Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Random House Trade Paperbacks (2003), Edition: Later Printing, Paperback, 624 pages
Description
Between January and July 1919, after "the war to end all wars," men and women from around the world converged on Paris to shape the peace. Center stage was an American president, Woodrow Wilson, who with his Fourteen Points seemed to promise to so many people the fulfillment of their dreams. Stern, intransigent, impatient when it came to security concerns and idealistic in his dream of a League of Nations that would resolve all future conflict peacefully, Wilson is only one of the characters who fill the pages of this book. David Lloyd George, the British prime minister, brought Winston Churchill and John Maynard Keynes. Lawrence of Arabia joined the Arab delegation. Ho Chi Minh, a kitchen assistant at the Ritz, submitted a petition for an independent Vietnam. For six months, Paris was effectively the center of the world as the peacemakers carved up bankrupt empires and created new countries. This book brings to life the personalities, ideals, and prejudices of the men who shaped the settlement. They pushed Russia to the sidelines, alienated China, and dismissed the Arabs. They struggled with the problems of Kosovo, of the Kurds, and of a homeland for the Jews. The peacemakers, so it has been said, failed dismally; above all they failed to prevent another war. Margaret MacMillan argues that they have unfairly been made the scapegoats for the mistakes of those who came later. She refutes received ideas about the path from Versailles to World War II and debunks the widely accepted notion that reparations imposed on the Germans were in large part responsible for the Second World War.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
I rarely give out five stars--that's deliberate--but this is so illuminating on a complex topic without being dry, I think it deserves full marks. The book treats of "six months that changed the world"--the Paris Peace Conference that produced the Treaty of Versailles. I was taught in high school
And not just of Europe, but in Africa and the Middle East as well, and we're still dealing with the messy after effects. To take one example, Iraq was created from three different provinces of the recently defunct Ottoman Empire and drawn to suit colonial ambitions of the British and French--not along historical lines or reasons of ethnic cohesion. Roots not just of World War II, but Greek/Turkish, Jewish/Arab, Bosnia/Serb, Chinese/Japanese conflicts can be traced back here. It's all very complicated, and it's a very, very long book (around 600 pages) but part of what makes it digestible is that MacMillan breaks it up regionally, following say the personalities of the newly emerging Yugoslavia and following up on its ultimate fate and how it was affected by those six months in 1919.
I think it also escapes being dry due to how well drawn are the various personalities involved. MacMillan deals with many of the leaders from the newly emerging states, but her primary focus is on the leaders of the Big Three: Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Clemenceau of France and Lloyd George of Britain. Wilson seemed from the portrait painted here a dangerous mix of naive and stubborn. His precious League of Nations became an idee fixe that overrode all other issues. If there was a problem with the deals emerging, it seems Wilson would wave it away with the idea the League of Nations would fix it. At the same time, his stubborn inflexibility, his dogmatism and partisanship doomed the acceptance of the League and the Treaty back in the United States. And those very ideals, particularly "self-determination" as enunciated in his 14 Points, raised unrealistic expectations and caused bitter disappointment. Clemenceau comes across as vengeful and vindictive towards the Germans. At the same time, given what MacMillan detailed of France's losses in the war, and its geography that didn't put a channel, let alone an ocean, between it and Germany, Clemenceau's determination to keep Germany weak is understandable. I got less of a fix on Lloyd George. Some called him "vacillating" and "unprincipled" according to MacMillan. He seemed the opposite of Wilson--much more pragmatic. But without the kind of guiding principles or clear goals of Wilson or Clemenceau, he did seem more indecisive. He seemed all over the map--oftentimes quite literally.
I think there's really no more fascinating time than the outbreak of World War I and it's immediate aftermath. I can't think of a period of more stark, abrupt change. The end of the war marks the real end of the 19th century, whatever the dates. Visual and performing arts, literature, music made radical breaks--you can even see it in modes of dress. MacMillan illuminates an important part of what shaped that era.
Show More
that the vindictive terms of that treaty were ruinous to Germany and at the root of Hitler's rise and the outbreak of World War II. It was a view popularized by John Maynard Keynes (who was involved in the peace process--as was Winston Churchill. There were some interesting and unexpected players in this story.) MacMillan makes the case it was by no means so simple. That among other things, that especially since the terms were never really enforced, you can't really blame the treaty for what would happen over the next decades. I think what really astonished me about the peace conference though was just how many fingers were in how many pies. Yes, some developments such as establishment of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were fait accomplis by the time the conference started, but it was largely this conference, and especially the "Big Three" of France, Britain, and the United States who drew the borders. And not just of Europe, but in Africa and the Middle East as well, and we're still dealing with the messy after effects. To take one example, Iraq was created from three different provinces of the recently defunct Ottoman Empire and drawn to suit colonial ambitions of the British and French--not along historical lines or reasons of ethnic cohesion. Roots not just of World War II, but Greek/Turkish, Jewish/Arab, Bosnia/Serb, Chinese/Japanese conflicts can be traced back here. It's all very complicated, and it's a very, very long book (around 600 pages) but part of what makes it digestible is that MacMillan breaks it up regionally, following say the personalities of the newly emerging Yugoslavia and following up on its ultimate fate and how it was affected by those six months in 1919.
