Reddit reviews Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World
We found 15 Reddit comments about Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Random House Trade
The best thing to do is to start searching for "eugenics." For some reason that stuff hasn't been buried as much and you can see more of it. And, since links in English are favored by the web over links in German, you get more of an allied perspective on it. You can start here, move on to here, spend a little time here and then dip in here for a little light reading before going down the rabbit hole for ever and ever.
Short answer: no.
Slightly longer answer: The radicalization of Islam in the Middle East ties into the division of the region by the western powers after WWI, and further during the Cold War, when the U.S. (not only, but in particular) supported the rise to power of radical religious figures in opposition to communist/leftist parties & figures who might be sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and therefore potentially threaten U.S./U.K. access to oil in the region. This included aiding in the over-throwing of democratically elected governments in favor of autocratic but U.S./U.K.-favored leaders - most notably the U.S.-led 1953 coup d'etat in Iran, when Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown. The 1978 Iranian Revolution began as a popular uprising against the Shah who replaced him.
For more extensive reading on the subject:
Inventing Iraq by Toby Dodge (I have some major issues with Dodge's conclusions post 9/11, but the historical analysis that makes up the majority of the book is solid)
Spies in Arabia by Priya Satia, and Lawrence in Arabia are good histories of imperial ambition during the WWI period and its after-effects
Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan for the political maneuvering of the Western powers
A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin
I also recommend Edward Said, if you're looking for cultural analysis as well as history
Probably Paris 1919.
I read this neat book on the subject. The sheer ignorance of the leaders during the peace negotiations (for I cannot stress the negotiations part enough) and the way they made decisions were astoundingly horrible. A snippet I recall is that there was a recorded incident where after ~2.5 hours of discussing what to do with country X, one of the leaders (Wilson maybe? I dont recall who) finally figured out that the country is not located in the balkans but is located in the Mid-East (I forget which country in particular) - basically the finer details elude me but the point stood that they had no fucking idea what they were doing (Lyod George, Clemenceau, Wilson).
If you want to get more in depth into the "Europeans carving up the Middle East" and have your mind blown by the direct implications for what we are now facing almost 100 years later, I strongly recommend the book "Paris 1919".
In addition to being fascinating, well written and full of colorful characters, it's a refreshing departure from your typical war history book discussing troop movements and precursors. It's unbelievable to learn about the circus of the post war Paris 1919 talks which shaped so much of the world as it emerged from colonialism.
Link: Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375760520/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_OEqZxbNARKF2M
>Actually compared to WW2 they never really go into detail as to what the end goals were for WW1
No, you just have to know where to look.
What you see happening between 1919 - 1923 is the result of the victor's goals. For an excellent overview of the Entente's goals and implementation, I would suggest Paris 1919. We saw the occupation of the Ruhr, the separation of Prussia, the establishment of Poland and the infamous "corridor", the complete disintegration of the Austrian Empire and the disarming of Germany to a force of 100,000 men, the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the making of the modern Middle East and the loss of Germany's few colonies.
The Central Power's goals were no less sweeping. While this map is definitely a propaganda piece, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gives you a good idea about Germany's Imperial ambitions. If the Central Powers would have won and obtained sweeping power over the negotiations, a chance I believe the completely missed in 1917 and lost for good thereafter, for Germany ALONE you would have seen:
Keep in mind this doesn't even begin to compete with Turkey's desire for the restoration of their territories in Northern Africa, the annexation of large parts of the Caucuses and the Mediterranean or Austria's plans for the Balkans and Northern Italy.
War aims were such a large factor, that they were the primary factor for continuing the war in Germany even when all hopes were lost. Even as late as late as September 1918, Ludendorff kept the war going because he hoped to annex Belgium and keep a good portion of France they occupied!
Yea, SlyReference basically covers it and I may have been overstating things with China (given their past 100 years in particular). All the same, where Western/European culture ends up from here is an interesting question to me.
A book I really like that's relevant is The Great War and Modern Memory.
Of course the war and its aftermath set the stage for the deaths of the old empires (all gone or changed beyond recognition by 1945), and was a nexus point for the conflicts that would shape the next century - Paris 1919 covers that quite well.
https://www.amazon.com/Paris-1919-Months-Changed-World/dp/0375760520
Paris 1919
For World War 1 I would say the best book to read is Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan.
She is specifically a World War 1 historian specifically on the causes of World War 1. Her book on the Paris Peace agreement that ended World War 1 is a bit more unique than most World War 1 history books. In it she explains the conflicts and problems that all of the parties involved had with the agreement and the discussions that were going on.
People often think of World War 1 as this battle between five powerful nations but there were in fact a large number of minor nations who were at the peace talks and unhappy with the outcome. The result of World War 1 was the disintegration of the Russian and Ottoman Empires (two historic enemies) and the creation of a vast number of micro states across their borders.
If you're interested in WWI, have you read Paris 1919? Definitely worth picking up if you haven't.
Paris 1919 has several chapters that deal explicitly with the creation of the modern middle east after WWI. An extremely good starting point.
Talks about a lot of other things too like how the allies treated the newly created Soviet Union that goes a long way into understanding Russia's attitudes even today.
It is a must read book in my mind for understanding modern history.
Thank you! Are you talking about this book?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paris-1919-Months-Changed-World/dp/0375760520
Ah, the racism inherent in Zionism.
I'm not even going to blame ignorance here, because I think it is literally impossible that you are ignorant of World War I and it's aftermath, and how it shaped the borders of the modern world. You literally have to have your head up your ass to not know the history here. The only way to miss it is to be in willful denial; an essential strategy is your engaged in a generations long enterprise to push out a native population in order to establish a state based on religion an ethnic background.
People who aren't racist shit and are looking for a better understanding of the modern world will find this book helpful :
http://www.amazon.com/Paris-1919-Months-Changed-World/dp/0375760520/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404942751&sr=8-1&keywords=paris+1919
Robert Massie has 3 amazing books about WWI. Dreadnought about Anglo-German naval rivalry, Nicholas and Alexandra, about the last Czar and the russian perspective, and Castles of Steel, about the naval war. All of them are fantastic and read like novels.
Another excellent book is Paris 1919, about the end of the war, and how Woodrow Wilson ruined everything.
>There's nothing about that in the articles you linked.
yes, you need to read actual books to learn history, not just Wikipedia.
>Career State Department Ambassadors and staff are testifying that the Guiliani group's activities are unofficial, irregular
Yep. they're bitching that the president didn't listen to them.
>and unprecedented.
if they're saying that, they're lying.
> At this point the debate is simply you asserting that career officials are all mistaken.
Sure, try this or this, or this, or frankly, almost any of the hundreds of books on american diplomacy in ww1 and ww2 that you obviously haven't read yet for some reason have strong opinions about.