Revolutionary Spring - Europe Aflame and The Fight for a New World 1848-1849 (Christopher Clark, 2023)

(754 pages)

This took a while to read but was thoroughly worth it. The events of these two years are amazing. 

Google Gemini's 150-word blurb:

"Christopher Clark's Revolutionary Spring provides a panoramic history of the 1848 revolutions that swept across Europe, arguing against the traditional view of them as a failure. Instead, he casts the simultaneous continental upheavals as "the particle collision chamber" of the nineteenth century, a critical turning point that profoundly shaped the future.

Clark traces the origins of the revolts to a mix of economic precarity, social inequality, and a collision of emergent political ideologies, including liberalism, radicalism, and nationalism. The book vividly recounts the rapid spread of uprisings, constitutional changes, and the subsequent, often ruthless, counter-revolution. He highlights how the movements forced open debates on social rights, democracy, and capitalism. Though short-lived, the 1848 revolutions left a profound and lasting legacy on European political thought and public life."

Part of my interest was the rather strange times we're going through here in the 2020s. Donald Trump's emergence (going back to mid 2010s) has been and remains, for reasons I don't really grasp, a perceived threat to the way political business has been done in the US for decades. A dire threat. There exists a continuing resistance that certainly reminds of mid-19th century elements described in this book.

Though vast differences. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic era had stirred the pot of sentiments that hadn't really developed previously - national identity, the desire for a constitution, political viewpoints arranged left to right (or vice versa) - all this getting more and more refined.

Similar problems as today - the leadership of the left somehow refused "to have any enemies on the left" - leaving them stuck with positions that just didn't have much support. Mazzini’s idea for Italy - that the revolution needed the blood of martyrs to feed success - sounds familiar. The familiar trope of students locking themselves into university buildings - always way too sure of themselves. A bunch of folks who take advantage of unrest to just plain loot.

When the excitement and glamour of change and revolution flips to mundane matters of governance - much harder. Most governments conceded some form of constitution, though some retook control through different methods than prior to the revolutions. 

Different types of revolutionaries. Poor people who wanted better wages, or even just food, some poor harvests were involved here (timing of potato famine?) Then the more theoretical types who were looking for social change, a constitution, etc.  Often minimal understanding of the poor or rural folk.  Elements of the “haves” v. “have-mores” a driver as much as the “have-nots” as drivers.

Widespread across Europe - astonishing scope and speed.

Little preparation - groups assemble to fill a governance void.  Existing regimes often in a position to regain.  Parliaments that might end up supporting monarchy - for a while.

Louis Kossuth incredibly popular - led to naming places after him (such as Kossuth County, Iowa). His popularity did wane however.

This just scratches the surface, a lot to learn here.  I think. 

The Forge of Christendom - The End of Days and the Epic Rise of the West (Tom Holland, 2008)

(413 pp)

Had recently read this book by the same author - it focused on what I'm calling "late antiquity".  I don't think the current book is part of a series, but it does pretty much pick up fairly shortly after where the prior book left off.

Something I notice - the titles of these two books are rather sensational; fortunately the content is useful, measured.

Europe as a backward dump compared to Persia, Constantinople, Spain, Baghdad, etc.  Charlemagne (following on the achievements of Charles Martel - Tours 732) - tries to restore a Roman empire - centered in the north but with affirmation in the south (Italy). Doesn't last long.

The papacy as a weak institution - not recognized as having much authority over anything - based in a town that had fallen into disrepair.

But perhaps this helped in the long run - separating religious leadership from civil - compare caliph, Constantine in an earlier era - theocratic structures don't birth innovation or free thinking.

The papacy starts to rise from its weakness.  Pepin/Charlemagne looking for validation - turn to the beleaguered bishop of Rome.  Over a few centuries, the pope takes control over appointment of bishops etc.  Takes a run at interfering in civil authority situations - but not nearly enough power.  But the administrative papacy is on its way (the build-up eventually contributing to the Reformation).

Author reviews various of the European kings in the run up to 1000 AD  and the years thereafter - an atmosphere where the end of the world was considered a live possibility.  Christianity making incredible territorial strides - huge land masses in Poland, Russia (though it apes Constantinople rather than Rome), eastern German areas.

These kings aren't all that powerful in their domains - civil order not in good shape in Europe - power ceded to castle-builders (this was new).  Exploitation of peasants; widespread violence; for all its warts the church does fairly regularly make a stand for the oppressed - the Peace of God is enforced after a fashion.  But states starting to be identifiable. 

I underestimate how important and influential the Norsemen, or Vikings, or whatever were in this era - they were traveling pretty much everywhere in Europe and settled down in some form or fashion in many areas (including southern Italy, Normandy, Russia).

1066 - discussion of Hastings.

