This is a tremendously insightful and thought-provoking book!

Author Christopher Catherwood has done his research well, demonstrating that there is a great deal in the Iraq of the 1920s that still resonates loudly today, as evidenced by Winston Churchill's correspondence of the period:

- On the nature of warfare in Iraq: "Week after week and month after month for a long time we shall have a continuance of this miserable, wasteful, sporadic, warfare marked from time to time certainly by minor disasters and cutting off of troops and agents, and very possibly attended by some grave occurrence."

- On the impact of the news media: "I am quite certain that the loose talk indulged in the newspapers about the speedy evacuation of Mesopotamia [Iraq] earlier in the year was a factor which provoked and promoted the [1920] rebellion."

- On the British military in Iraq: "Our own military forces are extremely weak and maintained with great difficulty and expense, and we have not secured a single friend among the local powers."

- On the threat of a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq: "Please telegraph fully what evidence you have pointing to a Turkish invasion during the present year. I am naturally doing my utmost to procure a settlement with the Turks which will ease our position throughout the Middle East. Evidence tending to show the dangers to our Mesopotamia position by Turkish hostility will be useful.

[Fearing a Turkish invasion of Mosul, Churchill went on to recommend that British forces in northern Iraq not be withdrawn until they could be replaced by Iraqi forces.]

- Churchill's Agenda for a Reduction in Strength of British forces in Iraq: "First, the new ruler; Second, future size, character and organization of the future [British] garrison; Third, the time-table of reduction from present strength to that garrison; Fourth, arising out of the above the extend of territory to be held and administered."

Some of the author's conclusions:

- In modern Iraq religion is stronger than nationalism.

- Any new Iraqi regime will have the same problems of legitimacy that so hampered the Hashemite rulers of Iraq and their successors from 1921 to 1958. During that period the country suffered through no less than 58 changes of government, a sure sign of chronic and unresolved instability

- Genuine democracy means the absolute right of the people to make even the wrong choice. Iraq could end up with a theocratic regime not entirely dissimilar to the one in Iran.

- Under such a regime, the Kurds and Sunni Arabs might wish to withdraw from what would be a majority Shiite state, triggering an unbridled civil war much larger than those in Bosnia and Kosovo.

- Oil, a blessing for Iraq, could become a curse for the region if Iraqi Arabs attempt to take the oil-rich area of northern Iraq from the Kurds, prompting a Turkish military invention.

This is a tremendously insightful and thought-provoking book!



Author Christopher Catherwood has done his research well, demonstrating that there is a great deal in the Iraq of the 1920s that still resonates loudly today, as evidenced by Winston Churchill's correspondence of the period:



- On the nature of warfare in Iraq: "Week after week and month after month for a long time we shall have a continuance of this miserable, wasteful, sporadic, warfare marked from time to time certainly by minor disasters and cutting off of troops and agents, and very possibly attended by some grave occurrence."



- On the impact of the news media: "I am quite certain that the loose talk indulged in the newspapers about the speedy evacuation of Mesopotamia [Iraq] earlier in the year was a factor which provoked and promoted the [1920] rebellion."



- On the British military in Iraq: "Our own military forces are extremely weak and maintained with great difficulty and expense, and we have not secured a single friend among the local powers."



- On the threat of a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq: "Please telegraph fully what evidence you have pointing to a Turkish invasion during the present year. I am naturally doing my utmost to procure a settlement with the Turks which will ease our position throughout the Middle East. Evidence tending to show the dangers to our Mesopotamia position by Turkish hostility will be useful.



[Fearing a Turkish invasion of Mosul, Churchill went on to recommend that British forces in northern Iraq not be withdrawn until they could be replaced by Iraqi forces.]



- Churchill's Agenda for a Reduction in Strength of British forces in Iraq: "First, the new ruler; Second, future size, character and organization of the future [British] garrison; Third, the time-table of reduction from present strength to that garrison; Fourth, arising out of the above the extend of territory to be held and administered."



Some of the author's conclusions:



- In modern Iraq religion is stronger than nationalism.



- Any new Iraqi regime will have the same problems of legitimacy that so hampered the Hashemite rulers of Iraq and their successors from 1921 to 1958. During that period the country suffered through no less than 58 changes of government, a sure sign of chronic and unresolved instability



- Genuine democracy means the absolute right of the people to make even the wrong choice. Iraq could end up with a theocratic regime not entirely dissimilar to the one in Iran.



