What do you think?
Rate this book
When the Facts Change: Essays, 1995-2010
The previously uncollected essays of one of the intellectual giants of our age and author of Postwar and Thinking the Twentieth Century.
402 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 22, 2015
112 people are currently reading
1352 people want to read
About the author
Tony Judt
55 books654 followersBorn in 1948, Tony Judt was raised in the East End of London by a mother whose parents had immigrated from Russia and a Belgian father who descended from a line of Lithuanian rabbis. Judt was educated at Emanuel School, before receiving a BA (1969) and PhD (1972) in history from the University of Cambridge.
Like many other Jewish parents living in postwar Europe, his mother and father were secular, but they sent him to Hebrew school and steeped him in the Yiddish culture of his grandparents, which Judt says he still thinks of wistfully. Urged on by his parents, Judt enthusiastically waded into the world of Israeli politics at age 15. He helped promote the migration of British Jews to Israel. In 1966, having won an exhibition to King's College Cambridge, he took a gap year and went to work on kibbutz Machanaim. When Nasser expelled UN troops from Sinai in 1967, and Israel mobilized for war, like many European Jews, he volunteered to replace kibbutz members who had been called up. During and in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, he worked as a driver and translator for the Israel Defense Forces.
But during the aftermath of the war, Judt's belief in the Zionist enterprise began to unravel. "I went with this idealistic fantasy of creating a socialist, communitarian country through work," Judt has said. The problem, he began to believe, was that this view was "remarkably unconscious of the people who had been kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make this fantasy possible."
Career: King's College, Cambridge, England, fellow, 1972-78; University of California at Berkeley, assistant professor, 1978-80; St. Anne's College, Oxford University, Oxford, England, fellow, 1980-87; New York University, New York, NY, professor of history, 1987--, director of Remarque Institute, 1995--.
Awards: American Council of Learned Societies, fellow, 1980; British Academy Award for Research, 1984; Nuffield Foundation fellow, 1986; Guggenheim fellow, 1989; Pulitzer Prize in general nonfiction finalist, 2006, for Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945.
Like many other Jewish parents living in postwar Europe, his mother and father were secular, but they sent him to Hebrew school and steeped him in the Yiddish culture of his grandparents, which Judt says he still thinks of wistfully. Urged on by his parents, Judt enthusiastically waded into the world of Israeli politics at age 15. He helped promote the migration of British Jews to Israel. In 1966, having won an exhibition to King's College Cambridge, he took a gap year and went to work on kibbutz Machanaim. When Nasser expelled UN troops from Sinai in 1967, and Israel mobilized for war, like many European Jews, he volunteered to replace kibbutz members who had been called up. During and in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, he worked as a driver and translator for the Israel Defense Forces.
But during the aftermath of the war, Judt's belief in the Zionist enterprise began to unravel. "I went with this idealistic fantasy of creating a socialist, communitarian country through work," Judt has said. The problem, he began to believe, was that this view was "remarkably unconscious of the people who had been kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make this fantasy possible."
Career: King's College, Cambridge, England, fellow, 1972-78; University of California at Berkeley, assistant professor, 1978-80; St. Anne's College, Oxford University, Oxford, England, fellow, 1980-87; New York University, New York, NY, professor of history, 1987--, director of Remarque Institute, 1995--.
Awards: American Council of Learned Societies, fellow, 1980; British Academy Award for Research, 1984; Nuffield Foundation fellow, 1986; Guggenheim fellow, 1989; Pulitzer Prize in general nonfiction finalist, 2006, for Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
January 9, 2022
When the Facts Change: Essays, 1995-2010 by Tony Judt, published after his passing by his widow and fellow historian Jennifer Homans includes essays that didn't fit with his earlier releases, Tony Judt’s first collection of essays, Reappraisals, that was centered on twentieth-century Europe in history and memory. Some of Judt’s most prominent and indeed controversial essays felt outside of the scope of Reappraisals, most notably his writings on the state of Israel and its relationship to Palestine. There would be time, it was thought, to fit these essays into a larger frame. Sadly, this would not be the case, at least during the author’s own life. Now, When the Facts Change, gathers together important essays from the span of Judt’s career that chronicle both the evolution of his thought and the remarkable consistency of his passionate engagement and intellectual élan. Whether the subject is the scholarly poverty of the new social history, the willful blindness of French collective memory about what happened to the country’s Jews during World War II, or the moral challenge to Israel of the so-called Palestinian problem, the majesty of Tony Judt’s work lies in his combination of unsparing honesty, intellectual brilliance, and ethical clarity. When the Facts Change exemplifies the utility, indeed the necessity, of minding our history and not letting cheerful fictions suffice in its place. An emphatic demonstration of the power of a great historian to connect us more deeply to the world as it was, as it is, and as it should be, it is a fitting capstone to an extraordinary body of work.
October 1, 2015
Every time I read his essays and book reviews, I mourn the loss of Tony Judt. This volume contains around 30 essays comprising book reviews, commemorative essays, and even some drafts of a proposed book about trains. They cover topics ranging from the Iraq War to the future of the welfare state to the dangers of over reliance on economic ideologies in politics to a bunch of other topics. These essays are short, well written, and highly literate. Judt was widely read in topics that most of us will never go into deeply (Eastern European intellectual history, for example). He is deeply intellectual and critical. His book reviews take apart the works of major scholars with a thoroughness that makes me envious. (Look at the review of Norman Davies book on Europe as an example).
The title of the book comes from Judt's fondness for the quote attributed to Keynes that "When the facts change, I change my thinking -- What do you do sir? These essays show how his thought adapts to the change in the world after 1989 and up through the post 9/11 era.
Judt's essays are also courageous. His is not afraid to debunk established truths and draw conclusions that are nearly obvious but not politically correct. These are honest essays with little posturing.
What I like best about this work, is what I have liked about Judt since reading his "Postwar". He brings well developed perspectives to topics that are European rather than American. He is not afraid to challenge American intellectual complacency and laziness on such topics as the welfare state, Israel and Zionism, and American foreign policy under Bush and following 9/11. These pieces help me to remember what intellectual history is all about. I really hope that his wife and his editors are able to find more of his papers to publish.
The title of the book comes from Judt's fondness for the quote attributed to Keynes that "When the facts change, I change my thinking -- What do you do sir? These essays show how his thought adapts to the change in the world after 1989 and up through the post 9/11 era.
Judt's essays are also courageous. His is not afraid to debunk established truths and draw conclusions that are nearly obvious but not politically correct. These are honest essays with little posturing.
What I like best about this work, is what I have liked about Judt since reading his "Postwar". He brings well developed perspectives to topics that are European rather than American. He is not afraid to challenge American intellectual complacency and laziness on such topics as the welfare state, Israel and Zionism, and American foreign policy under Bush and following 9/11. These pieces help me to remember what intellectual history is all about. I really hope that his wife and his editors are able to find more of his papers to publish.
February 26, 2018
I have read and admired Tony Judt for at least 20 years, largely in the pages of The New York Review of Books, where many of these essays were first published. They now appear in this superlative, sadly posthumous collection, edited and with a moving introduction by his wife, Jennifer Homans. (Judt died of ALS in 2010, heroically writing up to the end of his life.)
I find it fascinating to compare Judt with another British-born Jewish scholar and historian of Europe, also educated at Cambridge, Simon Schama. I’m reading his 2010 essay collection, Scribble, Scribble, Scribble. Since they are the same generation, Judt and Schama must have been acutely aware of each other, but I find little evidence that they met very often, much less became friends. Perhaps it’s just as well: they are very different personalities, each with a brilliance and erudition that the other may have experienced as a succession of sharp elbows.
Judt can be an entertaining writer, but it is the rigor and clarity of his arguments that strikes a reader like me so forcefully. Homans reveals one of his secrets in her introduction: deep reading (no surprise) supplemented by an elaborate system of note taking and outlining. Judt writes on many topics here – his love of railroads, for instance – but he doesn’t range as far afield as Schama in his topics. Judt is always disciplined in his focus and penetrating analysis, Schama more sprawling and ecumenical.
The only drawback to Judt’s collection is its timing. Many of these essays on foreign policy and the contrasts between Europe and America (a perennial subject) were written in the early 2000s, when the Bush administration squandered the world’s goodwill following 9/11 with its harsh unilateralism and the disastrous Iraq war. Judt’s responses here are more in sorrow than anger, but he is utterly ruthless in his dissection of America’s failures and delusions – as he is of Israel’s and Europe’s too, for that matter.
As a result, I found most enjoyable the essays not explicitly linked to contemporary events. One is on Albert Camus, perhaps Judt’s greatest hero – and it shows. The essay concerns Camus’s 1947 novel, The Plague, less celebrated than The Stranger perhaps, but a greater book in Judt’s view. On one level, The Plague is a loose allegory of Vichy France and the accommodations that people must make in the face of evil. But it is also a profound meditation on the “absurdity” of the human condition that implicitly rejects the callous political classifications of “right” and “left” that so preoccupied his contemporaries such as Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Indeed, Camus was heavily criticized for not being “political” enough in this and other works, leading to his break with much of the French intellectual world, still in thrall to the dream of Marxism.
In many ways, the heart of the book is the commentaries on Israel, which proved remarkably controversial when first published. Judt, after all, was not merely Jewish, but for a brief period in his youth, a kibbutznick and committed Zionist. But in his later years, Judt became an unsparing – and often despairing – critic of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its turn toward hard-line orthodoxy. His intellectual and political struggles are on display here: a proposal to consider a binational state followed by a later essay conceding that a two-state solution is the only feasible road for Israelis and Palestinians. Otherwise, he says bluntly, the continued occupation will remain “the chief proximate cause of the resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide.”
Judt’s other great theme here is the loss of communal responsibility and a skepticism about the importance of the public sphere, exemplified in the rise of politicians like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The collective abandonment of the institutions and values built so painfully by social democracies over generations amounts to an irreparable loss, he argues, one that leaves isolated individuals facing the uncaring power of modern corporate capitalism. This is especially the case in the United States, with its emphasis on hyper-individualism, unchecked free markets, and demonization of government.
