City Travel Guides
Home Page > Go back a page
Books : Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945
Rating: 
- Engrossing, but...
Most reviewers have understandably, and rightly, focussed on the grand themes and the author's interpretation of events and conflicting political philosophies. I read the book at least in part, however, simply to refresh my knowledge of basic historical facts about the postwar era, and I still hope to use it as reference material to meet that same end. What disappointed me, however, was to discover some very basic errors about rather trivial matters which must call into question the overall standard of research and the veracity of what is presented.
For example, on pages 482/3 we are told that the Eurovision Song Contest was first broadcast in 1970 and, in an uncomfortably lengthy rant about its shortcomings, that it was a 'hopelessly dated format' that would have been 'out of date fifteen years earlier'. Which is somewhat ironic given that it was first broadcast in 1956! We can deduce that Prof Judt obviously isn't a Sandie Shaw fan.
In another rather bizarre diatribe, this time against the UK's present-day 'Heritage' industry, he cites what he perceives as the sanitised presentation of the early history of the pottery industry by reference to Josiah Wedgwood, complaining that (schoolchildren) .."...would search in vain for evidence of how the pottery workers lived or why the region was called the Black Country". Which, of course, it wasn't; the 'Potteries' and the 'Black Country' are distinct entities divided by a broad expanse of rural Staffordshire.
On page 299 he tells us that "Englishmen were the first to conquer Everest, with the help of an appropriately colonial guide", a statement which I imagine might cause some consternation amongst denizens of New Zealand and Nepal.
It could just be that Prof Judt is weak on the softer, 'cultural' issues, but my confidence in the rather more weighty 'facts' and obscure minutiae about rather more remote areas, as presented in his book, has been rather seriously dented.
The worst - and most amusing - of several rather sloppy 'typos' appears on page 339, where we learn that in the early 1950s there were "just 89,000 private cars in Spain: one for every 314,000 persons" - so, that's about 28 Billion Spaniards having to thumb a lift...
Rating:
- Superb
I can't recommend this book highly enough. It is very well-researched, full of insights and connections and most importantly, extremelty well-written. My main objection was that the Iberian countries were not well-covered and there is barely any mention of sport as a cultural influence.
The criticisms by communists below should be ignored. Judt does no more than set out accurately the history of eastern European countries alongside those of western countries. It is hardly his fault that those countries were economically and culturally backward and that their people were repressed. I should also defent Judt against the claim that he is somehow biased in favour of Turkey in some way. It is quite clear that Turkey is not within the purview of this book. Far from "one of the main claims" of the book being that Turkey is not a periphral country, Denmark gets more coverage. It is mentioned only in the context of the Cold War and it's conflict with Greece over Cyprus.
Rating:
- Objective?
I do not think that this book is objective, especially as far as moral double standards are concerned. It is not that the book does not cover Turkey because it is a peripheral European country. It does cover it and one of the main points of the book is that it is NOT a peripheral country. It does mentions the well-known abuses and crimes committed by Turkey but it stops there: The crimes are mentioned but there is no sign of the emotional condemnations typical of the book for other crimes it describes. On Yugoslavia too, it is true that a large part of the book deals with the conflict but only Serbian crimes are condemned whereas Croatian, Muslim and Kosovar crimes are (at best) just mentioned. I didn't see much rational and dispassionate analysis that would help the reader form an even-handed and complete picture.
On the other hand, it is true that the horrors of Communism were not in the past as well-known as now and this may explain the support of some Westerners for the Communist regimes. Nevertheless, the tendency of the book to identify ALL Western liberals with Soviet sympathisers is not just "slight" (The review of the book in "Publishers Weekly" uses the word "scathing" in this connection.) I think this identification is unfair and not reflecting actual facts.
Rating: - Objective?
I do not think that this book is objective, especially as far as moral double standards are concerned. It is not that the book does not cover Turkey because it is a peripheral European country. It does cover it and one of the main points of the book is that it is NOT a peripheral country. It does mentions the well-known abuses and crimes committed by Turkey but it stops there: The crimes are mentioned but there is no sign of the emotional condemnations typical of the book for other crimes it describes. On Yugoslavia too, it is true that a large part of the book deals with the conflict but only Serbian crimes are condemned whereas Croatian, Muslim and Kosovar crimes are (at best) just mentioned. I didn't see much rational and dispassionate analysis that would help the reader form an even-handed and complete picture.
On the other hand, it is true that the horrors of Communism were not in the past as well-known as now and this may explain the support of some Westerners for the Communist regimes. Nevertheless, the tendency of the book to identify ALL Western liberals with Soviet sympathisers is not just "slight" (The review of the book in "Publishers Weekly" uses the word "scathing" in this connection.) I think this identification is unfair and not reflecting actual facts.
Rating: - A thorough and engaging description of the history of Europe after 1945
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It contains a great deal of valuable information about the history of Europe following the disastrous years between 1914 and 1945. Anyone wishing to learn more about how Europe gradually recovered from the bloody wreckage of these years should read this book.
I disagree with the comments made in the two reviews below. I feel that the author is even-handed and objective in his descriptions of political movements. A slight tendency to overstate the point that some liberal thinkers in Western Europe outwardly supported communism in the first few decades after the war seems justified because it is important to illustrate that the true horrors of Sovietism were not always as well understood as they are now. He does not devote much of the book to describing the humanitarian abuses perpetrated by the Turkish government but this is understandable because Turkey is only on the periphery of Europe. Conversely he devotes a whole chapter to the Yugoslavian Civil War during which he describes the equally appalling tactics used by Slobadan Milosevic.
The book is well written and engaging even when some of the subject material is a bit dull. I like the author's style of writing; it is informative, witty and somewhat liberal. The book contains a good mix of social, political and economic history.
