It's still a custom in many societies today.

The treaty was apt and was probably lenient. Germans weren't the primary instigators of the war but they were very much responsible for what happened in Belgium.

http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/memoryofwar/the-rape-of-belgium-revisited/

It was common place for a long time, and leaving people alive after a conquest is usually a stage in social development. You see it in the middle east ancient history. For a long time it was a tribe coming out of the desert or hills replacing the existing people wholesale. Then you see people like the Assyrians taking slaves and relocating whole populations. The Babylonians would only take the leadership class and eventually the Persians took only taxes to everyone's acclaim (it has been offered that the messiah mentioned in the Tanakh was Cyrus or maybe Darius, ICR which).

Love marriages were always a thing in western society, but only when a lot of property wasn't on the line. Aristocrats continued the arranged marriage scheme, possibly even today, because of the economic and political concerns, as well as classism, that marriage and offspring create. Other societies that rely on arranged marriage almost always have a very strong class consciousness and a view of the family as the primary social organization; religious communities also tend to have matchmakers and such, Anabaptists and Jews come to mind, in order to keep the community going. You saw a greater acceptance of love marriages with the transition to a money based economy as property and real estate became less important and the position of women changed. Urbanism also increased the trend as children and wives became relegated to being biological toys and showpieces rather than equal partners in the family franchise.

“The temple, referred to in ancient inscriptions as Enninu or the "White Thunderbird," housed the sacred statue of the hero thunder god Ningirsu, one of the most important gods of the Sumerian pantheon.”

It’s more like the treaty was too easy on them to realistically weaken them, and too harsh to engender anything other then frustration. A harsher treaty would have destroyed the countries, a less one might have engendered goodwill (notably post WW2 Germany not going the way post WW1)

[deleted]

I didn't say you were spreading misinformation. No one is attacking you. You're being unnecessarily defensive.

How the myth of the War Guilt Clause has been able to stay alive for so long is a mystery. It is so easily debunked and you only need to look at the formulation of three paragraphs of the three treaties to see for yourself that the argument has no merit.

Prehistoric Astronomers, I watched it on Curiosity Stream

definitely not as much of an academic answer as everyone else gave here, but your question reminds me of how when Queen Elizabeth II died, no one (or at least i didnt hear of anyone) questioned who was next in line to the throne. maybe we do just blindly accept this stuff and maybe they did the same thing back then? plus they had all the religious arguments that it was their divine right to rule- cant mess with gods choice!

Cool I wonder which one?

[removed]

I’m not spreading misinformation. In fact, I used the words “I am a layman” and “I think”, more than once. Like, it’s a very deliberate effort on my part not to pass myself off as authority.

Don’t attack me. I wonder why people have to use Reddit as a pulpit to put other people down.

Chill.

> You’re also neglecting the “War Guilt Clause”

A misrepresentation of what it says. It was establishing the legal framework for a treaty with Germany (so yeah it's going to mention Germany), nor does it "solely blame" Germany. It in fact says "Germany and her Allies" while the other treaties with the Central Powers use the same language except with nations swapped around, for instance "Austria and her Allies" or "Hungary and her Allies".

[deleted]

>I didn’t propose it was proven by anything.

I didn't say that you did.

> i don’t harbor vitriol and scorn for people who have ideas and want to ask questions.

I 100% agree.

>We don’t know a lot of stuff about ancient people, what they knew, or what motivated them.

Of course, that's true. But it's important not to simply make things up to fill in the gaps and spread misinformation. My comment was only meant as a supplement to yours in case someone reading was confused about whether astrology had any basis in reality or was just a fairy tale.

The treaty was harsh and unjust enough that the German people felt wronged and humiliated by it, and simultaneously not harsh enough to permanently cripple Germany.

David Lloyd George (British PM) said after the treaty: “We shall have to fight another war again in 25 years' time.” French general and Supreme allied commander Ferdinand Foch also said: “This is not peace, this is an armistice for 20 years."

[removed]

You’re also neglecting the “War Guilt Clause” - it’s easier to see how this would’ve enraged Germany when you consider the fact that it wasn’t “just Germany” that caused World War I. All the great powers were tied up in nationalism, militarism, imperialism, etc etc.

WWII - different story. 100% Germany’s fault. But, WWI - I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest the blame should have been laid squarely on Germany. And, a lot of Germans felt this way in the years after the war (perhaps justifiably so).

Keynes predicted the treaty would destroy Germany's economy and usher in hyper-inflation. He then said that could lead to some sort of destabilization of Germany.

You can read your self in his The Economic Consequences of the Peace, published in December, 1919. He didn't predict Nazis. But he did predict it would cause problems.

I'm writing for college about how plenty of Germans believed that they'd been stabbed in the back when the november criminals surrendered germany from the war. Everything i read says that lots of germans thought that they were winning the war because of propaganda but i cant find any examples of newspapers, posters, speeches or anything as to why they believed that. Im sure its out there but i cant find where! Anyone know of any sources?

[removed]

We import lots of stuff

What are some good YouTube channels for history that are neither:

A. Too dry

B. Too childish

I am a US history teacher so I am surrounded by dry text and childish videos. Just something clever or interesting I can listen to on my long commute to work.