Yet the cardinal reasons for why the efforts of 1919 could found no durable peace lie far deeper. This was due neither to Clemenceau's pursuit of harmful designs on Germany nor, primarily, to the fact that Wilson's principles were too rigid to make for workable solutions to Europe's underlying postwar problems, chiefly that of security. Rather than focus on explaining what the peacemakers at Versailles did or did not achieve, a re-appraisal of their efforts should elucidate what they could – and more importantly what they could not – achieve under the conditions of 1919. Answering this latter question requires not only a fresh look at the protagonists' aims and strategies as well as the constraints they faced, both international and domestic. It also requires placing the Paris negotiations in their proper historical context – against the background of how the international system had evolved in the ‘long’ nineteenth century. Crucially, Versailles followed a long period of escalating imperialist rivalry preceding the July crisis of 1914. This historical canvass can only be sketched in broad brushstrokes here; but it is indispensable.

What, then, were the most critical issues facing Anglo-American policymakers? And what were the main structural challenges that, to a greater or lesser extent, figured on their ‘mental maps’? In short, they not only had to cope with the immense human and material costs of the war on both sides of the trenches – unprecedented death tolls, devastation on the battle-fields and the immense political, economic and social consequences of a conflict that nearly ruined all major European belligerents.