coalition wars, the coalitions tend to fall apart once peace is achieved. Nations will come together in a great cause to save themselves from destruction or defeat an enemy or conquer other nations, once they have achieved those goals, they tend to think of their own interests and the coalitions begin to fall to pieces. We sell that clearly at the end of the First World War and the end of the Second World War. Inevitably, the powers in paris began to think of their own interest. The french were thing of their own security. If you are french, you knew germany was still strong. It was on the other site of your borders. There were more germans being born every year than there were french, which meant there were more german soldiers. You wanted protection as much as you wanted germany to pay for the war damage. What the british wanted was an end to the german fleet, which had caused so much concern before the First World War. They had already got that by the time the conference met. When the germans signed the armistice, they had surrounded their fleet and the submarine fleet. The reddish or parts of the British Empire had wanted german colonies and had gotten hold of those before the peace conference started. The british unlike the french could come to the peace conference not really asking for all that much for themselves and were able to betray themselves as less selfish and less grasping than the french word. And then you had the United States. The night states has not come into this war to fight for itself. It very pointedly called itself an associate and not an ally to show it was somehow different from the european powers. What the United States was a better world. I think United States was also conscious of its new economic and financial and military power and wanted a greater say in world affairs. And so you get Different National goals and for national interests. I also think what was putting pressure on the peacemakers was this sense that time was not on their side. That if they were not careful, time was going to run out. This very real sense of revolution simply spreading through. They had worrying evidence. Hungry had its communist government for six month in 1919. There were leftwing insurrections, armed and violent insurrections in italy, the center of europe. There was a strike in winnipeg of all places. Canadians tend not to get involved in revolutionary activity, but we had a general strike, which consent a lot of people because it had very radical rhetoric and was inspired by what was happening in russia. There was a fear that the world was on the edge of revolution. Another pressure at the peacemakers they found themselves having to act as a world government in ways they had not intended because conditions in the center of europe were disasters. When austriahungary and other empires fell to pieces, economics fell to pieces. Vienna, which used to get coal from the north, used to get wheat from the east, suddenly found there were barriers because there was no poland or czechoslovakia. New borders were put up. There was a much larger romania and independent hungry. Independent hungary it was more difficult to get with the viennese economy needed. And the red cross, which was doing relief in vienna in the winter of 1918, said people were starving. They were seeing illnesses among children they never expected to see in your appeared illnesses caused by lack of food. Things like rickets, which they associated with poorer countries. There was this sense that they had to take on responsibilities. What was also happening is they were dealing with very powerful forces. EndFirst World War did not and not suddenly result in peace. In addition to revolutionary socialism, and these were forces people would fight and die for. The other force they were dealing with as we heard this afternoon was nationalism. Nationalism ethnic in particular in the center of europe was beginning to spread through the middle east with emotions and feelings people are prepared to die for and fight for. The fall of the empire is meant the different ethnic groups, which had been pushing for greater economy within greater autonomy suddenly saw the prison doors had opened and they could establish their own countries. What a lot of these different groups thought, if we do not do it now, things will calm down and we will not have a chance to get our own countries. You had ferocious ethnic nationalism trying to mark themselves on the map. Poland was reconstituting itself. People often talk as if the peace conference recreated poland and made czechoslovakia and yugoslavia. They were making themselves on the ground often through fighting with their neighbors because one of the difficulties of the ethnic nationalisms began appearing was that their claims overlapped. They based their claims so often on history. Had come and gone in the past. You had a choice of the borders. We would often be choosing borders that Incorporated Land someone else wanted. In poland, there was a debate between those who said we should settle for a reasonably sized poland such as what we had at the end of the 18 century and there were those who said lets go back to the polish with the lenient commonwealth. This caused trouble. It was going to be the source of a number of wars that were going to break out. You can imagine what a country such as greece did. Greece and italy went back into the classical age. The greeks looked at their maps from the classical age and said, we once controlled the coast of asia minor. Istanbul, constantinople. We control the whole swath around the black