Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan

[Terry]

I just picked up this 570 page history this morning at my local library, and wondered if any of the Pals had already read it. It was published in the UK under the title "Peacemakers".

The author, a great-grand daughter of David Lloyd George, is a well known Canadian historian and professor at the University of Toronto. The book seems to have won quite a few awards and apparently has been drawing rave reviews. Any comments from the Pals?

[andigger]

I read it last year. It is a good read, don't let the pages daunt you, it reads quickly. My main critique would be that it doesn't reveal anything new, or that hasn't been discussed in other works. I think the value it offers is that it is one concise easy to read source about the peace negotiations and what was going on between the main personalities involved.

Andy

[Borden Battery]

It is well researched, well written book that presents a lot of information for the reader but also keeps the material organized in an easy-to-follow context.

It is also packed with a great deal of information. For instance, there is a reference to Ho Chi Minh working in Paris as a kitchen assistant at the Ritz Hotel and a comment about him sending a petition to the French for independence for Vietnam in 1919.

Agreed, it is a long book but worth the time. I would place it in the top 20 books I have on the Great War.

[andigger]

Since the topic came up in another thread I thought I would resurface this one as well. Andy

[paul guthrie]

I too read this when it came out and was quite impressed, Wilson is in my view a quite ineffective president despite brains aplenty, the complete lack of which has hindered others, this shows him as the stubborn impractical man he was. At the time there was a large progressive internationalist wing of the Republican party, he could have cultivated it to the great benefit of the world and blew it.

[dewey]

I think Woodrow Wilson was more of an idealist then people give him credit for. It was actually the conservative congress that hindered him. For example they did not approve his recommendation to join the League of Nations, and rather threw America into their post-WW1 isolationism. Wilson, tried to stem the anger that the French had towards the Germans after the war, and was adamently opposed to Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles among others. He certainly had his faults though, and one was not consulting congress about his 13 points. Bill

[RodB]

I've almost finished this, and some ideas ocurred to me - I was wondering whether the old large empires actually worked better in Europe for the masses than the nebulous national self-determination Wilson was dreaming of.. MacMillan points out that people are mixes of religions, languages, cultures, histories, traditions, geography... none of the new countries could hope to neatly encapsulate all these things. Tyrol, Sudetenland, Danzig, Silesia, Teschen, Transylvania, Lithuania, the list of disputes is endless. In the end it looks like the politician were just grubby opportunists using whatever arguments about past glories and fictitious ethnic headcounts met their needs at Paris.

I'm left wondering whether the idea of the nation state is a joke, especially in the light of modern scientific opinion which says there is no such thing as "race", just very minor genetic variation, and whether the EU is subconsciously an attempt to get back to old big-picture systems like the Holy Roman Empire or Austria-Hungary, which actually seemed tio function despite what the rabble-rousing nationalist politicians claimed later. This idea came to me reading through the enormous list of titles across Europe that Karl inherited - it paints a picture of a kind of unifying force, an inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness, of participation of the masses rather than subjection - did such systems evolve over the centuries because they worked, like any evolutionary system, as opposed to the nation state which was "designed" ? Likewise the old Ottoman Empire seemed a lot more peaceful than today's Middle East. Any thoughts, Europeans out there ?

[AndyHollinger]

The problem with Self-determination (see results of WWI and WWII) where they were hallmarks of US policy is that it can never go far enough. Countries seldom consist of one "nation" ... see UK ... Because the US is a made-up country it is hard for us to understand ... but Countries in Europe are accidents or developments of History, not the determination of one "nation." ... Wilson and Roosevelt never really understood this fully in anything beyond an intellectual sense.

Poland is an idea not a Nation made into a Country. There is no Nation-state in Europe ... there are always some measure of oppressed minorities brought in because of conquest or defensible boarders, etc. It all becomes a matter of degree and definition. Saxons and Bavarians are not distinct nationalities to most Americans but, the closer you get to Munich the more you see it's differences from Leipzig.

Alas ... 1919 and MacMillian's book - I found very interesting and a good, easy read ... but much more about trees than the forest.

[andigger]

The problem with Self-determination (see results of WWI and WWII) where they were hallmarks of US policy is that it can never go far enough.

Forum General Rule #1 - All WWI related posts much return to the ACW.

Point in case - The US Federal gov't is keen on self determination so long as it does not involve Americans acting on thier own behalf (case in point, most minority groups) or when organized local govt's decide to go their own way (reference 11 states 1861).

Andy

[AndyHollinger]

Forum General Rule 1-A References to the ACW will of course be immediately identifyable as to whether they are a) Lamenting the lost cause' heroics, honor and dedication illustrating superior Generalship losing to overwhelming production C) citing other examples of WYA (War of Yankee Agression) D) Proclaiming a comment on current affairs using the ACW as the Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge, Say-no-more convention E) Grudgingly admitting that USG and WTS were leaders of note (although by that time it really wasn't much of a fight and what fight there was was ALL to our credit) F) Some level of statement which will rouse the interest of our Kentucky brethern because we're in need of a smile.

[Ken S.]

In case it's of an interest a Canadian news program ran a short segment/interview with Margaret MacMillan during which Paris 1919 is briefly discussed; I found her comment about all of the publishers who rejected the book somewhat interesting.

http://globalnews.ca/video/2618112/toronto-historian-margaret-macmillan-warns-of-ignoring-the-lessons-of-history

[Old Tom]

I had not noticed this thread. I read and enjoyed the book a couple of years ago. Also her 'The war that ended peace'. As to president Wilson and his input I noted that he had left before the Middle East was considered and I wonder if his continued presence would have modified or controlled the Brits and the French and attempt to share the area which may have been the origin of some of the present day problems.

Old Tom

[David Ridgus]

I had not noticed this thread. I read and enjoyed the book a couple of years ago. Also her 'The war that ended peace'. As to president Wilson and his input I noted that he had left before the Middle East was considered and I wonder if his continued presence would have modified or controlled the Brits and the French and attempt to share the area which may have been the origin of some of the present day problems.

Old Tom

I'm afraid I doubt it, any more than his frankly ignorant meddling in the division of the Austro Hungarian Empire helped subsequent problems in mitteleuropa and the Balkans. The Fourteen Points may well be seen as the ideological underpinning of the foreign policy of the West for much of the 20th Century but in practical terms their impact at Versailles was very limited. 'To the victors the spoils' was very much still the order of the day, both in Europe and the Middle East

David