Judt is the quintessential anti-ideologue, someone who rejects an uncritical faith in any formal political or economic system. “If we have learned nothing else from the twentieth century,” he writes, “we should have at least grasped that the more perfect the answer, the more terrifying the consequences.”
I find it fascinating to compare Judt with another British-born Jewish scholar and historian of Europe, also educated at Cambridge, Simon Schama. I’m reading his 2010 essay collection, Scribble, Scribble, Scribble. Since they are the same generation, Judt and Schama must have been acutely aware of each other, but I find little evidence that they met very often, much less became friends. Perhaps it’s just as well: they are very different personalities, each with a brilliance and erudition that the other may have experienced as a succession of sharp elbows.
Judt can be an entertaining writer, but it is the rigor and clarity of his arguments that strikes a reader like me so forcefully. Homans reveals one of his secrets in her introduction: deep reading (no surprise) supplemented by an elaborate system of note taking and outlining. Judt writes on many topics here – his love of railroads, for instance – but he doesn’t range as far afield as Schama in his topics. Judt is always disciplined in his focus and penetrating analysis, Schama more sprawling and ecumenical.
The only drawback to Judt’s collection is its timing. Many of these essays on foreign policy and the contrasts between Europe and America (a perennial subject) were written in the early 2000s, when the Bush administration squandered the world’s goodwill following 9/11 with its harsh unilateralism and the disastrous Iraq war. Judt’s responses here are more in sorrow than anger, but he is utterly ruthless in his dissection of America’s failures and delusions – as he is of Israel’s and Europe’s too, for that matter.
As a result, I found most enjoyable the essays not explicitly linked to contemporary events. One is on Albert Camus, perhaps Judt’s greatest hero – and it shows. The essay concerns Camus’s 1947 novel, The Plague, less celebrated than The Stranger perhaps, but a greater book in Judt’s view. On one level, The Plague is a loose allegory of Vichy France and the accommodations that people must make in the face of evil. But it is also a profound meditation on the “absurdity” of the human condition that implicitly rejects the callous political classifications of “right” and “left” that so preoccupied his contemporaries such as Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Indeed, Camus was heavily criticized for not being “political” enough in this and other works, leading to his break with much of the French intellectual world, still in thrall to the dream of Marxism.
In many ways, the heart of the book is the commentaries on Israel, which proved remarkably controversial when first published. Judt, after all, was not merely Jewish, but for a brief period in his youth, a kibbutznick and committed Zionist. But in his later years, Judt became an unsparing – and often despairing – critic of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its turn toward hard-line orthodoxy. His intellectual and political struggles are on display here: a proposal to consider a binational state followed by a later essay conceding that a two-state solution is the only feasible road for Israelis and Palestinians. Otherwise, he says bluntly, the continued occupation will remain “the chief proximate cause of the resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide.”
Judt’s other great theme here is the loss of communal responsibility and a skepticism about the importance of the public sphere, exemplified in the rise of politicians like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The collective abandonment of the institutions and values built so painfully by social democracies over generations amounts to an irreparable loss, he argues, one that leaves isolated individuals facing the uncaring power of modern corporate capitalism. This is especially the case in the United States, with its emphasis on hyper-individualism, unchecked free markets, and demonization of government.
Judt is the quintessential anti-ideologue, someone who rejects an uncritical faith in any formal political or economic system. “If we have learned nothing else from the twentieth century,” he writes, “we should have at least grasped that the more perfect the answer, the more terrifying the consequences.”
July 13, 2025
Це не 10/10, скоріш 8,8.
На сьогодні це найбільш контроверсійна книга Джадта, з прочитаних мною.
Надто часто, порівняно з попередніми, автор мене дратував своїми думками, але ж у цьому і полягає місія інтелектуалів рівня Джадта.
Змусити нас розмірковувати, формувати свою позицію.
Це збірка есеїв, написаних протягом тривалого часу на різноманітні теми.
Тут і розпад радянського блоку, і близькосхідний конфлікт та Ізраїль, глобалізм та американські війни, демонтаж держави загального добробуту і майбутнє соціал-демократії.
Есеї згруповані в розділи за тематикою, а всередині розділу - хронологічно.
Доречі це добре відображає як змінюється стиль, зростає глибина і майстерність.
Читаючи ці тексти, головне питання - а щоб він сказав про сучасні події. Про російську агресію, про чергове загострення на близькому сході.
З іншого боку, може й добре, що він не побачив як люди знехтували його застереженнями.
На сьогодні це найбільш контроверсійна книга Джадта, з прочитаних мною.
Надто часто, порівняно з попередніми, автор мене дратував своїми думками, але ж у цьому і полягає місія інтелектуалів рівня Джадта.
Змусити нас розмірковувати, формувати свою позицію.
Це збірка есеїв, написаних протягом тривалого часу на різноманітні теми.
Тут і розпад радянського блоку, і близькосхідний конфлікт та Ізраїль, глобалізм та американські війни, демонтаж держави загального добробуту і майбутнє соціал-демократії.
Есеї згруповані в розділи за тематикою, а всередині розділу - хронологічно.
Доречі це добре відображає як змінюється стиль, зростає глибина і майстерність.
Читаючи ці тексти, головне питання - а щоб він сказав про сучасні події. Про російську агресію, про чергове загострення на близькому сході.
З іншого боку, може й добре, що він не побачив як люди знехтували його застереженнями.
December 28, 2021
I read a Tanahisi Coates essay on his appreciation of Tony Judt whose Ill Fares the Land I had read earlier and didn't love, but I decided to give this another read and I really liked it. And that is probably because things are more dire now in terms of historical amnesia than they were then. His essay on arendt about Americans mislearning the lessons of Nazi germany is one of the best I've read in a long time and it could not be more relevant to the current situation.
December 24, 2014
This forthcoming, posthumous collection of essays from historian Tony Judt encapsulates his breath of knowledge, including European history and current affairs, Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Iraq War, though he veers off track with his social democratic criticism of the United States economy. The essays include a few obits and several of his reviews from the New York Review of Books, all of which I enjoyed.
He says, "Trains are about moving people." In the United States, trains actually are primarily about moving goods. His overlooking freight reflects that his essay is focused on decrying the loss of the communal experience of passenger rail after the rise of the motor car. To me, the rise of the automobile reflects millions of individuals' personal preferences for convenience and who am I to judge them? Judt, though, uses the popular canard that highways are subsidized, giving them an unfair advantage. Yet, not only did many railroads receive land grant subsidies and mass transit is heavily subsidized, but US highways are mostly funded by user fees (fuel taxes and user tolls). A significant proportion car drivers' gas taxes are used to subsidize mass transit. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/h....
Judt states the US railroad industry was effectively nationalized in the 1970's. That is very incorrect. Passenger rail was effectively nationalized via Amtrak and a handful of bankrupt freight carriers were nationalized as Conrail. The larger rail companies survived as private companies.
He questions "the logic of the suburb" because of high oil costs. As I write this, gasoline is back down to $2 per gallon, powered by new exploration technologies (deep sea & fracking) and more efficient cars. The growth trajectory of electric and hybrid cars may, at least partly, decouple suburban transportation from oil.
On economics, Judt didn't like Thatcherism or the Reagan-Clinton years, stating, "regulatory structures set in place over the course of a century or more were dismantled within a few years." In several places he implies regulation simply vanished. That was not the case. In the 1980s and 1990s in the USA, the rate of growth in regulation slowed, which is shown in the link http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf. For example, in the last year of the Carter presidency, 1980, 7,745 final rule documents were published in the federal Register and the number of new final rules dropped to 4,581 by 1987. Judt mistook Thatcher-Reagan era rhetoric for reality. Reagan promised to eliminate cabinet positions but ended up adding a few. The Reagan years saw deregulation of certain industries, several of which, railroads and air travel, were very successful.
What Judt probably refers to is financial regulation, especially in the later part of the Clinton presidency. That said, the parts of the financial sector that caused the 2008 financial crash were among the most regulated (mortgages at commercial banks). He may confuse badly executed regulation with the absence of regulation.
I found this work the most disappointing in its sections on social democracy and his criticism of social policy in the USA. He was offended by the Clinton welfare reform because means-tested charity/government programs are "notoriously humiliating." If so, what is the problem? To me, welfare should be a safety net, not a permanent blanket, something that keeps people from starving, provides the unemployed with basic medical care, etc. I would hope people would never get comfortable with being on the dole. Judt dislikes "workfare" or even the idea that the able-bodied should work. He comes from a social democratic tradition that believes people, by their mere existence, have the right to be taken care of by society, whether they want to work or not.
Very telling was his criticism of Clinton's reform that people "must first have sought and, where applicable, secured employment at whatever wage is on offer, however low the pay and distasteful the work." That is an incredible statement; if you don't find a job that meets your personal expectations, take welfare instead. Judt is silent on those "distasteful" jobs. In his ideal world, no one needs to work as, say, a busser, maid, or farmhand, because of the low pay and "distasteful" conditions. Then, I ask, who will do that work? In fact, if he saw the big picture, he would understand what center-Left pols like Tony Blair realized, specifically that the best way to achieve a solvent safety net is by carefully managing its costs.
Judt also is philosophically opposed to privatization. He celebrates "big government" as such. Yet, many Western countries have successfully experimented with privatizing certain services. Judt is correct that there are some functions (e.g. fire and police) that simply cannot be privatized, yet, he mentions coal mines and postal delivery (is he familiar with FedEx and UPS?). I think he is far too rigid in ideology here. Let municipalities (like Chicago), states, and nations experiment and find where privatization makes sense. It is not an "all or nothing" proposition.
