A. J. P. TaylorCritiques

In 1960, historian A.J.P. Taylor reviewed again the evidence available that described the series of political events between the two world wars. He dispensed with 'common knowledge' and worked from the records to arrive at his own conclusions. These boil down to some basic points: Hitler had no master plan, he was a master opportunist; appeasement did not seem nearly so weak or unreasonable a strategy in the heat of the moment, lacking foreknowledge; and World War II erupted more from a result of blunders than intentions. For all of these he builds a case based on evidence that he can point to (and it makes for an interesting exercise), but in terms of conclusions this winds up feeling like the proverbial "sound and fury signifying nothing." The faulty treaty of Versailles still set up Europe for another disaster, and Hitler was still a bully always threatening to use force and ready to go back on his word to achieve whatever next end he had in mind, a sequence of which seemed to have no final end in sight. Poland drew the line that nobody else would draw by absolutely refusing to negotiate with him, and thus a line was crossed. I'm more interested in the three points above that Taylor seems to win, rather than his suspect logic about shared blame for war.

Hitler was not a master strategist who executed a plan years in the making. He had vague ideas about a greater Germany and took opportunities to pursue it as those opportunities came to hand. That they arose so readily was more a factor of empathy for Germany's treatment in Versailles, and the stirring nationalism of neighbouring German peoples in Austria and elsewhere. At the end of the day this does not in fact paint a dramatically different picture from anyone else's assessment: Hitler is still bad, Chamberlain is still foolish. But if Hitler was not a frightening mastermind, the sketch drawn of him is still something just as frightening: a democratically elected tyrant guided only by his megalomania who did not share the decorum of the rest of the world order. A man who would act impulsively and outrageously when others only talked that way. He had no superior wisdom, pulled no puppet strings. He only liked power, and he liked to use it. You do not have to look nearly as far to find examples of people like that all around you.

The strategy of appeasement is much maligned, a backing down in the face of aggression. Taylor contextualizes this in its setting. Statesmen in the 1920s and 1930s had to grapple with fallout from the treaty at Versailles. It was not, in fact, a workable document in how it treated Germany; partly in it outrageous terms but primarily because there was never any means provided to enforce it if necessary. The disagreement among allies as to whether Germany deserved the harsh terms and/or could even survive them was a key factor. Certainly the German people didn't accept them, and used them as a scapegoat for literally everything that ever went wrong until Hitler came to power. Consequently British (willing) and French (grudging) diplomats allowed that some of the treaty's terms should justifiably be undone somehow, some way. It's unfortunate that Hitler happened to be the one in power, and that his way involved infantry, tanks and bluster. This proved particularly effective in the face of his opponents' already soft position.

Lastly, there is Taylor's blunders argument. It was proven to Hitler multiple times that the western powers (Britain and France) would not react to the point of war in the face of provocation. Mussolini would have had to withdraw from Abyssinia, Hitler from the Rhineland and his intervention in the Spanish Civil War, if Britain and France had reacted more strongly. Later, when Hitler stood a chance of military resistance, they were even more reluctant to do so over Austria or Czechslovakia, and demonstrated a horrible lack of regard for those countries' sovereignty. This explains Hitler's ready determination to invade Poland. He didn't expect any different a response. The lesson here is that when you are going to draw a line in the sand, be very firm and clear about it: think Cuban Missile Crisis.

Many years ago I read 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' which also covered all of this ground, was written at almost the same time and is just as heralded a work if not more. I wish I had read these books in closer proximity so I could contrast their perspectives.

Very enjoyable, highly readable, dry and pithy account of the First World War. Good with context, and the personalities involved. Does reinforce the "lions led by donkeys" popular image of the war.