I think it also escapes being dry due to how well drawn are the various personalities involved. MacMillan deals with many of the leaders from the newly emerging states, but her primary focus is on the leaders of the Big Three: Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Clemenceau of France and Lloyd George of Britain. Wilson seemed from the portrait painted here a dangerous mix of naive and stubborn. His precious League of Nations became an idee fixe that overrode all other issues. If there was a problem with the deals emerging, it seems Wilson would wave it away with the idea the League of Nations would fix it. At the same time, his stubborn inflexibility, his dogmatism and partisanship doomed the acceptance of the League and the Treaty back in the United States. And those very ideals, particularly "self-determination" as enunciated in his 14 Points, raised unrealistic expectations and caused bitter disappointment. Clemenceau comes across as vengeful and vindictive towards the Germans. At the same time, given what MacMillan detailed of France's losses in the war, and its geography that didn't put a channel, let alone an ocean, between it and Germany, Clemenceau's determination to keep Germany weak is understandable. I got less of a fix on Lloyd George. Some called him "vacillating" and "unprincipled" according to MacMillan. He seemed the opposite of Wilson--much more pragmatic. But without the kind of guiding principles or clear goals of Wilson or Clemenceau, he did seem more indecisive. He seemed all over the map--oftentimes quite literally.
I think there's really no more fascinating time than the outbreak of World War I and it's immediate aftermath. I can't think of a period of more stark, abrupt change. The end of the war marks the real end of the 19th century, whatever the dates. Visual and performing arts, literature, music made radical breaks--you can even see it in modes of dress. MacMillan illuminates an important part of what shaped that era.
Show Less
LibraryThing member cushlareads
This is the best non-fiction I've read this year. It's a dense read, packed with geography, history, and politics, but with enough funny stories to stop it from getting too difficult. I loved it.
Margaret MacMillan tells the story of the carve-up of the world after World War 1, starting with
It's a very depressing book though. She is clear about how the Paris deal-making contributed to Hitler's rise, World War 2, and many current conflicts. (For NZ and Aussie readers, our dear leaders don't cover themselves in glory...)
Margaret MacMillan tells the story of the carve-up of the world after World War 1, starting with
Show More
chapters on the 3 men who did most of the carving: Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau, and David Lloyd-George, her great-grandfather. From there she moves onto a detailed look at the different regions. There is tons of detail - if you're looking for a rough and ready overview of the world in 1920, this isn't your book. I found the Central Europe section rewarding but very slow going, because it was the least familiar to me. The maps are really good and kept me from getting lost.It's a very depressing book though. She is clear about how the Paris deal-making contributed to Hitler's rise, World War 2, and many current conflicts. (For NZ and Aussie readers, our dear leaders don't cover themselves in glory...)
Show Less
LibraryThing member John
Paris 1919 is a terrific book: first class scholarship and analysis blended with human touches that bring the protagonists alive. The drafting of the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI was a monumental and complex task, but it was one conducted by men who displayed varying strengths, weaknesses,
In her conclusions, Macmillan has no time for those blame the trials of the 1920s and 1930s, much less the advent of WWII, on the Versailles Treaty. To do so, she argues, is to "ignore the actions of everyone–political leaders, diplomats, soldiers, ordinary voters–for twenty years between 1919 and 1939". Hitler exploited the Treaty as a "godsend for his propaganda". Regardless of how the Treaty might have been written, Hitler "wanted more: the destruction of Poland, control of Czechoslovakia, above all conquest of the Soviet Union. He would have demanded room for the German people to expand and the destruction of the their enemies, whether Jews or Bolsheviks. There was nothing in the Treaty of Versailles about that."
Macmillan's final words:
"The peacemakers of 1919 made mistakes, of course. By their offhand treatment of the non-European world, they stirred up resentments for which the West is still paying today. They took pains over the borders in Europe, even if they did not draw them to everyone's satisfaction, but in Africa they carried on the old practice of handling 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. If they could have done better, they certainly could have done much worse. They tried, even cynical old Clemenceau, to build a better order. They could not foresee the future and they certainly could not control it. That was up to their successors. When war came in 1939, it was the result of twenty years of decisions taken or not taken, not of arrangements made in 1919. ...The peacemakers...grappled with huge and difficult questions . How can the irrational passions of nationalism or religion be contained before they do more damage? How can we outlaw war? We are still asking those questions."
Show More
hopes, fears, arrogance, humility (not too much of that in this group!), hates, nationalist fervor, generosity, petulance, hypocrisy, pettiness, honesty, intrigues, manipulations, open-handedness, happiness, disappointments, anger, despair....the whole panoply of emotions that come into play when people are working, sometimes together and sometimes (more often) at cross-purposes, in high stakes games. MacMillan has mined diaries and memoirs, biographies and autobiographies. In doing so, she makes the people and the process alive, colourful and immediate almost 100 years after the event.In her conclusions, Macmillan has no time for those blame the trials of the 1920s and 1930s, much less the advent of WWII, on the Versailles Treaty. To do so, she argues, is to "ignore the actions of everyone–political leaders, diplomats, soldiers, ordinary voters–for twenty years between 1919 and 1939". Hitler exploited the Treaty as a "godsend for his propaganda". Regardless of how the Treaty might have been written, Hitler "wanted more: the destruction of Poland, control of Czechoslovakia, above all conquest of the Soviet Union. He would have demanded room for the German people to expand and the destruction of the their enemies, whether Jews or Bolsheviks. There was nothing in the Treaty of Versailles about that."
Macmillan's final words:
"The peacemakers of 1919 made mistakes, of course. By their offhand treatment of the non-European world, they stirred up resentments for which the West is still paying today. They took pains over the borders in Europe, even if they did not draw them to everyone's satisfaction, but in Africa they carried on the old practice of handling 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. If they could have done better, they certainly could have done much worse. They tried, even cynical old Clemenceau, to build a better order. They could not foresee the future and they certainly could not control it. That was up to their successors. When war came in 1939, it was the result of twenty years of decisions taken or not taken, not of arrangements made in 1919. ...The peacemakers...grappled with huge and difficult questions . How can the irrational passions of nationalism or religion be contained before they do more damage? How can we outlaw war? We are still asking those questions."
