Open note to whomever checked out "Paris 1919" before me
Dear Sir or Madam,
I hope that you enjoyed "Paris 1919" as much as I have. What a rich subject, so ripe for analysis and new perspectives! The author's writing style goes a long way toward illuminating some of the more complicated aspects of diplomacy and statecraft at play following WWI. Your habit of underlining what you see as key points, however, does not.
Aside from the questionnable ethics of making underlines in a book owned by and lended to the general public, I'm a bit concerned by the substantive points you seem to be trying to convey to the next reader. (Here I assume that you realize that the book is not, in fact, your property, and thus the underlines are not for your own edification, or to aid in memory recall when flipping through for a later review.) Further, your underlines of some of the passages leads me to the conclusion that you've missed some of the larger points at issue.
For example, when you underline a passage quoting Trotsky, to the effect that "everyone knew that the capitalist nations were responsible for creating wars," it can seem as if you are perhaps willfully ignoring some of the more... shall we say "credited" causes of the Great War. This, of course, is aside from your apparent troubling willingness to sympathize with one of history's more caustic ideologies. Your emphasis of a passage citing President Wilson's strong belief in American exceptionalism (which, in the interest of context, it should be noted has also been attributed by certain parties to our current president in regards to our current overseas conflict) is also troubling, since it should be noted that this belief, at least as so far as it lead to American intervention in the conflict, was not widely shared, especially in the Congress. I'm not certain, but I think this may undermine your point.
I think it's well known that certain constituents see the current conflict largely as being the result of a corrupt administration, motivated to action by a strong belief in American exceptionalism and a healthy relationship with the "military-industrial complex." However, your attempt to propogate this view by pointing to what you see as historical parallels through your underlines, while somewhat clever, is laughably transparent, and historically tendentious. At least from my point of view. Maybe I'll find some sentences to underline in the book to illustrate these feelings to the next reader. Or maybe I'll just not be a horrendously inconsiderate asshole, and refrain from defacing public property.
Sincerely,
-Matt
To my readers: Yes, I'm pompous and affected. But seriously, who takes the time to do this kind of shit. People who do that should be put against a wall. Ha ha! Irony!