sea. That is what was happening in to8 1919 as people began see the possibility of expanding their borders. The final thing and there were many other things, with the final thing we have to remember when we think of what those statesmen were trying to deal with was that their own power was shrinking. These were representing very powerful countries. Some of the most powerful countries in the world were in paris. Japan was there. Thailand was there appeared a number of latin american countries. Other European Countries. Countries which were really coming independent within the British Empire like my own country, canada. The real power was with britain and the United States. Italy and japan were seen as slightly jr. Partners. That represented a lot of power. There is always a danger that powerful nations have. They look at their own power and think they can do what they want. They think they can reach out and adjust the pieces on the maps. The power the allies had was shrinking. They had built massive armies and navies and the beginnings of air forces to fight the war. Once the war ended and as far as allied publics were concerned, it ended in november 1918. Theiers who had survived war did not want to go on fighting. I did not want to be sent to places they had never heard of to fight the series of wars that were breaking out. Their families did not want them there. The treasuries did not want them there. The allies knew that they could not afford to keep these forces in the field. They could not depend on them. There were a number of mutinies as soldiers and sailors said, we want to go home. We do not see any point of staying here anymore. The capacity of the allies to influence what was happening was diminishing month by month as the peace conference dragged on. By june 1919 when the question of the german treaty came up whether or not germany would sign it, the allies and military advisors were concerned about whether or not they would be able to enforce the treaty on jiminy avenue germany on germany if germany refused to sign it. They found increasingly that their capacity to do what they wanted was limited. The famous occasion where lloyd george was sitting around a rich contained Railway Junctions and coal mines and so on. Poland and czechoslovakia were starting to fight about it. Lloyd george said this is dreadful. They called in the supreme allied commander and said, we have got to do something. He said, i will follow orders. Just tell me what to do, which is what he tended to say. They said you have to get troops over and stop the fighting. He said absolutely, but i do not think i can do it. Inyll look at each other consternation. It. Ge said, i have they turned with a certain amount of hope and said, we will send both sides extremely strong telegrams. [laughter] im just trying to get a sense of what it was they were dealing with in the context they were dealing with and the world in which they were dealing. This was not a world that was easy to settle. Things were changing very quickly. It was a world in which you had these forces, forces of revolutionary socialism. Forces of ethnic nationalism. Puttingwhich were terrific pressure on their governments, which were pressured to do contradictory things. They were dealing with a many great things at once. Many of the books written on the paris peace conference tend to assume it is the only way they can do it let there was this polis question before the peacemakers. They were dealing with 10 Different Things a day. They were constantly getting petitions and demands coming in plus pressures from home to get a settlement quickly. I think if they made mistakes and of course they made mistakes they can at least partly be explained by the pressures under which they were dealing in the range of problems they were dealing. The congress of vienna was much quieter by comparison and they had a very clear agenda and they were able to sit down with the defeated nations. This is one of the great problems with the paris peace conference and one of the reasons the germans came to resent it. Betweens no negotiation the winners and the losers in a paris. There was meant to be. The allies thought they would have a piece conference on the lines of the congress of vienna. They thought what they would do is they would meet weekly in paris in january 1919. They called it a preliminary piece conference until they realized they had slipped into the real thing. They would come up with some agreed terms which they would offer germany. They would all sit down as they had done in vienna and hammer out a settlement. It took them from january to may to get agreement on peace terms. There were so many issues and difficulties and 70 moments when the peace and so many moments when the peace conference looked to be breaking up. The italians were walking out. The chinese threatened to not sign the treaty and did not. Japanese were threatening to walk out. The belgians were saying they might walk out. By the time the allies agreed on the peace terms, they did not dare sit down with germany and reopen the discussions. It was to be something germany resented bitterly. From the allied point of view, it had been so difficult to get to this point they did not risk doing it. But they did is they cobbled together a peace treaty. There is the treaty of versailles should is probably the most difficult one other the treaty with the Ottoman Empire was going to be difficult. The treaty of versailles is the one most people remember and formed a template for the others. It is Something Like 440 causes. It was put together