In conducting the post-mortem, we’re both oversimplifying a little by treating the victorious Allies as a unit. There were substantial disagreements among them. There may have been elements of both views present – that the French, for example, genuinely wanted the harsh terms, which were to some extent accepted by the British and the Americans on the theory that it was just a negotiating position.
I’m guessing that what I remember is from the book Peacemaking 1919, by Harold Nicholson. He participated in the peace conference, so he might be subject to the tendency you mention (that victors write history to suit themselves). On the other hand, he wasn’t a major decisionmaker, and my recollection is that he was willing to criticize some of the things that happened.
In terms of victors making themselves look good, it’s not clear which of these two versions looks better, as you stand amidst the rubble of Europe in 1945:
(1) To prevent another war, we opted for very harsh terms that would disable Germany from repeating its aggression and would be an object lesson to other countries. With the benefit of hindsight, I guess we overdid it.
(2) In one of the most important undertakings of our careers, we went in without a clear idea of our plan. We spent months in conference operating under the assumption that there would be further negotiations later, and then switched over to taking our negotiating position and using it as an ultimatum.
To my mind, option (1) is a regrettable but understandable mistake. Option (2) is pure screwup.
If I were you I wouldn’t worry about being too cynical. As Jane Wagner wrote in The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe (Lily Tomlin’s one-woman stage show), “No matter how cynical you are, it’s never enough to keep up.” So in this instance your cynicism may well be spot-on.
Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!
= new reply since forum marked as read