1095 - Constantinople under stress; pope calls the First Crusade.

Civilization & Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century - The Perspective of the World (Fernand Braudel, 1979)

Started this book in 2012 and left off for whatever reason.  Resumed this year, but I still don't really get it.  Interesting information throughout on an anecdotal level, but I don't have enough knowledge to grasp what he's saying about "world economies" and the like.

French author; this translation from 1992.

The idea that cities in the north - Bruges etc. - were built from scratch.  Italian cities hearkened back to Rome, Byzantium, etc.

Reiterates that the Champagne fairs were a big deal; year-round; gathered from north and south;  in 12th and 13th centuries.

Lots of interesting discussion about the rise of the Dutch, the manner in which they operated their colonies, and then being overtaken by Britain.  The idea that England gained from finally "losing" its French possessions and becoming a true island.

Sections on Russia, Ottoman Empire, China, etc.

Ostend - Stefan Zweig, Joseph Roth, and the Summer Before the Dark (Volker Weidermann, 2014)

Book was well reviewed (and short).  Somewhat interesting items about important authors.

Main focus is on Stefan Zweig and Joseph Roth (and their longstanding relationship).  Zweig had been at a resort on the Belgian seaside (then known as Ostend) when World War I broke out - interesting descriptions of the excitement, the sense of national unity in summer 1914 (reminded of the false, or at least ephemeral, feelings around 9-11 in this country back in 2001).  Zweig, Roth and others were back at the same resort during a summer in the 1930s - had been kicked out of Germany and banned from publishing there (their main business and financial lifeline) - because of Jewishness, and/or writings that didn't satisfy Nazi censors.  Spanish Civil War breaks out.

Zweig as cultured, successful, assimilated Viennese-based Jew; Roth as Galicia-based - this distinction seems to come up a lot.

Interesting stories at Ostend - but not all that interesting.  In a way it reminded me of this Hemingway novel - expat types struggling and carousing.

Zweig wrote this really fine novel (started working on it during the time period covered in this book) Roth was famous for this really fine novel; they run into Arthur Koestler (still enamored with Communism, so a bit before he wrote this book).

One of my favorite authors - certainly a famous expat in those days - did not show up at Ostend that summer, but apparently he was a regular topic of conversation, and at least one of his children did.

Year Zero - A History of 1945 (Ian Buruma, 2013)

Another look at the immediate aftermath of WWII - the amazing year of 1945 - insights into how countries tried to start over.

Often with significantly different demographics than obtained prior to the war.

I rather expected this to cover similar ground as this so-helpful work by Tony Judt - but the overlap isn't all that much - Buruma covers more countries (Asia, for example) but in less detail than Europe-focused Judt.  And he pretty much sticks to his "Year Zero" theme; Judt covers a longer time span.

There was a significant amount of "retribution" - but also a practical viewpoint - plenty of people who hadn't behaved all that well now were needed to make these countries work - an active process of forgetting, or overlooking, was pursued in so many cases.  As Judt discussed, this did lead to some backlash later.  But I don't know how these places could otherwise have functioned.

Returning POWs or campers often not all that welcome - or sympathized with - home front folks had their own problems (and opportunities!)

Useful discussion of a difficult situation that I think tends to be overlooked - huge decisions with corresponding consequences came down as WWII closed and the postwar period commenced.

Agents of Empire - Knights, Corsairs, Jesuits and Spies in the 16th-Century Mediterranean World (Noel Malcolm, 2015)

To me - this is how history should be written.  Author selects a relatively narrow focus, researches it to the nth degree, tells the story with plenty of context.  History comes to life.

Exact opposite effect of this plodding compendium - which, interestingly enough, overlapped a fair amount with "Agents of Empire".   But Greengrass's book is just unreadable - lacks focus - tries to address whatever was happening in pretty much every decent-sized country in Europe over too many years - too much.

Author's focus area here:  he runs across a reference to a contemporary description of Albania - written in late 16th century - apparently nothing like this had surfaced - so he tracks it down, and follows the trail from there.  The author of the 16th-century Albanian description was a member of a family that somehow insinuated itself - starting without any particular resources or prestige - into the foreign affairs (and/or diplomacy and/or spying) in Spain, England, Poland, Austria, Papal States, Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Venice, etc.  (One of the family members was killed at the Battle of Lepanto, interestingly enough.) (One became a Knight of Malta.)  These folks sometimes served as diplomats or translators, which - even then - often bled over into intelligence-gathering and outright spying.

