"Paris 1919" by Margaret MacMillan
Published February 04, 2004
The book focuses on the three leaders that controlled the conference, Prime Minister Lloyd George of Britain, President Wilson of the United States, and Prime Minister Clemenceau of France. In addition to a discussion of the pros and cons of each man's bargaining position at the conference, the book includes details of the men's personal lives and how who they were shaped the way they represented their countries. The British Prime Minister is shown to be extraordinarily energetic and quick witted, but prone to vacillate in his position as he chased public opinion at home. We learn how President Wilson was a highly principled man, but completely inflexible and often arrogant. And we learn how the French Prime Minister focused so single-mindedly on keeping Germany down that perhaps he missed an opportunity to get Europe back up and running again.
The book is divided into chapters for each of the nations or regions that the peace makers tried to set right. There are chapters on the the birth of Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the rest of the newly independent Eastern European states. There are chapters on the new Soviet Republic in Russia. There are chapters on China. There are chapters on the creation of Iraq and Jordan. There are chapters on how Turkey was created out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. And there is a chapter on an as yet unnamed Jewish homeland.
The range of issues that the conference dealt with were so broad that reading this book will enlighten you to some degree about nearly every conflict in the world today.
If the book has any flaw, it is perhaps its scrupulous fairness to all parties. I admire Margaret MacMillan's attempt (successful, I think) to put each leader's decision in context and show how difficult it was to know what the right decision was. The fact remains, however, that the three men who shaped the peace conference set the stage for World War 2 and for the "clash of civilizations" we see today. Living with the consequences, perhaps we have some right to be a little judgmental.
- "Paris 1919" by Margaret MacMillan
- Published: February 04, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Filed Under: Books: History, Books: Nonfiction, Books: Politics and Affairs
- Writer: Joston
- Joston's BC Writer page
- Joston's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
While I think that Margaret Macmillan's Paris 1919 is a well researched book, I do feel that there is a definate Anti Soviet bias. As one of many cases in point, the Excerpt on Bela Kun who spent time in a Russian prison camp as well as being beaten up by Hungarian police is made to appear as somewhat of a vain opportunist. Without even knowing the history of the character I feel their is a lot more depth to someone who goes up against any establishment at serious detriment to his own well being.
She continues to portray the western powers as decent people trying to make the best of a bad situation while those who would be communist are either misguided, desparate or evil. For such a well researched piece of work it's unfortunate that she has drawn such simplistic and biased conclusions. While this book is filled with what may be very accurate references, the overall result, is a book that is typically, for a large portion of it, anti communist fiction.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/12359)
The most interesting part is the well researched motives of each of the players, struggling to find compromises and giving today's reader a fresh view on the origin of current conflicts.
Still, I believe the failed peace treaty laid the foundation for WWII. Margaret MacMillan, in her conclusions, states that the treaty wasn't too harsh on Germany as proven by Germany's capability to have launched WWII 20 years later and that Hitler's policies were not just a reaction against the treaty.Whilst that may be true, the more important fact is that a treaty that would have been fairer or at least perceived as such would probably have strengthened Weimar and precluded Hitler from ever having come to power. Even though Fritz Fischer laid the bulk of the responsibility of WWI with Germany, I don't think it was such a clear cut issue and no forward looking peace treatise should have built on this premise.Still, it's a very good book and especially the issues round the dissolution of the Ottoman empire were eye-openers.