Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (ISBN 0375760520)

reasonable history, but flawed:
There is no shortage of books that cover the post-WWI peace process. There isn't much to distinguish this one from the rest. As a generalist history, it doesn't have much depth to it or much new insight. The writing is good but not great. There is no new ground uncovered. And I suppose it can serve as a replacement for libraries who have thrown out or sold the older books on the topic. But the special flaw of this book is with regard to Lloyd-George and his government. The book is almost delusional on the subject and the author is seemingly incapable of showing any reasonable perspective on the subject. Its almost at the level of attempting to rehabilitate a man and a set of policies that were buried in disgrace eighty or ninety years ago. The author's understanding of post WWI germany is poor. She seems in places to be rather unaware of the civil war in germany after the war. She also seems not to understand that a peace treaty that banned civilian aviation and the construction of tractors in germany wasn't remotely possible. She also wants to assert that the peace process actually made germany stronger in europe and that any german complaint about the process was unjustified. The ultimate conclusion the author wishes to make (on poor evidence) is that Lloyd-George was a great hero of history, the treaties that ended the war were flawless and that nothing that happened after in history can be blamed on what happened in Paris in 1919. And of course that if only the United States had been tougher on Germany after the war, things would have been better. And for a book so fanatical about LLoyd-George, its beyond odd that the conclusion deals with his post-paris career in four lines. Wilson gets pages, but there is scant coverage of the years of foreign crisis everywhere from Ireland to India to Russia to Turkey to Iraq to Palestine that plagued his government and which all had their roots in the peace treaties. For all of what was going on at the time in Ireland, the book offers no more than two sentances. Its almost a willful blindness. One other note on the book. The introduction by Richard Holbrooke offers good insight into the mindset that led to and supported the US invasion of Iraq. It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the allusions were drawing at that time. The first gulf war ended with a "mistaken" false peace with Iraq (just like germany) and the only solution was full occupation of Iraq. The wheel has however turned again and Wilsonian idealism has yet again been buried in America.

Why the Versailles Treaty was an abject failure:
This was required reading for a graduate course in the history of American military affairs. In Margaret MacMillan's impressive book Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World her thesis was that many of the monumental problems facing the Allied peacemakers at the treaty negotiations were never settled; such as ignoring national ambitions of Allied colonial possessions. For example, "...in Africa they carried on the old practice of handing out territory to suit the imperialist powers. In the Middle East, they threw together peoples, in Iraq most notably, who still have not managed to cohere into a civil society." In addition, she showed how history came full circle for Wilson, who had turned his back on his progressive supporters during the war. Progressive editors repaid the sentiment by turning their backs on him by writing editorials repudiating Wilson's "coveted" peace treaty, because it was too punitive for Germany and did nothing to eradicate colonialism. "As good pragmatists, they (progressives) now withdrew their allegiance from an idea--the Wilsonian idea of a new, liberal world order--that had failed to be realized." Like other historians, MacMillan observed that with the Senate's denial of ratifying the Versailles Peace Treaty, America's foreign policy was ultimately changed by the Great War experience by first causing America to take a preeminent role on the world stage, and then by reversing course when Americans chose to become isolationists while the ink was still wet on the treaty. MacMillan correctly concluded that the fault of the Versailles Treaty's failure to become ratified in the Senate belonged to Wilson, who was too stubborn to accept even minor changes that would have placated enough senators to pass it. "Wilson could have built his own coalition. The Republicans only had a majority of two in the Senate and he could have won over the moderates among them by accepting some reservations." Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history.

