The Dork Continent Book Review

Upon hearing the title of the book, one might fatigue that it will focus on the decolonization of Africa. Africa is known as the raunchy continent because it remained a mystery to European explorers for an extensive amount of time. Instead, specialize Mazowers Dark Continent Europes Twentieth Century, focuses on Europe in the twentieth century, as the title notes, and provides a historical and governmental analysis of the innovational European state from the end of the First cosmea War up until the time of publishing the book in 1988.Mazower, a young British author and historian, has taught at the University of Sussex and Princeton, and is a prize-winning author for his book Inside Hitlers Greece The buzz off of Occupation, 1941-1944. The principal thesis of Dark Continent is that the victorious reign of res publica in Europe was not predestined, but emerged significantly from the end slight fence between ethnic groups and nations, as well as deuce-ace contact theologies- Nazism, Communism, and Democracy.Mazowers thesis suggests that democracy is not the essential preferred method of political organization, notwithstanding when empires were falling and nations reorganizing after the devastation of World War I. Of the common chord ideologies, Mazower concludes that Communism was the closest to being satisfactory in both scheme and practice. The book begins with the discussion of the rise and fall of democracy. The struggle between the three ideologies was at the core of European twentieth century history.Preceding the the first World War, Europe only had three republics by the end of 1918 there were thirteen. crimson so, democracy was unable to secure itself during inter- war years. Liberalism was short-lived and democratic values disappeared as political polarization brought oftentimes of Europe to the verge of civil war. Mazower notes that in 1930, Weimars Chancellor Hermann Muller warned that a democracy without democrats is an internal and ex ternal hazard but the founders of post-war constitutionalism had not given much thought to the matter.For many conservatives, the business with democracy was simply due to the power it gave the masses in the so-called incompatibility of democracy and authority. The conservatives also feared that democracy placed too much stress on rights and not enough on duties. According to Mazower, the demote of liberal democracy was the result of its focus on process quite than on results. In Mazowers view, Russian liberals assume mistakenly that a productive rooted social crisis could be solved by offering the people constitutional liberties(23).The consequence was that, at the end of the 20s was that the new nations that came about after the Versailles stop treaties came to be ruled by authoritarian regimes rather than democratic governments. The upshot of fascist and communist leaders with policies regarding state control of resources was unavoidable. For the citizens that were tir ed of the war and failed look fors of democracy, men uniform Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, and Mussolini provided new hope for a stabilization in Europe.The pursuits of fascists like Hitler and Mussolini and the lesser in Eastern European nations may be reprehensible, Mazower admits, but it is at least comprehensible. What these dictators were doing was little different from what their predecessors in England, France, Russia, and even Belgium had done for the past half century culminating European imperial intricacy that began in the 1870s. By the late 1930s, it was evident that liberal democracy had wooly its reign in Europe. Hitlers New Order appeared to be Europes future. Mazower argues that even in December 1919 Lenin saw that both terror and the Cheka are ndispensable tools to maintain the permanent authoritarianism of the bourgeois. Furthermore, the scientific term dictatorship, means nothing more or less than authority untrammeled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any ru les whatever and based directly on force (page 24). With that said, Mazower notes that socialism turned out to be the last, and perhaps highest stage of imperialism. Mazower does an exceptional melodic line at giving his view of Hitler. I found this to be a successful way of supporting his thesis. What I found to be bizarre was the way he described the works of Hitler.I would assume that he would understandably show his disapproval of the matter, rather he seems to approach the issue lightly. Mazower makes an attempt to make us see that Hitlers belief that Germanys destiny depended on the geographic replacement of Slavs in Ukraine. Moreover, Mazower suggests that the Second World War did not jumpstart because of diplomatic misunderstanding or confusion, nor even because of Hitlers deceit or duplicity. instead it started because Hitlers opponents realized they were faced with a clash of two worlds-Berlin and London(82).What I did like about the book was the fact that Mazower expl ained the cause of communisms fall really well. I was a bit confused before of exactly what events sparked the fall, but I was surely aware and understood fully after reading this heedful book. As mentioned before, I found that Mazower seemed to praise Hitlers actions, suggesting that he was not fragmentise of the cause for World War II, but puts the blame on Hitlers opponents. It makes me enquire what side of the field Mazower is playing. Nevertheless, the book was a great read and provided an undue amount of historical background in Europe.