Even in areas where I disagree with Judt, his writing is clear and each section includes footnotes. His foreign policy positions are almost always reasonable. His knowledge of history is deep and his perspectives on Israel and Palestine are well-considered views that everyone should consider. He is Jewish, but opposes Israeli settlements. He has interesting things to say about militarism, and rightly points out the United States had a singular experience of low casualties coupled with WWI and WWII success that makes Americans more amenable to war than Chinese, Russians, Japanese and Europeans who were devastated by those same wars. He points out that, if you ignore the experiences of small wars like Vietnam, the United States has never been defeated. Not since the American Civil War has blood been spilled on continental US soil.
His book reviews, particularly of Camus's The Plague and his blistering attack of Norman Davies's Europe were excellent.
This was an Advance Reader Copy won through a GoodReads give-away, and I trust the typos will be corrected in the final book published in January 2015.
He says, "Trains are about moving people." In the United States, trains actually are primarily about moving goods. His overlooking freight reflects that his essay is focused on decrying the loss of the communal experience of passenger rail after the rise of the motor car. To me, the rise of the automobile reflects millions of individuals' personal preferences for convenience and who am I to judge them? Judt, though, uses the popular canard that highways are subsidized, giving them an unfair advantage. Yet, not only did many railroads receive land grant subsidies and mass transit is heavily subsidized, but US highways are mostly funded by user fees (fuel taxes and user tolls). A significant proportion car drivers' gas taxes are used to subsidize mass transit. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/h....
Judt states the US railroad industry was effectively nationalized in the 1970's. That is very incorrect. Passenger rail was effectively nationalized via Amtrak and a handful of bankrupt freight carriers were nationalized as Conrail. The larger rail companies survived as private companies.
He questions "the logic of the suburb" because of high oil costs. As I write this, gasoline is back down to $2 per gallon, powered by new exploration technologies (deep sea & fracking) and more efficient cars. The growth trajectory of electric and hybrid cars may, at least partly, decouple suburban transportation from oil.
On economics, Judt didn't like Thatcherism or the Reagan-Clinton years, stating, "regulatory structures set in place over the course of a century or more were dismantled within a few years." In several places he implies regulation simply vanished. That was not the case. In the 1980s and 1990s in the USA, the rate of growth in regulation slowed, which is shown in the link http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf. For example, in the last year of the Carter presidency, 1980, 7,745 final rule documents were published in the federal Register and the number of new final rules dropped to 4,581 by 1987. Judt mistook Thatcher-Reagan era rhetoric for reality. Reagan promised to eliminate cabinet positions but ended up adding a few. The Reagan years saw deregulation of certain industries, several of which, railroads and air travel, were very successful.
What Judt probably refers to is financial regulation, especially in the later part of the Clinton presidency. That said, the parts of the financial sector that caused the 2008 financial crash were among the most regulated (mortgages at commercial banks). He may confuse badly executed regulation with the absence of regulation.
I found this work the most disappointing in its sections on social democracy and his criticism of social policy in the USA. He was offended by the Clinton welfare reform because means-tested charity/government programs are "notoriously humiliating." If so, what is the problem? To me, welfare should be a safety net, not a permanent blanket, something that keeps people from starving, provides the unemployed with basic medical care, etc. I would hope people would never get comfortable with being on the dole. Judt dislikes "workfare" or even the idea that the able-bodied should work. He comes from a social democratic tradition that believes people, by their mere existence, have the right to be taken care of by society, whether they want to work or not.
Very telling was his criticism of Clinton's reform that people "must first have sought and, where applicable, secured employment at whatever wage is on offer, however low the pay and distasteful the work." That is an incredible statement; if you don't find a job that meets your personal expectations, take welfare instead. Judt is silent on those "distasteful" jobs. In his ideal world, no one needs to work as, say, a busser, maid, or farmhand, because of the low pay and "distasteful" conditions. Then, I ask, who will do that work? In fact, if he saw the big picture, he would understand what center-Left pols like Tony Blair realized, specifically that the best way to achieve a solvent safety net is by carefully managing its costs.
Judt also is philosophically opposed to privatization. He celebrates "big government" as such. Yet, many Western countries have successfully experimented with privatizing certain services. Judt is correct that there are some functions (e.g. fire and police) that simply cannot be privatized, yet, he mentions coal mines and postal delivery (is he familiar with FedEx and UPS?). I think he is far too rigid in ideology here. Let municipalities (like Chicago), states, and nations experiment and find where privatization makes sense. It is not an "all or nothing" proposition.
Even in areas where I disagree with Judt, his writing is clear and each section includes footnotes. His foreign policy positions are almost always reasonable. His knowledge of history is deep and his perspectives on Israel and Palestine are well-considered views that everyone should consider. He is Jewish, but opposes Israeli settlements. He has interesting things to say about militarism, and rightly points out the United States had a singular experience of low casualties coupled with WWI and WWII success that makes Americans more amenable to war than Chinese, Russians, Japanese and Europeans who were devastated by those same wars. He points out that, if you ignore the experiences of small wars like Vietnam, the United States has never been defeated. Not since the American Civil War has blood been spilled on continental US soil.
His book reviews, particularly of Camus's The Plague and his blistering attack of Norman Davies's Europe were excellent.
This was an Advance Reader Copy won through a GoodReads give-away, and I trust the typos will be corrected in the final book published in January 2015.
April 8, 2023
„Când lucrurile se schimbă” este o colecție de eseuri scrise de istoricul britanic Tony Judt între anii 1995 și 2010, acoperind astfel o perioadă importantă de timp în istoria lumii. Cartea abordează subiecte variate, cum ar fi politica, economia, cultura, religia și istoria, oferind o perspectivă complexă și profundă asupra acestor domenii.
Una dintre marile forțe ale cărții este capacitatea lui Judt de a oferi analize profunde și coerente, în timp ce reușește să evite jargonul academic și să-și păstreze stilul accesibil și ușor de înțeles. El abordează subiecte complexe și sensibile cu o abordare critică, punând în discuție idei preconcepute și oferind o perspectivă alternativă asupra unor subiecte controversate.
În plus, cartea este foarte relevantă pentru cititorii de astăzi, deoarece multe dintre subiectele abordate în ea sunt în continuare de actualitate, cum ar fi globalizarea, criza financiară, conflictele din Orientul Mijlociu și criza migranților. Din acest motiv, „Când lucrurile se schimbă” este o lectură importantă și utilă pentru cei interesați de politica și istoria contemporană.
Cu o abordare analitică, coerentă și accesibilă, cartea oferă o perspectivă complexă și bine informată asupra unor subiecte importante și de actualitate.
Una dintre marile forțe ale cărții este capacitatea lui Judt de a oferi analize profunde și coerente, în timp ce reușește să evite jargonul academic și să-și păstreze stilul accesibil și ușor de înțeles. El abordează subiecte complexe și sensibile cu o abordare critică, punând în discuție idei preconcepute și oferind o perspectivă alternativă asupra unor subiecte controversate.
În plus, cartea este foarte relevantă pentru cititorii de astăzi, deoarece multe dintre subiectele abordate în ea sunt în continuare de actualitate, cum ar fi globalizarea, criza financiară, conflictele din Orientul Mijlociu și criza migranților. Din acest motiv, „Când lucrurile se schimbă” este o lectură importantă și utilă pentru cei interesați de politica și istoria contemporană.
Cu o abordare analitică, coerentă și accesibilă, cartea oferă o perspectivă complexă și bine informată asupra unor subiecte importante și de actualitate.
March 4, 2016
Could it be? A book that is precisely the sum of its parts, neither more nor less? Facts collects a bunch of book reviews and short essays, mostly written for the usual suspects (NYRB). Most of them are solid. A few are great. A few don't really bear re-reading.
The most fun are the straight book reviews, all from before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Judt destroys Norman Davies and other writers on Eastern Europe; fans of the take-down will enjoy that. The most relevant are the pieces that lead up to Judt's defense of social democracy, including the pooterish essays on trains, and 'What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy,' which is a nice, short version of Ill Fares the Land.
In between are two sections sure to upset most people. Judt's writings on Israel and Palestine are fascinating, and perhaps the only example in this volume of Judt actually changing his mind when the facts change. They're also sure to enrage the pro-Israel types so common in the U.S., and probably some pro-Palestinians as well. His writings on the 'war on terror' and the Bush II presidency should upset everyone, because the whole thing was such a waste of breath, and he could have been writing about something else. A friend of mine says that the invasion of Iraq might be the only event of our lifetime in which his original, gut-level, unjustified moral and intellectual response is identical with his later, hindsight-informed, 'objective' moral and intellectual response, and that seems right. It was transparently a stupid thing to do, and an immoral thing to do, and spending hundreds of NYRB pages reviewing books saying either that or the opposite was a waste of time. Granted, people did need to be making the moral points. But reading them now is dreary to say the least.
The book closes with three eulogies for Furet, Kolakowski, and Amos Elon (of whom I'd never heard). It's nice to end with them, because they're good reminders that Judt wasn't always right. Judt more or less saints Furet without considering the links between Furet's kind of revisionism and the hyper-individualism that is the target of the social democracy essays; at least here Judt shows that he, like everyone else, could stay wrapped up in long-dead polemic. Nice to know he was human.
The most fun are the straight book reviews, all from before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Judt destroys Norman Davies and other writers on Eastern Europe; fans of the take-down will enjoy that. The most relevant are the pieces that lead up to Judt's defense of social democracy, including the pooterish essays on trains, and 'What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy,' which is a nice, short version of Ill Fares the Land.
In between are two sections sure to upset most people. Judt's writings on Israel and Palestine are fascinating, and perhaps the only example in this volume of Judt actually changing his mind when the facts change. They're also sure to enrage the pro-Israel types so common in the U.S., and probably some pro-Palestinians as well. His writings on the 'war on terror' and the Bush II presidency should upset everyone, because the whole thing was such a waste of breath, and he could have been writing about something else. A friend of mine says that the invasion of Iraq might be the only event of our lifetime in which his original, gut-level, unjustified moral and intellectual response is identical with his later, hindsight-informed, 'objective' moral and intellectual response, and that seems right. It was transparently a stupid thing to do, and an immoral thing to do, and spending hundreds of NYRB pages reviewing books saying either that or the opposite was a waste of time. Granted, people did need to be making the moral points. But reading them now is dreary to say the least.