Paris 1919:
I picked up this book as next in a series of books looking at why countries go to war. Given Germany's propensity for such since it's unification, this material seems to fit my quest. Summarily this book covers the mood of the times closing out one war and at the same time laying the pretext for the next. WWI was the culmination of a new world order, one that like its beginning could not wait for diplomacy to work its magic. I say this with the understanding that war is the final step in diplomacy. This book describes the final phase of the Wars' diplomacy. With regard to German apt for WWII, the stab-in-the back, felt in 1919 is all the further you need to look. With regard for the apt for German apt for war, I must read on before I recommend the removal of the allied boot upon the German neck. One by one Central Powers countries were laying down their arms. In September of 1918 when Austria- Hungry withdrew, the German generals sued for an armistice soon after. The Armistice was signed in November of 1918. Keep in mind armistice is a cessation of fighting not surrender. Treaties of some sort had to be hammered out in quick time as to alleviate a resumption of war. Ironically, troop withdrawal and a general consensus of the people of the world led to a fait accompli on unfinished business. The Treaty of Versailles was therefore a document to settle and end to a war that had a precarious beginning. A beginning that officially took place in 1914, but like a summer thunderstorm, was long in the making. In the minds of the world and in particular the so-called "Great Powers" they saw the armistice and the world in their own self serving way. Their agenda had every appearance to secure a world order with their respective Empires in tact and their place as Great Powers in enforce. With such a daunting task of organizing a new world order the Great Powers created an organization where by they would meet daily through the first six months of 1919 and decide on boarders and mandates over the peoples of the world. There were planetary committees that were either self appointed and organized or directly assigned by the great powers to a specific study. Hence, not included in these six months of deliberation was Germany. They sat at home preparing to defend their stab-in-the-back. (...)

Paris 1919:
A wonderful, well written, comprehensive history of the end of the Great War.More importantly, a great review of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, the result of the Paris Peace conference causing perhaps most of the problems facing us today. An extensive looke at Palestine, the Balfour agreement and the existance of Isreal today.

20th Century history from a 21st Century perspective:
While it is generally lumped in with other books about World War I, Paris: 1919 is solely concerned with the Paris Peace Conference after the war. As such, there is very little discussion about the events of the war itself, and the reader would be advised to be familiar with those events before reading this book. As an analysis of the events of the Peace Conference itself, it is brilliant and extremely detailed. Other reviewers have criticized the somewhat gossipy details about the personal lives of the main participants; however, I felt that this was useful in giving the reader a more detailed picture of what these people were actually like. We tend to forget that it wasn't that long ago that most of the information sources we take for granted today (the news media, television, the Internet) didn't exist. News traveled slowly and was frequently inaccurate. If the world of the early 20th century was primitive technologically by today's standards, it was also primitive politically. Traveling through Europe today, it is inconceivable that such things could have happened such a relatively short time ago. To me, the greatest strength of the book was the underlying theme that in their rush to determine how to properly punish Germany, the Allied Powers gave only scant attention to the host of other nations who were affected by the outcome of the war. The "other nations" described in the book reads like a Who's Who of world trouble spots in the years after World War II: Yugoslavia, Iraq and the Middle East receive the most attention. However, even Korea and Vietnam were represented at the conference, only to have their delegations and their issues ignored by countries that would have to fight costly wars there decades later. The greatest strength of the book is that, because it was written so many years after 1919, it is able to draw connections between these (at the time) seemingly minor issues and the numerous wars and unrest that followed many years later. MacMillan hammers away at the theme that, while the conference ended one war, it ultimately led to the start of many others around the world. Nonetheless, she also concludes that the popular notion that the Treaty of Versailles led directly to the rise of Nazi Germany and World War II is a gross oversimplification. Many other issues, including political instability in Germany after WWI and the effects of the Great Depression contributed to the Second World War. Another thing that struck me about the events described in this book is how the political leaders of the Great Powers were individually quite ignorant about not only basic geography, but also the culture and values of the countries whose fates they were deciding. Unfortunately, the diplomats and soldiers from their own countries who had this knowledge were often ignored. One cannot help but see an eerie parallel with the events of today's world, especially the current war in Iraq. Overall, this is a great book and an important one to read if you would like to understand a little more clearly how the events of 90 years ago are still affecting the world today. Quite frankly, this book could not have been written 50 or 60 years ago. If it had been, it would have only dealt with the effects the Treaty had on Germany and how it led to World War II. It would have completely missed all the issues that have occurred since then, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the breakup of Yugoslavia into the various proto-countries from which it was formed. Also, the book is a lot more enjoyable and readable than one would expect from a book which deals mostly with meetings and discussions among the numerous participants. Highly recommended.