and no one actually read it through for they sent it to the printers. What you get is everything from a very grand scheme. First part of the crete of the treaty of nations. That was something Woodrow Wilson had insisted upon and others had supported him. The first part of the treaty is the covenant. The founding document of the league of nations, which sets out how it is to be set up. Then you get a whole section on reparations germany was to pay. A whole section on disarmament germany was meant to undertake. You also get some various other things about trying those who were. Guilty of starting the war. There was talk about trying the kaiser. Talk about trying about sending him into exile. The british offered the falkland islands, which would have been interesting if he had gone there. In the end, that did not happen. It was a treaty that encompassed a vision for a better world that also the punishment and attempts to limit the power of germany in the future. But it also contained specific clauses. There was one clause about how the German Ethnographic Museum in berlin must handbag the skull of an african must handbag the skull of an african chief. It was a sort of grab bag into which foreign offices through things they had been brooding about for some time. It was understandable the germans were not going to be pleased by the process whereby the treaty they got. The attempt to build a better world was a better was a genuine one. As has often been said that Woodrow Wilson came with his vision of the league of nations to europe bearing this gift of the promise of better world and the europeans simply spurned it. Was. Is simply not how it many europeans supported the league of nations. They knew very well what a war. Had done. Many had what a war had done. You could see if you chose to, you could take a day trip north of paris to see what war had meant and see the destruction of war. A lot of europeans supported the league of nations every bit as much as americans did. Many of the ideas in the league of nations came from things europeans and others had been talking about before 1990 before 1914, an attempt to build international law, an attempt for free trade, and attempt to form a league of nations. These things had been mentioned as far back as 150 years previously. About a kant had talked league of nations that would Work Together to make war impossible. And real inl the support that he gained support that it gained. It was not a treaty that was going to satisfy germany. There were a number of reasons for this. I do not think it was that some of the treaty was unfair. There were things that germany resented. It was supposed to stay in treaty setting up a league of nations, which it was not going to be allowed to join. It was not given a chance to negotiate the treaty. They said, you have two weeks to look at it. You can put any reservations in writing. That, i think, the germans resented. If you look at what germany lost in that treaty, it did lose its fleet, it did lose its colonies. That already lost those by the time of the peace conference. It did lose territory in europe. Territory inhabited by nongerman speakers. You could argue that germany did not lose all that much. You could also argue that germany came out of the First World War germans did not feel this but if you look back, you can see it. That germany came out in a stronger strategic position than it had before the First World War. There was no more common border between russia and germany. There was poland in between them. There was no austriahungary, which had been a rival to germany and had been an uncertain ally. It had fallen to pieces. What had once worried the german high command and with reason, which was the capacity of russia increasingly to move troops to the common border, that now had a barrier between germany and russia. Russia itself was plunged into a civil war. Part of the russian threat had been removed and instead of an austriahungary, there were a series of small nations. It was relatively easy for germany to playoff one against the other. It did not feel like that to germany at the time. What always matters is perception. I think the germans were not going to accept any treaty they were going to have to sign in 1919. In the end, of course they did sign it. They did not feel they had lost the war. Increasingly, they came to feel they had not started it either. Important in very Human Affairs and international relations. 1918. Rmans surrendered in if you look at the terms of the armistice of november the 11th, it is more than a ceasefire. It is more than conventional armistices. Germany lost all of its heavy equipment. They lost its submarine fleet. They lost its aircraft. A lost its tanks. Lost its submarine fleet. It lost its aircraft. As one said, could you please leave us a few sheen guns . We may need them in the revolution. It lost its capacity to make equipment. Germans were advised to move back into germany. As time went by, the high commander and others, supporters, began to argue germany had not lost and should not have signed the armistice. Had effectively established a military dictatorship by 1918. They had kept the German Government and the public about and the public in the dark about how germany was doing on the battlefield. It was beginning to fall back. German troops were increasingly find it difficult to fight because they did not have the equipment they needed. There were desperate pleas from german officers in the field for things like fuel, ammunition, guns. German regiments, battalions were understrength. Their numbers