The book closes with three eulogies for Furet, Kolakowski, and Amos Elon (of whom I'd never heard). It's nice to end with them, because they're good reminders that Judt wasn't always right. Judt more or less saints Furet without considering the links between Furet's kind of revisionism and the hyper-individualism that is the target of the social democracy essays; at least here Judt shows that he, like everyone else, could stay wrapped up in long-dead polemic. Nice to know he was human.
July 4, 2015
It took me a crashing long time to finish this book, not because it's hard to read, but because it consists of 29 essays, which would be highly punishing to read one after the other without pause.
Tony Judt has raised my understanding of modern history (i.e. late 19th century forward) than any other historian (directly) or fiction/non-fiction writer (indirectly). I now have a real feeling for the flow of the times which I didn't have when I was living the part of them post-1947.
My only difficulty with his essays is that I agree with his analyses, but find them very depressing. But then these are very depressing times. It's unlikely that his recommendations for how to extricate ourselves from our various messes will be adopted, which is a shame because I think he's right on.
Tony Judt has raised my understanding of modern history (i.e. late 19th century forward) than any other historian (directly) or fiction/non-fiction writer (indirectly). I now have a real feeling for the flow of the times which I didn't have when I was living the part of them post-1947.
My only difficulty with his essays is that I agree with his analyses, but find them very depressing. But then these are very depressing times. It's unlikely that his recommendations for how to extricate ourselves from our various messes will be adopted, which is a shame because I think he's right on.
December 20, 2015
Szkoda, że Judt nie zdążył napisać pracy dotyczącej rozwoju naszej historii przez pryzmat lokomocji. Doskonały zbiór esejów z ostatnich 25 lat twórczości od problematyki ONZ, po wspomnienie Leszka Kołakowskiego.
November 20, 2020
Yazacak çok şey var ama şu anda gece saat 3
June 6, 2022
and the award for the state of Israel’s most ardent (but not anti-Jewish) critic goes to…. TONY JUDT!!!
in all seriousness, these essays exemplify the need for public intellectuals. Judt’s essays on Israel were the most striking to me, but equally of note were his thoughts on the UN, other intellectuals, etc. he was clearly courageous, which is a value that everyone - especially scholars - should seek to uphold. moreover, at first I wasn’t sure why some of his book reviews were included in this collection, but I think they highlight an important attribute of Judt’s character: he was unmovingly sincere. many academic book reviews seek to kiss the ass of another academic in return for future ass kissing from the other person. in other words, it’s a form of politics! Tony Judt refused to partake in this. he gave praise when he thought it was deserved, but he equally critiqued when he saw fit. poor Norman Davies, he got the worst of it, though probably deservedly.
all in all, these essays represent a brilliant mind and I think we would all be better off by spending some time with Tony Judt’s writings.
in all seriousness, these essays exemplify the need for public intellectuals. Judt’s essays on Israel were the most striking to me, but equally of note were his thoughts on the UN, other intellectuals, etc. he was clearly courageous, which is a value that everyone - especially scholars - should seek to uphold. moreover, at first I wasn’t sure why some of his book reviews were included in this collection, but I think they highlight an important attribute of Judt’s character: he was unmovingly sincere. many academic book reviews seek to kiss the ass of another academic in return for future ass kissing from the other person. in other words, it’s a form of politics! Tony Judt refused to partake in this. he gave praise when he thought it was deserved, but he equally critiqued when he saw fit. poor Norman Davies, he got the worst of it, though probably deservedly.
all in all, these essays represent a brilliant mind and I think we would all be better off by spending some time with Tony Judt’s writings.
November 4, 2025
Not a completely even collection, but some excellent pieces in here, in turns elegant and bracing, and frequently haunting in their continued relevance. Above all, made me feel how much his voice is missed today. He is a model of a humane, honest, and cultured intellectual life and I deeply regret we no longer have him with us.
May write further about this one for the 'stack
May write further about this one for the 'stack
November 21, 2019
Today I finished one of the more surprising books for me - post mortem collection of Tony Judt´s essays "When facts change".
And it is a fascinating read on international politics in first decade of 21st century (spoiler - John Bolton was a douche even back there), reflection of 20st century (we are doing it wrong:)) and contemporary politics, including conflict between public goods and individualism.
And even when he was proven wrong by what happened afterwards quite often, it is still a great read. And he loved trains. Which is good, right?
And it is a fascinating read on international politics in first decade of 21st century (spoiler - John Bolton was a douche even back there), reflection of 20st century (we are doing it wrong:)) and contemporary politics, including conflict between public goods and individualism.
And even when he was proven wrong by what happened afterwards quite often, it is still a great read. And he loved trains. Which is good, right?
August 15, 2016
Tony Judt’s last collection of essays, entitled, When the Facts Change, reminds us how much we lost when he died in 2010. Most of these essays were published in the New York Review of Books. As a regular reader of that publication for more than 40 years, I had read them all when they first appeared. Nonetheless Judt astonished me a second time with his erudition and intellectual versatility.
Jennifer Homans, Judt’s widow, provides an insightful preface documenting how hard Judt worked on his contributions to the NYRB. He took extensive notes on everything he read, drafted an outline, and then inserted his notes and additional thoughts in an arduous process of research, planning and drafting. I don't know how such well-informed essays could be written any other way. These pieces flow well, but they are not stream-of-consciousness; they are a stream of conscience, if they are any kind of stream at all.
There are a number of very sad observations in this collection, none sadder than those which document Judt’s deepening disenchantment with the politics and policies of Israel. As a Jew and an historian of Europe, he might have expected better than a state determined to “secure” itself at a cost betraying its human values and tragic experience. Over the years, Judt lost hope even in the prospects of a “two-state solution” as Israel gnawed away at the land Palestinians would need to create a state with their massive settlements and aggressive policies in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Six years after Judt’s death, things have only gotten worse, a fact somewhat obscured by the collapse and chaos that has beset the rest of the region.
Judt was disheartened by George W. Bush’s negligent support of Israel’s intransigence and deeply disappointed by Barack Obama’s half-hearted efforts to force Israel to call a halt to the settlements and engage in some form of serious peace talks. He was eloquent in pointing out that the demographics of Palestine, absent a two-state solution, could (and can) only lead to an apartheid state, with Jews ruling the Palestinians who at some point will outnumber the Jews under their direct or indirect rule. Not a good prospect.
One of the best essays in this collection focuses on why the U.S. has never succumbed to the allure of social democracy. The problem, in a nutshell, is twofold: Americans are not homogeneous enough to trust and support one another and Americans have permitted the economic paradigm to overshadow the political paradigm. We subordinate our political interests to the economy, not vice versa. I suspect Judt would have supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary campaign, because this is what Sanders pointed out.
There a few odd pieces in this collection that reflect Judt’s affection for railroads, not merely aesthetically but politically. Along with sociologist Richard Sennett, Judt believed that sharing common spaces across class lines increases a sense of community. Sennett’s favorite example was the 18th century public house in England. Judt’s was trains, wherever they might run.
In this collection we see Judt predict growing economic inequality in the U.S., more terrorism (not a new phenomenon), and a difficult period of slow growth. He was right. The Trump phenomenon, a backlash built on resentment and fantasy, would not have surprised him. European and world history is littered with the political carcasses of authoritarian narcissists; the problem is that doing away with Trump (as of August 15, 2016, he is pretty well dead in the water) will not do away with the problems he has tried to exploit to his own advantage. We could use Judt’s thoughts on this. How are we going to persuade ourselves that politics should define economics, and not the other way around?
Jennifer Homans, Judt’s widow, provides an insightful preface documenting how hard Judt worked on his contributions to the NYRB. He took extensive notes on everything he read, drafted an outline, and then inserted his notes and additional thoughts in an arduous process of research, planning and drafting. I don't know how such well-informed essays could be written any other way. These pieces flow well, but they are not stream-of-consciousness; they are a stream of conscience, if they are any kind of stream at all.
There are a number of very sad observations in this collection, none sadder than those which document Judt’s deepening disenchantment with the politics and policies of Israel. As a Jew and an historian of Europe, he might have expected better than a state determined to “secure” itself at a cost betraying its human values and tragic experience. Over the years, Judt lost hope even in the prospects of a “two-state solution” as Israel gnawed away at the land Palestinians would need to create a state with their massive settlements and aggressive policies in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Six years after Judt’s death, things have only gotten worse, a fact somewhat obscured by the collapse and chaos that has beset the rest of the region.
Judt was disheartened by George W. Bush’s negligent support of Israel’s intransigence and deeply disappointed by Barack Obama’s half-hearted efforts to force Israel to call a halt to the settlements and engage in some form of serious peace talks. He was eloquent in pointing out that the demographics of Palestine, absent a two-state solution, could (and can) only lead to an apartheid state, with Jews ruling the Palestinians who at some point will outnumber the Jews under their direct or indirect rule. Not a good prospect.
One of the best essays in this collection focuses on why the U.S. has never succumbed to the allure of social democracy. The problem, in a nutshell, is twofold: Americans are not homogeneous enough to trust and support one another and Americans have permitted the economic paradigm to overshadow the political paradigm. We subordinate our political interests to the economy, not vice versa. I suspect Judt would have supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary campaign, because this is what Sanders pointed out.
There a few odd pieces in this collection that reflect Judt’s affection for railroads, not merely aesthetically but politically. Along with sociologist Richard Sennett, Judt believed that sharing common spaces across class lines increases a sense of community. Sennett’s favorite example was the 18th century public house in England. Judt’s was trains, wherever they might run.
