About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, April 04, 2019


Just Finished Reading: Peacemakers – Six Months that Changed the World by Margaret Macmillan (FP: 2001)

If you are anything like me, and even think of such things, you probably think of the post-World War One peace conference culminating in the famous (or infamous) Treaty of Versailles. Essentially, before reading this excellent detailed history of the conference, that was pretty much my idea too. How wrong I was. The Versailles Treaty, signed by Germany in the Hall of Mirrors in 1919 was only the final act of a long drawn out, complex and often highly controversial series of treaties aimed at resolving a whole host of issues thrown up by the Great War so recently ended as well as the fallout from it. Not only was Germany to be ‘dealt’ with but the other Central Powers needed to be chastised likewise. Along with this rather thankless task was the management of the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire spinning out of control and tearing itself apart largely on ethnic grounds (with definite echoes of Yugoslavia following the collapse of the Soviet Union post-1989), the problem of the dying Ottoman Empire and the whole of the Middle East, the distribution of German colonies across the globe and what to do with them, the demands of Italy and Japan in particular who were both very vocal in getting what they felt they deserved and, of course, dealing with the political hand-grenade of Wilson’s 14 points and the corrosive (and rather ill-defined) idea of ‘national self-determination.

For 6 months the victorious powers – The US, France, Britain and Italy – with a whole host of experts, negotiators, civil servants, hangers-on, and anyone who could shoe-horn themselves into the process – set out to decide the fate of the world, set things to right and ultimately prevent another ghastly war from ever happening again. Central to this was the idea of the League of Nations, a body dedicated to peace through collective security. This was President Woodrow Wilson’s baby and he demanded that it be the first item on the peace agenda. The French Premier, Clemenceau, had other ideas and wanted Germany and its many crimes against France to be front and centre. The British, under the brilliant but erratic David Lloyd George wanted to protect the Empire, prevent a single strong European power and to somehow establish a monopoly on the recent finding of oil in the Middle East, Italy just wanted more land and then some more land to protect it. Let the horse trading begin…. Luckily most people had at least the public image of wanting what was best for the world and everyone could agree that another war should be made unthinkable. Unfortunately those involved, despite both literally and figuratively looking forward to the future were stuck in the past. England wanted to secure her position and her Empire. France wanted security above all else and the humbling of her traditional enemy for all time. The US, in the figure of Wilson didn’t really know what it wanted. Deeply untrusting of European motives (with good reason) they hoped, in the rather naïve American way of the time, that everyone wanted the same thing and that reason would prevail over revenge or greed.

Of course as lines were drawn across maps and backroom deals meant that cities or whole regions changed hands for concessions elsewhere with little regard for the people on the ground – despite lip service to the self-determination principle – the seeds of future conflicts were being laid. Ethnic tensions irrupted immediately across central Europe and simmered throughout the 1920’s and into the next war. The emergence of a Jewish homeland in Palestine quickly moved out of British control and became a source of endless tension and hand-wringing long before the founding of the state of Israel. In the Far East the disgruntled Japanese decided to take the territory they had been promised and which had later been denied them. So many sparks awaiting the right conditions to feed a future conflagration.

Covering a mere 6 months in a hefty 500 pages meant a lot of detail and a lot of ground covered in this truly excellent history of the conference that shaped the world immediately after the Great War and for decades later down to today. Echoes of the conference decisions still appear on the nightly news 100 years later. Without the knowledge contained in this volume some of that news seems inexplicable. No longer. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to understand the modern world.

5 comments:

mudpuddle said...

fine and perceptive post... i remember debating the treaty process and its multi0branched trivia for hours w/o ever deciding what would have been the best resolution... reason seems inadequate in the face of territorial imperatives...

VV said...

You had me at World War. 🤣. Most of what you covered in your review I already knew, but there’s just enough new details to peak my interest. I just downloaded a preview. I don’t know why it didn’t give me the option to purchase it. I’ll figure it out. Thanks for your review!

Brian Joseph said...

Great review. I also have a relatively simplistic view of the post World War I treaties. This sounds fascinating. It was such an important time. Perhaps if leadership had been a bit wiser, much bloodshed and human misery could have been avoided.

Judy Krueger said...

Argh! Blogger ate my comment. Short version: I want to read this someday. Excellent review.

CyberKitten said...

@ Mudpuddle: Reason failed in Paris in 1919 multiple times - especially when greed and revenge got the upper hand. The end of WW2 - although more traumatic was handled much better because of the experience of WW1

@ V V: My review essentially covered the broad strokes of the book. There's way too much detail to bring out in a single page (not unlike another 'summary' out at the moment!). I'm sure there will be lots here you're not familiar with. I found lots that surprised me.

@ Brian: There were certainly failures of leadership all round with enough blame for everyone. Ignorance was certainly part of it, but arrogance and a touching naivete played a big part too. A LOT of bloodshed later could have been avoided with some cool heads and proper analysis.

@ Judy: If I write more than a few sentences I always copy it before I post - just in case [lol]. Thanks for your comment. I usually just ruminate on the book for a few days and let my fingers do the typing. As long as I have the right start everything else just (often anyway) flows from that.