The Treaty of Versailles: How It Caused WWII

The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, was meant to bring peace to Europe after World War I, but it ultimately paved the way for the outbreak of World War II. This video explores the devastating impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, including the crippling war guilt clause, massive reparations, and loss of territories, which led to economic hardship, political instability, and widespread resentment among the German people. The harsh treaty terms, including military restrictions and limitations, crippled the German economy and created an environment conducive to the rise of extremist ideologies. We delve into the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, including its role in shaping the interwar period, international relations, and the eventual outbreak of World War II. Discover how the Treaty of Versailles's aftermath, including the treaty's fallout and backlash, contributed to one of the darkest periods in human history.

[RalfBernhard-gc]

*The Treaty of Versailles was, according to many historians and their various analyses, the death knell of Europe.*
_The ability of people to blame others for the effects of own behaviour, rather than to blame themselves for their own decisions, castes long shadows._

Individuals should avoid debates following the principles of "right/wrong" since such debates go around in circles forever. Debaters cherry-picking their "facts" and "dates." Obviously, everybody has a different concept of "right/wrong." Instead, point out causal effects of own actions imposed, and which were not a result of a "round table" negotiation such as The Concert of Europe was a century previously. These decisions after the Napoleonic Wars, to create a balance of powers per mutual agreement after a major tragedy which affected all, worked amazingly well for 100 years, despite the limited wars which continued after 1815. The first step of those seeking peace was to acknowledge the security risks of all the major powers, but also avoiding the childish "finger pointing" at all the various hotheads who had previously escalated limited crises/engagements of regional character, thereby escalating these into a world-wide war, with millions of dead and millions more negatively affected.

With the Treaty of Versailles, Europe went down the drain when their leaders decided to abandon the principle of Machiavellian "fairness", and impose an IMbalance of power de jure at a green table, without the deterrence to enforce it in the future. Not a "Machiavellian" principle, but the reasoning of weak minds who know they wouldn't have to face consequences if anything went wrong (the biggest examples of the "mommy's basement hero" in history were the "winners" of WW1 for that matter).

*By not inviting all, REGARDLESS of the excuses made, they thereby created a de facto reality which was the same as pre-1914.* The security concerns of a neighbour was simply ignored. The NWO was dictated onto one of the neighbours (Versailles) whilst another was simply not invited either. This an observation based on the facts. Why was the situation of pre-1914 recreated again post-1918 at Versailles? In 1919 Machiavellian fairness was thrown out the window again when one of the powers was encroached upon by an "encirclement strategy" AGAIN.

The first encirclement took place in stages starting in the 1890s, and continued following the year 1900. After WW1 the encirclement strategy was continued again; instead of a small number of large encircling powers as before 1914, there were now (enabled by the Armistice and Versailles) a larger number of smaller encirclers after 1919, who either allied with or aligned with the "winners" (France/GB/USA). Thereby, wanted or not, these new smaller states became the "buck catchers" (John Mearsheimer Theory) of outsiders. European history of 1, 000 years, as either France or the Holy Roman Empire tried to encircle each other (2-front war danger), trying to get the vital "upper hand" in a struggle for Western European "top dog"-status, continued. Just like in physics, every force creates a counterforce. The intention to "keep down/keep out/encircle" a neighbour, created an effect.

_The observation today is therefore that Europeans will lose again, _ because after 1990 this marching onto the borders of a neighbour, and encroaching on a neighbour (also "by proxy"), ignoring constantly repeated warnings, was continued. Only this time the neighbour "encroached upon" with an encirclement strategy was Russia. The "morphed tools" now included all Central European nations, too blinded by narratives to unite in time to avoid their own "tool status" AGAIN.
This is an observation, empowered by a million bits of data from history, and which cannot be countered, because it actually happened. This reality forces the obfuscators and "whataboutism"-fanboys if history into all kinds of contorted and distorted gish-galloping attempts at deflecting, word trickery and ingroup bonding, to "get the ingroup in line again".

The "marching route" towards Russia was:
- Eastern Europe
- Balkans
- Black Sea Region/Caucasus (southern pincer of encroachment)
- Baltic Region/Scandinavia (northern pincer of encroachment)

Those who implement their step-by-step, SYSTEMIC EXPANSION always only want A little "piece" of...
All they wish to do is "eat a PIECE of salami, slice by slice by slice" and they are all very friendly. Look, they even wag their NATO-tails.
*All of this is "history rhyming.*

Then they think people are too stupid to notice what they are doing. All they wish to do is deflect from a very simple reality: they need YOU as a tool, to overpower your neighbour FOR them. In the big picture, the story is to deceive people into doing unto others what they would never consider acceptable if "done unto them" (systems).

As stated in the first paragraph, individuals can argue their own personal rights/wrongs until they are blue in the face, huff and puff about how great they are, but it is not going to protect them from the harmful causal effects of the own systemic expansive aims as implemented by the strategists in the capital cities, or by the so-called "friends" who employ them as tools, buffer zones, as happily marching "useful idiots/innocents, " ideological propagandists, a "new best friend" with a nice new shiny red "bullseye" painted on the back (lightning rods), or otherwise employed as proxies, without "round table"-consent of all involved powers (aka Machiavellian concept of fairness).

*Beware of bowing down to the narrative spinners and framers.*
How the narrative is spun in order the create a smokescreen _for_ the hidden aims and agendas, reveals the strategists and their ulterior motives, which are the same today as 100 and 125 years ago. History does not "start" with the REaction. It starts with the actions. Pity if one lives in countries collectively too blind to see.

[ekalianawati]

The thing is germany doesn't even the one that started ww1

[rylangisi]

See if they would have just put the blame on serbia like it should have been world war two probably wouldn't have happened

[RalfBernhard-gc]

Versailles was divide-and-rule.

Division "rules" the world.
"Who rules?", is the wrong question.
Ask _"What rules?"_ and you gain answers on many tiers. From the very bottom tier (society) to the very top (IR).

*For those who can divide all others, but keep the POWER in an ingroup, will rule over others.*

"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy.

Here’s how the strategy typically works:
*Creating Divisions:* Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones—such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances.
*Fostering Competition and Distrust:* The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions.
*Maintaining Control:* With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation.

Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally.

The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. One could state that the _dividers_ thrive by manufacturing consent within the own ingroup, while at the same time manufacturing dissent on those intended to be the "divided."