This is a sort of iconic work on the origins of the second world war, and obviously it would be presumptuous to make a critical comment. The book is mercifully not big (only slightly over 300 pages), and hence can be condumed without a strain. As for the author's style, it is rational, non-pompous, and speaks directly to the reader. Many of its paragraphs are rounded off with a pithy and inspired aphorism that sums up the whole thing aptly. As for the author's general approach, it seems that Hitler did not have any pre-detrermined grand aim to subjugate the world, and could have been satisfied if the French and British had allowed him to take over Poland (they had alrwady conceded Austria and Czechoslovakia). Thius theory is somewhat like the judgment that the British fell into the Indian empire in a fit of absent-mindedness. Of Hitler's antipathy to the Jews and other unfortunates, there is hardly any mention. Of course, I could not make a cogent appraisal of this approach, as I have not read the author's other works.One wonders, however.

Rústica editorial ilustrada. Mapas.
1ª edición en ingles 1965 Oxford Universitiy Press
Cubierta algo fatigada.
Alan John Percivale "A. J. P." Taylor, FBA (Birkdale, Lancashire, 25 de marzo de 1906 - Londres, 7 de septiembre de 1990) fue un historiador, periodista y escritor inglés especializado en la diplomacia europea de los siglos XIX y XX. Tanto como periodista y como locutor, se hizo muy conocido por millones de televidentes a través de sus conferencias por televisión.580

1/27/23

1/15/23

1/15/23

A történelmi önéletrajzok valahogy számomra a szépirodalom és a történelem határmezsgyéjén kóvályognak, és - akár egyes eltévelyedett lelkeket - se ide, se oda nem bocsátják be őket. Merthogy ugye tele vannak történelmi adatokkal, de ezeket fenntartással kell kezelnünk, hisz nem lehetünk tökéletesen biztosak az önéletíró tévedhetetlenségében vagy pártatlanságában. Hatványozottan igaz ez az olyan megosztó személyiségekre, mint Károlyi* (vagy épp Horthy) – én például személyesen ismerek olyanokat, akik akkor se hinnék el egyetlen szavát se, ha maga Gábriel arkangyal állna mögötte bólogatva.

Én alapvetően bízom Károlyiban. Úgy érzem, törekszik az őszinteségre, saját hibáinak feltárására, ráadásul akit két ennyire ellentétes rezsim is emigrációba kényszerített, az nem lehet akárki. A korszak másik jellegzetes politikusával, Tisza Istvánnal összevetve: Tisza az „úri Magyarország” minden hájjal megkent hivatásos politikusa volt, mindenható miniszterelnöke a dualista államnak, aki tökélyre vitte a kormányzati machinációkat, különösen ami a korrupció és a protekció művészetét illeti. Ezzel szemben Károlyi a talán ügyetlen, de határozott erkölcsi elveket követő politikus, aki hajlandó volt egész létbiztonságát is feláldozni az ügyért, amiben hitt. Tisza védelmében fel szokták hozni, hogy legalább értett a politikához – nos, figyelembe véve a Trianonhoz vezető magyar utat, ebből azért nem igazán profitált az ország.

Persze mindez nem jelenti azt, hogy mindenben egyet is értek Károlyival. Bár szociális érzékenységét nagyra becsülöm (különösen ha figyelembe veszem, hogy ő volt az ország egyik leggazdagabb embere), ahogy bátor pacifizmusát is, és azt is megértem, miért köti valaki magát ezer szállal a marxizmushoz, ha egyszer a saját osztálya nem hajlandó szóba állni vele. Ugyanakkor elég riasztónak tartom azt az ötletét, hogy mivel nem vagyunk még érettek a demokráciára, ezért átmenetileg valami diktatúrafélét el tudna képzelni. (Ezzel a gondolattal később ellentmondásba is keveredik.) Másrészt az én ízlésemhez képest túl megbocsátónak mutatkozott Sztálin belpolitikájával szemben – mentségére szolgál, hogy Churchill és Roosevelt sem tett másként, ha a helyzet megkívánta. Mindenesetre Károlyi olyasvalakinek látszik, akit a hatalom nem rontott meg végzetesen (naná, nem is volt rá ideje…), és talán le se lövetne, ha mindezt szemére hánynám.

