Military Wiki

"The Big Four" made all the major decisions at the Paris Peace Conference (from left to right, David Lloyd George of Britain, Vittorio Orlando of Italy, Georges Clemenceau of France, Woodrow Wilson of the U.S.)

Map of the world with the participants in World War I. The Allies are depicted in green, the Central Powers in orange, and neutral countries in grey.

The Paris Peace Conference was the meeting of the Allied victors following the end of World War I to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers following the armistices of 1918. It took place in Paris during 1919 and involved diplomats from more than 32 countries and nationalities. The "Big Four" were the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson; the Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George; the Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau; and the Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Orlando. They met together informally 145 times and made all the major decisions, which in turn were ratified by the others.[1]

The major decisions were the creation of the League of Nations; the five peace treaties with defeated enemies, most notable the Treaty of Versailles with Germany; the awarding of German and Ottoman overseas possessions as "mandates," chiefly to Britain and France; reparations imposed on Germany, and the drawing of new national boundaries (sometimes with plebiscites) to better reflect the forces of nationalism. The main result was the Treaty of Versailles, with Germany, which in section 231 laid the guilt for the war on "the aggression of Germany and her allies." This provision proved humiliating for Germany and set the stage for very high reparations Germany was supposed to pay (it paid only a small portion before reparations ended in 1931). Germany and Communist Russia were not invited to attend, but numerous other nations did send delegations, each with a different agenda. Kings, prime ministers and foreign ministers with their crowds of advisers rubbed shoulders with journalists and lobbyists for a hundred causes, ranging from independence for the countries of the South Caucasus to Japan's demand for racial equality.

For six months Paris was effectively the center of a world government, as the peacemakers wound up bankrupt empires and created new countries. The most contentious results included the Treaty of Versailles, which weakened Germany's military, and required her to pay reparations. The League of Nations proved controversial in the United States. As a result the U.S. did not sign any of the peace treaties and never joined the League. (It made separate peace treaties.)


Detail from William Orpen's painting The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, 28th June 1919, showing the signing of the peace treaty by the German Minister of Transport Dr Johannes Bell, opposite to the representatives of the winning powers.

The conference opened on 18 January 1919. Delegates from 27 nations were assigned to 52 commissions, which held 1,646 sessions to prepare reports, with the help of many experts, on topics ranging from prisoners of war to undersea cables to international aviation, to responsibility for the war. Key recommendations were folded into the Treaty of Versailles with Germany, which had 15 chapters and 440 clauses, as well as treaties for the other defeated nations. The five major powers (France, Britain, Italy, the U.S. and Japan) controlled the Conference. In practice Japan played a small role and the "Big Four" leaders the other four were the dominant figures at the conference. They met together informally 145 times and made all the major decisions, which in turn were ratified by the others.[1] The open meetings of all the delegations approved the decisions made by the Big Four. The conference came to an end on 21 January 1920 with the inaugural General Assembly of the League of Nations.[2][3] Five major peace treaties were prepared at the Paris Peace Conference (with, in parentheses, the affected countries):

The major decisions were the creation of the League of Nations; the five peace treaties with defeated enemies; the awarding of German and Ottoman overseas possessions as "mandates," chiefly to Britain, France, Japan; the drawing of new national boundaries (sometimes with plebiscites) to better reflect the forces of nationalism; and the requirement that new nations ratify treaties that protected minorities.

American approach

Prior to Wilson's arrival in Europe, no American president had ever visited Europe while in office.[4] Wilson's Fourteen Points, of a year earlier, had helped win the hearts and minds of many as the war ended; these included Americans and Europeans generally, as well as Germany, its allies and the former subjects of the Ottoman Empire specifically. Wilson's diplomacy and his Fourteen Points had essentially established the conditions for the armistices that had brought an end to World War I. Wilson felt it was his duty and obligation to the people of the world to be a prominent figure at the peace negotiations. High hopes and expectations were placed on him to deliver what he had promised for the post-war era. In doing so, Wilson ultimately began to lead the foreign policy of the United States toward interventionism, a move strongly resisted in some domestic circles.