Show Less
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
“We can learn from history, but we can also deceive ourselves when we selectively take evidence from the past to justify what we have already made up our minds to do.” ― Margaret MacMillan
It was 1919 and the Great War had ended the previous year when, from January to June, the leaders of
The making of the Versailles treaty had early on been written about by two young English participants in the Paris negotiations, who wrote their own accounts of the events. In ''Peacemaking 1919,'' Harold Nicolson sketched caustic vignettes of elderly statesmen adrift in a world they couldn't comprehend. And John Maynard Keynes, in ''The Economic Consequences of the Peace,'' demolished the credibility of the settlement itself, eviscerated the case for war reparations and predicted the disaster that must follow. These accounts are still worth reading.
Margaret MacMillan with her ''Paris 1919'' has written a very good history of the negotiations, full of detail and fairly comprehensive. While the organization of the book is sometimes confusing, for example discussing the 1919 creation of Yugoslavia without first explaining what happened in the Balkan wars of 1912-13. And the author's decision to tell the story of the breakup of the Hapsburg empire after her account of the little states that succeeded may confuse those not already familiar with that story. But the many national narratives were well told and constitute parts of the book that I enjoyed the most.
MacMillan has a good focus on the characterization of individuals, both leading figures like Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau, and peripheral actors like Queen Marie of Romania and many other hapless supplicants from Beijing to Budapest. Wilson is treated fairly and realistically. Despite his good intentions, perhaps because of them, he was widely viewed as petulant, petty and vain. Lloyd George and Clemenceau, while growing tolerant of his obsessions never got used to his peculiarly American brand of idealism. Wilson, just as would prove to be the case upon his return to face the Senate, was unable to adapt and compromise, demurring the requisite political trading that might achieve some of his goals. His obsession with achieving his new League of Nations was not shared by the many Europeans.
Nevertheless, the American president was the key figure in Paris. The French were understandably concerned with keeping Germany down for the indefinite future. The Italians wanted the territorial pound of flesh they had been secretly promised in return for switching sides in 1915. The British sought above all to stabilize the periphery of Europe and protect access to their imperial possessions farther south and east. Only the Americans had a Big Idea -- self-determination. The peoples and nations now released from imperial captivity were each to receive their own spaces, assigned after careful specialist attention to history, geography, language and other relevant considerations. Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Serbs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Armenians, even Kurds were to have a place in the sun. Only Germans, and to a lesser extent Turks, were not free to determine where and with whom they would live -- the price of defeat.
The unintended consequences of this "Big Idea" are still haunting the world today almost a century later. The idea of self-determination was a chimera leading to a disastrous reality. As Robert Lansing, Wilson's secretary of state, predicted: ''It will raise hopes which can never be realized. It will, I fear, cost thousands of lives. In the end it is bound to be discredited, to be called the dream of an idealist who failed to realize the danger until it was too late to check those who attempt to put the principle into force.'' He was right. The peoples of central Europe and the old Ottoman empire could not be divided into conveniently distinct communities. They were mixed up together then and we have seen the results in the Balkans at the end of the twentieth century and are seeing a continuation of sorts both in the Middle East and the old Soviet Empire today.
It was 1919 and the Great War had ended the previous year when, from January to June, the leaders of
Show More
Britain, France, Italy and the United States met in Paris to decide the outcome of the war they had just won against the Central Powers. This would be difficult, for the Great War of 1914-18 had seen the disappearance of four old multinational empires: the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman. The fate of people from places as disparate as Strasburg to Baghdad--hundreds of millions--was to be decided. What should this peace conference consider? A Congress of nations had convened in Vienna in 1815 to reorder Europe after the defeat of Napoleon , but confined itself, like others before it, to adjusting the fates of dynasties and states. The peacemakers of 1919 had also paid attention to principles, promises, public opinion and a fast-changing and unstable political scene. It was a current question whether much of central Europe would follow the direction of the Russian revolution.The making of the Versailles treaty had early on been written about by two young English participants in the Paris negotiations, who wrote their own accounts of the events. In ''Peacemaking 1919,'' Harold Nicolson sketched caustic vignettes of elderly statesmen adrift in a world they couldn't comprehend. And John Maynard Keynes, in ''The Economic Consequences of the Peace,'' demolished the credibility of the settlement itself, eviscerated the case for war reparations and predicted the disaster that must follow. These accounts are still worth reading.
Margaret MacMillan with her ''Paris 1919'' has written a very good history of the negotiations, full of detail and fairly comprehensive. While the organization of the book is sometimes confusing, for example discussing the 1919 creation of Yugoslavia without first explaining what happened in the Balkan wars of 1912-13. And the author's decision to tell the story of the breakup of the Hapsburg empire after her account of the little states that succeeded may confuse those not already familiar with that story. But the many national narratives were well told and constitute parts of the book that I enjoyed the most.
MacMillan has a good focus on the characterization of individuals, both leading figures like Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau, and peripheral actors like Queen Marie of Romania and many other hapless supplicants from Beijing to Budapest. Wilson is treated fairly and realistically. Despite his good intentions, perhaps because of them, he was widely viewed as petulant, petty and vain. Lloyd George and Clemenceau, while growing tolerant of his obsessions never got used to his peculiarly American brand of idealism. Wilson, just as would prove to be the case upon his return to face the Senate, was unable to adapt and compromise, demurring the requisite political trading that might achieve some of his goals. His obsession with achieving his new League of Nations was not shared by the many Europeans.
