Paris 1919 - Six Months That Changed The World (Margaret MacMillan, 2001)

(624 pages)

Interesting and useful review of the Paris peace conference following World War I.  Many, many threads that lead to conflicts in the run-up to WW2 and in numerous cases thereafter.  Easy to criticize what happened here, but the book gives a good idea of the difficulties the participants faced.

Of all the ideas - the main thought for me - and one that strikes me more strongly than ever - the profound perniciousness of Wilson's ballyhooed notion of "self-determination" as promoted in his "Fourteen Points."  Plenty of folks recognized the danger even then.  What did it ever mean?  That any group that can somehow identify as ethnic, or "a people" - should get its own territorial state?  That any such majority in a given territory decides (and too bad for the minority)?  The concept was hopeless yet stirred up nationalist/ethnic hopes - and hatreds - around the world.  Of course not the only contributing factor to this trend - but I think a major one.

[A thought experiment (if off-topic a bit):  had the war affected US territories - should Arizona and California be returned to Mexico? to Spain?  to Native Americans?  Take a vote based on whoever currently resided there?  Include folks who had been relocated out?  Etc.]

Far better if politicians had devoted their energies to exhorting citizens to accept territorial designations, and then get along with each other within them.  That would have left plenty enough problems to work out - but would have set a better tone than the nationalist/ethnic battling and cleansing that rather naturally followed throughout the balance of the 20th century (and to this day).  One example among so many:  sounds like the Kurds had never thought of themselves as a people, or wanting a territory - until 1919; remains an issue in 2017.

A classic example of territorial confusion:  how to handle a situation like Poland?  What about the Balkans?  Way too much movement of way too many peoples over way too many centuries for "self-determination" to have any practical use as a guiding principle.  A political slogan for which anyone could fill in the desired meaning (see "sustainability," "diversity," "New Deal", "Fair Deal", "Hope and Change," "MAGA" etc.)

By coincidence, today I saw that yet another paper on this theme was recently published, per this link.  Wilson's slogan, and mischief, not likely to be undone.

The second major thought - the overwhelming difficulties facing the big three negotiators (or four, given that Italy was a token presence).  Setting borders around the world - literally.  With only so much knowledge.  And only so much time (the big three had pretty demanding day jobs!)  And domestic political constraints.  And exhausted victor countries/lack of resources to enforce anything.  Hard enough in western Europe - but consider eastern and central Europe; the Middle East; Africa; Balkans - impossible complexity, few good answers.  US had some resources but withdrew from the stage.

Wilson always seems profoundly annoying - the archetype progressive - an arrogant know-it-all, busy-body, telling everyone else how they should behave.

German provisions harsh; if not a major cause of the events leading up to WW2, the treaty certainly provided a major excuse/talking point for Hitler-types.

So many decisions that reverberate in international disputes to this day.