Once Wilson arrived, however, he found "rivalries, and conflicting claims previously submerged".[5] He worked mostly trying to sway the direction that the French (Georges Clemenceau) and British (Lloyd George) delegations were taking towards Germany and its allies in Europe, as well as the former Ottoman lands in the Middle East. Wilson's attempts to gain acceptance of his Fourteen Points ultimately failed, after France and Britain refused to adopt some specific points and its core principles.

In Europe, several of his Fourteen Points conflicted with the other powers. The United States did not encourage nor believe that the responsibility for the war that Article 231 placed on Germany was fair or warranted.[6] It would not be until 1921 that the United States finally signed separate peace treaties with Germany, Austria and Hungary.

In the Middle East, negotiations were complicated by competing aims, claims, and the new mandate system. The United States hoped to establish a more liberal and diplomatic world, as stated in the Fourteen Points, where democracy, sovereignty, liberty and self-determination would be respected.[citation needed] France and Britain, on the other hand, already controlled empires, wielded power over their subjects around the world, and still aspired to be dominant colonial powers.

In light of the previously secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, and following the adoption of the mandate system on the Arab province of the former Ottoman lands, the conference heard statements from competing Zionist and Arab claimants. President Woodrow Wilson then recommended an international commission of inquiry to ascertain the wishes of the local inhabitants. The Commission idea, first accepted by Great Britain and France, was later rejected. Eventually it became the purely American King-Crane Commission, which toured all Syria and Palestine during the summer of 1919, taking statements and sampling opinion.[5] Its report, presented to President Wilson, was kept secret from the public until The New York Times broke the story in December 1922.[7] A pro-Zionist joint resolution on Palestine was passed by Congress in September 1922.[8]

France and Britain tried to appease the American President by consenting to the establishment of his League of Nations. However, because isolationist sentiment was strong and some of the articles in the League's charter conflicted with the United States Constitution, the United States never did ratify the Treaty of Versailles nor join the League of Nations,[9] which President Wilson had helped create, to further peace through diplomacy rather than war and conditions which can breed it.

Under President Warren Harding the United States signed separate treaties with Germany,[10] Austria,[11] and Hungary[12] in 1921.

British approach

The British Air Section at the Conference

Maintenance of the British Empire's unity, holdings and interests were an overarching concern for the British delegates to the conference, but it entered the conference with the more specific goals of:

  • Ensuring the security of France
  • Removing the threat of the German High Seas Fleet
  • Settling territorial contentions
  • Supporting the Wilsonian League of Nations

with that order of priority.

The Racial Equality Proposal put forth by the Japanese did not directly conflict with any of these core British interests. However, as the conference progressed the full implications of the Racial Equality Proposal, regarding immigration to the British Dominions (with Australia taking particular exception), would become a major point of contention within the delegation.

Ultimately, Britain did not see the Racial Equality proposal as being one of the fundamental aims of the conference. The delegation was therefore willing to sacrifice this proposal in order to placate the Australian delegation and thus help satisfy its overarching aim of preserving the unity of the British Empire.[13]

Although Britain reluctantly consented to the attendance of separate Dominion delegations, the British did manage to rebuff attempts by the envoys of the newly proclaimed Irish Republic to put its case to the Conference for self-determination, diplomatic recognition and membership of the proposed League of Nations. The Irish envoys' final "Demand for Recognition" in a letter to Clemenceau, the Chairman, was not replied to.[14] Britain had planned to legislate for two Irish Home Rule states (without Dominion status), and did so in 1920. In 1919 Irish nationalists were unpopular with the Allies because of the Conscription Crisis of 1918.