- Under such a regime, the Kurds and Sunni Arabs might wish to withdraw from what would be a majority Shiite state, triggering an unbridled civil war much larger than those in Bosnia and Kosovo.



- Oil, a blessing for Iraq, could become a curse for the region if Iraqi Arabs attempt to take the oil-rich area of northern Iraq from the Kurds, prompting a Turkish military invention.

This is a tremendously insightful and thought-provoking book!

Author Christopher Catherwood has done his research well, demonstrating that there is a great deal in the Iraq of the 1920s that still resonates loudly today, as evidenced by Winston Churchill's correspondence of the period:

- On the nature of warfare in Iraq: "Week after week and month after month for a long time we shall have a continuance of this miserable, wasteful, sporadic, warfare marked from time to time certainly by minor disasters and cutting off of troops and agents, and very possibly attended by some grave occurrence."

- On the impact of the news media: "I am quite certain that the loose talk indulged in the newspapers about the speedy evacuation of Mesopotamia [Iraq] earlier in the year was a factor which provoked and promoted the [1920] rebellion."

- On the British military in Iraq: "Our own military forces are extremely weak and maintained with great difficulty and expense, and we have not secured a single friend among the local powers."

- On the threat of a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq: "Please telegraph fully what evidence you have pointing to a Turkish invasion during the present year. I am naturally doing my utmost to procure a settlement with the Turks which will ease our position throughout the Middle East. Evidence tending to show the dangers to our Mesopotamia position by Turkish hostility will be useful.

[Fearing a Turkish invasion of Mosul, Churchill went on to recommend that British forces in northern Iraq not be withdrawn until they could be replaced by Iraqi forces.]

- Churchill's Agenda for a Reduction in Strength of British forces in Iraq: "First, the new ruler; Second, future size, character and organization of the future [British] garrison; Third, the time-table of reduction from present strength to that garrison; Fourth, arising out of the above the extend of territory to be held and administered."

Some of the author's conclusions:

- In modern Iraq religion is stronger than nationalism.

- Any new Iraqi regime will have the same problems of legitimacy that so hampered the Hashemite rulers of Iraq and their successors from 1921 to 1958. During that period the country suffered through no less than 58 changes of government, a sure sign of chronic and unresolved instability

- Genuine democracy means the absolute right of the people to make even the wrong choice. Iraq could end up with a theocratic regime not entirely dissimilar to the one in Iran.

- Under such a regime, the Kurds and Sunni Arabs might wish to withdraw from what would be a majority Shiite state, triggering an unbridled civil war much larger than those in Bosnia and Kosovo.

- Oil, a blessing for Iraq, could become a curse for the region if Iraqi Arabs attempt to take the oil-rich area of northern Iraq from the Kurds, prompting a Turkish military invention.

great background foundation history to todays strategic current events in Middle East

great background foundation history to todays strategic current events in Middle East

How does the Iraq quagmire the United States finds itself in some three and a half years after invading that Middle East country, to supposedly remove dictator Saddam Hussein from power and look for `weapons of mass destruction,' relate to the legacy of one of the 20th Century's most famous figures?

World War One and its conclusion created many of the problems for the world that we are still suffering from today, with one being the forced creation of the many countries of the Middle East who sells oil to the west. Iraq was one of those nations formed that was not based on any ethnic consideration of the tribes living there but was instead constituted just so the British Petroleum Oil Company could drill for oil and do it with a friendly foreign government's blessing and pledge of non-interference.

So if there's one individual from history that we can blame for the unpleasant situation we find ourselves at in Iraq and hope to one day extract ourselves from then it would have to be the late, great British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. It was he who devised that secular nation amongst others in the Middle East from nothing, except for a map and political convenience, and that forced creation has caused the western powers nothing but grief ever since.

That is the conclusion of author Christopher Catherwood in his non-fiction book entitled `Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq' that has been released by Carroll and Graf. Catherwood's work was published in 2004 and has just been issued in trade paperback. In the provocative tome, Catherwood alleges that the legendary World War Two war leader's forced gathering of Iraq's three major Muslim tribes into one `united' nation began the problems in that region that still haunts us today.

The Ottoman Empire that previously controlled most of the Middle East from Palestine all the way south to what is present day Saudi Arabia collapsed in 1918 at the end of The Great War. Britain and France took control of those former colonies via the spoils of victory and subsequently carved up that region for their own vested financial interests. And it was Winston Churchill who personally put forward the plans of dividing up those oil-rich lands for Britain's benefit.
Churchill was a member of the British Parliament at the conclusion of that war and had been appointed by British Labor Party Prime Minister David Lloyd George to the position of Colonial Secretary, whose job was to restructure the newly inherited region. He forced together the Sunni Muslims Kurds, Sunni Muslim Arabs and Shiite Muslims under a single ruler in that land along the Tigris River to be called Iraq (Al-Jumhurria Al-Iraqia) which meant `the Republic of the River Shore.' His main goal: Establish a series of Arab states that were friendly to Great Britain and at as little cost as possible to the cash poor British Empire that was still suffering the financial effects of the just concluded four year worldwide war.

The problem we face as we try to get these same tribes to work together in this democratic form of government they've just approved is that Churchill's guide for dividing up the conquered territories eighty years ago was not based on any ethnic tribal considerations into creating separate sovereign nations who would respect their Muslim neighbors. Instead, he devised a simplistic formula to ensure that the British Petroleum Oil Company made the maximum amount of profits on its wells in those lands with as little problem as possible from the locals and those he chose to become the rulers of those artificially created countries.
Author Catherwood's main argument in his thesis is that Churchill made a crucial mistake when forming those three tribes into the nation of Iraq and it appears that we, as the backers of this new constitution are about to repeat, is assume that the people of those tribes believe that nationalism is more important to them than their religious beliefs.
A previously disgraced Saudi Arab named Faisel Haishem who had been thrown out of those lands subsequently emigrated north and was personally selected by Churchill to rule the newly created country as a devoted ally to the west. He and his descendents of the self-proclaimed Haishemite Dynasty reigned over Iraq from 1921 to 1958 until they were deposed in a violent military coup with most of the royal family and their supporters being killed. Military dictators ruled the country from then on with an iron fist and that eventually gave us Saddam Hussein who took control in 1979 until his overthrow by the United States led multi-country military invasion in 2003.

Could Winton Churchill's forced creation of Iraq back in 1922 eventually cause the downfall of the United States one century later? The rebel forces in Afghanistan beat the old Soviet Union in 1989 and that loss contributed to that union's dissolution into smaller, less thriving states in 1991. Will Saddam Hussein have the last laugh if it turns out that the Iraq quagmire Winston Churchill gave us leads to a final breakup of that nation's three tribes into smaller states that are constantly at war with each other and their neighbors? And by our own meddling into Iraq's affairs could it even lead to our own country's ruin?

Christopher Catherwood, a professor affiliated with Cambridge University's Institute of Continuing Education, has written this book on the modern history of what has come to be called Iraq. Putting Churchill's name into the title makes the book so much easier to market to those Americans who react to Churchill's name with the same giddiness that any mention of the Beatles once elicited from teenage girls.

To his credit, Catherwood has tried to cut through the fog of ideology and propaganda to get to the bottom of what happened. Unfortunately, his undertaking wasn't even close to successful. For example, Catherwood claims that the oil companies had no way of being sure that Iraq had oil deposits at the time that the Iraqi boundaries were drawn. This despite the fact that crude oil had been seeping up to the surface in Iraq since biblical times, when, because it was deemed a medicine, had been brought by caravan to such distant places as China. Natural gas also made its way to the surface, and would catch fire in eerie flames that the Iraqis attributed to ghosts. These indisputable facts utterly refute the world according to Catherwood that this book has to offer..

Catherwood implies that the British were only interested in Iraq's oil because of its military use - one almost hears undertones insisting that the British only wanted a platonic relationship - but neglects to mention the close ties between Shell Oil and the admiral who fanatically urged advocated that the Royal Navy transition to oil. These ties were so close that some of his colleagues were convinced that he had some financial stake in the deal. I could write further paragraphs in this vein.

Were I ever to write a book on a subject so shrouded in disagreement as Iraq's history, I would make sure to first talk with knowledgeable people from the region, and then consult the writings of academics. Unfortunately Catherwood seems to only have done the latter, to his colossal book's detriment. Clio must feel slighted. The only reason I don't give the book a single star, is that there are even worse books on the subject.

Christopher Catherwood, a professor affiliated with Cambridge University's Institute of Continuing Education has written this book on the modern history of what has come to be called Iraq. Putting Churchill's name into the title makes the book so much easier to market to those Americans who react to Churchill's name with the same giddiness that any mention of the Beatles once elicited from teenage girls.

To his credit, Catherwood has tried to cut through the fog of ideology and propaganda to get to the bottom of what happened. Unfortunately, his quest was not even close to successful. For example, Catherwood claims that the oil companies had no way of being sure that Iraq had oil deposits at the time that the Iraqi boundaries were drawn. This despite the fact that crude oil had been seeping up to the surface in Iraq since biblical times, and, because it was deemed a medicine, had been brought by caravan to such distant places as China. Natural gas was also known to make its way to the surface, and catch fire in rather eerie flames that the Iraqis attributed to ghosts. Such well-established facts are not congruent with Catherwood's version of history.

Catherwood implies that the British were only interested in Iraq's oil because of its military use, but doesn't mention the close ties between Shell Oil and the admiral who almost fanatically urged the Royal Navy to transition to oil. These ties were so close that some of his colleagues were convinced that he had some financial interest in this transition. One could go on and on...

Were I ever to write a book on a subject so shrouded in disagreement as Iraq's history, I would make sure to first talk with knowledgeable people from the region, and then perhaps consult the writings of academics. Unfortunately Catherwood seems to only have done the latter, much to his books detriment. The only reason I don't give the book a single star, is that there are even worse books on the subject.

Christopher Catherwood, a professor affiliated with Cambridge University's Institute of Continuing Education has written this book on the modern history of what has come to be called Iraq. Having Churchill's name in the title makes the book so much easier to market to those Americans who react to Churchill's name with the same giddiness that any mention of the Beatles once elicited from pubescent girls.

To his great credit, Catherwood has tried to cut through the fog of ideologies and propaganda to get to the bottom of what happened. Unfortunately, his quest was not even close to successful. For example, Catherwood claims that the oil companies had no way of being sure that Iraq had oil deposits at the time that the Iraqi boundaries were drawn. He would appear oblivious to the fact that crude oil had been bubbling up to the surface in Iraq since biblical times, and, because it was deemed to be useful as a medicine, had been brought by caravan to such distant places as China. Before oil was exploited in Iraq, natural gas was also known to make its way to the surface, and then catch fire in rather eerie flames that the Iraqis attributed to ghosts. Even the lobotomized can understand that in such a setting there must copious amounts of oil.

Similarly, Catherwood implies that the British were only interested in Iraq's oil because for military use, but doesn't mention the close ties between Shell Oil and the admiral who did all he could to transition the Royal Navy to using oil. These ties were so close that some of his colleagues were convinced that he had some financial interest in this transition. One could go on and on...

Were I ever to write a book on a subject so shrouded in disagreement as Iraq's history, I would make sure to first talk with knowledgeable people from the region, and then perhaps consult the writings of academics. Unfortunately Catherwood seems to only have done the latter, much to his books detriment. The only reason I don't give the book a single star, is that there are even worse books on the subject.

The state of Iraq was conceived in error. The English drew lines on maps and thus created a country with separate populations--Kurd, Sunni, Shia. Thus, the problem of a nonunified populace occurred at the beginning.

Then, the English favored Sunnis, thus creating conflicts among the three major population groups.

Budgetary problems led to England running its "mandate" on the cheap.

In a way, we see the problems thus created at the origins manifest after the American invasion. The problem of the three distinct major populations and the American effort "on the cheap" (the pledges of electricity, water, sanitation, and security--too few American "feet on the ground"--were obviously never redeemed) are issues that never should have occurred. These recapitulate the decisions made at the origins of Iraq--and indicate a lack of reflection on lessons that should have been learned.

The state of Iraq was conceived in error. The English drew lines on maps and thus created a country with separate populations--Kurd, Sunni, Shia. Thus, the problem of a nonunified populace occurred at the beginning.

Then, the English favored Sunnis, thus creating conflicts among the three major population groups.

Budgetary problems led to England running its "mandate" on the cheap.

In a way, we see the problems thus created at the origins manifest after the American invasion. The problem of the three distinct major populations and the American effort "on the cheap" (the pledges of electricity, water, sanitation, and security--too few American "feet on the ground"--were obviously never redeemed) are issues that never should have occurred. These recapitulate the decisions made at the origins of Iraq--and indicate a lack of reflection on lessons that should have been learned.

Whenever I get a chance to talk smack about Winston Churchill, I take it. With that in mind, I read this book subtitled "How Churchill Created Modern Iraq". Churchill was the man in charge of the Middle East following World War One, when with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the Middle East as we know it today was created. While the book focuses on the creation of a nominally independent Iraq under British control, the grand geo-political games played by all in the Mid East are touched upon, as well as the internal political dynamics of British politics in which Churchill was a major player, jockeying to increase his power. But most of all this is a look at Churchill himself and the choices he made. According to Catherwood, Churchill's main goal was the creation of "an Arab regime that would preserve British interests but would cost as little as possible." (96) This was his guiding principle, not the self-determination of the local population or their well-being. His priority was Britain. Now Catherwood, while pointing out many of the shortcomings of Churchill's policies and actions, in the end absolves Churchill of any real guilt, he was simply a pragmatic politician doing what he though was best for Britain. I, however, disagree. I consider Churchill the last of the real old school imperialists, and this book shows that with great clarity. His short-sighted political interests precluded him from doing what was best in the long term not only for Britain and Iraq, but for the whole world. He had know problems killing as many people as possible for what was, in the end, his own personal political goals. As Catherwood points out, this included using chemical weapons in Iraq. Catherwood concludes with some other options Churchill could have chosen, and creates some counterfactual outcomes that are certainly interesting. But in the end, Churchill did what he did, and the world today is dealing with the consequences.

Whenever I get a chance to talk smack about Winston Churchill, I take it. With that in mind, I read this book subtitled "How Churchill Created Modern Iraq". Churchill was the man in charge of the Middle East following World War One, when with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the Middle East as we know it today was created. While the book focuses on the creation of a nominally independent Iraq under British control, the grand geo-political games played by all in the Mid East are touched upon, as well as the internal political dynamics of British politics in which Churchill was a major player, jockeying to increase his power. But most of all this is a look at Churchill himself and the choices he made. According to Catherwood, Churchill's main goal was the creation of "an Arab regime that would preserve British interests but would cost as little as possible." (96) This was his guiding principle, not the self-determination of the local population or their well-being. His priority was Britain. Now Catherwood, while pointing out many of the shortcomings of Churchill's policies and actions, in the end absolves Churchill of any real guilt, he was simply a pragmatic politician doing what he though was best for Britain. I, however, disagree. I consider Churchill the last of the real old school imperialists, and this book shows that with great clarity. His short-sighted political interests precluded him from doing what was best in the long term not only for Britain and Iraq, but for the whole world. He had know problems killing as many people as possible for what was, in the end, his own personal political goals. As Catherwood points out, this included using chemical weapons in Iraq. Catherwood concludes with some other options Churchill could have chosen, and creates some counterfactual outcomes that are certainly interesting. But in the end, Churchill did what he did, and the world today is dealing with the consequences.

First thought on reading reviews of this very good book was it's author, a Prime Minister Blair appointee, whom I thought, would take pot shots at one of my great hero's of my generation.
I was born in 1938 and spent my infant/pubescant life living in the same era as the Great Man. A friend of mine, whilst growing up in Eccles, Manchester, had these words to say about this Titan.."all of us have been touched with greatness having lived in the age of Churchill"
I have never been a supporter of Colonialism, so the authors revelations of Mr Churchills intransigence in the face of the tide of history concerning the colonies was a surprise to me.
Nonetheless, as a primer on the "middle east" Churchill's Folly is an invaluable addition to the understanding of the political morrass that is todays Middle East" a truly great read.

This book should have been required reading before we attacked Iraq. It demonstrates how a lack of historical research can result in repeating the same mistakes. It is extremely well written and brings reality to the many false myths that led to the division of the spoils and the creation of present-day Iraq. I recommend it to all readers who really want to know the de-mythologized account of what happened after World War One.

While the book does contain a lot of interesting facts, the author strays from the main point (Iraq) a lot to talk about the area as a whole. What is spoken about in several chapters could be summed up in one chapter. It seems to repeat the same facts over and over again just to make the book longer.