were being filled out by very young or quite old men. Germany was not able to fight on. The german armies after the august of eighth 1918 were retreating back and back. There was a series of defeats. The high command suddenly turned to the civilian government and said, by the way, they never abetted they were wrong but they said things are not going that well. Can you get an armistice immediately. Please appealed to the american president. At the time, the german high command recognized it was being defeated and wanted to salvage nothing out of this. The civilian government appealed to Woodrow Wilson. Came to an they agreement for an armistice. The armistice was signed. The high command switched its tune and said we could have fought on. It was the civilian government that did not want to fight on. The same of ludendorff who had panicked and fled to sweden disguised in a funny hat and said they are traitors at home. We could have fought on. He began andy, others and his supporters said that germany was stabbed in the back. It could have fought on at that had not been for this a billion government but those civilians demonstrating against an increasingly futile war. Those enemies who had stabbed germany in the bark in the back where the socialist, the liberals and the jews. Jews. D the if you do not think you have lost the war, then you not think the treaty is going to be fair. Does anyone know someone who has gone to civil litigation in a court and came out saying the judge was absolutely fair. It was right that i lost and that i would have to pay fine. Germany ike anyone who loses who does not feel they should have lost did not feel they had lost the war. What also began to happen was increasingly, germany and others began to feel germany had not started the war. The allies were clear in their own minds in paris in 1919 germany and its allies had started the war. In in thegin to creep englishspeaking countries that germany may be not really started the war. Maybe the war has been an accident maybe the french had egg the russians on. The German Foreign ministry set up a special unit and funded organizations to attack the prevailing view germany had started the war. They invited academics, american academics in particular to look at archives that were carefully selected to show that your bidet that germany had wanted peace. The view certainly in the englishspeaking countries was the war had not been germanys fault. It had been something that had happened in europe. It had been no ones fault or everyones fault. That undermined the treaty. It undermined the validity of the treaty. If germany had not started the war and had not lost of the war, why should it be paying reparations . Why should it be paying any form of recompense for the war . Treaty the a party that signs it does not. Want to sign it you get the allies who should have been enforcing it not wanting to enforce it. That is what helped to make the situation so difficult. Alliesu also got were who did not feel like they had done everything they wanted. The italians who had joined on the allied side came to call the peace the mutilated piece because they felt that they had not gotten what they wanted. That helped to fuel mussolini s rise to power. I left behind a great deal of dissatisfaction it left behind a great deal of dissatisfaction. The british, french and americans were going there separate ways. Denied states did not ratify the the United States did not ratify the treaty. Turned away from europe and began to preoccupy itself with what was going on in its own hemisphere and japan and asia. The british turned to their empire and began to turn their bags on europe. That left the french feeling defenseless and worried about their security. They tried to find allies on the others have germany in some of these new states, made germany feel surrounded and tended to reinforce the nationalistic feeling in germany. Allng said that, that left sorts of bitterness behind it, i think we can also look at the 1920s and see there were signs of hope. We have too much seen the 1920s as a brief breathing space theeen disaster of 1930s. If they had lasted longer, i think you could see real signs of hope. Europe did get back on to an even footing. Revolution was contained. Democracy proved to be more resilient. 1925, by 1925, european production was back. Liveeans were beginning to reasonable and prosperous lives again. It did not mean in germany, there were memories of the inflation. The league of nations did come into existence. It did not have the United States as a member. It got up and running. It began to set up a number of visitations, which did do something to improve the international environment. Laborternational organization, International Health organization, International Organizations to deal with human slavery, many of which are still with us today. And did begin to make a good deal of progress. There was a lot of support for the league of nations around the world. In the united kingdom, there was a league of Nations Society which had Something Like 25 million members. There was something that people put a good deal of hope in. Other countries sponsored disarmament conferences. There seemed to be progress toward dealing with some of the things people felt had helped to cause the world war. The Washington Naval conference was key and in averting a naval conflict. Not toreed voluntarily fortify certain islands. Sponsored of nations disarmament conference in sponsored a some of it geneva, people hoped would lead toward getting rid of some of the weapons. It was in 19 2018 as