In this collection we see Judt predict growing economic inequality in the U.S., more terrorism (not a new phenomenon), and a difficult period of slow growth. He was right. The Trump phenomenon, a backlash built on resentment and fantasy, would not have surprised him. European and world history is littered with the political carcasses of authoritarian narcissists; the problem is that doing away with Trump (as of August 15, 2016, he is pretty well dead in the water) will not do away with the problems he has tried to exploit to his own advantage. We could use Judt’s thoughts on this. How are we going to persuade ourselves that politics should define economics, and not the other way around?
November 18, 2016
Tony Judt is wise, widely-read, measured, cosmopolitan, patient, and literary. Qualities that made Judt a respectable public intellectual in the previous generation, these characteristics would now make him tiresome to readers of our current moment. Social media places a premium on other qualities: irony, sass, confidence, sarcasm, and perhaps most of all, cleverness that can produce snappy memes.
The death of public intellectuals, as we know them, is due not only to the structural reasons that someone like George Scialabba identifies. There are stylistic causes too. The essay no longer has much of an audience. Social media is the dominant medium, with stylistic constraints of immediacy, speed and brevity. It seems that these demanding qualities would foreclose the possibility for would-be commentators who would resemble Judt. What does a 21st century public intellectual resemble?
It’s not surprising that an old-fashioned, wannabe leftist intellectual like myself would be drawn to a writer like Judt. His writing is superb and his analysis is clear and persuasive. His privileging of “the facts” make him an attractive resource. But who seeks to use such a resource? Judt draws his title from a quote by someone who passed away in 1946, the year that my 70-year old father was born. Reflecting on the last several presidential campaigns, facts are wholly irrelevant to how people make political judgments.
After sounding sufficiently out-of-touch and resentful, allow me to recommend this book. For Americans of all stripes still clutching on to myths about the Israeli state and the Palestinian nation, get your facts straight by reading this British Jew who made his home in the U.S. This book is for Generation X Americans who lived through the Bush years and were left only with lousy protest T-Shirts.
The death of public intellectuals, as we know them, is due not only to the structural reasons that someone like George Scialabba identifies. There are stylistic causes too. The essay no longer has much of an audience. Social media is the dominant medium, with stylistic constraints of immediacy, speed and brevity. It seems that these demanding qualities would foreclose the possibility for would-be commentators who would resemble Judt. What does a 21st century public intellectual resemble?
It’s not surprising that an old-fashioned, wannabe leftist intellectual like myself would be drawn to a writer like Judt. His writing is superb and his analysis is clear and persuasive. His privileging of “the facts” make him an attractive resource. But who seeks to use such a resource? Judt draws his title from a quote by someone who passed away in 1946, the year that my 70-year old father was born. Reflecting on the last several presidential campaigns, facts are wholly irrelevant to how people make political judgments.
After sounding sufficiently out-of-touch and resentful, allow me to recommend this book. For Americans of all stripes still clutching on to myths about the Israeli state and the Palestinian nation, get your facts straight by reading this British Jew who made his home in the U.S. This book is for Generation X Americans who lived through the Bush years and were left only with lousy protest T-Shirts.
January 4, 2020
We wstępie do zbioru esejów zmarłego męża, Jennifer Homans opisała piękną cechę Tony'ego Judta:
"„W dobrej wierze” było być może ulubionym zwrotem i najwyższym kryterium przyjętym przez Tony’ego, bo stosował się do niego we wszystkim, co pisał. Sądzę, że rozumiał przez to, iż w pisaniu powinno się unikać wyrachowania i wszelkich, intelektualnych czy jakichkolwiek innych, manipulacji. Powinien to być prosty, jasny przekaz."
Ponieważ to moje trzecie spotkanie z publikacjami tego historyka, to mogę jedynie stwierdzić, że się w pełni z tym zgadzam. W pisarstwie Judta odnajduję jego ciągłą potrzebę szczerości przekazu. Nie wszystkie wnioski, które wysnuwa, są mi bliskie. Zawsze jednak wywody wspierające jakieś tezy wynikają z głębokiego namysłu, ogromnej wiedzy i mrówczej pracy u źródeł, która poprzedzała każdy jego sąd. "Kiedy zmieniają się fakty" to zbiór dwudziestu kilku felietonów i esejów Judta, w większości opublikowanych w amerykańskiej prasie. Część była pisana w zaawansowanej chorobie, a kilka okazało się niedokończonymi projektami. Choć większość stanowi memento dla współobywateli zza oceanu, to bezkompromisowość i wnikliwość stawianych tez ma u Judta wymiar globalny. Nie oszczędza tych, którzy według niego robią źle, chwali wszelkie przejawy solidaryzmu, współczucia i oddania jakiejś sprawie.
Teksty zawarte w książce są z reguły komentarzami do współczesności społeczno-politycznej USA i Europy po 1989 roku. Najciekawsze z nich dotyczą kondycji Europy po upadku ZSRR, relacji USA-Izrael, polityki i bezradności ONZ oraz izraelskiej postawy wobec muzułmanów. Gorzkie słowa, które padają w kierunku kolejnych administracji waszyngtońskich, izraelskich inicjatyw torpedujących od kilku dekad jakiekolwiek porozumienie z bardziej ugodowymi arabskimi sąsiadami, to główne ostrze Judta. Bezzasadne permanentne finansowe wsparcie USA dla militarnych działań Izraela, który jakiekolwiek wrogie (w jego mniemaniu) zachowania dowolnego kraju czy polityka od razu metkuje, jako 'antysemityzm', uważa za odrażające i przeciw-skuteczne. Sporo cierpkich słów pada pod adresem amerykańskiej diaspory żydowskiej, która jest bardziej ortodoksyjna w 'żydowskości' od mieszkańców Jerozolimy. To ich oskarża o podsycanie nienawiści, która nie docierając do Izraela i codzienności relacji bliskowschodnich, umożliwiłaby poprawę stosunków. Historyk pięknie odczytując głębokie słowa Hannah Arendt, jednoznacznie oddziela i klasyfikuje krzywdy z przeszłości i nieuprawnione współczesne szantaże moralne.
Opisana wyżej grupa tekstów Judta, to dla mnie sedno jego przesłania, esencja przemyśleń i wyraz głębokiego niepokój o kierunek zmian, które z reguły prowadzą do eskalacji. Niemal równie ciekawie wypadły teksty, które bronią ONZ-u, jako międzynarodowego rozjemcy. ONZ jest szczególnie deprecjonowana w USA, które tę organizację uważa za 'kij w szprychy' ich rozwoju politycznego i ekonomicznego. Rządy amerykańskie własny cynizm, przebrany w troskę o stabilność światową, realizują na społeczności międzynarodowej, co dla Judta jest czymś nieznośnym. W efekcie, w jednym z tekstów rozprawia się z amerykańskim zdziwieniem, że różne kraje nie lubią 'wuja Sama'. Na gruncie socjologii i polityki pokazuje źródła tej niechęci, które tkwią głównie w podsycanym 'amerykocentryzmie':
"Jest ogromna różnica między zachęcaniem innych, by chcieli tego samego co ty, a kuszeniem ich, by chcieli mieć to co ty. Wielu amerykańskich komentatorów nie dostrzega tej różnicy i zaściankowo zakłada, że świat dzieli się na tych, którzy chcą tego, co Ameryka ma, i tych, którzy jej za to nienawidzą."
Drugą grupę tekstów stanowią społeczno-ekonomiczne obserwacje Judta. Jako zwolennik Keynesizmu, krytykuje amerykański system ekonomiczny, którego wolnościowo-gospodarcze hasła służą bogatym korporacjom w utrzymywaniu dystansu finansowego od większości społeczeństwa amerykańskiego. Zaś na arenie międzynarodowej te same instytucje oczekują siłowych rozwiązań i protekcjonizmu dla poprawy własnych zysków. Przytacza, ciągle aktualne słowa francuskiego markiza de Condorcet:
"w oczach chciwego narodu wolność nie będzie już niczym innym jak tylko warunkiem koniecznym bezpieczeństwa operacji finansowych".
W jednym z kolejnych tekstów, pochylił się nad problemem równości. Jego poglądy w tym temacie są dość zbieżne z przekonaniami i argumentami Michaela Sandela podanymi w "Sprawiedliwości". Przy czym Judt odnosi niepokojące zjawiska wykluczenia czy nieuprawnianej segregacji do przemian społeczeństw zachodnich, które zapomniały o kilku nieodrobionych lekcjach humanitaryzmu w pierwszej połowie XX wieku.
Jest jednak w książce kilka zgrzytów. Mój kłopot z Judtem jest dwojakiej natury. Pierwszy wiąże się z jego doświadczeniami życiowymi. Spędził sporo czasu we Francji i trochę mieszkał w Pradze. Przez to kondycję byłych państw socjalistycznych postrzega przez pryzmat czeski, a w jego opisach nurtów intelektualnych nowożytnej Europy dominuje myśl francuska. Te dwa wyraźne środki ciężkości wpłynęły na świetne skądinąd "Powojnie". W opiniowanych esejach również da się wyczuć tę wybiórczość. Dodatkowo Judt oskarża Applebaum i Davisa o polonofilizm, co jest moim drugim zarzutem. Poddaje druzgocącej krytyce "Europę" kolegi po fachu. Oczywiście kilka przytoczonych błędów faktograficznych jest zasadna (w książce, która ma 1500 stron to niemal nieuniknione), lecz przy okazji nie uwzględnia nowożytnej specyfiki relacji polsko-żydowskich, która skalą ilościową przekraczała jakiekolwiek wyobrażalne liczby codzienności interakcji dowolnego kraju Europy Zachodniej. Radykalny syjonizm nie mógłby się narodzić na Islandii z wiadomych powodów. Judt zapomina, że na konferencji paryskiej w 1937 roku, po postawieniu na niej 'kwestii żydowskiej' i zgłoszonej propozycji, by Żydów rozlokować na tereny bezpieczne od hitlerowskiej agresji, pozytywnie odpowiedziało tylko Haiti.
Język Judta jest jasny, spójny wewnętrznie, z wyczuwalnym znawstwem tego, co pisze. Można nawet wyczuć, że Judt w tekstach z 1996 roku jest nieco inny, niż ten z 2010. Pod koniec życia stał się bardziej stonowany i nastawiony filozoficznie. Pewne przetasowania z początku XXI wieku, zapewne zmodyfikowały jego optykę. Uznawał, że jeśli fakty przeczą wyznawanym przekonaniom, tym gorzej dla tych ostatnich. Na szczęście historyk nie zaprzecza tym pierwszym.
Gorąco zachęcam do lektury tekstów Judta zebranych w "Kiedy zmieniają się fakty". Gdyby nie moje zastrzeżenia do kilku tematów, ostateczna nota byłaby niemal maksymalna.
ŚWIETNE - 8.5/10
"„W dobrej wierze” było być może ulubionym zwrotem i najwyższym kryterium przyjętym przez Tony’ego, bo stosował się do niego we wszystkim, co pisał. Sądzę, że rozumiał przez to, iż w pisaniu powinno się unikać wyrachowania i wszelkich, intelektualnych czy jakichkolwiek innych, manipulacji. Powinien to być prosty, jasny przekaz."
Ponieważ to moje trzecie spotkanie z publikacjami tego historyka, to mogę jedynie stwierdzić, że się w pełni z tym zgadzam. W pisarstwie Judta odnajduję jego ciągłą potrzebę szczerości przekazu. Nie wszystkie wnioski, które wysnuwa, są mi bliskie. Zawsze jednak wywody wspierające jakieś tezy wynikają z głębokiego namysłu, ogromnej wiedzy i mrówczej pracy u źródeł, która poprzedzała każdy jego sąd. "Kiedy zmieniają się fakty" to zbiór dwudziestu kilku felietonów i esejów Judta, w większości opublikowanych w amerykańskiej prasie. Część była pisana w zaawansowanej chorobie, a kilka okazało się niedokończonymi projektami. Choć większość stanowi memento dla współobywateli zza oceanu, to bezkompromisowość i wnikliwość stawianych tez ma u Judta wymiar globalny. Nie oszczędza tych, którzy według niego robią źle, chwali wszelkie przejawy solidaryzmu, współczucia i oddania jakiejś sprawie.
Teksty zawarte w książce są z reguły komentarzami do współczesności społeczno-politycznej USA i Europy po 1989 roku. Najciekawsze z nich dotyczą kondycji Europy po upadku ZSRR, relacji USA-Izrael, polityki i bezradności ONZ oraz izraelskiej postawy wobec muzułmanów. Gorzkie słowa, które padają w kierunku kolejnych administracji waszyngtońskich, izraelskich inicjatyw torpedujących od kilku dekad jakiekolwiek porozumienie z bardziej ugodowymi arabskimi sąsiadami, to główne ostrze Judta. Bezzasadne permanentne finansowe wsparcie USA dla militarnych działań Izraela, który jakiekolwiek wrogie (w jego mniemaniu) zachowania dowolnego kraju czy polityka od razu metkuje, jako 'antysemityzm', uważa za odrażające i przeciw-skuteczne. Sporo cierpkich słów pada pod adresem amerykańskiej diaspory żydowskiej, która jest bardziej ortodoksyjna w 'żydowskości' od mieszkańców Jerozolimy. To ich oskarża o podsycanie nienawiści, która nie docierając do Izraela i codzienności relacji bliskowschodnich, umożliwiłaby poprawę stosunków. Historyk pięknie odczytując głębokie słowa Hannah Arendt, jednoznacznie oddziela i klasyfikuje krzywdy z przeszłości i nieuprawnione współczesne szantaże moralne.
Opisana wyżej grupa tekstów Judta, to dla mnie sedno jego przesłania, esencja przemyśleń i wyraz głębokiego niepokój o kierunek zmian, które z reguły prowadzą do eskalacji. Niemal równie ciekawie wypadły teksty, które bronią ONZ-u, jako międzynarodowego rozjemcy. ONZ jest szczególnie deprecjonowana w USA, które tę organizację uważa za 'kij w szprychy' ich rozwoju politycznego i ekonomicznego. Rządy amerykańskie własny cynizm, przebrany w troskę o stabilność światową, realizują na społeczności międzynarodowej, co dla Judta jest czymś nieznośnym. W efekcie, w jednym z tekstów rozprawia się z amerykańskim zdziwieniem, że różne kraje nie lubią 'wuja Sama'. Na gruncie socjologii i polityki pokazuje źródła tej niechęci, które tkwią głównie w podsycanym 'amerykocentryzmie':
"Jest ogromna różnica między zachęcaniem innych, by chcieli tego samego co ty, a kuszeniem ich, by chcieli mieć to co ty. Wielu amerykańskich komentatorów nie dostrzega tej różnicy i zaściankowo zakłada, że świat dzieli się na tych, którzy chcą tego, co Ameryka ma, i tych, którzy jej za to nienawidzą."
Drugą grupę tekstów stanowią społeczno-ekonomiczne obserwacje Judta. Jako zwolennik Keynesizmu, krytykuje amerykański system ekonomiczny, którego wolnościowo-gospodarcze hasła służą bogatym korporacjom w utrzymywaniu dystansu finansowego od większości społeczeństwa amerykańskiego. Zaś na arenie międzynarodowej te same instytucje oczekują siłowych rozwiązań i protekcjonizmu dla poprawy własnych zysków. Przytacza, ciągle aktualne słowa francuskiego markiza de Condorcet:
"w oczach chciwego narodu wolność nie będzie już niczym innym jak tylko warunkiem koniecznym bezpieczeństwa operacji finansowych".
W jednym z kolejnych tekstów, pochylił się nad problemem równości. Jego poglądy w tym temacie są dość zbieżne z przekonaniami i argumentami Michaela Sandela podanymi w "Sprawiedliwości". Przy czym Judt odnosi niepokojące zjawiska wykluczenia czy nieuprawnianej segregacji do przemian społeczeństw zachodnich, które zapomniały o kilku nieodrobionych lekcjach humanitaryzmu w pierwszej połowie XX wieku.
Jest jednak w książce kilka zgrzytów. Mój kłopot z Judtem jest dwojakiej natury. Pierwszy wiąże się z jego doświadczeniami życiowymi. Spędził sporo czasu we Francji i trochę mieszkał w Pradze. Przez to kondycję byłych państw socjalistycznych postrzega przez pryzmat czeski, a w jego opisach nurtów intelektualnych nowożytnej Europy dominuje myśl francuska. Te dwa wyraźne środki ciężkości wpłynęły na świetne skądinąd "Powojnie". W opiniowanych esejach również da się wyczuć tę wybiórczość. Dodatkowo Judt oskarża Applebaum i Davisa o polonofilizm, co jest moim drugim zarzutem. Poddaje druzgocącej krytyce "Europę" kolegi po fachu. Oczywiście kilka przytoczonych błędów faktograficznych jest zasadna (w książce, która ma 1500 stron to niemal nieuniknione), lecz przy okazji nie uwzględnia nowożytnej specyfiki relacji polsko-żydowskich, która skalą ilościową przekraczała jakiekolwiek wyobrażalne liczby codzienności interakcji dowolnego kraju Europy Zachodniej. Radykalny syjonizm nie mógłby się narodzić na Islandii z wiadomych powodów. Judt zapomina, że na konferencji paryskiej w 1937 roku, po postawieniu na niej 'kwestii żydowskiej' i zgłoszonej propozycji, by Żydów rozlokować na tereny bezpieczne od hitlerowskiej agresji, pozytywnie odpowiedziało tylko Haiti.
Język Judta jest jasny, spójny wewnętrznie, z wyczuwalnym znawstwem tego, co pisze. Można nawet wyczuć, że Judt w tekstach z 1996 roku jest nieco inny, niż ten z 2010. Pod koniec życia stał się bardziej stonowany i nastawiony filozoficznie. Pewne przetasowania z początku XXI wieku, zapewne zmodyfikowały jego optykę. Uznawał, że jeśli fakty przeczą wyznawanym przekonaniom, tym gorzej dla tych ostatnich. Na szczęście historyk nie zaprzecza tym pierwszym.
Gorąco zachęcam do lektury tekstów Judta zebranych w "Kiedy zmieniają się fakty". Gdyby nie moje zastrzeżenia do kilku tematów, ostateczna nota byłaby niemal maksymalna.
ŚWIETNE - 8.5/10
June 4, 2015
I read Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 last year and found it a very worthwhile read to understand how Europe got to be the way it is. When The Facts Change is a posthumous collection of mainly book reviews and a few unpublished essays that would have formed a book on the history of transportation. Tony Judt had a more nuanced view of world politics than some from his background and various places he lived, and his views on Israel challenged my own without sounding like scolding as so many similar arguments do.
February 25, 2016
selected judt essays creating a picture of his world history and polic sci views from 20th into 21st century. taken mostly from new york review of books, with some from tls and nyt
Read
July 20, 2016facts. essays and facts. essays and facts that make the reader think.
December 6, 2024
Very Little Added from the Intellectual’s Point of View
A major role of the intellectual in society is to interject some intelligent perspective into the analysis of topics that is over and above what the obvious is. This is what the works of Tony Judt would be expected to do. This is definitely why this reviewer decided to listen to this work. The reviewer was expecting to hear some new perspectives on the various issues discussed in this book (i.e., Arab-Israel conflict, The role of the United Nations in the new World Order, the New World itself, immigration, etc.).
Instead, nothing beyond the self-evident and obvious is offered. For example, on the many essays on the Israel's Palestinian "problem", Dr. Judt stresses that for Israel to remain a democratic state the Palestinians need their own nation. The alternative is either for them to be deported, en masse, from Israel or for them to be treated as second class citizens a la some apartheid-like state. Neither will lead to a position of a flourishing democratic state. But is this really not self-evident? What value added, as an intellectual, has Dr. Judt contributed to this analysis? Unfortunately, this problem pretty much sums up nearly every essay (mostly reprints of previously published works appearing in the New York Review of Books) in this book. Hence the book, to a large degree, is not very enlightening.