Nevertheless, the American president was the key figure in Paris. The French were understandably concerned with keeping Germany down for the indefinite future. The Italians wanted the territorial pound of flesh they had been secretly promised in return for switching sides in 1915. The British sought above all to stabilize the periphery of Europe and protect access to their imperial possessions farther south and east. Only the Americans had a Big Idea -- self-determination. The peoples and nations now released from imperial captivity were each to receive their own spaces, assigned after careful specialist attention to history, geography, language and other relevant considerations. Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Serbs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Armenians, even Kurds were to have a place in the sun. Only Germans, and to a lesser extent Turks, were not free to determine where and with whom they would live -- the price of defeat.
The unintended consequences of this "Big Idea" are still haunting the world today almost a century later. The idea of self-determination was a chimera leading to a disastrous reality. As Robert Lansing, Wilson's secretary of state, predicted: ''It will raise hopes which can never be realized. It will, I fear, cost thousands of lives. In the end it is bound to be discredited, to be called the dream of an idealist who failed to realize the danger until it was too late to check those who attempt to put the principle into force.'' He was right. The peoples of central Europe and the old Ottoman empire could not be divided into conveniently distinct communities. They were mixed up together then and we have seen the results in the Balkans at the end of the twentieth century and are seeing a continuation of sorts both in the Middle East and the old Soviet Empire today.
Show Less
LibraryThing member BrianHostad
Very comprehensive account of the Paris Peace Conference. Atfer the first part which sets up the history, characters and nations going into the conference it deals with each geographical area rather than a chronology of events. Given the complex negotiations and the constant switching between items
Show More
discussed, this approach was perhaps enviatable to preseve some coherence and keep the reader onside with events. It does though sometimes make it hard to get a flavour of the talks as they progressed and the fact Wilson went back to america during the negotiations loses the importance I feel it would have had. However, dealing with each area provides a great reference to come back to and Macmillan does a good job of following through the consequences of what was decided right through to the modern day, e.g. the mess that is now Iraq, makes better sense knowing how it was thrown together. Show Less
LibraryThing member CymLowell
Why is our world in such a mess today? Why do we have constant political problems in Israel-Palestine, in the Balkans, in Iraq and the Middle East, between the U.S. and France, and so on?
Are these issues a result of events happening today or yesterday?
All of these issues, and many others, are in
When the war was over, due to surrender by the Germans before the war crossed the Rhine, the Paris Peace Conference was convened to settle the political fallout. New countries were created, old borders re-drawn, entreaties granted or denied, and the personalities and relationship of Woodrow Wilson, Clemenceau, and Lloyd George created a new world order. The war to end all wars, of course, was a failure in many ways, not the least of which the breakout of another war with a generation.
Many of the whys and wherefores of the Twentieth Century emanate from the Paris Peace Conference. We see the fallout everyday in the press.
Paris: 1919 is a historical masterpiece. In many places it reads like a history book, complete with the author’s feelings about the nature of conversations that did or could have taken place. On the other hand, it is an easy read in terms of focusing on the history of places or events that are of interest to you.
In my case, I have always been fascinated by Turkey, Israel-Palestine, the Crusades, the Byzantine Empire, Roman and Greek conquest and administration of the area, and so on. These subjects are addressed in the final 150 or so pages. I read each word, riveted by the role that one of my favorite historical characters (T.E. Lawrence, the ubiquitous Lawrence of Arabia) played in the peace process.
I found Paris: 1919 to be amazingly thought-provoking. Would the world be a better place today if Woodrow Wilson had had a different personality, or if the U.S. had taken the Palestinian Mandate?
Could Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Nicholas Sarkozy to a better job if we had a Paris: 2010 Peace Conference?
If you wonder about the politics of today, spend a few hours in the politics of 1919-1920 and let your own thoughts soar.
Are these issues a result of events happening today or yesterday?
All of these issues, and many others, are in
Show More
one way or another tied to the resolution of World War I, which was, historians tell us, triggered by the assassination of an Austrian prince in Sarajevo. The Germans and the Austria-Hungarians then commenced a war that was largely fought in the trenched fields of France and Belgium. Millions died on all sides, including the Russian front.When the war was over, due to surrender by the Germans before the war crossed the Rhine, the Paris Peace Conference was convened to settle the political fallout. New countries were created, old borders re-drawn, entreaties granted or denied, and the personalities and relationship of Woodrow Wilson, Clemenceau, and Lloyd George created a new world order. The war to end all wars, of course, was a failure in many ways, not the least of which the breakout of another war with a generation.
Many of the whys and wherefores of the Twentieth Century emanate from the Paris Peace Conference. We see the fallout everyday in the press.
Paris: 1919 is a historical masterpiece. In many places it reads like a history book, complete with the author’s feelings about the nature of conversations that did or could have taken place. On the other hand, it is an easy read in terms of focusing on the history of places or events that are of interest to you.
In my case, I have always been fascinated by Turkey, Israel-Palestine, the Crusades, the Byzantine Empire, Roman and Greek conquest and administration of the area, and so on. These subjects are addressed in the final 150 or so pages. I read each word, riveted by the role that one of my favorite historical characters (T.E. Lawrence, the ubiquitous Lawrence of Arabia) played in the peace process.
I found Paris: 1919 to be amazingly thought-provoking. Would the world be a better place today if Woodrow Wilson had had a different personality, or if the U.S. had taken the Palestinian Mandate?
Could Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Nicholas Sarkozy to a better job if we had a Paris: 2010 Peace Conference?
If you wonder about the politics of today, spend a few hours in the politics of 1919-1920 and let your own thoughts soar.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bke
fascinating portrayal of the Paris peace conference at the end of World War I and the participants. Gives detailed background to the issues facing the leaders. This conference helped shape the modern world, and laid the foundations of some of our more pressing issues of today, e.g.