a great sign of hope that United States and france came together to create the pact of paris named after the two men who created it in which those who signed on and eventually some 61 countries promised not to use war as an intermittent of state as an instrument of state. People thought we are making progress to setting up International Organizations, dealing with too many weapons and trying to move beyond that and outlaw war. And becametled down a participant in the international community. In 1925, it signed a series of agreements agreeing it would not change its borders in the west i force. In the west by russia began to behave like an ordinary power. You could see signs that things were getting back to some more stable order and that maybe the world was moving beyond what had existed in 1914. I think the real problem is that in 1929, you had the beginnings of the Great Depression. Without the Great Depression, without those years where production fell off, where world trade dwindled, where thousands of millions of people were thrown out of work, 25 or more of the American Labor force were thrown out of work. What those years did was shake peoples faith in capitalism and democracy and turned in countries toward more radical parties, which promised painless solution. It turned them toward the local parties of the left and right. To look at the paris peace conference as something to go back to my original point that led directly to the Second World War, we need to look at what actually happened. We need to look at what happened in the 1920s and what happened with the Great Depression. We had a Second World War as we know. Even more dreadful and more farreaching in its effects than the First World War. We did get a sort of peace. We had no comprehensive settlement. Could argue that big piece conferences are the problem. The defeated nations were theyed even worse than retreated then after the First World War. Germany and japan were obliged to surrender unconditionally. That was largely because the allies did not when any doubts about who had lost ny. Did not want any doubts about who had lost and why. Complaints about the settlements at the end of the Second World War. We seem to have moved on. What happened at the end of the First World War is seen as a bad example. I would like to leave you with a question. Are we any better at making peace today . Thank you. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i know that your used two a 10 minute q a, but you will notice it is a bit longer than that. I am not going to keep to my normal prussian scheduling. You know there are two microphones down here. It is firstcome, firstserved. Were looking forward to this continued conversation. On the prussian note, do want to say a few words on bavarian separatist movement they have a chance at all . It is a good question. Bavarians feel themselves to be different from the rest of germany. The seven states that went into making up modern germany did not come in willingly. Pressure was the dominant one. It was the dominant political and economic force. They felt they had little choice but to join in. 1871. Y was formed in those states did not come in willingly, but they felt they had no alternative. There was talk among the allies of reducing germany to its component states after 1918. The french thought this would be a good idea. Lloyd george, the british Prime Minister, and i think Woodrow Wilson agreed with them, said we had german nationalism caused turmoil in europe before germany became united. If we divide germany up, we will see the same thing happening again. Bavariangh you got a separate feeling, there was a strong german nationalism. I do not think bavarian separatism was that much of a force. The bavarians feel themselves to be different, but that is not the same as wanting to be independent again. German nationalism was a powerful force which affected all parts of germany. Wonderful talk. Thank you. I was wondering, i think it is a good point you make about the Great Depression being a turning point in the evolution of thought in europe and elsewhere about the im wondering, in our own era, we have seen trump. We have seen doris johnson. We have seen a turn toward nationalism and isolationism. I do not see a big earth shattering event like the Great Depression. I was wondering what you attribute this latest round of 1930s style nationalism and isolationism. We had something which could have been earth shattering. That was the 2008 financial crisis. Catastrophe was averted partly because governments had learned from the Great Depression. I think it is interesting that ben bernanke who played such a part in trying to negotiate the bailout of the banks had written his thesis on the Great Depression. It seems to me a good example of where history could be helpful. What they understood was they could not allow bankruptcy to take place. They realized the whole situation. They realized it had to be international. What went wrong with the Great Depression is that governments adopted National Policies and any attempt to get an International Agreement to deal with the Great Depression failed. That made it much worse. What governments did is protect their own industries and agriculture, they put up tariff barriers, which meant world trade dropped off. What i think we are seeing today is what was happening before the First World War should perhaps the First World War. That is globalization. Of the First World War was a great. Period. Communications expanded enormously. We think the internet is extraordinary. Think what telegraphs