Ӕ

Excellent read. I would recommend a person having a thorough knowledge of WWI prior to reading this to get maximum enjoyment. ( )

Couldn’t finish. Not in the mood. Full of details. Too full of details. I didn’t care. Did read far enough to understand Woodrow Wilson was a completely nasty man. ( )

Extraordinarily dense with fascinating information. And so many great maps printed at the start! ( )

MacMillan relates in fascinating detail the origins, debates and outcomes of the negotiations to end the first World War. She first offers introductions to the principal negotiators and relates the various domestic and historical factors that shaped the final results, the borders of central and eastern European nations as well as in the Middle East, East Asia and Africa. I particularly appreciated her character portraits and the attention she pays to places not often covered in depth, like the Shantung area of China which gave Japan a large foothold there. A wonderfully written history of a complex set of negotiations whose outcomes influence international relations one hundred years later. ( )

Excellent read. I would recommend a person having a thorough knowledge of WWI prior to reading this to get maximum enjoyment. ( )

A fabulous book. Hard to put down. An important read to understand the Europe of today. Looks at the important treaties after World War I and how the personalities (Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Orlando) shaped them. ( )

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 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. ( )

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 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. ( )

This is a magnificent book that contains so much detail about the world at the turn of the century and following WW I that it took me a long time to read and digest it. A couple of things are left with me from my reading and that is the involvement of China and Japan. I knew Japan had a limited involvement but I did not know about the situation of the German colonies in China and how the European leaders almost completely dismissed China's rights to them.

I knew about the creation of Iraq and Syria plus the general treatment of the people of the Middle East. However I was not completely aware of how Ataturk came to power and how he created modern Turkey but MacMillan took care of that. Any student who needs information on the Treaty of Versailles just needs to acquire this volume and read the text and consult the massive bibliography.

In an interesting conclusion, MacMillan lets us know what happen to each of the main players- Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Wilson. ( )

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 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. ( )

Very detailed account of the negotiations that followed WWI. A bit dry at times. ( )

An extremely well written, well researched account of the world as it existed at the end of World War I. Like her subsequent book (The War that Ended Peace), she tries (and in my opinion succeeds) to provide the context that brought about the flawed Treaty of Versailles. While at the same time, discounting the widely held belief that the Treaty directly led to World War II (it didn't help, but Ms. MacMillan is very persuasive in arguing the Treaty didn't cause the rise of Hitler). ( )

MacMillan gives a detailed analysis of the Versailles Peace Conference after World War I. For six months, Clemenceau, Lloyd-George, and Wilson doled out bits and pieces of Europe like they owned them, setting up the pieces for the game that began World War II. I came away not liking any of them. But it was a great book. ( )

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 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. ( )

Brilliant, thorough examination of the way Lloyd George and Clemenceau used Wilson's windy, high-minded hypocrisy as a cover for their own self-interest and empire-building, and so screwed Europe over for another generation. ( )

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. 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. ( )

“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 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. ( )

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 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. ( )

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 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. ( )

When it comes to big non-fiction books, I sometimes reach a saturation point before the book is actually finished, even though the book itself is perfectly fascinating. I've reached that point about 3/5 of the way through Paris 1919, which admittedly is a pretty good portion of the book. MacMillan has obviously done her research well, and I did learn a lot about the peace conference (and about China's and Japan's contributions to the war, which are probably overlooked in North American teachings on the subject). I've also been pointed in a new reading direction: the history of France, which I really only know about piecemeal from histories of Britain and its interactions with France.

I would definitely recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the inter-war years and a longer attention span than mine! ( )

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 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. ( )

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 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. ( )

David Lloyd George was the author's great-grandfather. Similar to Barbara Tuchman, she is very familiar with the foibles of the ruling class. Her character vignettes are a joy to read. She truly manages to evoke the flair of the period and the city. Her book provides both a good account of the peace negotiations and a summary of the resolutions for the discussed territories. The end of the First World War saw the collapse of the Eastern European empires of Germany, Austria, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. MacMillan highlights the American and French failure in creating viable and ethnically sound units. In my opinion, she is too soft on the often pernicious British influence (especially in the Middle East).

The peace negotiations were doomed from the start, as the German acceptance of a preliminary peace had not resulted in an occupation of the defeated's territory. Thus, the odd situation that the Allies could not really exert pressure upon the Germans. On the other hand, the Allies wanted to transfer the cost of this senseless war upon the shoulders of those least able to bear them. The unwillingness of the US establishment to accept international responsibilities and to refinance and net the war debts of its Allies was the underlying cause of the treaty's failure. The excessive French demands were only secondary in nature. As Keynes had shown, Germany could have paid a fairly calculated war debt if given economic aid at the same time. Given that for half a year, the world's politicians worked alongside one another in one city, the fruits of its labor were barren. The prize for the worst behaved negotiators clearly goes to the Italians whose ineptitude during the war turned into a gargantuan appetite during the peace negotiations. No wonder that it was the first to fall into fascism.

Highly recommended. ( )

Readable, informative, slightly revisionist. Loved it. ( )