Show More
Israel/Palestinians, Iraq, the Balkans. If you are interested in history, you will love this book. Incidentally, the author is not sympathetic to the commonly held view that the treaty was too harsh on Germany. Made me reconsider my view as well. Show Less
LibraryThing member gregdehler
World War I shaped the history of what followed from the armistice in 1918 through the current day. This masterful and even-handed study of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 is invaluable to understanding the world since the Treaty of Versailles, and the other other agreements that were signed. It
Show More
is also a very interesting study of diplomacy and how compromises and bargains were made. It is important to remember as MacMillan emphasizes, that the ability of those at Paris to re-shape the world according to their own vision was somewhat limited; not solely by their own conflicting objectives, but also by their exhausted populations and lack of ability (and even will) to use economic or military force. Countries like Yugoslavia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia had already come into being before the conference began. However, as MacMillan points out, as important as the conference was towards shaping the subsequent world, we cannot blame them for the failings of those who came later. The rise of totalitarian regimes in the 1930s, for example, were results of decisions made by politicians and others after 1919 and not caused by the delegates at Paris. Show Less
LibraryThing member rolandallnach
'1919: Six Months That Changed the World' is a fascinating, informative book that covers the history following World War I, a complicated tangle of nationalism, imperialism, political bungling, and power jockeying that has for the most part escaped the attention of common outlets for history. While
Show More
the diplomatic situations leading up to WWI are pretty well known, the outcome of the war is typically summed in two ideas, the vindictive Versailles Treaty and Wilson's Points, leading to the League of Nations. MacMillan's book details to fine degree why so much of Versailles went wrong, and why so much of what came out of the conference was a product of personalities rather than Wilson's idealism (though this, too, was a product of personality). There is a wealth of post WWI history that MacMillan put into proper reference. This was not just about nationalism, but the fact- for example- that the establishment of Poland was a rather bloody affair, leading to the conclusion that though the 'big' war had ended, a rash of smaller conflicts disseminated through smaller nations and lesser known regions. Sound familiar to today's world? It most certainly does, and as with most things historical, learning the history MacMillan presents here is a great way to understand some of the messes we have witnessed and continue to witness in today's world. This is an enriching, informative read, and MacMillan's prose flows smoothly throughout. As good as this book is, if one really wants a comprehensive reference for the period, start with John Keegan's excellent 'The First World War' and follow up with MacMillan's '1919'. Together, they form a definitive set for WWI history. Show Less
LibraryThing member MiaCulpa
Many books promise you that the event they cover "changed the world" but "Paris 1919: six months that changed the world" is that rare beast that actually lives up to its claim.
In the great tradition of wars, the aftermath of the Great War saw the victors converge on Paris in 1919 to carve up the
As an Australian, it's a mixed blessing that Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes plays a part in proceedings as well. While Hughes's offsider, former PM Joseph Cook, comes off as a complete dill, Hughes manages to annoy Wilson to distraction, tell the Japanese that they will never be the equal of the white man (in retrospect, probably not Australia's best moment on the international stage) and gain control of an awful lot of colonies through a mixture of obfuscation and flat out lying.
Just as important are the people who don't turn up. The Montenegrins are absent and they become part of Yugoslavia (against their will) and the Kurds, apparently invited, are absent and, nearly a century later they are still the world's largest ethnic group without a state to call their own.
A great read.
In the great tradition of wars, the aftermath of the Great War saw the victors converge on Paris in 1919 to carve up the
Show More
spoils. It was a cast of thousands; everyone from US President Woodrow Wilson to British PM David Lloyd George (and Winston Churchill) to Ho Chi Minh, Lawrence of Arabia and a group of Korean monks who walked all the way from Korea to Paris only to find that they had missed the conference and so walked back again. As an Australian, it's a mixed blessing that Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes plays a part in proceedings as well. While Hughes's offsider, former PM Joseph Cook, comes off as a complete dill, Hughes manages to annoy Wilson to distraction, tell the Japanese that they will never be the equal of the white man (in retrospect, probably not Australia's best moment on the international stage) and gain control of an awful lot of colonies through a mixture of obfuscation and flat out lying.
Just as important are the people who don't turn up. The Montenegrins are absent and they become part of Yugoslavia (against their will) and the Kurds, apparently invited, are absent and, nearly a century later they are still the world's largest ethnic group without a state to call their own.
A great read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member maneekuhi
BORING.
On April 6, 2017 The US launched missiles at Syria in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens two days earlier; several newscasters remarked that day that it was also the 100th anniversary of the U.S. entry into WWl. There have been a number of 100th anniversaries
I highly recommend the asterisked books. They are very well written, incredibly interesting to the point where I looked forward with anticipation to reading further, and highly readable. For me, the latter descriptor was perhaps the most important, though hard to define. In part, "readable" is somewhat redundant with "well written" and "interesting" and maybe another half dozen adjectives. These authors know how to tell their stories, using anecdotes, quotes, maps, summaries, links to other events, analysis, even humor. But perhaps more than any one single feature, they know how to manage a 500-800 page story with appropriate balance; they seemed to me to know their audience and when to refrain from over-cooking their story.
I did not find "Paris 1919" to be very readable, hence my two star rating. Certainly it is comprehensive. I don't feel though that the story was well told; too often I felt like I was really slogging through. Too many times I had to re-read a sentence, a paragraph, a couple of pages because my mind was wandering. I was bored; I'm happy to be done with it. Certainly it was not an easy topic to write about but I have read enough history to know that is really not an excuse.
In fairness to author Macmillan though, I must note the highly complimentary blurbs on the very first page, from many of our most respected book critics, including the NYT, WashPost, and five other major publications. I think "Paris 1919" is a great reference book. For example if one has an interest in understanding how the borders for Poland were established following WWl then "Paris 1919" is a great resource. I also note that the vast majority of Amazon reader reviews rate this book at the opposite end of the spectrum.