meant. Suddenly you could find out what was happening on the other side of the world instantaneously. Lovely maps of telegraph lines joining the world. It is extraordinary. It is like a spiders map around the world. What it meant and i think this is what has happening with globalization today, as consumers, we benefit because we get cheaper goods. Those who made the goods in the past suddenly find they do not have jobs. In vienna, small shopkeepers were thrown out. Businesses fail because of Big Department stores. People liked going to Big Department stores. Notmakers, tailors could work. Their livelihoods became meaningless and their skills became meaningless. What happened in vienna was happening elsewhere. Peoplef those dispossessed by globalization joined antisemitic parties. Europe got blamed for being either too rich or too poor. They were handy scapegoats. A the same way we are blaming immigrants today without understanding they may not be the source of why these jobs are disappearing. Collectively, the world failed to realize that there is a great deal of public unhappiness. Globalization was not good for everyone. People who had looked forward to satisfying jobs the rest of their life suddenly did not have them anymore and was scrambling to make ends meet. This was happening in europe before the First World War and what is happening now. Solutionse along with are welcomed. People who come along with solutions tend to get support. Those solutions are often simplistic and are not going to work terribly well. But they seem to offer hope and the message like people message people like mussolini or offering were offering. They seem energetic. And in the dangerous and this iser where the individual does matter in history. This is a very longwinded answer. If hitlers had been killed in the trenches in the First World War, the nazi party wouldve been different. Partyappened to the nazi wouldve gotten to when they got to power wouldve been different. We should remember this in our own times. Nazi share of the popular vote was going down by 1932 and i never had an outright and they never had an outright majority. He was invited into power by right wing industrialists who thought they could use him. They thought he was someone who did not know much about anything. It was a class thing. They thought they would use them and uses support and they invited him to become chancellor. They did not know what they were dealing with. I think the parallel with our own times are never exact but the reaction to globalization is rather like what happened before the First World War. The looking for Simple Solutions and the blaming of others, we all find it easier to say yes, i blame you for my problems rather than to say, it is a complicated situation. That is what is dangerous about the present time. Not very cheery. [laughter] thank you. I Teach High School history. Something i have noticed american textbooks focus on is the war guilt clause. First, how unprecedented that was for a treaty like that. How much of an impact it had on germany. I think the textbooks and the way it is taught seems like that is the thing that created i was wondering your opinion. It lies at the heart article 231 said germany accepts responsibility for starting the war. The germans named it the war guilt clause. The allies were implying guilt. Treaties contain similar clauses. The clause was written by a Young American lawyer who wanted to establish a legal basis for claiming reparations from germany. Article, 232, says germanys payments will depend on its capacity to pay. The absolute figure was not set in the treaty which is something germany resented. The argument was that they could not set a figure for german until they had done a survey of all the damage. American engineers and others how do you count the damage . How much do you count a ruined village . How much is a ruined cathedral worth . That took them two years. They had to work out how the payments could be made. The real reason they did not want to put a figure in the treaty is because they did not want to let their own public no they would not get that much their own public know they would not get that much. Germany there were a lot of people in britain who said, lets get trade going again. The war is over. We may not like the germans but we have to trade with them. What the reparations were meant to do was pay for or damage. More damage. There was an argument among the allies about how you define war damage. The french and the belgians had suffered the most damage and the british realized this was not good for them because they would not get as much. The british needed some funds because they lent a lot of money to the french and the italians and russians and they borrowed a lot of money from the americans. They had to pay back the money for the americans. No point on leaning on the russians. They were putting pressure on the french and italians and smaller allies to pay their war debts. The french and belgians needed the reparations from germany even more. In the end, there was an arrangement by which the u. S. Lent money to germany which paid reparations to french and belgium, which paid to britain, which paid to u. S. View, youan point of borrowed the money, you pay it back. Nationa that a defeated should pay something is not new at all. If you look through history, defeated nations have often paid huge fines. It was expected. When the french were defeated by the German Confederation in 1871, france had to pay an indemnity. The french had to pay a huge amount. Under one estimate, the french may have paid more proportionately than the germans ever paid in reparations. The germans did not want to pay reparations because they felt the treaty was illegitimate. As more and more people in germany came to think they had not started the war and had not lost it, why should they be paying for more damage . Reparations were very unpopular in germany across the political spectrum and there was no willingness to pay them. They were resented. An english journalist was traveling in germany and she was she met two old sisters who lived and they said to her, before the war, we could send our laundry out every week and now we have to do it every two weeks. It is all reparations. Became a thing that the germans d. Sented in the end, germany never paid all that much. The first bit, they paid in kind. That was the smallest bit. And in the figure was set in the next bit, they would have to pay by bonds issued by the German Government, backed by the German Government, and that was not that big of a slice. The much bigger slice was the third bit. You can imagine what happened. They dragged their feet, and they did not pay. In 1924, the total amount was negotiated down. And then it was negotiated down in 1929. When hitlers him into power, he canceled the whole lot. Britain continued to pay from the First World War to the u. S. Until 1980. Canceling the whole lot was a good one but impossible. [inaudible] reparations to israel for the holocaust. There was no political outcry about that in germany. The attempt to get money out of germany was something in retrospect, it would have been much better to focus on getting european economy growing again. The americans did not see why they should not get their funds. In retrospect, it is easy to say it would have been much more statesmanlike to get europes economy going again and avoid the misery of the 1920s and resentment. Germany really was not prepared to adhere to them because it did not see why it should. It was rather long. It is such a tricky [inaudible] take as long as you want for the answer. Dont encourage me. It is very dangerous. You spoke about one of the pressures of the big three during the process being the public. What is your perspective on the Public Opinion on the allied sides, the major components of the treaty . Such that the public knew much about them. General public appreciate the major components of the treaty . Much . At satisfy them very it depends very much on the country. The french felt the treaty probably could have been harsher. There were those in france that wanted to take the whole of the rhineland. Certainly there were plots within the German Military and german right wing im sorry, French Military and french rightwing parties. There was a lot of ridiculous there was a wonderful thing i read by a french officer that said, people live in the rhineland are really french. They may speak german but they have joie de vivre and a love of wine, which the germans dont have. There were french who felt strongly about germany. You can understand. French Prime Minister had been a young man when the germans besieged paris. Buried when he died facing standing up facing germany. He became Prime Minister in the dark days of the First World War when it looked like france might be defeated. They knew that germany remained a real threat to French Security because it was not much more powerful and had a bigger population, bigger potential armed forces. That was a very real fear. Not,ance, the treaty was never came to be seen as a legitimate. What happened in the englishspeaking countries, there was a lack of sympathy for france, which was unfair. A sense you also got a sense that the germans were right, the treaty wasnt fair. Why should they have to pay this penalty . Why dont we just get on with things . It helped to divide the allies. I think, in france, you will probably get a feeling that the treaty was not that bad. I dont know if that answers your question. That theree fact were treaties of mutual assistance between britain and france and britain and belgium and the serbs and the russians, did that contribute to the inevitability of world war i . This might be a little off your subject. Origins talk about the of the First World War until the cows come home. Used to be said that the Alliance System, the notion of a balance of power where you had to balance powers as a way of keeping the peace. Alliance systems created the first woodwork. The balance of power is inherently First World War. The balance of power is inherently unstable. I dont think that really is the case myself. I think the alliances before the First World War were looser than they have been portrayed. They were defensive alliances and in the case of the triple entente, which was britain, france, and russia, the only defensive alliance was between russia and france. You do not have to go to war unless your partner is attacked. The british never signed an alliance. Wastriple alliance, which germany. Hungary, and the thing about alliances is who enforces them. The italians got out of they avoided their obligations to go to war when austriahungary and germany went to war. The defensive alliance does not work. I thought the Alliance System was much looser than it might appear and people said it was. I dont think it did cause the First World War. I think other things did. In view of the fact in lieu of the fact that we are involved with nato, with the demise of the soviet union, you nato . Continued role for you are getting far ahead of my field. I always wondered at the end of the cold war whether nato should not of been wound