What do you think?
Rate this book
The Making of Eastern Europe: From Prehistory to Postcommunism
Why has the collapse of Communism resulted in so much disappointment for the hopeful millions of Eastern Europe? In the revised edition of this controversial and provocative book Philip Longworth argues that their predicament is only partly due to the imposition of the Soviet system but rather that they are the heirs of misfortune which dates back centuries. In exploring the origins of current problems, this sweeping history ranges from the present day to the time of Constantine the Great, the Urals to the Mediterranean and the Baltic, and emphasizes culture and society, as well as politics and economics. In an additional new chapter Philip Longworth analyses the collapse of Communism and the advent of postcommunism. This book will be of immense value to all who want to understand Eastern Europe's past and present.
465 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1992
388 people are currently reading
234 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 29, 2020
I found Longworth’s reverse chronology confusing. I’m not sure it achieves what he hopes. It did make me think about chronological order and whether it is natural to the human mind or cultural. It seems unnatural to me but I’m sure many things would that I was unfamiliar with. The funny thing is that he writes that he does it in part to make it more comfortable for those who know more modern Eastern European history but my situation is the reverse.
August 3, 2016
Answers the question of how and why Eastern Europe deviated from following the same path of Western Europe. Heavily skewed on economics, but overall fascinating and insightful.
May 20, 2024
Puts you in mind of an old university textbook. Very erudite, if a bit dry, and outdated due to the passage of time and new information. On the plus side it has some brilliant insights, particularly around the interwar period.
Coverage of each country/specific region is a little spotty as it is a broad overview picking specific examples to support the theme of each chapter. I actually like the ‘history in reverse’ layout of the chapters where Longworth searches for causal elements. I do think a reader should be cautious about attributing all causes to whatever is in the first chapter – as I read Longworth's intent, history was influenced rather than directed by the forces he identifies, and there were elements of contingency (e.g. the various waves of immigration).
I cannot rate higher because I do not know how much still holds true and it is a battle at times to get through (so it does not quite transcend its time and become part of the discourse itself quite like some of AJP Taylor’s histories). It genuinely is worth a read, but more as part of a wider look into the area, so you would be better to start elsewhere for an introduction.
Coverage of each country/specific region is a little spotty as it is a broad overview picking specific examples to support the theme of each chapter. I actually like the ‘history in reverse’ layout of the chapters where Longworth searches for causal elements. I do think a reader should be cautious about attributing all causes to whatever is in the first chapter – as I read Longworth's intent, history was influenced rather than directed by the forces he identifies, and there were elements of contingency (e.g. the various waves of immigration).
I cannot rate higher because I do not know how much still holds true and it is a battle at times to get through (so it does not quite transcend its time and become part of the discourse itself quite like some of AJP Taylor’s histories). It genuinely is worth a read, but more as part of a wider look into the area, so you would be better to start elsewhere for an introduction.
October 20, 2023
Decent book that could easily be the foundation of a college course on the history of Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, it was far too detailed for my personal preference but I must credit the author for the depth of knowledge he packed into the book. While not a fun and engaging read, there were some amazing bits of insight from the author.
- Communism had outlived its uses. It had given a region notorious for its volatility greater political stability, but aroused deep resentments through its disdain of individualism. It had reduced poverty but failed to achieve acceptable living standards…. It raised living standards but wedded appetites for more than could be achieved; it raised cultural levels it created a spiritual void. P32. PJK: A quick clear assessment of the Soviet “experiment” in Eastern Europe from WWII to 1991.
- By the spring of 1948 communist governments had been imposed on all the territories occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the war… It is commonly assumed that Stalin had planned to do this from the moment the tides of war had changed in his favor in 1942. According to Djilas he considered it to be a law of nature that political domination should grow out of military success: whoever occupies a territory he said in June 1945 also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army has the power to do so. P38.
- The Party itself, which had absorbed the Socialists and much of the peasant parties, enjoyed a complete monopoly of political power. This political system had one major weakness, however: every grievance, every mistake tended to be blamed on the regime. P58.
- In the United States a farmer produced enough to feed six families; in Western Europe enough for four; while the Eastern European peasant produced only enough for his own family, plus a marketable surplus of about half as much again dash barely enough for such tax necessities as salt, matches and paraffin… If rural poverty fed political discontent. The plethora of tiny peasant farms was a drag on the economy. It was this which persuaded Stalin to collectivize Soviet agriculture by force in 1929. P80. PJK: I’ve read about the collectivization of farms many, many times, but never understood the Soviet/Stalinist logic until now. Very interesting.
- The region may be desperately short of capital and entrepreneurial skills, but so it was when the communists took power. P294. PJK: interesting comment. I guess the area has been challenged with internal drive/decent odds of success for many, many years.
- Communism had outlived its uses. It had given a region notorious for its volatility greater political stability, but aroused deep resentments through its disdain of individualism. It had reduced poverty but failed to achieve acceptable living standards…. It raised living standards but wedded appetites for more than could be achieved; it raised cultural levels it created a spiritual void. P32. PJK: A quick clear assessment of the Soviet “experiment” in Eastern Europe from WWII to 1991.
- By the spring of 1948 communist governments had been imposed on all the territories occupied by Soviet forces at the end of the war… It is commonly assumed that Stalin had planned to do this from the moment the tides of war had changed in his favor in 1942. According to Djilas he considered it to be a law of nature that political domination should grow out of military success: whoever occupies a territory he said in June 1945 also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army has the power to do so. P38.
- The Party itself, which had absorbed the Socialists and much of the peasant parties, enjoyed a complete monopoly of political power. This political system had one major weakness, however: every grievance, every mistake tended to be blamed on the regime. P58.
- In the United States a farmer produced enough to feed six families; in Western Europe enough for four; while the Eastern European peasant produced only enough for his own family, plus a marketable surplus of about half as much again dash barely enough for such tax necessities as salt, matches and paraffin… If rural poverty fed political discontent. The plethora of tiny peasant farms was a drag on the economy. It was this which persuaded Stalin to collectivize Soviet agriculture by force in 1929. P80. PJK: I’ve read about the collectivization of farms many, many times, but never understood the Soviet/Stalinist logic until now. Very interesting.
- The region may be desperately short of capital and entrepreneurial skills, but so it was when the communists took power. P294. PJK: interesting comment. I guess the area has been challenged with internal drive/decent odds of success for many, many years.
June 26, 2023
The book was originally published in 1992 and had an ebook in 2020. Not seeing any updates from the 92 version.
At the time of original publishing this book was a very concise and accurate portrayal of what was known at the time. Since that time, though, a lot of new information had come to light that contradicts things in this book.
Plus, the layout was a bit confusing. A history book that starts at the most recent and then goes back in time?
At the time of original publishing this book was a very concise and accurate portrayal of what was known at the time. Since that time, though, a lot of new information had come to light that contradicts things in this book.
Plus, the layout was a bit confusing. A history book that starts at the most recent and then goes back in time?
November 1, 2022
I couldn’t get into this book as much as I really wanted to. It assumed a lot of prior knowledge which I don’t have so it was dense and complicated for me. I may try it again sometime but probably not. Disappointed
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews