Book Report 1: "Clemenceau and the Third Republic"

So, now and then I read a book that no one else has read for 50 years, if ever. So what?

This time it was "Clemenceau and the Third Republic" by Hampden Jackson (who he?), published by Macmillan in 1948 as part of a series called "Teach Yourself History". The book is about 4 x 6, 250 pages, and has the feel of a Modern Library book.

I wanted to know more about Georges Clemenceau. I just knew that he was the French representative at the Treat of Versailles ending World War I, and had a very imposing mustache. I thought there must be more to the story than that.

Clemenceau came from the Vendee (don't ask me; look it up in your atlas), where he landed family was none too wealthy, living in less than luxury, but his father, grandfather, etc. were trained physicians, freethinkers (meaning atheists), outspoken iconoclasts and eccentric individualists. Clemenceau too took on all of these traits as he grew.

He went to Paris for medical training, apparently a dedicated student but also spending time with other young French "Radicals", many of whom had before them important political careers. Rather than become a practitioner decided to go to America, to see the country most influenced by the French revolution, whose ideals he championed. He lived in the United States at the time of the civil war for four years, writing and lecturing, and meeting the woman who was to become his wife.

Shortly after their return to France, France and Prussia fought a war, one of the results of which was the overthrow of Louis Napolean and the creation of the French Third Republic. Suddenly it seemed that the ideals of the French revolution of 75 years before might be put into effect and, what was more, some of Clemenceau's friends were the politicians who were to be in charge.

He became more interested in local politics, becoming the mayor of Monmartre (still a separate city, not yet incorporated into Paris), and then a member of Paris Council, and finally of parliament. In parliament, he kept to his independent and outspoken ways, making some friends and probably more enemies. He learned quickly he was more at home as a critic than as a legislator. And the government of the time gave him much reason for criticism (think the financial scandals of the French company that was to have built the Panama Canal; think the Dreyfus case), and thus the basis for widespread notariety.

In 1906, for the first time, he agreed to take on a cabinet ministry, becoming Minister for Home Affairs. He was 65 at the time. His first task was to deal with a sudden, and expanding, coal mining strike. The radical Clemenceau, the man of the people, would have been expected to come down full on the side of the striking miners, but he did not. Instead, he orchestrated a settlement that gave each side something and reopened the mines. In this regard he was successful, but his means led to suspicions about his motives, and whether he was still holding the views he had previously maintained in the support of "the people".

For the next decade or so, he was in and out of government, depending on how the winds were blowing, and whom he offended. When he was not in government, he was writing, both books and newspaper columns. In 1914, when war broke out, the 73 year old Clemenceau wrote in "L'Homme Libre", "And now to arms! Everyone's chance will come: not a child on our soil but will have his part in the gigantic battle. To die is nothing; we must conquer."

In 1917, Clemenceau was called back to government, this time to form a government as premier. And he stayed in control throughout the remainder of the war, and then took control of the peace negotiations which he chaired because they were sited in France.

The peace negotiations were fascinating. From the perspective of the author, Clemenceau divided the tasks of the assembly into three: determining appropriate settlement terms and selling them to the conference delegates, convincing the defeated Germany and other defeated countries to sign, and selling the peace terms to the European parliaments and United States Congress that had to ratify them.

Clemenceau, now in his upper seventies, represented France by himself, keeping France's ministers and parliament often in the dark as to what he was doing. He took very strong positions at the start: heavy reparations on Germany, reconfiguration of German borders, giving the Saarland, and Alsace/Lorraine to France for example, and looking for the creation of an independent occupied country between France and the west bank of the Rhine. This was in line with the thinking of most of the French people.

But it is not what Wilson or Lloyd George had in mind, and Clemenceau compromised with them on a number of principals to create peace terms that all could agree on. The result was, yes, a treaty, for better or for worse as it turned out. But, for Clemenceau, he wound up in a lose/lose situation. His countrymen thought that he had gone soft; his allies thought that he was too vituperative and too tough.

After the treaty was signed, Clemenceau went into retirement. He lived another 10 years, dying just short of 90. He was no longer a factor in French politics, but in French memory. He started as an anti-government radical, when in power he took power into his own hands, continuing his distrust in government. He acted alone, and he died alone.

Jackson compares him to Churchill, which seems quite an apt description, from the biography he has written.

Is the book worth reading? Yes, if you find the subject interesting. But unless you borrow it from me, will you ever find the book?

How accurate is my synopsis. I would guess 80%. Not too bad, for a blog, right?

I was interested in the quote above at the start of the war: French jingoism. Particularly in connection with a chapter in another book I have recently written, "The Pity of it All" by Amos Elon, which tells the story of Jews in Germany from 1743-1933. Another book I highly recommend and one you can find, since it was written in 2003.

Chapter 9 of that book, called "War Fever" tells of the feelings in Germany at the start of the first world war. Equally enthusiastic. As if the war would save a society which had lost its way.

If I get the time, I will do an article on that topic. Enthusiasm at the start of World War I, as if the countries of Europe were embarking on a picnic, which will be oh, so much fun. Why was that? And what, if anything, does it mean for us?