Rating: 
Summary: One of the very best: an eyeopener!
Review: The people in Europa have grown up with a onesided account of the second world war. Thereby you tend to give not enough attention to the historical roots that go back many years before Hitler. This book should be known to every student. Fear is demonstrated as a bad teacher.
Rating: 
Summary: Word War II
Review: This book examines the battle of words of diplomats involved with appeasing and then confronting Hitler before the real war. Hitler was not a madman warmonger, Taylor declares, but rather an opportunist whose stategy was one of waiting for something advantageous politically to happen rather than willing it to happen. He was a master of bluff, presenting himself as a leader of a country greatly wronged by the Versailles Treaty, which the English especially agreed with. He would recite the injustices of the treaty and would make pleas to have the land that was lost after the treaty returned to Germany. Other times he would threaten war, although Taylor claims that Hitler and Germany were not prepared for war and Hitler had made no plans to conquer Europe, except maybe to take the Ukraine. To quote Taylor: "In considering German armament we escape the mystic regions of Hitler's psychology and find the answer in the realm of fact. The answer is clear. The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all." Taylor looks through the diplomatic records of the European countries and finds that the English especially wanted to give Hitler what he wanted to avoid war. This book is not the most exciting reading in the world, given that he covers the endless political maneuverings of different diplomats from different countries. Indeed, it's a bit difficult to keep up with all the names and countries and what their stances were. A parody of the writing of the book would be: "England said that, but France wouldn't go along with it because they we're allied with Poland, but the Soviets we're also interested in alliance with Poland, which deeply disturbed Italy, who then petitioned England to change their mind and give Germany one more chance..." Taylor sometimes shows a very dry, subtle wit as he covers the actions of diplomats who desperately seek peace, but keep moving inexorably closer to war. Taylor also does not cover how Russia and the US got into the war and why Germany declared war on them, giving the reader the sense that the book is incomplete. He mentions that Hitler was unethical, wicked, antisemitic, and not a man of his word, but he generally de-emphasizes the psychological examination of Hitler. Taylor thinks that war came out of the mistakes made at the treaty of Versailles and it began because these problems were not solved. He also states that the origins the second world war had not been sufficiently studied and his book fills the gap in the research on WWII. It is a good book for studying diplomacy and the grievances of Germany over the Versailles treaty. Hitler's racist doctrines and how they affected the war are really not the focus of the book--and this probably a deficit. Taylor says that Mein Kamph was merely violent talk that many leaders have engaged in historically, but have not acted on.
Rating:
Summary: Word War II
Review: This book examines the battle of words of diplomats involved with appeasing and then confronting Hitler before the real war. Hitler was not a madman warmonger, Taylor declares, but rather an opportunist whose stategy was one of waiting for something advantageous politically to happen rather than willing it to happen. He was a master of bluff, presenting himself as a leader of a country greatly wronged by the Versailles Treaty, which the English especially agreed with. He would recite the injustices of the treaty and would make pleas to have the land that was lost after the treaty returned to Germany. Other times he would threaten war, although Taylor claims that Hitler and Germany were not prepared for war and Hitler had made no plans to conquer Europe, except maybe to take the Ukraine. To quote Taylor: "In considering German armament we escape the mystic regions of Hitler's psychology and find the answer in the realm of fact. The answer is clear. The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all." Taylor looks through the diplomatic records of the European countries and finds that the English especially wanted to give Hitler what he wanted to avoid war. This book is not the most exciting reading in the world, given that he covers the endless political maneuverings of different diplomats from different countries. Indeed, it's a bit difficult to keep up with all the names and countries and what their stances were. A parody of the writing of the book would be: "England said that, but France wouldn't go along with it because they we're allied with Poland, but the Soviets we're also interested in alliance with Poland, which deeply disturbed Italy, who then petitioned England to change their mind and give Germany one more chance..." Taylor sometimes shows a very dry, subtle wit as he covers the actions of diplomats who desperately seek peace, but keep moving inexorably closer to war. Taylor also does not cover how Russia and the US got into the war and why Germany declared war on them, giving the reader the sense that the book is incomplete. He mentions that Hitler was unethical, wicked, antisemitic, and not a man of his word, but he generally de-emphasizes the psychological examination of Hitler. Taylor thinks that war came out of the mistakes made at the treaty of Versailles and it began because these problems were not solved. He also states that the origins the second world war had not been sufficiently studied and his book fills the gap in the research on WWII. It is a good book for studying diplomacy and the grievances of Germany over the Versailles treaty. Hitler's racist doctrines and how they affected the war are really not the focus of the book--and this probably a deficit. Taylor says that Mein Kamph was merely violent talk that many leaders have engaged in historically, but have not acted on.
Rating:
Summary: Review 1
Review: This book is a very good explanation of the origins of the Second World War. All of the major events between the wars are described in detail. The book also describes World War One and how it relates to the origins of World War Two. I think it is interesting that if it were up to America, World War Two may very likely have never happened. The reason for this is: America had been in World War One for much less time than all of the other major countries at the end. She would have rather gone on into the heart of Germany and defeated her outright. This would have led to Germany's not having grievances such as having to hand over the Alsace-Lorraine region to France, the demilitarization of the Rhineland, and having to pay reparations. Of course, it was not up to the Americans and they did not get their way. The Origins of the Second World War goes on to describe all the treaties between the wars such as Locarno, Rapallo, the settlement at Munich, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact. It describes more of the events right before the war than of the ones that weren't. These are the crisises over the German populations of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the free city Danzig, which was right in the middle of a part of Poland that belonged to Germany before and during the First World War. Hitler waited for the Austrian state to collapse, and it did. He waited for the Czechoslovakians to give in to his demands, and the British and French (trying to prevent war), eventually gave in for them. With Poland, however, Hitler had set a date to invade if diplomatic measures did not solve the crisis by then. They hadn't, so World War Two started two days after he invaded Poland, on September 3rd.
Rating:
Summary: ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR by AJP Taylor
Review: This is an excellent book, learned and well-written but above all insightful... warning the reader that wars can be difficult to foresee and avoid. There is a blow by blow account of inter-war events such as the seizure of the Rhineland and the Anschluss (absorbtion of Austria), but it is the masterful linkage of events to their causes in the Versailles treaty and the interwar period that carries conviction. None of the parties to events in the inter-war period escapes censure, eg the USA excessively isolationist and the French defeatist, but it is the portrayal of Hitler and German foreign policy (insofar as there was one), ie a rational and deliberate foreign policy seeking to redress the grievances of Versailles, that teaches the reader the inappropriateness of demonising Hitler. Taylor demonstrates that politicians are often swept along by events rather than masters of them, that wars often arise from muddle and confusion rather than from evil intent or war-mongering. I was suprised to see Taylor's opinion that it was British public opinion, which shifted progressively against Hitler, that forced the issuance to Germany of an ultimatum over Poland, rather than the UK Government feeling bound by formal treaty pledges to Poland.
Rating:
Summary: ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR by AJP Taylor
Review: This is an excellent book, learned and well-written but above all insightful... warning the reader that wars can be difficult to foresee and avoid. There is a blow by blow account of inter-war events such as the seizure of the Rhineland and the Anschluss (absorbtion of Austria), but it is the masterful linkage of events to their causes in the Versailles treaty and the interwar period that carries conviction. None of the parties to events in the inter-war period escapes censure, eg the USA excessively isolationist and the French defeatist, but it is the portrayal of Hitler and German foreign policy (insofar as there was one), ie a rational and deliberate foreign policy seeking to redress the grievances of Versailles, that teaches the reader the inappropriateness of demonising Hitler. Taylor demonstrates that politicians are often swept along by events rather than masters of them, that wars often arise from muddle and confusion rather than from evil intent or war-mongering. I was suprised to see Taylor's opinion that it was British public opinion, which shifted progressively against Hitler, that forced the issuance to Germany of an ultimatum over Poland, rather than the UK Government feeling bound by formal treaty pledges to Poland.
Rating:
Summary: Pandering to Nazi sympathisers?
Review: `The Origins of the Second World War' remains one of A. J. P. Taylor's most controversial works. Published barely sixteen years after the end of the second world war his thesis challenges the conventional view of history. The main thrust of Taylor's book is that Hitler, the German Chancellor, did not plan the Second World War. Mr Taylor expands upon his main theme by explaining that war was caused by the failure of the league of Nations and that `International anarchy' made war possible. He argues that Hitler's foreign policy was like that of his predecessors: to destroy the Versailles settlement and, by restoring the German army, make Germany the greatest power in Europe. He claims that Hitler never took the initiative but waited for others to do the work for him. Mr Taylor continues by suggesting that the idea of destroying Austria, probably never entered Hitler's head. The Nuremberg war trials established, using the Hossbach Memorandum as key evidence, that Hitler had planned for the conquest of Europe through National Socialism. This was the accepted conclusion reached by most historians. It is, therefore, not surprising that Mr Taylor's book courts such controversy, his thesis disowns the conclusions reached at Nuremberg and thus challenges the validity of the moral judgements reached against the German defendants. Taylor, with one small exception, fails to draw on Hitler's ideological and racist doctrine, and to suggest that he was in principle and doctrine no more wicked and unscrupulous than many other contemporary statesmen is misleading. The historian Trevor-Roper has gone as far as to suggest that Taylor was pandering to Nazi sympathisers. Taylor in second thoughts, the prelude to the 1963 edition of his book, treats this suggestion with the contempt that it deserves. Taylor's argument is convincing on first inspection, however further examination reveals various contradictions and inaccuracies. However this in its self should not take away from the importance of Taylor's thesis. Taylor rightly questions the conventional view of the origins of the second world war, which was formulated at Nuremberg. The Nuremberg trials were concerned with judicial proof and not historical record. The method by which many of the documents were selected is criticised by Taylor, who attempts to show that the historical record might well be different to the conclusions reached at Nuremberg. In his attempt to discredit the conventional, he relies on a selection of documents which suit his narrative. In trying to show a different interpretation of the facts, Taylor finds himself arguing that Hitler was no different from his predecessors, he wanted justice for Germany. Justice for Germany is one thing, but Taylor rejects the ideas that Hitler planned the war or indeed took the initiative. Although Taylor concedes that `in wicked acts he [Hitler] out did them all', perhaps he is too lenient towards Hitler and under-plays his role in the origins of the second world war.
|