Other problems in the book, surprisingly, include a lack of discussion of the problems faced by the working and middle classes. Other than a discussion on the topic of inequality, there is no discussion or analysis whatsoever of any of the major other issues facing this group (i.e., stagnant if not deteriorating wages, instability of employment, rising housing costs in many parts of the world, decreased quality and quantity of health care, etc.). This gapping chasm is a far cry from what one would expect an "intellectual" to cover and what they have historically covered.
Lastly, as the book's title implies, one would expect to see how Dr Judt's views have changed over time. The book's title "When the facts change" is short for the famous quote from Keynes "When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?". Yet the reader does not see how the author's viewers have changed. If anything, Dr. Judt's views seem stuck in the 1950s or 1960s (i.e., when they were formulated in his mind when still a youth). For example, his views on public transportation are exactly what existed during the 1950s and the 1960s. There is not one iota of discussion or analysis on any of the new thoughts in this arena over the past 20 or so years (i.e., surge pricing, privatization, getting public sector union demands that may be unreasonable for society under control [pensions that are too high], new technologies, etc.). It is as if the essays in this book are fossilized remains of the 1gsos and 1960s.
In short, a two to three-star book.
A major role of the intellectual in society is to interject some intelligent perspective into the analysis of topics that is over and above what the obvious is. This is what the works of Tony Judt would be expected to do. This is definitely why this reviewer decided to listen to this work. The reviewer was expecting to hear some new perspectives on the various issues discussed in this book (i.e., Arab-Israel conflict, The role of the United Nations in the new World Order, the New World itself, immigration, etc.).
Instead, nothing beyond the self-evident and obvious is offered. For example, on the many essays on the Israel's Palestinian "problem", Dr. Judt stresses that for Israel to remain a democratic state the Palestinians need their own nation. The alternative is either for them to be deported, en masse, from Israel or for them to be treated as second class citizens a la some apartheid-like state. Neither will lead to a position of a flourishing democratic state. But is this really not self-evident? What value added, as an intellectual, has Dr. Judt contributed to this analysis? Unfortunately, this problem pretty much sums up nearly every essay (mostly reprints of previously published works appearing in the New York Review of Books) in this book. Hence the book, to a large degree, is not very enlightening.
Other problems in the book, surprisingly, include a lack of discussion of the problems faced by the working and middle classes. Other than a discussion on the topic of inequality, there is no discussion or analysis whatsoever of any of the major other issues facing this group (i.e., stagnant if not deteriorating wages, instability of employment, rising housing costs in many parts of the world, decreased quality and quantity of health care, etc.). This gapping chasm is a far cry from what one would expect an "intellectual" to cover and what they have historically covered.
Lastly, as the book's title implies, one would expect to see how Dr Judt's views have changed over time. The book's title "When the facts change" is short for the famous quote from Keynes "When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?". Yet the reader does not see how the author's viewers have changed. If anything, Dr. Judt's views seem stuck in the 1950s or 1960s (i.e., when they were formulated in his mind when still a youth). For example, his views on public transportation are exactly what existed during the 1950s and the 1960s. There is not one iota of discussion or analysis on any of the new thoughts in this arena over the past 20 or so years (i.e., surge pricing, privatization, getting public sector union demands that may be unreasonable for society under control [pensions that are too high], new technologies, etc.). It is as if the essays in this book are fossilized remains of the 1gsos and 1960s.
In short, a two to three-star book.
June 29, 2017
I wonder what Mr. Judt would have made of this moment in history: Brexit, Trump, Le Penn, etc. The liberal world order for which he so passionately argues is crumbling. Mr. Judt is a communitarian, a EU apologist (in the best sense of the word) and committed to a globalism that is being rejected at a startling rate.
The essays in this volume are well written and insightful. However, Mr. Judt is blind to the criticisms of his globalist, liberal agenda that have only strengthened after his death. People have more influence and control over local levels of government. As political groupings become larger, they become less subject to individual control and more subject to elite control. Institutions seem to feel less and less personal and relevant as they get larger. The EU super state reflects this paradox in spades. While Mr. Judt lauds the EUs ability to control local prejudices with a universalist human rights perspective, he ignores that most people feel controlled by, an unable to control, a gigantic bureaucracy that inserts itself into the smallest details of daily life. Mr. Judt's essays brilliantly express the promise of a liberal, global world order while remaining deaf to its practical implementation.
Like all good academics, Israel comes in for special criticism as the antithesis of the communitarian view. Mr. Judt offers no real solutions nor any reason why Israel should be subject to any more criticism than the myriad of other rights abusers. In particular, Mr. Judt ignores completely the rejection of the universal values he holds so dear by the nations opposing Israel, including Palestine. Does Mr. Judt condone the treatment of women, LGBT and other religions by the Arab states? Why does he not feel similar opprobrium for the ethnic cleansing of Jews in North Africa and the Middle East in the 20th century? Where does he want the Jews in Israel to go? Why are Palestinians entitled to a right of return to Israel, but Germans don't have a similar right to East Prussia or the Sudetenland?
In the end, these are well written essays and worth the read. They provoke a lot of thought and they brilliantly express the hope of a globalist liberal world order. I particularly liked Mr. Judt's essay on train travel and why it reflects such a communitarian spirit as opposed to travel by car. However, Mr. Judt's essays seem overtaken by the events since his untimely death. We need to learn how to translate the promise of Mr. Judt's view into concrete results for everyday people.
The essays in this volume are well written and insightful. However, Mr. Judt is blind to the criticisms of his globalist, liberal agenda that have only strengthened after his death. People have more influence and control over local levels of government. As political groupings become larger, they become less subject to individual control and more subject to elite control. Institutions seem to feel less and less personal and relevant as they get larger. The EU super state reflects this paradox in spades. While Mr. Judt lauds the EUs ability to control local prejudices with a universalist human rights perspective, he ignores that most people feel controlled by, an unable to control, a gigantic bureaucracy that inserts itself into the smallest details of daily life. Mr. Judt's essays brilliantly express the promise of a liberal, global world order while remaining deaf to its practical implementation.
Like all good academics, Israel comes in for special criticism as the antithesis of the communitarian view. Mr. Judt offers no real solutions nor any reason why Israel should be subject to any more criticism than the myriad of other rights abusers. In particular, Mr. Judt ignores completely the rejection of the universal values he holds so dear by the nations opposing Israel, including Palestine. Does Mr. Judt condone the treatment of women, LGBT and other religions by the Arab states? Why does he not feel similar opprobrium for the ethnic cleansing of Jews in North Africa and the Middle East in the 20th century? Where does he want the Jews in Israel to go? Why are Palestinians entitled to a right of return to Israel, but Germans don't have a similar right to East Prussia or the Sudetenland?
In the end, these are well written essays and worth the read. They provoke a lot of thought and they brilliantly express the hope of a globalist liberal world order. I particularly liked Mr. Judt's essay on train travel and why it reflects such a communitarian spirit as opposed to travel by car. However, Mr. Judt's essays seem overtaken by the events since his untimely death. We need to learn how to translate the promise of Mr. Judt's view into concrete results for everyday people.
February 21, 2024
"Коли ж говорити про більш традиційні загрози, то всі проектувальники європейської оборони поділяють непромовлене припущення, що єдиною значною військовою загрозою для решти Європи залишається Росія. Немає сумнівів, що великі держави Західної та Центральної Європи, як і раніше, зацікавлені в утримуванні «буферних країн», які відокремлюють їх від Росії. Але чи ці країни виконують свою геостратегічну роль краще залежно від того, належать вони офіційно до Європейського Союзу чи ні, - відкрите питання".
"І захисна рука «Європи» зусією певністю не сягне далі за давні центри Габсбургів (Чехію, Угорщину, Словаччину, Словенію і Польщу), перетворюючи ті землі на різновид депресивних єврооколиць, за якими«візантійська» Європа (від Латвії до Болгарії) буде полишена на себе саму, надто близька до Росії та її інтересів, щоб насту пальне шоу поглинання та перейнятості Заходу можна було вважати розсудливим кроком".
"Ви не можете нас зрозуміти, - викривають вони західну пуб- ліку. Ваші західні дослідники нас ігнорували, а ваші західні лідери, коли зволили взяти нас до уваги, врешті нас просто покинули (Ялта, Мюнхен, Сараєво). А ще, додаючи географічне приниження до історичної травми, ви маєте нахабство класифікувати нас як «Східну» Європу, коли це саме ви перебуваєте на периферії, а ми (принаймні були раніше, поки ви не кинули нас вовкам) — Центральна Європа. Ми розмовляємо й читаємо вашими мовами, читаємо вашу поезію, п'єси та романи. А вам що відомо про наші?"
"Польща, Сербія, Україна та країни Балтії, навіть Греція, якою б не була реальна й уявна слава їхнього далекого минулого, були створені та відтворені із земель та народів, історії яких раніше становили частину історії когось іншого. Одне слово, Східна Європа була одночасно присутньою та відсутньою, справжньою і несправжньою, залежно від вашої перспективи й місця перебування".
Джадт у своїх есеях справедливо критичний до Америки, трохи співчутливий до Європи (зокрема Східної), та декілька разів критикує Енн Еплбом (що особисто мені було приємно). Є есей про ОНН: Джадт погоджується, що є проблеми, але впевнений, що кращого у нас немає. Цікаво, що він сказав би зараз.
"І захисна рука «Європи» зусією певністю не сягне далі за давні центри Габсбургів (Чехію, Угорщину, Словаччину, Словенію і Польщу), перетворюючи ті землі на різновид депресивних єврооколиць, за якими«візантійська» Європа (від Латвії до Болгарії) буде полишена на себе саму, надто близька до Росії та її інтересів, щоб насту пальне шоу поглинання та перейнятості Заходу можна було вважати розсудливим кроком".