David Lloyd George commented that he did "not do badly" at the peace conference, "considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon." This was a reference to the very idealistic views of Wilson on the one hand and the stark realism of Clemenceau, who was determined to see Germany punished.[15]

Dominion representation

The Dominion governments were not originally given separate invitations to the conference, but rather were expected to send representatives as part of the British delegation.[16]

Convinced that Canada had become a nation on the battlefields of Europe, its Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, demanded that it have a separate seat at the conference. This was initially opposed not only by Britain but also by the United States, which saw a dominion delegation as an extra British vote. Borden responded by pointing out that since Canada had lost nearly 60,000 men, a far larger proportion of its men compared to the 50,000 American losses, at least had the right to the representation of a "minor" power. The British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, eventually relented, and convinced the reluctant Americans to accept the presence of delegations from Canada, India, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa. They also received their own seats in the League of Nations.[17]

Canada, although it too had sacrificed nearly 60,000 men in the war, asked for neither reparations nor mandates.[18]

The Australian delegation. The center is Billy Hughes, Australian Prime Minister

The Australian delegation, led by the Australian Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, fought hard for its demands: reparations, annexation of German New Guinea and rejection of the Japanese racial equality proposal. Hughes said that he had no objection to the equality proposal provided it was stated in unambiguous terms that it did not confer any right to enter Australia. Hughes was concerned by the rise of Japan. Within months of the declaration of the War in 1914; Japan, Australia and New Zealand seized all German possessions in the Far East and Pacific. Though Japan occupied German possessions with the blessings of the British, Hughes was alarmed by this policy.[19]


A central issue of the Conference was the disposition of the overseas colonies of Germany. (Austria did not have colonies and the Ottoman Empire presented a separate issue.)[20][21]

The British dominions wanted their reward for their sacrifice. Australia wanted New Guinea, New Zealand wanted Samoa, and South Africa wanted South West Africa (modern Namibia). Wilson wanted the League of Nations to administer all the German colonies until such time as they were ready for independence. Lloyd George realized he needed to support his dominions, and he proposed a compromise that there be three types of mandates. Mandates for the Turkish provinces were one category; they would be divided up between Britain and France. The second category, comprising New Guinea, Samoa, and South West Africa, were located so close to responsible supervisors that the mandates could hardly be given to anyone except Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Finally, the African colonies would need the careful supervision as "Class B" mandates that could only be provided by experienced colonial powers Britain, France, and Belgium; Italy and Portugal received small bits of territory. Wilson and the others finally went along with the solution.[22] The dominions received "Class C Mandates" to the colonies they wanted. Japan obtained mandates over German possessions north of the equator.[23][24][25]

Wilson was especially offended by Australian demands. He and Hughes had some memorable clashes, with the most famous being:

Wilson: "But after all, you speak for only five million people." Hughes: "I represent sixty thousand dead." (The much larger United States had suffered 50,000 deaths.)[26]

French approach

The French Prime Minister, George Clemenceau, controlled his delegation and his chief goal was to weaken Germany militarily, strategically and economically.[27][28] Having personally witnessed two German attacks on French soil in the last forty years, he was adamant that Germany should not be permitted to attack France again. In particular, Clemenceau sought an American and British guarantee of French security in the event of another German attack. Clemenceau also expressed skepticism and frustration with Wilson's Fourteen Points: "Mr. Wilson bores me with his fourteen points", complained Clemenceau. "Why, God Almighty has only ten!" Wilson won a few points by signing a mutual defense treaty with France, but back in Washington he did not present it to the Senate for ratification and it never took effect.[29]

Another alternative French policy was to seek a rapprochement with Germany. In May 1919 the diplomat René Massigli was sent on several secret missions to Berlin. During his visits Massigli offered on behalf of his government to revise the territorial and economic clauses of the upcoming peace treaty.[30] Massigli spoke of the desirability of “practical, verbal discussions” between French and German officials that would lead to a “collaboration Franco-allemande”.[30] Furthermore, Massagli told the Germans that the French thought of the "Anglo-Saxon powers", namely the United States and British Empire, to be the major threat to France in the post-war world. He argued that both France and Germany had a joint interest in opposing "Anglo-Saxon domination" of the world and warned that the "deepening of opposition" between the French and the Germans "would lead to the ruin of both countries, to the advantage of the Anglo-Saxon powers".[31] The Germans rejected the French offers because they considered the French overtures to be a trap to trick them into accepting the Versailles treaty "as is" and because the German foreign minister, Count Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau thought that the United States was more likely to reduce the severity of the peace terms than France.[31] In the final event it proved to be Lloyd George who pushed for more favourable terms for Germany.

