Versailles – and after

As the war drew to an end, progressive publicists evinced both excitement and nervousness. There was a general sense of momentous events occurring and impending. To Baker, at the beginning of November it seemed as if “the very world” was “on fire” with “dynasties crumbling, great battles in progress, new nations being born, the statesmen of the world sitting at Versailles to decide the fate of the world.” With the downfall of the Austrian and German empires, some of the hopes and prophecies of American liberals were already being fulfilled, as pro-war editorialists stressed. “In all Europe east of the Rhine,” the New Republic declared confidently, “the spell that made the common man humble himself before the hereditary landowner … has been broken.” “We have done what the French Revolution in its first ardor tried to do,” boasted Devine in the Survey. However, the liberal journals also warned against over-optimism. “Far be it from us to play the part of a kill-joy in these days of rejoicing over the destruction of monarchic absolutism and militarism, its instrument,” the Independent observed, but “those of us who are impatient for the realization of our dreams of a world made securely democratic, peace-abiding and enlightened, may as well prepare ourselves for many disappointments and much tedious waiting.” There was, nevertheless, a widespread feeling that both abroad and at home the forces of reform were on the verge of a unique opportunity. “Never I think,” Baker wrote, “was the world in such plastic state.”

The immediate focus of attention, of course, was the forthcoming peace conference, and it was in respect of this that nervousness was most apparent.