"Ви не можете нас зрозуміти, - викривають вони західну пуб- ліку. Ваші західні дослідники нас ігнорували, а ваші західні лідери, коли зволили взяти нас до уваги, врешті нас просто покинули (Ялта, Мюнхен, Сараєво). А ще, додаючи географічне приниження до історичної травми, ви маєте нахабство класифікувати нас як «Східну» Європу, коли це саме ви перебуваєте на периферії, а ми (принаймні були раніше, поки ви не кинули нас вовкам) — Центральна Європа. Ми розмовляємо й читаємо вашими мовами, читаємо вашу поезію, п'єси та романи. А вам що відомо про наші?"
"Польща, Сербія, Україна та країни Балтії, навіть Греція, якою б не була реальна й уявна слава їхнього далекого минулого, були створені та відтворені із земель та народів, історії яких раніше становили частину історії когось іншого. Одне слово, Східна Європа була одночасно присутньою та відсутньою, справжньою і несправжньою, залежно від вашої перспективи й місця перебування".
Джадт у своїх есеях справедливо критичний до Америки, трохи співчутливий до Європи (зокрема Східної), та декілька разів критикує Енн Еплбом (що особисто мені було приємно). Є есей про ОНН: Джадт погоджується, що є проблеми, але впевнений, що кращого у нас немає. Цікаво, що він сказав би зараз.
November 21, 2021
Printre istoricii din lumea anglofonă, există o „generație Hobsbawm“ bine definită. Este alcătuită din bărbați și femei care au început să studieze trecutul în așa-zisul „deceniu prelungit“, între anii 1959 și 1975, și al căror interes față de trecutul recent a fost stimulat irevocabil de scrierile lui Eric Hobsbawm, chiar dacă acum sunt în dezacord cu multe dintre concluziile lui. În anii aceia, Hobsbawm a publicat o operă remarcabilă, atât cantitativ, cât și calitativ: Primitive Rebels, apărută pentru prima oară în 1959, îi familiariza pe tinerii proveniți din mediul urban cu o lume a protestelor rurale, în Europa și în restul lumii, care acum ne este mult mai cunoscută, în mare măsură datorită scrierilor unor cercetători a căror imaginație a fost înflăcărată mai întâi de cărțulia lui Hobsbawm. Labouring Men, Industry and Empire, ca și Captain Swing (scrisă împreună cu George Rudé), au reconstituit substanțial istoria economică a Marii Britanii și a mișcării muncitorești din aceeași țară; cele două cărți au readus în atenția specialiștilor o tradiție pe jumătate uitată a istoriografiei radicale britanice, revigorând cercetarea condițiilor de trai și a experiențelor micilor meșteșugari și ale muncitorilor, într-o manieră care impresionează prin eru-
diție și nivelul fără precedent de sofisticare științifică.
diție și nivelul fără precedent de sofisticare științifică.
June 24, 2017
An exceptional read looking back at where history was going. Judt is prescient about weaknesses in European politics and the structure of the EU, and on the huge challenges facing Israel given demographics and its lack of high-quality politicians. 10-20 years on, his essays seem far ahead of their time. His writings on the US are less strong (unipolarity around a liberal hegemon is looking pretty good right now), but still represent a good insight on where left-wing thinking was in the 1990s/2000s.
The saddest essay is probably about the UN's position in the world. Although Judt is right that it was always too underfunded and powerless to be the negative force that it was portrayed as being, it's striking that no-one has spoken seriously about the UN as a leading international actor in about a decade. Although this collection is more of a snapshot than a coherent narrative, it's well worth looking back on.
The saddest essay is probably about the UN's position in the world. Although Judt is right that it was always too underfunded and powerless to be the negative force that it was portrayed as being, it's striking that no-one has spoken seriously about the UN as a leading international actor in about a decade. Although this collection is more of a snapshot than a coherent narrative, it's well worth looking back on.
January 26, 2020
Tony Judt's "Post War" was perhaps the greatest work of historical scholarship I ever read
A magnum opus of European history that will not be matched in this generation. There is no doubt that Judt was a great writer but, I was expecting more here and was a bit disappointed Judt was an expert on Europe and his essay attacking Norman Davies was the highlight of the book. Some of his other biographic sketches and essays on European history are insightful. This collection includes unfinished pieces from his book the railways. His observation that an airport from the 1930s or 1960s would be largely unusable but, beautiful railway stations continue to function as intended is spot on.
Here though he is preaching to my own bias. When the travel options are wing, wheel and steel -- I always choose the latter. When he strays from his areas of expertise to discuss the Middle East (Israel or Iraq) the quality drops to average at best. This is the beauty of essay collections I suppose.
A magnum opus of European history that will not be matched in this generation. There is no doubt that Judt was a great writer but, I was expecting more here and was a bit disappointed Judt was an expert on Europe and his essay attacking Norman Davies was the highlight of the book. Some of his other biographic sketches and essays on European history are insightful. This collection includes unfinished pieces from his book the railways. His observation that an airport from the 1930s or 1960s would be largely unusable but, beautiful railway stations continue to function as intended is spot on.
Here though he is preaching to my own bias. When the travel options are wing, wheel and steel -- I always choose the latter. When he strays from his areas of expertise to discuss the Middle East (Israel or Iraq) the quality drops to average at best. This is the beauty of essay collections I suppose.
June 4, 2020
Another great book
This one, was perhaps, among my favorites. Here, Judt gives a first-ever picture of the Cold War, the utopian (and often failed dreams) of the extreme Left, the dangers of the extreme Right, and why the Bush Doctrine, as well as modern day Zionism, have failed to realize peace in the Middle East. In many ways, it's no exaggeration to say that Judt, through his observations, predicted the world we are experiencing today, from the Financial Crisis of 2008 to Covid of 2020. The conversation between Judt and his (at the time), 16 year-old son, Daniel, is quite fascinating;.holding shades of yet another protest, lead by Greta Thunberg. If you do read this, Daniel, I would say this; your dad is right, but you are, too. And what we are seeing today, has not only been in front of us (as your dad tried much of his life to warn us about), but we can change. It will be long, but the time - as Thomas Piketty often notes - is now.
This one, was perhaps, among my favorites. Here, Judt gives a first-ever picture of the Cold War, the utopian (and often failed dreams) of the extreme Left, the dangers of the extreme Right, and why the Bush Doctrine, as well as modern day Zionism, have failed to realize peace in the Middle East. In many ways, it's no exaggeration to say that Judt, through his observations, predicted the world we are experiencing today, from the Financial Crisis of 2008 to Covid of 2020. The conversation between Judt and his (at the time), 16 year-old son, Daniel, is quite fascinating;.holding shades of yet another protest, lead by Greta Thunberg. If you do read this, Daniel, I would say this; your dad is right, but you are, too. And what we are seeing today, has not only been in front of us (as your dad tried much of his life to warn us about), but we can change. It will be long, but the time - as Thomas Piketty often notes - is now.
October 29, 2017
Great essays! Highly recommended.
The following quote from the great physicist Albert Einstein tells a similar story:
"This subject brings me to that vilest offspring of the herd mind -- the odious militia. The man who enjoys marching in line and file to the strains of music falls below my contempt; he received his great brain by mistake -- the spinal cord would have been amply sufficient. This heroism at command, this senseless violence, this accursed bombast of patriotism -- how intensely I despise them! War is low and despicable, and I had rather be smitten to shreds than participate in such doings.
Such a stain on humanity should be erased without delay. I think well enough of human nature to believe that it would have been wiped out long ago had not the common sense of nations been systematically corrupted through school and press for business and political reasons."
The following quote from the great physicist Albert Einstein tells a similar story:
"This subject brings me to that vilest offspring of the herd mind -- the odious militia. The man who enjoys marching in line and file to the strains of music falls below my contempt; he received his great brain by mistake -- the spinal cord would have been amply sufficient. This heroism at command, this senseless violence, this accursed bombast of patriotism -- how intensely I despise them! War is low and despicable, and I had rather be smitten to shreds than participate in such doings.
Such a stain on humanity should be erased without delay. I think well enough of human nature to believe that it would have been wiped out long ago had not the common sense of nations been systematically corrupted through school and press for business and political reasons."
May 5, 2019
I listened to the unabridged audiobook version of this collection of articles and essays. Now I feel compelled to buy the book.
Judt is brilliant and a fantastic writer. Though the pieces contained within the work are upwards of 20 years old, they’re still relevant. His essays on geopolitics, global economics, social and cultural issues made me reconsider my stances on certain issues. His reviews of books and author memorials had me googling the works in question. One scathing review of a book by Norman Davies led me to find my copy of the work and dumping it in the trash.
Judt has jumped to the top of my favorite authors. I’m sad we lost hm so soon.
Judt is brilliant and a fantastic writer. Though the pieces contained within the work are upwards of 20 years old, they’re still relevant. His essays on geopolitics, global economics, social and cultural issues made me reconsider my stances on certain issues. His reviews of books and author memorials had me googling the works in question. One scathing review of a book by Norman Davies led me to find my copy of the work and dumping it in the trash.
Judt has jumped to the top of my favorite authors. I’m sad we lost hm so soon.
May 20, 2019
A collection of brilliant essays from the late Tony Judt. His essays on 'Israel, the Holocaust, and the Jews' are all deeply insightful. Two essays on the post-Crash economy are still urgent and relevant ten years later: 'The Wrecking Ball of Innovation' and 'What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy?'
The collection is slightly let down by its editing by Judt's third wife, Jennifer Homans. The first essay is an indulgent introduction about their marriage. The weakest piece in this collection is a dialogue between Judt and their 16-year-old son about Barack Obama. Apart from these two, every essay in this collection is worth reading.
The collection is slightly let down by its editing by Judt's third wife, Jennifer Homans. The first essay is an indulgent introduction about their marriage. The weakest piece in this collection is a dialogue between Judt and their 16-year-old son about Barack Obama. Apart from these two, every essay in this collection is worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews