Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop now Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars
13
4.5 out of 5 stars
5 star
8
4 star
3
3 star
2
2 star
0
1 star
0
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 20 May 2012
Having always an interest in the formation of modern Europe, especially of Italy, Germany and Eastern Europe, I thought this would tie things together for me. Too true. It does the job perfectly so that you can see the machinations [or is superb diplomacy] of Metternich, Cavour, Bismarck, von Beust and Russell. Taylor explains in everyday terms why Austria didn't join with the rest of the German-speaking world; and how Italy came to have such a strange northern border; and why the Triple Alliance of 1883 predisposed Europe to a major war; and .....oh too many things to mention. Just well written and easy to follow, even if you need to make the odd note of who's who. And now the Balkan question has been reopened in our time; and the viability of Greece as a sovereign state; and the dominance across the continent of Berlin the old capital of Prussia; and France's continuing claim to be the focus for culture and European sensibility. So much of Taylor's book makes sense today, probably in a way he couldn't envisage. Highly recommended.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 20 November 2008
A.J.P Taylor's history is told through the prism of diplomatic affairs and great power jockeying for position. This is only one aspect of history, but in fact this book is an excellent guide to 19th century Europe overall, or its second half, and it has enough about economic and political developments to be readable as a general work. It is also extremely entertaining, both in a gossipy kind of way and because Taylor isn't afraid of going through the strategic intricacies of each situation. Don't be discouraged by the length; this is extremely readable. And it becomes wistful in the end, as your English summer slowly goes.

I once recommended this as a `top 3' to someone who knew very little history, but Taylor's well-known work appeals both to the novice and the knowledgeable amateur.
0Comment| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 11 June 2011
Wonderful read, accessible, informative, compelling and sometimes very funny. The detail is exquisite, this got my through my A level History coursework as well as the responsibility for First World War question in the exam. Would recommend this to anyone interested in the topic who wants a accessible read and to A level and University students alike who a required to study this exciting era in international relations. A.J.P Taylor is a creative, brilliant historian who brings an new level of enjoyment to the subject, you will find yourself engrossed in the story and the relationships between foreign ministers and leaders, unable to put the book down and before you will know it will be 1 in the morning. Bottom line this book is very very good for any budding historian and a thoroughly enjoyable read!
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 December 2007
This isn't the ideal book for someone to try and get acquainted with the subject for the first time as the sheer number of key figures and events is quite substantial. Despite that problem I did finish the book with a much greater sense of how the events of this seventy year period played into one another. The complex array of shifting alliances and jockeying for position is conveyed quite ably, although a glossary of the key figures would have been useful for relative neophytes like myself.
0Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
This is the story - told from the point of view of the diplomatic players - of the last decades of European domination of the world. It is also about the death of the balance of power and the decline of both France and Austria-Hungary. The focus of the book is what leaders were thinking, how they pursued their goals, and the outcome of their machinations and wars, most petty, some major. This approach (diplomatic history) contrasts sharply with analytic or narrative histories whose principal aims include the search for broad trends, the interpretation of deeper causes, and portraits of culture and everyday life. Instead, here, you get what the powerful were trying to do, literally from moment to moment. For myself, while fascinating in many aspects and essential, I found it pretty dry as a reading experience.

The beginning of the period, in the wake of the 1848 revolutions, marks the end of a long period of "revolutionary diplomacy", whereby the ideals of the French Revolution influenced many diplomatic actions. Napoleon III seized power and concentrated on more traditional balance of power diplomacy, as head of the most powerful nation-state at the time. The Brits were content to develop on their own, only stepping into continental entanglements when they could no longer avoid it. Russia, Austria-Hungary and Turkey were in perhaps terminal decline, though clinging to the perquisites of power in their respective multi-ethnic autocracies, in which nationalistic ambitions of an astonishing array of players were threatening them with territorial dissolution. In the effort to unify the country, Italy was having its own revolution. The great wild card was Prussia, at the beginning of the period a small kingdom that, under the leadership of a strategic genius, Bismarck, was slowly consolidating its hold over a vast territory of Germanic speakers; it was a nation in birth, a coming industrial superpower with a huge population that would irrevocably shatter the balance of power.

Until 1870, these powers struggled for the typical fruits of the time: gaining territories, trade rights, and any number of privileges or concessions from each other. The complexity of these concerns is daunting and almost without exception obscure, but they were indeed the principal concerns of the leaders of the time. When disputes reached a certain point of impasse, they were often resolved by small-scale war, giving the victor the spoils of whatever was demanded, be it passage into and out of the Black Sea, domination of Poland, or control of the Suez Canal for trade with Asia. The book attempts to cover every single one of these disputes, showing exactly what was contemplated in chronological succession and the what happened in the end. Some readers seem to like this detail, and the gist is important to understand, but a lot of it is historical trivia of little interest, at least in my estimation.

Each power was juggling so many interests that the whole is like a dark forest of thorny complexities, obscure secret agreements, and tenuous alliances of mutual benefit. It was like they were all playing chess on the same board - some controlling the major pieces, some smaller ones, all in potential conflict or cooperation at one time but not another. Another analogy that comes to mind is competing LEGO constructions in a limited space, each player endowed with its own array of pieces that they traded and fought over or used collaboratively.

