Paris 1919

[RodB]

She paints a picture of the "victors" in Paris enjoying an endless round of dinners, balls, dances, theatre and inbetween dividing up the world among themselves. However, she points out that there was even more of that stuff at Vienna in 1815. I felt ill reading this, thinking of all the poor ******** who had done all the work fighting the war, either dead or at home trying to start their lives again. Round about that time my grandfather was burying his medal in his garden, and I'm sure he wasn't the only one.

Question - how accurate was this picture ? Were the politicians really so cutoff from reality ?

And she also puts the boot into Wilson for his arrogant misuse of Lansing ( a "mere lawyer") and failure to deal sensibly with Republicans back home, especially Henry Cabot Lodge, leading to the failure to ratify the League of Nations. She claims that the only sticking point was US commitment to overseas actions to support the League, which could have been watered down, but Wilson refused to compromise. Yet she presents a picture where Britain and France were worn out, overcomitted to colonies yet rapidly disarming, Germany still intact and full of resentment - from this distance it looks like Wilson would have seen the problems ahead, the fact that only US power could prevent another European war - is this why he refused to water down his full commitment to an "active" league ?

[belgotim]

I don't think you can say that the politicians were cut off from reality. In fact, one could say that indeed they saw the bigger picture more clearly than anybody else at that time. You must not forget that we can look at those events with hindisight (a lot of hindsight) and that Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Orlando were the most "informed" people of those days.

They had advisers all over the place, special committees and working groups (I'm sure that this did not escape you whilst you were reading the book...I've just finished reading it myself).

The reality of the time they lived in was that millions of people had just died in 4 years of war, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire no longer existed and Germany had not been defeated the way people expected it. so many "new" countries suddenly surfaced, it no doubt suffocated them in work. They had spent millions figthing this war and in the end wanted something to show for it.

Britain had its empire to protect (and the Dominions becoming more powerful did not help them in this), France wanted Germany to suffer and to be hemmed in so as to no longer be an aggressive nation, Italy wanted reparations and still aspired to becoming the dominant power in East Africa and the US wanted a League of Nations. This was one huge diplomatic "game" and reality-aspirations inevitably suffered and sometimes was put aside.

The picture Dr Macmillan puts on the advisers to the Big Four is sadly reminiscent of what we see nowdays. FCO and Dept. of State advice being put to one side and individuals preferring to listen to their trusted friends and allies.

Finally, one may never forget that the President of the US is exactly that - the head of a country. First and foremost he needed to keep his national interest in mind, and then the League of Nations. (nice example of this is that the Monroe Doctrine was maintained).

Tim

[andigger]

Read this book about 18 months ago and although it was well written and gave a good picture of the conference I got the sense it didn't offer any new insight or conclusions. Andy

[AndyHollinger]

Like Andigger, I too read this book 18 mos ago ... much like the 1919 book out there which is more general ... by Klingman ... interesting and enlightening on the Conference.... good general reading.

Klingman's book has a decidedly less US bias in terms of focus.