Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillanMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Good read about the wrap up of WWI. MacMillan tries to revise the accepted wisdom that the Allies botched the peace, which lead directly to the second world war. It's true that Hitler would play to the German people's wounded pride and resentment after the war. It came to be known as the "Dictat" or "dictated peace." The Germans especially hated the "war guilt clause" of article 231, which laid all responsibility for the war at the doorstep of German "aggression." Ulrich Brockdorff-Rantzau blew up and refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles. When the allies rearmed, the Germans sent two representatives to pen their names to the treaty. Did this lead directly to WWII? MacMillan says this is too simplistic.
MacMillian argues that the Germans deceived themselves into thinking that they hadn't lost the war. MacMillan points out that it wasn't a mere armistice or cease fire. The Germans gave up all occupied lands and surrendered their navy. The Germans also allowed themselves to believe that Woodrow Wilson could deliver a non-punitive peace. Germany had taken Wilson's advice and become a republic. But Wilson was one of four on the supreme council, and he had to compromise to get anywhere. David Lloyd George, prime-minister of England, and Georges Clemanceau, prime-minister of France, were out for reparations, revenge, and security. Their people had lost more than America, and they stood to lose more in future elections. They convinced Wilson to shrink Germany and give the rhineland to France as a neutral zone. Wilson would compromise as long as he could get the League of Nations. Meanwhile the league was loosing ground in the US, and Wilson's own country would never join.
Lloyd George did change his mind about some of the reparations. "Treat them like the enemy and they won't disappoint." But Wilson had already reached his compromise limit. The treaty would have to stand as is. John Maynard Keynes famously said, "It was harder to de-bamboozle this old Presbyterian than it had been to bamboozle him.” Keynes wanted to rehabilitate Germany economically. A prosperous Germany would be a peaceful Germany.
The big four were more realistic than they've been given credit for. Lloyd George said: "The English public like the French public, thinks the Germans must above all acknowledge their obligation to compensate us for all the consequences of their aggression. When this is done we come to the question of Germany's capacity to pay; we all think she will be unable to pay more than this document requires of her."
MacMillan argues that the German sense of betrayal cannot account for the rise of Nazi Germany. Prior to the Great Depression, the German people wouldn't give the Hitler the time of day. He was too radical. Once they hit rock bottom, radical solutions were given a hearing and Hitler got his chance. MacMillan can write well and she shows how so much of modern history, including the formation of Iraq, goes back to Paris 1919.
View all my reviews
1 comment:
As Arte Johnson might say (while wearing a Nazi helmet and popping up behind a plant on Laugh-in), "Varee Intle-esteng Matt!"
A few thoughts.... I asked Hans Bayer a few years ago at Covenant if the rise of the Nazis in Germany was directly related to higher criticism of Scripture, athiest philosphies, etc. stuff from the 19th decline of 'christianity' in Germany. He surprised me by saying that there was a lack of solid faith at the time but esp. that, "The Nazis were simply bullies." I suppose that the combination of post WWI events, 19th century philosophies, the depression, but also the agressive bullying tactics of the Nazis led to their rise. Once they were in power, they just bullied like any other regime to keep everybody on the same page.
At the same time with your review, it makes it sound as though the Allies were a little too harsh on the Germans at the treaty? I know that is part of the convential wisdom but it sounds true. I've read the Herman Wouke, "The Winds of War" and "War and Rememberance" and I think I recall some of the German characters disparaging or chiding the US, France, Spain, and UK's imperialism while trying to tell Germany to basically stay in the corner and play nice. There is some logic to this argument. Afterall, Germany held only one, maybe two, African colonies and one or two in the south Pacific, while the entire rest of world had basically been divided up by the previous mentioned countries, with Japan getting more into the mix as well. I'm sure it upset Britain that the only thing stopping a UK train from Cairo to Cape Town was the Tanzanian German colony! It's like the whole time was one big game of risk, and the players were as fighting teenage boys vying for their own interests. Q. Why did Britian and France have so many colonies and Germany basically had none after WWI?
Either way, a few rabbit trails, or 'hansenfeffer' trails as it were.....
BTW, there is an amazing photo of Hilter in downtown Berlin after war is declared in WWI! He is in the crowd and shouting, smiling, and raising his hat up in the air. He's a nobody, just an average slob on the crowd. It's both remarkable and despicable the way he rose to power. Sometimes I think there may still be something to the divine right of kings but then again, any person rising to power can become a despotic elitist regardless of their class. For it the fallen human state that we all share in common.
Jesus is our only divine kingship!
Michael B. in Austin T.
Post a Comment