- Engrossing, but...Most reviewers have understandably, and rightly, focussed on the grand themes and the author's interpretation of events and conflicting political philosophies. I read the book at least in part, however, simply to refresh my knowledge of basic historical facts about the postwar era, and I still hope to use it as reference material to meet that same end. What disappointed me, however, was to discover some very basic errors about rather trivial matters which must call into question the overall standard of research and the veracity of what is presented.
For example, on pages 482/3 we are told that the Eurovision Song Contest was first broadcast in 1970 and, in an uncomfortably lengthy rant about its shortcomings, that it was a 'hopelessly dated format' that would have been 'out of date fifteen years earlier'. Which is somewhat ironic given that it was first broadcast in 1956! We can deduce that Prof Judt obviously isn't a Sandie Shaw fan.
In another rather bizarre diatribe, this time against the UK's present-day 'Heritage' industry, he cites what he perceives as the sanitised presentation of the early history of the pottery industry by reference to Josiah Wedgwood, complaining that (schoolchildren) .."...would search in vain for evidence of how the pottery workers lived or why the region was called the Black Country". Which, of course, it wasn't; the 'Potteries' and the 'Black Country' are distinct entities divided by a broad expanse of rural Staffordshire.
On page 299 he tells us that "Englishmen were the first to conquer Everest, with the help of an appropriately colonial guide", a statement which I imagine might cause some consternation amongst denizens of New Zealand and Nepal.
It could just be that Prof Judt is weak on the softer, 'cultural' issues, but my confidence in the rather more weighty 'facts' and obscure minutiae about rather more remote areas, as presented in his book, has been rather seriously dented.
The worst - and most amusing - of several rather sloppy 'typos' appears on page 339, where we learn that in the early 1950s there were "just 89,000 private cars in Spain: one for every 314,000 persons" - so, that's about 28 Billion Spaniards having to thumb a lift...
Rating:
- SuperbI can't recommend this book highly enough. It is very well-researched, full of insights and connections and most importantly, extremelty well-written. My main objection was that the Iberian countries were not well-covered and there is barely any mention of sport as a cultural influence.
The criticisms by communists below should be ignored. Judt does no more than set out accurately the history of eastern European countries alongside those of western countries. It is hardly his fault that those countries were economically and culturally backward and that their people were repressed. I should also defent Judt against the claim that he is somehow biased in favour of Turkey in some way. It is quite clear that Turkey is not within the purview of this book. Far from "one of the main claims" of the book being that Turkey is not a periphral country, Denmark gets more coverage. It is mentioned only in the context of the Cold War and it's conflict with Greece over Cyprus.
Rating:
- Objective?I do not think that this book is objective, especially as far as moral double standards are concerned. It is not that the book does not cover Turkey because it is a peripheral European country. It does cover it and one of the main points of the book is that it is NOT a peripheral country. It does mentions the well-known abuses and crimes committed by Turkey but it stops there: The crimes are mentioned but there is no sign of the emotional condemnations typical of the book for other crimes it describes. On Yugoslavia too, it is true that a large part of the book deals with the conflict but only Serbian crimes are condemned whereas Croatian, Muslim and Kosovar crimes are (at best) just mentioned. I didn't see much rational and dispassionate analysis that would help the reader form an even-handed and complete picture.
On the other hand, it is true that the horrors of Communism were not in the past as well-known as now and this may explain the support of some Westerners for the Communist regimes. Nevertheless, the tendency of the book to identify ALL Western liberals with Soviet sympathisers is not just "slight" (The review of the book in "Publishers Weekly" uses the word "scathing" in this connection.) I think this identification is unfair and not reflecting actual facts.
Rating:
- Objective?I do not think that this book is objective, especially as far as moral double standards are concerned. It is not that the book does not cover Turkey because it is a peripheral European country. It does cover it and one of the main points of the book is that it is NOT a peripheral country. It does mentions the well-known abuses and crimes committed by Turkey but it stops there: The crimes are mentioned but there is no sign of the emotional condemnations typical of the book for other crimes it describes. On Yugoslavia too, it is true that a large part of the book deals with the conflict but only Serbian crimes are condemned whereas Croatian, Muslim and Kosovar crimes are (at best) just mentioned. I didn't see much rational and dispassionate analysis that would help the reader form an even-handed and complete picture.
On the other hand, it is true that the horrors of Communism were not in the past as well-known as now and this may explain the support of some Westerners for the Communist regimes. Nevertheless, the tendency of the book to identify ALL Western liberals with Soviet sympathisers is not just "slight" (The review of the book in "Publishers Weekly" uses the word "scathing" in this connection.) I think this identification is unfair and not reflecting actual facts.
Rating:
- A thorough and engaging description of the history of Europe after 1945I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It contains a great deal of valuable information about the history of Europe following the disastrous years between 1914 and 1945. Anyone wishing to learn more about how Europe gradually recovered from the bloody wreckage of these years should read this book.
I disagree with the comments made in the two reviews below. I feel that the author is even-handed and objective in his descriptions of political movements. A slight tendency to overstate the point that some liberal thinkers in Western Europe outwardly supported communism in the first few decades after the war seems justified because it is important to illustrate that the true horrors of Sovietism were not always as well understood as they are now. He does not devote much of the book to describing the humanitarian abuses perpetrated by the Turkish government but this is understandable because Turkey is only on the periphery of Europe. Conversely he devotes a whole chapter to the Yugoslavian Civil War during which he describes the equally appalling tactics used by Slobadan Milosevic.
The book is well written and engaging even when some of the subject material is a bit dull. I like the author's style of writing; it is informative, witty and somewhat liberal. The book contains a good mix of social, political and economic history.