up. Should not have been wound up. He redefined itself and began it redefined itself and began to move further afield. On the other hand, i think something nato was designed partly to contain the soviet union and it seems to me that russia needs containing. Having Something Like nato, in which nations do cooperate and share military planning and so on is not about idea. The last two questions will come from the other side of the auditorium. I think we all sympathize with the difficulty of ironing out this piece. Can you talk about one or two things they could have or should have done better . Perhaps, they should have been more direct with their own publics about reparations and should have explained they would not get everything they wanted but they would do their best to get the european economy going again. Politically, that wouldve been very difficult. Democratic politicians have to think of getting reelected and sometimes coming clean with your own people is not a good idea. Possibly, certainly, britain could have. This was before Public Opinion polls. The evidence says the british opinion was getting much less vehement against germany than it had nine months previously and it might well of been the case that, we are really going to go easy on the reparations or give more to france. It was politically difficult. I am not sure they could have done much more with germany. I think they felt germany had lost. They felt they had every right to punish it. Motherso looked my always told me two wrongs do not make a right. They did look at what germany had done to france. They looked at what germany had march 1818. Ia in if you want to look at punitive treaties, that one was savaged. Detached huge chunks it detached huge chunks of russia. Think there was a sense that germany should have paid some penalty. Wastrouble was the treaty neither harsh enough or soft enough and in the end, if britain had been prepared to be really tough to make it clear to the germans. That sense of having lost the war was never properly was not born in on the germans, which certainly was not the case after 1945. Or if they had been prepared to really say to their own publics, the war was a catastrophe all around and we will not make the catastrophe worse by trying to extract reparations from germany. Their choices were limited by their own Public Opinion. I have to have reparations. I cannot face my electorate and say we wont have reparations. It is very difficult. Ending wars, which can raise these Great Expectations and great hatreds, is a very difficult problem. We might not have ended the second more Second World War so successfully if the u. S. And the soviet union had not fallen out. One of the reasons the u. S. Was much more committed to europe and to the revival of europe and wasd trade and investment because of the fear of the soviet union. After the First World War, the United States did not have that feeling. What they could have done where they could have done things better what the middle east. They treated the people of the middle east as if their opinions did not count, as if they were negligible. They did very badly, indeed, actually. Thank you very much for your presentation. We know about the hardships the french suffered and how the americans fared at the end of the war, what kind of hardships did Great Britain face at the end of the war . Think they certainly knew they had certainly lost enormous ground economically. By 1916, the lending power in the world had moved across the atlantic from london to new york. The british had lost ground as a world power. They were very much aware of that. They spent more than they could possibly afford to spend. They also expanded their empire. They were finding the burden of empire began to weigh very heavily. What the british also lost was european of that civilization was somehow improving and they had lost the french lost the most men of military age in proportion to the number of men in france. More than any other country except serbia. Germany came across third. The british lost a huge number of men and what that meant for society, for wives, for children, it was something that was going to go on reverberating through the generations. Lots of children who never knew their fathers. I think the women lost a lot as well. Damagedociety that was by the First World War and i think a country that was impoverished or economically strained by the First World War and it marked the beginning of the end for the British Empire. Britains capacity to manage it was getting less and the empire less willing to be part of the empire. Gandhi turned it into a mass movement. The british had an uneasy feeling that the world was becoming difficult for them, as it was. The generational impact, and the continued impact of 1919 on today is a very appropriate place to end this evening. Thankingin me in margaret. This is American History tv, covering history cspan style with lectures, interviews, and discussions with authors, historians, and teachers. 48 hours all weekend every weekend only on cspan 3. Happy day. This song was written 20 years ago. Rocky mountain high] [applause] cspan covered over seven hours of this rally on the first earth day. To cspan. Org history and typing 1990 earth day rally. The door franklin trailer in mobile, alabama includes over 40 historical markers that tell the history of the city from the former location of a slave market through the civil rights era. On a tour guide, eric finley took us to africa town, founded we pick up the story after the civil war with mr. Finley on the north side of town