On April 6, 2017 The US launched missiles at Syria in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens two days earlier; several newscasters remarked that day that it was also the 100th anniversary of the U.S. entry into WWl. There have been a number of 100th anniversaries
Show More
related to that war in recent years and it has sparked an interest in many casual history readers like myself to become more familiar with events of that era, including pre and post war. Fortunately, there now are a number of excellent WWl related books, some written a number of years ago, but many written within the last two decades. Within the past year I have read: "The Sleepwalkers"* - Clark (re events pre-war); "The Guns of August"* - Tuchman (re the first month of the war, August 2014); "With Our Backs to the Wall" - Stevenson and "No Man's Land"* (the last two focused on the trench warfare from late 2014 until the war's end). I highly recommend the asterisked books. They are very well written, incredibly interesting to the point where I looked forward with anticipation to reading further, and highly readable. For me, the latter descriptor was perhaps the most important, though hard to define. In part, "readable" is somewhat redundant with "well written" and "interesting" and maybe another half dozen adjectives. These authors know how to tell their stories, using anecdotes, quotes, maps, summaries, links to other events, analysis, even humor. But perhaps more than any one single feature, they know how to manage a 500-800 page story with appropriate balance; they seemed to me to know their audience and when to refrain from over-cooking their story.
I did not find "Paris 1919" to be very readable, hence my two star rating. Certainly it is comprehensive. I don't feel though that the story was well told; too often I felt like I was really slogging through. Too many times I had to re-read a sentence, a paragraph, a couple of pages because my mind was wandering. I was bored; I'm happy to be done with it. Certainly it was not an easy topic to write about but I have read enough history to know that is really not an excuse.
In fairness to author Macmillan though, I must note the highly complimentary blurbs on the very first page, from many of our most respected book critics, including the NYT, WashPost, and five other major publications. I think "Paris 1919" is a great reference book. For example if one has an interest in understanding how the borders for Poland were established following WWl then "Paris 1919" is a great resource. I also note that the vast majority of Amazon reader reviews rate this book at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Othemts
MacMillan (great grand-daughter of David Lloyd George) takes on the task of telling the story of the peace conferences in Paris leading up to the Treaty of Versailles which ended the First World War (and possibly set the world up for a second one). The book starts off clumsily with an introduction
"Fascinating and funny … Most of the problems treated in this book are still with us today -- indeed, some of the most horrific things that have been taking place in Europe and the Middle East in the past decade stem directly from decisions made in Paris in 1919. It is … instructive and sobering to read about the passions, the humbug, and sheer stupidity that gave rise to them."
In an interesting conclusion, MacMillan demonstrates that the Treaty of Versailles was nowhere near as onerous as often cited, and as nationalist Germans complained in the years leading up to the Third Reich. In fact, the actual terms were mild compared to public discussion of punishment, the Allies were unable or unwilling to enforce them, and the Germans regularly flouted them.
The Merry Widow - Franz Lehar
Louvain library in Belgium
Show More
in which MacMillan finds umpteen ways to say "the issues were complex." She settles down though when discussing the meat of the conference. Instead of a chronological format, MacMillan takes each geographical area chapter by chapter going from the newly formed Yugoslavia, to the reborn Poland, to the squabbling claims and rivalries among the Italians, Greeks, and Turks, and to the creation of the modern Middle East with the mandates for Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. MacMillan is good at showing the many sides of the issues - making one wonder how any agreements were reached at all - and is quick to point out treachery whether it be by the Allies or their enemies. A review from The Sunday Times puts it well "Fascinating and funny … Most of the problems treated in this book are still with us today -- indeed, some of the most horrific things that have been taking place in Europe and the Middle East in the past decade stem directly from decisions made in Paris in 1919. It is … instructive and sobering to read about the passions, the humbug, and sheer stupidity that gave rise to them."
In an interesting conclusion, MacMillan demonstrates that the Treaty of Versailles was nowhere near as onerous as often cited, and as nationalist Germans complained in the years leading up to the Third Reich. In fact, the actual terms were mild compared to public discussion of punishment, the Allies were unable or unwilling to enforce them, and the Germans regularly flouted them.
The Merry Widow - Franz Lehar
Louvain library in Belgium
Show Less
LibraryThing member Lerrold
Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan was a great but lengthy read. The book goes into amazing detail about each issue plaguing the Paris Peace Conference following WWI and their effects on the world leading up to WWII and beyond. With this said, it can be rather slow moving at some parts and because
Show More
each chapter is about a different issue, you may feel inclined to skip around depending on your areas of interest. Overall, I recommend this book and think it does a fantastic job at explaining the origin of the diplomatic complexities we face today. Show Less
LibraryThing member Angelic55blonde
This book is about the Paris 1919 Peace Conference following the end of World War I. It is nicely organized and focuses on all aspects of the negotiations. The book is fairly long, due to the high amount of detail that was included. The research the author did was amazing and she included a great
This is by no means light reading so I only recommend it to people who are genuinely interested in this topic. Otherwise you will probably be a little bored and find this book somewhat difficult to wade through.
Show More
deal of information in her book. This is good and bad because I found the book to be tedious to read after awhile. About halfway through I got bored of the book.This is by no means light reading so I only recommend it to people who are genuinely interested in this topic. Otherwise you will probably be a little bored and find this book somewhat difficult to wade through.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AnitaKemp
Paris 1919 was an engaging character study of the Big Three: Georges Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and President Wilson. As an American, my history classes were inadequate on the subject of World War I. This book sent me to hunt for information in Wikipedia to bridge the gaps in my knowledge many
MacMillan skillfully portrayed the expectations that were heaped upon the Peace Conference, and she also showed that the hopes and ideals were beyond the reach of men. Men with large staffs of intelligent advisors often ended up giving in to the forcefulness or charm of men who were grabbing territory and resources.