Az is nagyon tetszett, hogy feleségéről a korszak önéletrajzaihoz képest milyen tisztelettel és melegséggel beszél – mondjuk az is igaz, hogy e könyvet jó részt maga Károlyi Mihályné szül. Andrássy Katalin írta/szerkesztette, úgyhogy ebbe talán nem is bölcs dolog belemenni. De amúgy meg ritka jól megírt, érthető, helyenként szórakoztató szöveg. Hiába, Károlyi jól fogalmaz. Vagy Károlyiné. Ki tudja.

* Én egy olyan utcában lakom, amit 2006-ban Károlyi Mihály utcáról nemes egyszerűséggel Károli Gáspár utcára neveztek át, egy „y” különbség, szerintem a szomszédaink fele észre sem vette. Ráadásul ezzel párhuzamosan a település főterét Templom térről Tisza István térre változtatták, ami annyiból jogos, hogy szerencsétlen ex-miniszterelnöknek birtokai voltak errefelé. Ugyanakkor sikerült megfejelni az ügyletet egy emléktáblával, miszerint Tisza a „háború ellenzője és a világháború mártyrja”. A mártír az még rendben is van, de a mondat első fele minimum kifejtést igényelne. De úgy egyáltalán: ennek az átnevezősdinek mi értelme van, azon túl, hogy az utcanévtábla-gyárosok meggazdagodnak rajta? Hány ember tudja, hogy az utca, ahol lakik, tulajdonképpen kiről van elnevezve? (Amúgy meg én nem is engedném, hogy bármilyen politikusról közteret nevezzenek el. Abból csak a baj van. Annyi madár meg mezei virág van erre a célra. De még a bakteriális fertőzésekkel is kiegyeznék inkább.)

A short book that contains the essentials of World War I written in an entertaining style. Taylor loves to point out the unintended consequences of the actions of the principal nations in the war.

My school book

My favourite kind of history: sharply opinionated and controversial. A.J.P. Taylor is not afraid to reject conventional interpretations regarding the course of German history, nor to impose his own constructs in replacement of them. The two most salient arguments that Taylor repeatedly stresses in this book are:

1) Mere "ideals" are not substitutes for raw POWER.

2) Attempts at sociopolitical revolution without the broad support of the masses is folly.

In many cases, I found myself fundamentally disagreeing with Taylor's view of German history because of his overtly left-socialist political leanings. But that's okay, because his biases are not hidden nor obscured, and I was able to extract many relevant lessons from the book and add them to my own personal conception or "model" of German history.

I found it helpful as on overview.

This book is really in two halves: the title subject makes up the first half of the volume (bringing us from Walpole to Eden); the second is a collection of essays on the following: How Wars Begin, How Wars End, and Miscellaneous Reviews and Articles.

The photos and their thoughtful captions are what make this the best WWI book, in my opinion.

Not much in the way of explanatory or background text, but a great number of interesting and evocative photographs of Europe from approximately 1864 to 1914; there's pretty decent dispersion of countries, as well. Not a deep book, but a fun one.

Read this during GCE History studies when in English Secondary schools Modern History allegedly stopped around 1918, although in the content of certain syllabi there was reference to the causes & events of WW2.
AJP Taylor was the doyen of Modern History studies in G.B. & this book full of erudite yet cut-to-the-chase factual interpretation of the events of World War One is the epitome of Taylor's lucid intellectual powers. The often pithy &/or witty captions to the numerous illustrations encapsulate Taylor's sardonic overview of what the photos were originally intended to be about.
Taylor's enlightening prose captured my interest even at age 15, & I have read this tome 3 times since over decades finding new appreciation of its depth of perception of the core ill-founded reasoning & mistaken (misadventures) purposes that so bedevilled the World of Humanity at war August 1914 to November 1918.
In spite of the years since publication Taylor's History of WW1 is still thoroughly recommended.