Though I must digress and give the author some credit for making his point that Iraq is an anachronism--something that does not belong in this time period and could have been settled a different way. But I still have to point out that this book was dry and not as enlightening as it could have been. Read a book with more scope, one perhaps about the Peace of Paris and how the Middle East ties in with it. I'm sure there are more than enough.

This effort would have been better in a shortened form as an article in a serious magazine. The book reads much like notes from a university lecture series that have been rushed to print to capture the public's current interest in Iraq. Nonetheless it will be of use to those who desire some political background on how modern Iraq was formed in the post-World War I era and why the decisions made then still reverberate today.

I did not like the book, which is fundamentally flawed from the concept and proposition. Sorry to have wasted my time going through it.

Whether there is psychological karma I do not know, but there surely is political karma, and this book traces the peculiar imperialistic origins and desinies of the Iraq triangulation and later geopolitical nervous breakdown to its roots, and perpetrators. It is a small world and who should have presided over this but Churchhill (I should have known that), not yet the wise fox of World War II heroism, but a younger and more reckless politico, in the midst of a mess in the making. The opinions in this book are reasonable, but even if further study could show problems and revised opinions, the amount of fresh information makes it an interesting read, if a bit ersatz. Usefully informative, and a way station to still further revelations, no doubt.

This book gives a fair explanation of how the country of Iraq came to be. Specifically, the Middle East was under the control of France and England in 1910. Over the next 50 years, both masters would haphazardly carve up their desert empires into nations with very little consideration as to what the locals wanted. A primary example is Iraq's formation by Winston Churchill, who like Donald Rumsfeld now, probably did not put as much time and care into it as required. The formation of Iraq was made partly out of financial reasons (England not wanting to maintain a large presence there) partly out of strategic reasons (buffer regions against not-so-friendly neighbors in the Middle East) and partly out of political reasons (devolution of the colonies was becoming a serious political issue in England). The author addresses all of these issues and their effects on Churchill.

For those who want a solid introduction to modern Iraq's formation, this is the best book to read. I would not suggest this book for learning about Iraq in general. Unlike other books on this subject, there is minimal discussion of Iraq after the British left, and even less on Iraq's history before English colonization.

CHURCHILL'S FOLLY is a great book for ordinary readers.

One point: Catherwood has been at Cambridge since 1978. He lectures for their Institute of Continuing Education, which is part of Cambridge University. He lectured some years ago for courses organised by folk at the University's Centre (sic) of International Studies. Only snobs and pedants would say that the highly rated Institute of Continuing Education is not a full part of Cambridge University. His (very) long acknowledgements make it very clear who he is and for whom he teaches. Cambridge Continuing Education classes have pupils ranging from Nobel prizewinners to housewives.

This book will not win the Pulitzer. Nor does it aim to compete with the Macmillan and similar books, to which Catherwood makes copious references in his own work.

What it does is to give us a helpful snapshot of how Winston Churchill was involved in the creation of Iraq in 1921, something that has been in many newspaper articles in recent months.

Lloyd George was pro-Greek. As Catherwood does tell us, Lloyd George thought that Venizvelos was the greatest Greek since Demosthenes, a quote he got from Macmillan's book (see the numerous endnotes).

I am keeping my copy. Don't let snobs and pedants mislead you. This is a helpful book that you don't need a degree in history to read. That is the point of Continuing Education, and Catherwood fulfills his task.

This is a very superficial work. Although described as a "Cambridge historian" and, according to the cover flap, he "teaches history at Cambridge University", in fact the author teaches Continuing Education classes at the Universities of Cambridge (U.K.) and Richmond, Va., U.S.A. The book reads like a rushed first draft. It is repetitive and disorganized, with little plan except a chronological line. Characters are barely developed, except that Sir Henry Wilson is either "the acerbic chief of the Imperial General Staff" (twice, pp. 75 and 82) or "irascible and violently anti-Lloyd George". We are told numerous times that Lloyd George was pro-Greek and anti-Turk (no explanation of why) and we are told time and time again that Churchill owes his political career to Lloyd George because the Conservatives considered him a turncoat. I cannot believe that a real editor read the work before printing, or that the author himself reviewed his first draft. The work also has little historical value and scarce analytical content. The subject matter is treated much better in "Peace to End All Peace" and "Paris 1919". Save your money... or you can buy my own copy cheap.