After reading several books about this era - or perhaps because of reading them - this book finally helped make sense of some of the relationships here.  Venice dependent on Ottomans for trade but of course traditionally Catholic.  Wary of the too-powerful Hapsburgs - either the Spanish or Austrian branches.  Pope trying to jump start the Counter-Reformation; one method is to try to put together anti-Ottoman alliances (even, in bursts of optimism, coalitions that would include both Catholic and Protestant states).  But France often allying with Ottomans (which seems odd but serves purpose of countering Hapsburg power).  Spain holding onto Italian territories, great wealth from the Americas, troubles in the Netherlands, dealing with pirates/corsairs.  Ottomans interested in buffer states (Moldavia, Wallachia, Hungary) and sucked into exhausting war with Persia in the east.  And already worrying about an emergent Muscovy.  Etc.  I find this era endlessly interesting.

And the Albanians!  Sitting in the pathway - traditionally European, dominated by Ottomans, playing both sides.  Often serving as janissaries and rising to senior levels in Ottoman administration.  Living in that area couldn't have been easy.

Author does a really effective job sifting through records and correspondence - more survives than I would have ever guessed - but author also avoids conjecture and grand conclusions.

Was surprised to see that this author had written this very interesting work on Bosnia (another somewhat fairy tale location).

Much worth reading.

[33, 81, 98, 150, 160, 169, 196, 208, 228, 302, 309, 320, 323, 341, 349, 402]

Christendom Destroyed - Europe 1517-1648 (Mark Greengrass, 2014)

Saw a favorable review, and am trying to get a better handle on this period (some overlap with this book, for example).  But while there were endless interesting items in the book - I think the scope was overwhelming, at least for me.  Too many details, too many countries/regions, too many moving parts.

Also not sure of his premise - though I'd trust Greengrass more than me! - but he suggests that there was some sort of unified vision of Christendom prior to 1500 - and that a big change was the breakdown of that world.  I can scarcely believe that to be the case.  And certainly wouldn't think the average European (however defined) at the time viewed him/herself as part of a large, unified structure.  But whatever.

The Columbian exchange was a big deal.  New World silver was a big deal - finances Hapsburgs.  Luther's activities - part of larger trends - became a very big deal. Worldwide economy.  The amazing Dutch.  Religious conflict mixed up with all sorts of other bases of conflict.

All the religious-based scrapping going on in the 16th century . . . then things would seem to settle down . . . but then the so-awful 30 years war (ended 1648), particularly in Germany.  But this book also gave a little more perspective on what Montaigne was dealing with in France in late 16th century.

Counter-reformation; Jesuits.  Ottoman threat.  Protestant groupings become increasingly segmented.  England.

Etc.

Etc.

I'd recommend skipping this and picking up better-focused books on individual topics.

Before the Industrial Revolution - European Society and Economy 1000-1700 (Carlo M. Cipolla, 1993 edition)

Trying to get a little better handle on stuff going on in Europe in this period.  Helpful book (probably primarily intended as a textbook); but the topic is so vast that I don't know that I'm making any progress.

As is true with so much historical reading - one is struck with the idea that "they lived so much like us" - certainly rings true for this fairly recent, increasingly commercial era.

Interesting stuff about the growth of what I'll call commerce - "fairs" in various European locales; towns; free towns; trading leagues; interruptions via plague, war; amazing outliers such as Italy and - perhaps my favorite - Holland.

I keep thinking that Dierdre McCloskey is onto something with her focus on innovation (and governments that allow it to flourish).

Useful, hard to summarize (in part because there is so much variance by geography even within Europe).

The Long Road Home - The Aftermath of the Second World War (Ben Shephard, 2010)

I read lots of World War II stuff, and for good reason.  Most of it focuses on the political leadership, the generals and the armies, also for good reason.  This book is different - it focuses on the displaced persons (DPs, to use the then terminology) resulting from the military mayhem.

I liked it, though perhaps not as much as I was hoping.

On the Allied side, lots of planning and effort went into handling the DPs - it was recognized that this was critical to a lasting peace.  Nevertheless, the issue received a tiny fraction of resources in comparison to military needs (and for good reason).

I've read about a lot of these issues in books like this one, and even moreso in this one.  But this is one of the few to focus almost exclusively on the topic.

One obvious theme is the extreme degree of difficulty in eastern Europe - plenty of tough situations in western Europe, but nothing in comparison to areas where Hitler's armies swept through in 1939-1941; and then Stalin's armies swept back through later in the war.  Some areas saw multiple back-and-forth situations.

Life in DP camps - some of this went on for many years - no doubt substantial similarities to modern refugee camps - internal hierarchies and politics etc.

Nordic types were favored by British and US; Poles generally looked down upon; Jewish DPs as a particular challenge given their unique circumstances (even if the Holocaust per se hadn't yet entered public consciousness, certainly folks knew the Jews had been special targets).  This contributed directly to decisions about formalizing Israel as a state in 1948.

Ukrainians and others (including some Poles) absolutely desperate not to be returned to Russia - Americans and Brits became less strict about this as time went on.  These folks knew what their world would be like in Stalin-land.

The effort to trace lost children - sometimes resulting in returning long-adopted (if informally in many cases) children to parents who didn't know them and were in desperate straits of one kind or the other.

Getting places like Canada and the U.S. to take refugees.

Essentially this was a one-of-a-kind problem in terms of scope (not in terms of its nature) - no real way to anticipate or prepare for the post-war era.  The human suffering continued.

Postwar - A History of Europe Since 1945 (Tony Judt, 2005)

This book is remarkably useful.

I am captivated by European history in general - but never had much of an interest in anything following WWII.  I think this is because I lived through most of this history - it didn't seem as exotic or interesting.  What a mistaken view.

Judt gave me all sorts of information and ideas.  This book - 900 pages - is so thoroughly dog-eared that I'm going to have to go through it and fix things as best I can before returning it to the library.  (That is, after I buy a copy so I can put those dog-ears into my own copy.)

There are so many things going on - and much of this is helpful in interpreting European developments (including, among others, today's headlines about the troubles in the Euro-zone).

1.  When read about in the context of the post-war doings, I'm struck with the thought that the extent of the 20th century carnage in Europe was even greater than I've imagined.  No wonder Europeans were not interested in going back to war, focused on economic union, etc.  Especially with the US providing a security blanket and the USSR (not to mention Germany itself) providing a common threat.  The 30-year war (1914-1945) was devastating, beyond belief.

2.  As part of the carnage - minority populations within states often had been exterminated, migrated away, swapped with other states - the diversity within the European states was a fraction of what had existed in 1900.  What an odd thought - this probably assisted stability in the immediate postwar years  Exceptions:  states like Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the Balkans, where at-odds populations still clustered together.  (Of course new minorities (Islamic) have since arrived throughout Europe.)

3.  The extent of collaboration with the Nazis was much greater than the official narratives suggested.  France, the Netherlands, Norway - go through the list - if collaborators were disqualified, the countries couldn't have operated post-war.  There was conscious forgetting - necessary to move forward.  But created backlashes later, slowly leading to generally-helpful public recognition of what went on.  This story is still unfolding.

4.  Particularly true (and necessary) in Germany itself - conscious forgetting ruled the day.  Former Nazis or Nazi sympathizers continued to run the country for the most part, with a few surviving Nazi opponents also involved.

(I will say it's difficult to be terribly judgmental as to the collaborators - who can say what that situation was like?  Pushing back was generally futile, not to mention dangerous to one's health - and to the health of one's family and townspeople.  How did people cope??)

5.  Germany's economic importance to postwar Europe was recognized immediately - accompanied by continuing fear of Germany, and fear that it would backslide into aggression.  No one admitted it publicly, but both East and West ended up preferring the split Germany that emerged.

6.  The social bargain in England - Beveridge plan - seeking security and peace at home through the state taking over functions - predictable difficult results - then Thatcherism - backlash - now facing a welfare state expense load with less dynamic economy, culture of dependence and entitlement.

The people that endured wars and rebuilt Europe in miraculous manner - now seem entirely drained of initiative.

7.  A version of the England story all over Europe - interesting implications for the US as we debate how far to go with the welfare state.

8.  The various pacts that led to the European Union.  Bribing farmers to reach a deal (especially in France) - a critical problem even today.  Diminishing voter interest nowadays - too disconnected from Brussels bureaucrats.  Concerns about common currency for weak countries expressed from the very beginning (coming home to roost now).

9.  Communism hanging on in the East - just an amazing set of stories.  How could countries be frozen in time like this?  (I say this, yet there are frozen-in-time, backward dictatorships all over the world, to this day.)

10.  Communism finally unmasked even to its sympathizers - easy to see why no one believes in it (except on college campuses). The fall of Communism - almost unbelievable to recall how a terrifying power structure basically dropped overnight like the proverbial house of cards. 

11.  Owning up to what happened with the Jews seemed to be particularly difficult - many countries tried to fold the Jewish extermination into the larger national stories of mistreatment at Nazi hands (which stories were indeed quite awful in their own right).  But the Jewish extermination was truly different both qualitatively and quantitatively - and often assisted (or even led) by local populations rather than the Nazis.  Very belated recognition; I think this helps explain why the topic receives so much attention today - to the point of overload for some - it was hidden/ignored for so long.

The amazingly quick economic recovery; the end of European wars; notwithstanding plenty of problems and challenges, the post-war story is pretty impressive.

Judt is extremely readable - and covering this much territory over so many years had to be a daunting task.  I feel he is pretty balanced, though I don't know the subject matter well enough to judge.  He does take several gratuitous shots at GW Bush toward the end of the narrative which probably illuminates his politics. 

I liked this, a lot.