It is always good to have a second opinion when one is looking for the man, not just the functions. Taylor was alive at the time, and the five essays are useful to the student. The essays chosen are generally as favourable to WSC as a left-wing person could be. Due to copyright the book was published in the USA as "Churchill: Four Faces and the Man." The essays were :
The statesman, by A. J. P. Taylor.
The politician, by R. R. James.
The historian, by J. H. Plumb.
The military strategist, by B. L. Hart.
The man, by A. Storr.½

I read this book while on a month vacation in Paris so it was very timely being on French soil during the reading. Taylor tries to separate Hitler the politician from Hitler the monster that killed 6 million people in the concentration camps Basically, the treaty of Versailles set off the events that led to World War II. Much of the book deals with the constant creation and uncreation of treaties and the ultimate goal of not repeating the carnage of World War I. The book leads us to believe that Hitler never really wanted to fight France and England and it all sort of just happened. Taylor's take has been disputed but I always find that history written 57 years ago fascinating. This book helps us understand the lessons of history.½

Historian of modern Germany wanders through his thoughts, opinions, and rants, originally published in a London Review of Books column during the 1980s. A pacifist (but wanted war against Hitler and Argentina-later recanting his Argentina position), anti-nuclear activist, ranter against automobile travel (loved the trains) and lesbians (not-gay men, though), and a friend to politicians whom he continually criticises.
Not for everyone, not for many, maybe not for anyone.

Mr. Taylor has assembled the basic account of European international affairs in this time period. Though my copy dates from the previous generation I feel that it still moulders away on many library shelves. If you are engaged with Europe prior to WWI, this is a very useful book, even today, though I am sure there has been at least one wave of revisionism washing over it. The prose is competent.

This was one of the first books I read about World War One. As usual with [a:Taylor|12831|A.J.P. Taylor|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1287339351p2/12831.jpg], it is brimming over with self confident judgments. Sadly, while I enjoyed this book immensely at the time, the more I have read on the subject, and particularly the more recent scholarship I have read, the lower my opinion of this book has become.

As too often with Taylor, entertainment trumps history.

Meesterlijke essays die een heel breed veld bestrijken, maar vanuit een brede eruditie en in een knappe, vertellende stijl.

What do you make of an autobiography that goes out of its way to describe how the subject, as a toddler, liked to masturbate his nanny, while omitting every mention of the subject's second wife and mother of two (or three?) of his children? It's essential to read the preface, in which Taylor explains that he "tells all" about people in his life who were dead when he wrote the book, but that those then living were ignored for fear of legal action. Time and again Taylor skewers someone (like Malcolm Muggeridge or Louis Namier) and then remarks that his victim was one of his closest friends whom he misses terribly. The number of grammatical and typographical errors forces me to revise my estimation of the quality of Hamish Hamilton and its American counterpart Atheneum, which apparently simply reprinted the British edition.

I'm sorry, it is probably me, but I could not get on with this book. AJP Taylor writes in the preface that this is the book of which he is most proud: the Times, quoted on the cover, states that it is both serious historical exploration and (...) amusing entertainment. I couldn't see what point the book was trying to make and didn't raise the merest titter throughout.

Really good general books upon history expect very little foreknowledge and, lightly, explain the background to a described situation. Mr Taylor overestimates at least my historical awareness, and I found myself regularly stopping to check the details of some cast off remark. Even after so doing, I really could not find any great purpose or value from this tome: perhaps it is a book for experts, or just not for me....

If you are well read on WWI, this is not a book for you. Provides a fine overview of the conflict including motivations, economics, social aspects (women's issues). Some of the comments by Dr. Taylor are insightful, tongue in cheek as well as outside the norm. I found the final section..1919..particularly interesting. Here he deals with the after effects of the conflict and the shortcomings of the treaty with Germany. A fast read.