I gained a better understanding of the troubles that have plagued the Slovaks, the Kurds, and even the Chinese. This book covered a neglected part of history -- The Peace.
Ultimately, the shattered ideals of most of the key players in the book ended the story. I found President Wilson's story quite poinant. The one thing I did learn from my history education was that President Wilson failed to gain approval of the League of Nations that he so dearly believed in.
This book was the beginning of my study of Modern History. It gave me a good understanding of the geography, personalities and the events that were affected by the Peacemakers after WWI. I would recommend it.
Show More
times.MacMillan skillfully portrayed the expectations that were heaped upon the Peace Conference, and she also showed that the hopes and ideals were beyond the reach of men. Men with large staffs of intelligent advisors often ended up giving in to the forcefulness or charm of men who were grabbing territory and resources.
I gained a better understanding of the troubles that have plagued the Slovaks, the Kurds, and even the Chinese. This book covered a neglected part of history -- The Peace.
Ultimately, the shattered ideals of most of the key players in the book ended the story. I found President Wilson's story quite poinant. The one thing I did learn from my history education was that President Wilson failed to gain approval of the League of Nations that he so dearly believed in.
This book was the beginning of my study of Modern History. It gave me a good understanding of the geography, personalities and the events that were affected by the Peacemakers after WWI. I would recommend it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member MichaelHodges
PARIS 1919 If you did not realize that WW2 was a direct outcome of WW1, then a read of this book is a must if you can muster the stamina to plough through 600pp that is.
My interest to read Paris 1919 written in 2007 was engendered however from reading MacMillan’s more recent book, namely “The
The three main characters are Woodrow Wilson with his 14 points, Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, with his breadth of Worldly knowledge and George Clemenceau who single handedly held the French Political and International aspirations close to his heart with great success as the elder statesman and as the surviving French Politician of the war years. However the endless stream of world leaders who came to plead their case amongst the big three appears to be endless. Wilson’s goal was to establish his “League of Nations” in order to break the everlasting stream of conflicts and European wars. The multi-national stream of claimants for their ownership of some distant part was endless. Wilson found himself unable to maintain his concept of self-determination for all. The outcome of WW1 was truly worldwide encompassing peoples from all the continents. The side deals between the Europeans was extensive. Wilson’s concept of self-determination for all people on earth was frequently bout-maneuvered to satisfy a number of historical quarrels and whims. Many nations and sects believed that prior entitlements needed to be preserved. Wilson as US president spent months listening to countless petitions of individual sects and nationalities from all corners of the globe. The more time Wilson spent in Paris the more he became out of touch with the aspirations of the American people.
The map of the world today is still rent with the decisions reached by the builders of the new “lasting Peace” sought at the Versailles treaty that was meant to guarantee the peace thereafter for all time. At no time between the wars was peace really achieved and never guaranteed all though that was the desired outcome that was anticipated after the slaughter of the 30 million fatalities brought about by the WW1. The League of Nations had no teeth and the world quickly learned the aspirations for peace were soon evaporated within the first decade following the war. This was particularly true in China where the Japanese who replaced the onetime German area at Tsingtao after WW1 quickly became the overall aggressor nation at the expense of the Chinese people. The War to End all wars quickly became an accepted lie. In fact even in Europe before the Peace Treaty ink was dry, unrest in the new state of Poland was most evident. The world map is forever changing but many disputes of today have arisen as a result of the Peace Conference determinations made in Paris in 1919 through 1921. To understand how most of the nation states of today came into existence, a reading of this book is essential.
My interest to read Paris 1919 written in 2007 was engendered however from reading MacMillan’s more recent book, namely “The
Show More
War that ended the Peace” written in 2013. The detail in both books can truly be overwhelming, however one cannot claim that little is proven. The supporting evidence can at times seem of miniscule support, but the sum of all is truly convincing. Clearly each factoid in this book are very well substantiated by 60pp of documented references. The three main characters are Woodrow Wilson with his 14 points, Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, with his breadth of Worldly knowledge and George Clemenceau who single handedly held the French Political and International aspirations close to his heart with great success as the elder statesman and as the surviving French Politician of the war years. However the endless stream of world leaders who came to plead their case amongst the big three appears to be endless. Wilson’s goal was to establish his “League of Nations” in order to break the everlasting stream of conflicts and European wars. The multi-national stream of claimants for their ownership of some distant part was endless. Wilson found himself unable to maintain his concept of self-determination for all. The outcome of WW1 was truly worldwide encompassing peoples from all the continents. The side deals between the Europeans was extensive. Wilson’s concept of self-determination for all people on earth was frequently bout-maneuvered to satisfy a number of historical quarrels and whims. Many nations and sects believed that prior entitlements needed to be preserved. Wilson as US president spent months listening to countless petitions of individual sects and nationalities from all corners of the globe. The more time Wilson spent in Paris the more he became out of touch with the aspirations of the American people.
