Reflections on a Ravaged Century

Rating:
Summary: The Harvest of an Old desk drawer
Review: What are your feelings regarding disparate essays packaged in book form? If you don't have any, you may enjoy this collection by the justifiably renowned Robert Conquest. If, however, you are like me and are ill inclined toward this genre of scholarship, then I suggest having a look at the author's "The Harvest of Sorrow" (on collectivization) and/or "The Great Terror" instead of this work. The essays herein are hardly contemporaneous (being written over a 15 year period), nor are they even that relevant to one another. Of course, this doesn't mean the book can't be interesting; and this one is, in a way, but it is also uneven and hardly lives up to its title as encompassing the author's thoughts on the century just past. He hardly mentions, for instance, the democratic transformations of Germany, Italy, and Japan since the Second World War and other such "Big picture" issues of the latter part of the century. Rather, this is a work which can be summarized thusly: Success in the future depends on our avoiding the mental distortions of the past (ie, the likes of Nazism and Marxism). The problem herein is that "The West" doesn't learn lessons well because too many people are simply unable to conceive of minds of men markedly different from their own. Policy toward the USSR was particularly bedeviled by this misconception. (Think of Jimmy Carter's shock at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Unfortunately, reasonable people believe too often that everyone can be reasoned with, and/or be expected to act within certain parameters of behavior. "Detente", in Mr. Conquest's opinion, was simply a more underhanded opportunity for the Soviets to continue their ideological struggle throughout the world. And the world gave them the benefit of the doubt until their peaceful rhetoric was belied by acts too many to dismiss as aberrations. The author laments the fact that a high level of education (in a general sense) didn't aid us as much as one might expect herein either. And, he cautions, we seem to be getting worse too; for example: a greater percentage of people may be literate, but far too many remain uneducated or are miseducated by left-leaning educators. Moreover, he is of the opinion that the central notion of the EU is similarly afflicted herein; that participant nations seem more preoccupied with the act of union as opposed to the supposed "Idea" driving it; and that too many people have yet to critically examine the soundness and feasibility of such a all-embracing union. He is personally against the idea; and especially of Britain tying itself too tightly to a continent wherein runaway bureaucraticism reigns. The UK & continental Europe, he argues, have a lot less in common than does the English-speaking-world. He thinks that "Europe" as an idea is an obsolete notion to boot; that the western world cannot be described geographically speaking; that the EU is divisive as a result. Free trade and an association of all western nations (ala an economic NATO of sorts), he feels, would be a more worthwhile goal than the artificial creation of North American and European blocs. Realistically, though, he doesn't see the immediate possibilty for the former and, as such, recommends an alternitive association for consideration over the near term (which he's inclined to think would eventually lead to the end desired). This (loose) association that he proposes would initially consist of the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Well, there you have it, Mr. Conquest's "Reflections" in a nutshell. Now get a copy of "The Harvest of Sorrow" or "The Great Terror" if you haven't read these seminal works of Conquest in his prime; you'd be hard pressed to find works better than these to understand how a country so lauded (by far too many) for its "progressiveness" could have been so depraved as to kill millions of its own citizens. (Or, for a firsthand account of this, try "I Chose Freedom" by Victor Kravchenko.) Cheers!