Italian approach

In 1914 Italy remained neutral despite its alliance with Germany and Austria. In 1915 it joined the Allies. It was motivated by gaining Austrian territory as promised by the Allies in the secret Treaty of London. Italy could not resist the offer of the Trentino and the Tyrol as far as Brenner, Trieste and Istria, all the Dalmatian coast except Fiume, full ownership of Albanian Valona and a protectorate over Albania, Antalya in Turkey and a share of the Turkish and German Empires in Africa. The Italian army performed poorly and had to be rescued by the Allies, but it demanded its rewards.

The Italian Prime Minister, Vittorio Orlando, therefore had a single-minded goal at Paris. He had popular support, for the loss of 700,000 soldiers and a budget deficit of 12,000,000,000 Lire during the war made the Italian government and people feel entitled to these territories. There was an especially strong opinion for control of Fiume, which they believed was rightly Italian due to the Italian population.[32]

In the meetings of the "Big Four", in which Orlando's powers of diplomacy were inhibited by his lack of English the other were only willing to offer Trentino to the Brenner, the Dalmatian port of Zara, the Island of Lagosta and a couple of small German colonies. All other territories were promised to other nations and the great powers were worried about Italy's imperial ambitions. Even though Italy did get most of its demands, Orlando was refused Fiume and he left the conference in a rage.[33]

Japanese approach

Japanese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference 1919.

The Japan sent a large delegation headed by Marquess Saionji Kinmochi (former Prime Minister). It was originally one of the "big five" but relinquished that role because of its slight interest in European affairs. Instead it focused on two demands: the inclusion of their racial equality proposal in the League's Covenant and Japanese territorial claims with respect to former German colonies, namely Shantung (including Kiaochow) and the Pacific islands north of the Equator (the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Mariana Islands, and the Carolines). Makino was de facto chief while Saionji's role was symbolic and limited by his ill health. The Japanese delegation became unhappy after receiving only one-half of the rights of Germany, and walked out of the conference.[34]

Racial equality proposal

Baron Makino Nobuaki

Japan proposed the inclusion of a "racial equality clause" in the Covenant of the League of Nations on 13 February as an amendment to Article 21.[35] It read:

The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord as soon as possible to all alien nationals of states, members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality.

Because he knew that Great Britain was critical to the decision, President Wilson, as Conference chairman, ruled that a unanimous vote was required. On 11 April 1919 the commission held a final session and the proposal received a majority of votes, but Great Britain and Australia opposed it. The Australians had lobbied the British to defend Australia's White Australia policy. The defeat of the proposal influenced Japan's turn from cooperation with West toward more nationalistic policies.[36]

Territorial claims

The Japanese claim to Shantung was disputed by the Chinese. In 1914 at the outset of World War I Japan had seized the territory granted to Germany in 1897. They also seized the German islands in the Pacific north of the equator. In 1917, Japan had made secret agreements with Britain, France and Italy that guaranteed their annexation of these territories. With Britain, there was a mutual agreement, Japan also agreeing to support British annexation of the Pacific islands south of the equator. Despite a generally pro-Chinese view on behalf of the American delegation, Article 156 of the Treaty of Versailles transferred German concessions in Jiaozhou, China to Japan rather than returning sovereign authority to China. The leader of the Chinese delegation, Lou Tseng-Tsiang, demanded that a reservation be inserted before he would sign the treaty. The reservation was denied, and the treaty was signed by all the delegations except that of China. Chinese outrage over this provision led to demonstrations known as the May Fourth Movement. The Pacific islands north of the equator became a class C mandate administered by Japan.[37]

Chinese approach

The Chinese delegation was led by Lou Tseng-Tsiang, accompanied by Wellington Koo and Cao Rulin. Before the Western powers, Koo demanded that Germany's concessions on Shandong to be returned to China. He further called for an end to imperialist institutions such as extraterritoriality, legation guards, and foreign lease holds. Despite American support and the ostensible spirit of self-determination, the Western powers refused his claims, transferring the German concessions to Japan instead. This sparked widespread student protests in China on 4 May, later known as the May Fourth Movement, eventually pressuring the government into refusing to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Thus the Chinese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference was the only one not to sign the treaty at the signing ceremony.[38]

Other issues

Minority rights

At the insistence of President Wilson, the Big Four required Poland to sign a treaty on 28 June 1919 that guaranteed minority rights in the new nation. Poland signed under protest, and made little effort to enforce the specified rights for Germans, Jews, Ukrainian, and other minorities. Similar treaties were signed by Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and later by a Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. Finland and Germany were not asked to sign a minority rights treaty.[39] The key provisions were to become fundamental laws that overrode any national legal codes or legislation. The new country pledged to assure "full and complete protection of life and liberty to all individuals...without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race, or religion." Freedom of religion was guaranteed to everyone. Most residents were given citizenship, but there was considerable ambiguity on who was covered. The treaty guaranteed basic civil, political, and cultural rights, and required all citizens to be equal before the law and enjoy identical rights of citizens and workers. Polish was of the national language, but the treaty provided that minority languages could be freely used privately, in commerce, religion, the press, at public meetings, and before all courts. Minorities were to be permitted to establish and control at their own expense private charities, churches and social institutions, as well as schools, without interference from the government. The government was required to set up German language public schools in those districts that had been German territory before the war. All education above the primary level was to be conducted exclusively in the national language. Article 12 was the enforcement clause; it gave the Council of the League of Nations responsibility for monitoring and enforcing each treaty.[40][41]

Korean Delegation

As Japan violently suppressed the March First Movement, there was limited opportunity for a Korean voice. A delegation of overseas Koreans, from Japan, China, and Hawaii, did make it to Paris. Included in this delegation, was a representative from the Korean Provisional Government in Shanghai, Kim Kyu-sik (김규식).[42] They were aided by the Chinese, who were eager for the opportunity to embarrass Japan at the international forum. Several top Chinese leaders at the time, including Sun Yat-sen, told U.S. diplomats that the peace conference should take up the question of Korean independence. Beyond that, however, the Chinese, locked in a struggle against the Japanese themselves, could do little for Korea.[43] Apart from China no nation took the Koreans seriously at the Paris conference because of its status of Korea as a Japanese colony.[44] The failure of the Korean nationalists to gain support from the Paris Peace Conference ended the possibility of foreign support.[45]


The three Caucasian Republics of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia were recognised.

The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was represented by Alimardan Topchubashev.


The Zionist Organization submitted their draft resolutions for consideration by the Peace Conference on 3 February 1919. This shortly followed the Conference's decision that the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire should be separated from it and the newly conceived mandate-system applied to them.

The statement included five main points:[46]

  • Recognition of the Jewish people's historic title to Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home there.
  • The boundaries of Palestine were to be declared as set out in the attached Schedule
  • The sovereign possession of Palestine would be vested in the League of Nations and the Government entrusted to Great Britain as Mandatory of the League.
  • Other provisions to be inserted by the High Contracting Parties relating to the application of any general conditions attached to mandates, which are suitable to the case in Palestine.
  • The mandate shall be subject also to several noted special conditions, including a provision to be inserted relating to the control of the Holy Places.