The map of the world today is still rent with the decisions reached by the builders of the new “lasting Peace” sought at the Versailles treaty that was meant to guarantee the peace thereafter for all time. At no time between the wars was peace really achieved and never guaranteed all though that was the desired outcome that was anticipated after the slaughter of the 30 million fatalities brought about by the WW1. The League of Nations had no teeth and the world quickly learned the aspirations for peace were soon evaporated within the first decade following the war. This was particularly true in China where the Japanese who replaced the onetime German area at Tsingtao after WW1 quickly became the overall aggressor nation at the expense of the Chinese people. The War to End all wars quickly became an accepted lie. In fact even in Europe before the Peace Treaty ink was dry, unrest in the new state of Poland was most evident. The world map is forever changing but many disputes of today have arisen as a result of the Peace Conference determinations made in Paris in 1919 through 1921. To understand how most of the nation states of today came into existence, a reading of this book is essential.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Shrike58
While some of the author's narrative choices can be taken issue with (I agree that the portion dealing with the endgame with Germany does feel rushed), it's hard to imagine a better survey being made of the diplomatic effort to make the carnage and destruction of the "Great War" count for
Show More
something, besides capturing the human spectacle of it all. As MacMillan makes clear, Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau could have easily made a worse treaty, and certainly had every intention of trying to leave the world a better place for their efforts. That the Treaty of Versailles became a shorthand description for the failures of the period between the two world wars is not a commentary on the work done in the 1919, it's a commentary on human denial about how low one can sink, or at least the limitations of power; the last point probably being MacMillan's most important theme. Show Less
LibraryThing member ck2935
This book is very detailed, but provides a facinating account of the Paris conference after WWI. So much of the good and bad of the 20th century was shaped at this conference. Very interesting.
LibraryThing member Cecrow
A bit dry for my taste as it turned out, with endless detail on the outcome for each part of Europe following WWI, but very educational. I learned a lot about the origin of today's state of Israel, and why certain decisions that seem obviously wrong in retrospect and which led to WW2 actually made
Show More
sense at the time. Chalk it up to the world's inexperience in 1919 with attempting to establish peace on this scale; I hope we've learned from it. Show Less
LibraryThing member Whiskey3pa
Fascinating account. Putting all the information needed into a coherent account is an impressive achievement. The author does a fine job of presenting the players with their good and bad traits. The number of hotspots that were left unresolved or exacerbated is a matter of record, but given the
Show More
scope of what was being attempted and the state of the countries on the Allied side the overall job was probably not as bad as has been generally portrayed. I highly recommend this book. Match this up with The Proud Tower, Dreadnought and Castles of Steel. Show Less
LibraryThing member GreyGhost
A detailed look at the Paris Peace Conferance following the First Worl War. This is an excellent book which sets out how four men essentially redrew the maps of Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Africa and Asia, and laid the foundations for many of the tensions of the 20th Century. (The book is
Show More
far better than my review.) Show Less
LibraryThing member MMaelo
I felt that this book handled the topic very fairly with a great deal of impudence. Macmillan flies in the face of her critics and those of mainstream thought on the matter. A splendid read and well researched.
LibraryThing member xenchu
A book about the making of the peace treaty after World War One. As I understand it the task was almost impossible. It could have been better done possibly but it certainly could have been worse.
The book covers Woodrow Wilson's 14 points and all the major aspects of the treaties and the problems of
The book covers Woodrow Wilson's 14 points and all the major aspects of the treaties and the problems of
Show More
dealing with them. Show Less
LibraryThing member Trainor
Its taking me longer to read than it did for the actual events to unfold. I find myself quickly diverting off to find another read and come back to this for short periods, taking each chapter in like it's study material.
LibraryThing member stephmo
Having listened to the audio book for nearly two months on a short commute to work, I feel as if I nearly lived the entire peace conference of 1919. Then again, I'm also living in an era of ongoing negotiations for a health care bill meant to solve the problems of a country in a fair and diplomatic
How does the saying go? The more things change, the more they stay the same?
In nearly 24 hours of audio, MacMillan's book gets one point very clear: Politics has gotten no worse or better in the last one hundred years. No matter the issue or the cause, we're still the same, coming together as a group speaking of nothing but the greater good. When everyone gets down to business, however, it becomes clear that in the pursuit of the greater good everyone intends to shuttle just a little something to the side that will just happen to befit their pet causes. And if it means moving boundaries, dissolving a country or two, asking some people to adopt a new nationality or demanding a little something based on land occupied a thousand years ago - what of it?
MacMillan humanizes the peace treaty process and gives credit where credit is due. It is a fascinating story, although it does become tedious in parts...where minor players with interesting personalities are afforded far too much time in the book, it makes the German response to the treaty seem almost rushed. Still, we could all do far worse than knowing the story of how men come together to carve up the world and their people in the name of peace and how those decisions changed the world forever.
Show More
manner that has become mired down in nasty politics, backroom deals, sidebars having nearly nothing to do with the main issue at hand and threats upon threats if individuals do not get their way...all so something historic and good can finally happen.How does the saying go? The more things change, the more they stay the same?
In nearly 24 hours of audio, MacMillan's book gets one point very clear: Politics has gotten no worse or better in the last one hundred years. No matter the issue or the cause, we're still the same, coming together as a group speaking of nothing but the greater good. When everyone gets down to business, however, it becomes clear that in the pursuit of the greater good everyone intends to shuttle just a little something to the side that will just happen to befit their pet causes. And if it means moving boundaries, dissolving a country or two, asking some people to adopt a new nationality or demanding a little something based on land occupied a thousand years ago - what of it?
MacMillan humanizes the peace treaty process and gives credit where credit is due. It is a fascinating story, although it does become tedious in parts...where minor players with interesting personalities are afforded far too much time in the book, it makes the German response to the treaty seem almost rushed. Still, we could all do far worse than knowing the story of how men come together to carve up the world and their people in the name of peace and how those decisions changed the world forever.
Show Less
Subjects
Awards
Governor General's Literary Award (Finalist — 2003)
Arthur Ross Book Award (Silver Medal — Silver Medal — 2003)
Pol Roger Duff Cooper Prize (Winner — 2001)
Baillie Gifford Prize for Non-Fiction (Winner — 2002)
Libris Award (Winner — 2003)
RBC Taylor Prize (Finalist — 2004)
PEN Hessell-Tiltman Prize (Shortlist — 2002)
Lionel Gelber Prize (Shortlist — 2003)
Original publication date
2001
Physical description
624 p.; 9 inches
ISBN
0375760520 / 9780375760525