Beyond the petty wars (to 1870), there were 3 major engagements that led to decisive consequences. 1) The Crimean War removed Russia as a top-tier player until after WWII. 2) The Prussian victory over Austria-Hungary reduced the latter, with all its ethnic divisions, to a dependent power, ratifying German domination of central EUrope. 3) In 1870, France also fell from the top tier, when it capitulated to Prussia after a brief war.

The Conference of Berlin led to the longest period of peace in Europe since the Roman Empire. Over the next 40-odd years, European diplomats played the game of the balance of power, all the while investing in the new determinants of power: commerce, heavy industry (in particular steel production), and military technology; they avoided outright war. The two greatest achievers in this realm were Great Britain (with its mechanized navy) and Germany (split between navy and ground forces), leaving others behind in one or more areas. They created innumerable systems of alliances, peacekeeping, and trade, but all for the traditional parochial reasons. It should be noted that many of their motivations were face-saving and for appearance and prestige, for they had to take public opinion increasingly into consideration. This added to inflexibility.

The outbreak of WWI is part of a long discussion in the book. This was one of the most interesting dissections of diplomatic detail that I have ever read. According to Taylor, the bottom line was that the various powers thought the war would be short and decisive. Germany wanted to dominate Europe and thought it could do so by aggrandizing its territories. France, Russia, and Great Britain feared this and hoped to preserve the balance of power to their advantage. Austria Hungary and Turkey wanted to maintain the integrity of their territories from splitting into ethno-linguistic nation states. Oddly, none of the major powers seemed to have any clear goals, backup plans, or even coherent strategies, but went into it as a way to impose solutions to their advantage by force rather than diplomacy - that is, the way things had been done prior to 1870, but with far more advanced military machines that mobilized not just whole populations but industrial economies. Once started, no one could back down and it became a catastrophic war of attrition, bringing in the USA and ending the era of EUropean domination of the world. That brings us to 1918.

I believe Taylor's interpretation of the European modus operandi - the fight to maintain yet disrupt the balance of power - is correct. What I missed was a lively narrative with biographical texture and descriptive detail. I know that that is not part of the strict discipline of diplomatic history, but potential readers should be aware of this.

Recommended. It is a fundamental text, but something of a chore to read.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 27 July 2001
This book is typical of AJP Taylor's brilliant and original historical analysis. Where it falls below his standard (particularly Origins of Second World War) is in the turgidness of the writing, and the blow-by-blow account of events. There is also an element of "I am writing a great book here". I think also maybe the period was too long and complex to suite AJP Taylor's level of detail which I feel is character-based. In other words, the shape of events are drawn through a close examination of personal motives, the roles and motivations of the players etc. I would have preferred a more sweeping book which looked at the period as a whole. Then to look back, and summarise the role of players - perhaps at the period when they died, or fell. Therefore, the fault of the book (in my view) is in construction which conflicts too much with the style of writing. Overall, an excellent insight into the period, and a reflection of Taylor's decisive contribution to history. However, if have read his other books, you may be disappointed that this is not a casual read.
0Comment| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 February 2013
This is book about the European diplomacy between 1948 and 1918 of Taylor who by many is regarded as one of the finest historians of the 20th Century. You could say that the book is actually discussing how the Concert of Europe (set up after the Defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815) came to an end, how international relations were changing and with that the alliances. In this, you can see how slowly the alliances came into existence that eventually lived through till the First World War. But also how Germany feared being overran by either Russia, backed financially by France or Great Britain. How Great Britain feared of losing his dominant position in the world. That gives a pretty paranoid like kind of impression on how separate nations actioned and reasoned, and with that one can clearly understand how the First World War turned out to such disaster, and perhaps was a war that could have been avoided as all this other conflicts that were avoided. Along the way Taylor disuses a dazzling amount of events and people, most important of all of course Bismarck, but also the events of 1848, the Crimean War, the Japanese Russian War, the Balkan Crisis and the founding of several nation states, as the unification of Italy and Germany and fall of others, as the Ottoman Empire. But there is surprisingly less about the Franco-Prussian War, while by now, many regard this war as a pivotal moment in modern history and a war that eventually set the stage for both World Wars.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 October 2014
This was a book I have read many times over the years but lost my very beaten up copy It covers a large part of the period that interests me most and I consider it one of the all time great history books. It is not just a superb text book but a rivetting read. I confess to being a total fan of the author and am surprised that he is not quite as fashionable now. It never ceases to amaze me how differing interpretations of history come and go. It is almost as though this seasons historians feel obliged to put a new slant on known facts merely in order to justify a money making exercise.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 February 2014
A.J.P. Taylor is one of the few left wing historians so it's worth having a look at his work and his views, he's also a great one. The period it covers is a turn of the century kind of time where there was an industrial revolution, democracy was beginning to spread, there was the race between European states of building the biggest empire in which all wanted to beat Britain of course. This book covers everything that happened in this process in great detail, including every alliance no matter how insignificant, treaties between states, which essentially covers different reasons for the build up to World War I and discusses the view that it was "the struggle for mastery in Europe" that ended it because the stronger empires were basically too hard to beat.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 February 2009
Borrowed a lot of TV tie-in history and politics books from the library, to try to put the world in some kind of order. I did not study modern history at school and became interested mainly through travelling in Europe and picking up snippets from doccumentaries on UK History Channel. The TV tie in books help colour in some of the small areas, but I wanted to put the world wars into context and the librarian recommended this book to me. This is much heavier going than the well illustrated newer books, but I have found it really interesting, very useful and (eventually) quite readable.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)