388 notes to pages 122‒127
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 471–72.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 192–93.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 461ff.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 181, 466.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 479–81.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 160–61.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 10ff.
- See especially MacMillan, Paris 1919 , Part Th ree.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , xxx, 54–55, 58–59.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , chap. 17.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 22–24, 26–28, 31–32.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 180–81.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 160–61.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 14–15, 287.
- Clements, Woodrow Wilson , 172–73. Th is view was fi rst expressed at
the time by the press, but the warning was also self-serving—reporters
wanted access to the meetings. See MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 57. - For a discussion of how Wilson misread public opinion in Italy, see
MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 298–300. - Th e claim was fi rst circulated widely by John Maynard Keynes, who had
an axe to grind because his recommendation to eschew reparations had
not been accepted. See MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 478–79. - MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 12–13.
- See MacMillan’s discussions of the Middle East, the Balkans, and Eastern
Europe. MacMillan, Paris 1919. - MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 9–10.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 200–1.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 187–89, 470–71.
- Japan secured former German possessions in the Pacifi c as mandates and
economic concessions in Shantung, China, over the strenuous objections
of the Chinese delegation. On the other hand, the Japanese did not get
everything they wanted: their proposed language on racial equality was
not included in the League of Nations provisions. - MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 96–97.
- MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 475.
- Macmillan is more generous to Clemenceau, but concedes that his
failure to build an alliance undermined all he gained at the conference.
MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 202–3. - MacMillan, Paris 1919 , 151–52.
- MacMillan reports that one journal poll found two-thirds of its readers
supportive of the League. But such polls could yield misleading results.
To cite the most notorious later example, the 1936 Literary Digest presi-
dential poll predicted that Franklin Roosevelt would lose the presidential
election, which he won by a landslide.