Catch Europe: The Struggle For Supremacy From 1453 To The Present Originated By Brendan Simms Presented As File

copy I read was somepages making it almost "years inpages, " An excellent book: I now understand the significance of the Holy Roman Empire more than I ever did before,

Simms's is pushing the thesis that Germany by dint of its central position has been central to European history and all the more so when it was fragmented and also that foreign policy trumps domestic policy to the extent that the English Civil War was a result of the Stuarts' failure to sufficiently support Protestants in the low countries.
It is not altogether convincing but it provides a good focus for his narrative,

He even reverses the causes of WWII, in that where we tend to think that the economics in the form of thes depression drove foreign policy troubles in the form of an aggressive Germany he argues that foreign policy triggered it by triggering the depression through the French reaction to Curtius' policies that drove the Wiener Kreditanstalt to default.


As far as current affairs go, it is notable how often an expansionist Russsia was the source of the continent's instability,

A slog, given the length, but well worth it, This was an interesting primer history of the Holy Roman Empire amp Germany within the geopolitics of European history from theth century to the present.
A little flat and unfocused at times it nonetheless does what it sets out to,

Neutral Recommendation. This would be more properly titled, "Germany" or "Germany in Europe", but it was an invaluable book for giving context to many events you may have studied individually over the lastyears or so.
During theyears of bloody European history this is, in essence, what was going on :
"A" amp "B" join force to weaken "C", who has with time become too big and thus too threatening.
Then "C" motivates "D" who sees an opportunity for looting to attack "A", thus weakening the coalition between "A" amp "B", This gives the opportunity for "B" to become stronger than "A", which inspires "A" amp "C" to forget their ancient enmities and to join the forces against "B", who now offers "D" an alliance.
"D" is not interested until it realizes that "A" has become too strong, which at the end unifies all the sides against it, But as soon as "A" is beaten up, "B" realizes that this the perfect time to resolve some old disputes with "E", However, "D" cannot stand aside doing nothing it breaks the union with "B" and helps "E", who will have to make some territorial concession as a sign of gratitude to "D".
"F", who in essence disdain "E", is afraid that the fall of "E" would bring "B" to close to its territory, so it also enters the war.
Still, since the win of "E" is not in interest of "A", once more "A" creates an alliance with "B", and so on, and so on.
. .
So, whoever has some even very reasonable doubts regarding the meaning of the existence of EU, he should revisit the past of the Old Continent through this excellent book.

Bůh ví, že knih o historii mám za sebou spoustu, Ovšem Simmsovo dílo mi všechny ty informace poskládalo, spíš přeskládalo, dívá a vysvětluje dějiny z nečekaných úhlů.
Za mě dost přelomová publikace, navíc čtivá, Za poslední dobu asi jedna z nejlepších knih o evropské historii a to říkám a píšu přes to, že na těchstranách proletí pět set let.
I přes to je velmi detailní, výborně dává věci do souvislostí a je detailně vyzdrojovaná, Navíc, pokud čtenář není kovaný marxista, bude se mu autorovo východisko zdát pravděpodobně velmi neutrální, Takže za mne doporučuju, Mírná škoda je, že kniha končí někdy rokem, nejposlednější události už tam nejsou, Ale výborně jsou zde sumarizovány problémy s EU a s její poslední integrací, problémy ve vztahu k Blízkému Východu a samozřejmě k Rusku.
This book attempts to coveryears of European history inpages, Although it does a good job from the eighteenth century on, the firstyears are a little skimped on and is finished before the halfway point of the book, which is a shame because it would have been nice to better understand the origins of Europe.
It does mention other events from around the world such as the Middle east, Asia, and the West, but I do think it is a nice touch because of course events from other parts of the world will influence another.
The book itself is pretty easy to follow and didnt ramble on about particular subjects which was good, Its hard to get a history that covers everything foryears without it being a thousand plus pages, so I believe the author did a good job in referencing the most notable points.
Definitely worth the read for a general history of Europe without digging too deeply, There are two major theses in this book, One is presented right at the outset: due to its central position and massive potential, he who controls Germany dominates Europe, For the first part of this book, the active powers deliberately prevent anyone, including the Germans, from controlling Germany, in order to maintain the balance.
From, however, Germany is unified and attempts to prove that a dominating Germany dominates Europe, and was prevented from doing so only at great cost.
Then, of course, Germany is divided again and becomes the most important front of the Cold War, After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the book sort of peters out it's difficult to do a whole lot of analysis on recent history, but the centrality of Germany to the EU is obvious, even if some of the other discussion of the lastyears may not be.


The second theses, moving beyond geography is history, is that foreign policy drives social and economic changes in the name of being more efficient for the next war.
Sometimes, this resulted in more democracy, sometimes in more absolutism or autocracy, but the goal was always to be strong enough to win usually in, against, or as Germany.
This is, perhaps, more than a bit reductionist, but the author does a fairly good job of arguing for it, It also explains the heavy focus on international relations, which shouldn't be surprising given the title, and the short shrift given to the rest of

history from.


My major quibble with the book is that when European politics goes global, some parts of the nonEuropean map get a lot of focus and some are almost completely ignored.
Japan, for instance, is barely mentioned before or after the RussoJapanese War of, and China is largely ignored outside of it being a pain to Khruschev in thes.
Meanwhile we get a surprisingly detailed amount of Afghan politics and Middle Eastern and Jewish foreign relations more generally, Current events and all, but it's a bit weird given the wide scope of the book, 'The Soviet Union, in short, did not have a militaryindustrial complex like the United States, it was a militaryindustrial complex, '

This brilliantly placed line signifies the Europe's ability to spark off vivid understandings of Europe's various historical situations, It is a thoughtful and fair minded piece of work, usually fast paced and often exhilarating, sometimes sloggy, overall seeming to make the most of its material.
It has an argument, a carefully trained perspective, and I'm sure anybody would learn a great deal from it, while having some moments of real pleasure along the way.
Simms captures Europe as an entity in the midst of history, wilfully perceiving centuries of twists and turns through the filters associated with current/recent issues.


Criticisms

There are a couple of overbearing issues with the style, Early on there is some awkward, seemingly unedited, diction and syntax, There are even instances of elementary mistakes which even a total novice like me can spot like referring to the Dutch 'Estates General', which is the French term, or saying that Baldwin was the leader of the opposition in.
And throughout, paragraphs begin with either 'The real issue was not insert event, but Germany and the whole balance of power', or 'This international development had a profound effect on domestic politics in many countries' I like repetition of ideas because it ingrains the essential message of such a long book, and shows selfconfidence.
But this is far too much, and that becomes apparent earlyon, There are also moments when Simms clearly over eggs the primacy of foreign policy, for example declaring that the British revolution was entirely a function of the debate around participation in the European wars.
Finally, the book inevitably struggles with the breadth and depth of such a vast and intricate period of history, Even though it is massively lopsided towards the finalyears, some areas are listlike and don't leave much impression or understanding, There are some other issues, but noone interested in the topic or attracted by the idea of the book should really be discouraged, If you're still uncertain, let one or two of Simms's genius pieces for the New Statesman convince you, particularly: sitelink newstatesman. com/world/eu .