However, despite these attempts to influence the conference, the Zionists were instead constrained by Article 7 of the resulting Palestine Mandate to merely having the right of obtaining Palestinian citizenship: "The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."[47]


Ukraine had its best opportunity to win recognition and support from foreign powers at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.[48] At a meeting of the Big Five on 16 January, Lloyd George called Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura (1874–1926) an adventurer and dismissed Ukraine as an anti-Bolshevik stronghold. Sir Eyre Crowe, British undersecretary of state for foreign affairs, spoke against a union of East Galicia and Poland. The British cabinet never decided whether to support a united or dismembered Russia. The United States was sympathetic to a strong, united Russia as a counterpoise to Japan, but Britain feared a threat to India. Petliura appointed Count Tyshkevich his representative to the Vatican, and Pope Benedict XV recognized Ukrainian independence. Ukraine was effectively ignored.[49]

Historical assessments

The remaking of the world map at these conferences gave birth to a number of critical conflict-prone international contradictions, which would become one of the causes of World War II.[50] The British Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm claimed that "no equally systematic attempt has been made before or since, in Europe or anywhere else, to redraw the political map on national lines. […] The logical implication of trying create a continent neatly divided into coherent territorial states each inhabited by separate ethnically and linguistically homogeneous population, was the mass expulsion or extermination of minorities. Such was and is the reductio ad absurdum of nationalism in its territorial version, although this was not fully demonstrated until the 1940s."[51] He also argued that Wilson's Fourteen Points, in particular the principle of national self-determination, were primarily anti-Left measures, designed to tame the revolutionary fever sweeping across Europe in the wake of the October Revolution and the end of the war by playing the nationalist card.[52]

Cultural references

  • World's End (1940), the first novel in Upton Sinclair's Pulitzer Prize winning Lanny Budd series. Much of the second half of this book describes the political machinations and consequences of the Paris Peace Conference, with Sinclair's narrative including many historically accurate characters and events.

See also


  1. 1.0 1.1 Rene Albrecht-Carrie, Diplomatic History of Europe Since the Congress of Vienna (1958) p. 363
  2. Antony Lentin, "Germany: a New Carthage?" History Today (2012) 62#1 pp. 22–27 online
  3. Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (1941) is a convenient history and analysis of the conference. Longer and more recent is Margaret Macmillan, Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2002), also published as Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (2003); a good short overview is Alan Sharp, The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking after the First World War, 1919–1923 (2nd ed. 2008)
  4. MacMillan (2001), p. 3.
  5. 5.0 5.1 US Dept of State; International Boundary Study, Jordan – Syria Boundary, No. 94 – December 30, 1969, p.10
  6. MacMillan, Paris 1919 (2001), p. 6.
  7. King and Cranes Long-Hid Report on the Near East
  8. Rubenberg, Cheryl (1986). Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination. University of Illinois Press. pp. 27. ISBN 0-252-06074-1. 
  9. MacMillan (2001), p. 83.
  10. Wikisource
  13. Shimazu (1998), pp. 14–15, 117.
  14. "Ireland's Demand for Recognition" text, June 1919
  15. Henry Wilson Harris (1920). The Peace in the Making. E.P. Dutton. p. 48. 
  16. R. C. Snelling, "Peacemaking, 1919: Australia, New Zealand and the British Empire Delegation at Versailles," Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (1975) 4#1 pp 15–28
  17. L. F. Fitzhardinge, "Hughes, Borden, and Dominion Representation at the Paris Peace Conference," Canadian Historical Review (1968) 49#2 pp 160–169.
  18. Margaret McMillan, "Canada and the Peace Settlements," in David Mackenzie, ed., Canada and the First World War (2005) pp. 379–408
  19. R. C. Snelling, "Peacemaking, 1919: Australia, New Zealand and the British Empire delegation at Versailles," Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (1975) 4#1 pp 15–28.
  20. Alan Sharp, The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking After the First World War, 1919–1923 (2nd ed. 2008) ch 7
  21. Andrew J. Crozier, "The Establishment of the Mandates System 1919–25: Some Problems Created by the Paris Peace Conference," Journal of Contemporary History (1979) 14#3 pp 483–513 in JSTOR.
  22. Peter Ryland, Lloyd George (1975) p. 481
  23. Wm. Roger Louis, "Australia and the German Colonies in the Pacific, 1914–1919," Journal of Modern History (1966) 38#4 pp. 407–421 in JSTOR
  24. Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (1941) pp. 58–82
  25. Macmillan, Paris 1919, pp. 98–106
  26. Mungo MacCallum (2013). The Good, the Bad and the Unlikely: Australia's Prime Ministers. Black Inc.. p. 38. 
  27. MacMillan, Paris 1919 pp 26–35
  28. David Robin Watson, Georges Clemenceau (1974) pp 338–65
  29. Ambrosius, Lloyd E. (1972). "Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I". pp. 341–352. JSTOR 1890194. 
  30. 30.0 30.1 Trachtenberg, Marc (1979). "Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference". pp. 24–55 [p. 42]. JSTOR 1877867. 
  31. 31.0 31.1 Trachtenberg (1979), page 43.
  32. Macmillan, ch 22
  33. H. James Burgwyn, Legend of the Mutilated Victory: Italy, the Great War and the Paris Peace Conference, 1915–1919 (1993)
  34. Macmillan, ch 23
  35. Paul Gordon Lauren, "Human Rights in History: Diplomacy and Racial Equality at the Paris Peace Conference," Diplomatic History (1978) 2#3 pp 257–278
  36. Macmillan, Paris 1919 p. 321
  37. Fifield, Russell. "Japanese Policy toward the Shantung Question at the Paris Peace Conference," Journal of Modern History (1951) 23:3 pp 265–272. in JSTOR reprint primary Japanese sources
  38. MacMillan, Paris 1919 pp 322–45
  39. Carole Fink, "The Paris Peace Conference and the Question of Minority Rights," Peace and Change: A journal of peace research (1996) 21#3 pp 273–88
  40. Fink, "The Paris Peace Conference and the Question of Minority Rights"
  41. Edmund Jan Osmańczyk (2003). Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: A to F. Routledge. p. 1812. 
  42. Hart-Landsberg, Martin (1998). Korea: Division, Reunification, & U.S. Foreign Policy Monthly Review Press. P. 30.
  43. Manela, Erez (2007) The Wilsonian Moment pp. 119–135, 197–213.
  44. Kim, Seung-Young (2009). American Diplomacy and Strategy Toward Korea and Northeast Asia, 1882–1950 and After pp 64–65.
  45. Baldwin, Frank (1972). The March First Movement: Korean Challenge and Japanese Response
  46. Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine
  48. Laurence J. Orzell, "A 'Hotly Disputed' Issue: Eastern Galicia At The Paris Peace Conference, 1919," Polish Review (1980): 49–68. in JSTOR
  49. Yakovenko, Natalya (2002). "Ukraine in British Strategies and Concepts of Foreign Policy, 1917–1922 and after". pp. 465–479. 
  50. First World War – Willmott, H. P., Dorling Kindersley, 2003, pp. 292–307.
  51. Hobsbawm 1992, p. 133.
  52. Hobsbawm 1994, p. 67: "[T]he first Western reaction to the Bolsheviks' appeal to the peoples to make peace—and their publication of the secret treaties in which the Allies had carved up Europe among themselves—had been President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which played the nationalist card against Lenin's international appeal. A zone of small nation-states was to form a sort of quarantine belt against the Red virus. . . . [T]he establishment of new small nation-states along Wilsonian lines, though far from eliminating national conflicts in the zone of revolutions, . . . diminished the scope for Bolshevik revolution. That, indeed, had been the intention of the Allied peacemakers."

    This view is hardly original with Hobsbawm, for it has a long history, and can be summarised by Ray Stannard Baker's famous remark that "Paris cannot be understood without Moscow." See McFadden 1993, p. 191.

Further reading

  • Albrecht-Carrie, Rene. Italy at the Paris Peace Conference (1938) online edition
  • Ambrosius, Lloyd E. Woodrow Wilson and the American Diplomatic Tradition: The Treaty Fight in Perspective (1990) excerpt and text search
  • Andelman, David A. A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today (2007) popular history that stresses multiple long-term disasters caused by Treaty. excerpt and text search
  • Bailey; Thomas A. Wilson and the Peacemakers: Combining Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace and Woodrow Wilson and the Great Betrayal (1947) online edition
  • Birdsall, Paul. Versailles twenty years after (1941) well balanced older account
  • Boemeke, Manfred F., et al., eds. The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (1998). major collection of important papers by scholars excerpt and text search
  • Clements, Kendrick, A. Woodrow Wilson: World Statesman (1999) excerpt and text search
  • Cooper, John Milton. Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (2009), scholarly biography; pp 439–532 excerpt and text search
  • Dillon, Emile Joseph. The Inside Story of the Peace Conference, (1920) online
  • Ferguson, Niall. The Pity of War: Explaining World War One (1999), economics issues at Paris pp 395–432
  • Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace, The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, Macmillan 1989).
  • Ginneken, Anique H.M. van. Historical Dictionary of the League of Nations (2006) excerpt and text search
  • Henig, Ruth. Versailles and After: 1919–1933 (2nd ed. 1995), 100 pages; brief introduction by scholar excerpt and text search
  • Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Canto (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43961-9. 
  • Hobsbawm, E.J. (1994). The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. London: Michael Joseph. ISBN 978-0718133078. 
  • Keynes, John Maynard, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) famous criticism by leading economist full text online
  • Knock, Thomas J. To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order (1995) excerpt and text search
  • Lederer, Ivo J., ed. The Versailles Settlement—Was It Foredoomed to Failure? (1960) short excerpts from scholars online edition
  • Lentin, Antony. Guilt at Versailles: Lloyd George and the Pre-history of Appeasement (1985)
  • Lentin, Antony. Lloyd George and the Lost Peace: From Versailles to Hitler, 1919–1940 (2004)
  • McFadden, David W. (1993). Alternative Paths: Soviets and Americans, 1917–1920. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-195-36115-5. 
  • Macmillan, Margaret. Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War (2002), also published as Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (2003); influential survey excerpt and text search
  • Mayer, Arno J. (1967). Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking: Containment and Counterrevolution at Versailles, 1918–1919. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. 
  • Nicolson, Harold (2009) [1933]. Peacemaking, 1919. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-25604-4. 
  • Paxton, Robert O., and Julie Hessler. Europe in the Twentieth Century (2011) pp 141–78 excerpt and text search
  • Marks, Sally. The Illusion of Peace: International Relations in Europe 1918–1933 (2nd ed. 2003)
  • Mayer, Arno J., Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking: Containment and Counter-revolution at Versailles, 1918–1919 (1967), leftist
  • Newton, Douglas. British Policy and the Weimar Republic, 1918–1919 (1997). 484 pgs.
  • Pellegrino, Anthony, Christopher Dean Lee, and Alex d'Erizans. "Historical Thinking through Classroom Simulation: 1919 Paris Peace Conference," The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas (2012) 85#4 pp 146–152.
  • Roberts, Priscilla. "Wilson, Europe's Colonial Empires, and the Issue of Imperialism," in Ross A. Kennedy, ed., A Companion to Woodrow Wilson (2013) pp: 492–517.
  • Schwabe, Klaus. Woodrow Wilson, Revolutionary Germany, and Peacemaking, 1918–1919: Missionary Diplomacy and the Realities of Power (1985) online edition
  • Sharp, Alan. The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking after the First World War, 1919–1923 (2nd ed. 2008)
  • Sharp, Alan. "The Enforcement Of The Treaty Of Versailles, 1919–1923," Diplomacy and Statecraft 2005 16(3): 423–438
  • Naoko Shimazu (1998), Japan, Race and Equality, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-17207-1
  • Steiner, Zara. The Lights that Failed: European International History 1919–1933 (Oxford History of Modern Europe) (2007), major scholarly work excerpt and text search
  • Trachtenberg, Marc. "Reparations at the Paris Peace Conference," The Journal of Modern History, (1979) 51#1 pp 24–55 in JSTOR
  • Walworth, Arthur. Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (1986) 618pp online edition
  • Watson, David Robin. George Clemenceau: A Political Biography (1976) 463 pgs. online edition

External links

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).