'In Europe' by Geert Mak is in a way a travelogue where the author is writing about history of European XX century visiting the places where particular events took place. I remember that I added this book into my 'to-read' list by recommendation of Goodreads after I had read the astonishing 'Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945' by Tony Judt. The 'Postwar' is very professional, thorough and detailed work in the field of history. And 'In Europe' is plainly journalistic work although the same tremendous and profound. The narrative of 'In Europe' is an intermingled flow of purely historical account of events, quotes from witnesses' memoirs and diaries, excerpts from author's interviews with now living inhabitants of the places he visited and own impressions written in clearly recognizable contemporary journalistic manner.
And the idea behind is to find out what is Europe now? Is there anything that unites Europeans of XXI century or are we completely different? And more ultimately: what is the future of Europe?
Mak is very much focused on telling about historical developments and events. He goes for detailed depiction of the state in Europe on the eve of the First World War, then the beginning of the war after assassination in Sarajevo, then first days of the war, trench warfare, Verden, etc. With his pen he touches all significant events in Berlin, Vienna, Moscow, Madrid, Rome, Lisbon, Dublin, Odessa, Munich, Chernobyl, London, Istanbul, etc. The one who is very well familiar with the history of Europe in the latest period may find this account bringing nothing new if not boring. I myself while being more or less familiar with after-second-world-war period (thanks to Judt) and the period at the very beginning of the last century found the rest of the book especially interesting. But at the same time the journalistic nature of the book - attention to some specific details of everyday living, to specific people, then subjective attempts to explain some developments (when professional historian would keep objective detachment) - helped me to discover still pretty much new, interesting and really important for understanding of that period. Because the highest hurdle to get a genuine feeling and understanding of events in any period in the past, moreover in some far land, is to leave contemporary view, contemporary stereotypes and norms, and to make an attempt to look on things with eyes of own grandfathers or with eyes of far contemporaries of own grandfathers. That's where perhaps a view of journalist can be very supplementing to the view of pure historian.
After reading this book I once again fall on a feeling that history has some powerful invisible flows and undercurrents which are so wide that in their impact usually are not restricted with a single country. I don't mean here big wars but rather the spread of ideas, or moods, or feelings in masses all over the continent. For example, that astonishing in its unanimity hail to war in all main European powers in 1914. Why? Then widespread development of socialist movements in almost all countries regardless of which side they had taken in the preceding war. Then the rise of nationalism which had started long before the Great War and reached its summit in 30's. Then 60's with their simultaneuos tide of upheaval in France, Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia and others. This list can be continued.
For some of these undercurrents Mak tries to find some explanation, for example for rise and clash of Communist and Nazi ideologies through entire Europe:
"Right-wing movements come from the countryside, left-wing movements from the cities, at least that's the idea. ... The social democrats and communists always focused on the urban proletariat, and did not know what to do with the farmer's problems – their theories did not seem to work in the countryside. The Bolsheviks solved the conflict between city and countryside by simply lumping the farmers together in a kolkhoz, by deporting or starving them. The rest of the left tended to leave this political terrain largely for what it was, and so to all intents and purposes left it to the Christian Democrats, the conservatives, the extreme right and the many farmers’ parties that arose after 1918."
But then isn't it what actually unites all Europeans? That we're susceptible to the same tides, same avalanches? Even now we can see the same picture: rise of populist, protectionist and far-right movements everywhere. Isn't it what Europeans had to have learned from before: look around, what is going on at your neighbor’s land is very likely to happen in your own house.
I liked also the way Mak looked at some not very pleasant sides of history in Europe. Condemning Germany for two world wars is common place in all historical books. But what about France or Netherlands? Mak investigates how had been moods in those countries changing with events. How just four months before liberation of France from Nazis hundreds of thousands of Parisians greeted Petain on the streets of the city. And then out of sudden every second one appeared to be a member of Resistance. The same for Netherlands which among the other occupied countries was the most diligent supplier of Jews to concentration camps. And then after liberation a warm and cozy national myth about massive resistance and hiding Jews in attics and cellars was immediately created. Mak repeats again and again that in all occupied counties it was almost exclusively local people who were busy with persecution of Jews and disloyals, Germans had very limited contingent to make the things work. The same is applicable for Germany itself. Gestapo had surprisingly small apparat. The majority of arrests and accusations happened due to reports of neighbors, colleagues, acquaintances, etc. Exactly as in Stalin's USSR.
While being Dutch Mak doesn't skip either the role of Dutchbat in the Srebrenica massacre, when very limited and lightly armed Dutch UN contingent didn't make a thing to prevent the bloodshed.
I had a personal interest in the chapters dedicated to events in Russia. I found them perhaps a bit superficial but at the same time nothing controversial or too much stereotypic. Another litmus test for such kind of books is Yugoslavian wars. Three last chapters of the book - Novi Sad, Srebrenica and Sarajevo - are devoted exactly to it. I found the way Mak touches this big problem very cautious and delicate. He doesn't try to push everything on one side and emphasizes that the conflict is in fact a century long war caused by indiscriminate and careless geopolitics of big powers. The war so tightly tangled with mutual feuds and revenges that there are no good or bad guys. At the same time he expresses both own feeling and that of local people from all sides that Western powers didn't show any will to understand the hopes and aspirations of Balcanians and just ascribed everything to wild and bellicose national character (and this is so familiar in the context of books on social psychology like 'The Person and the Situation' by Lee Ross).
In the epilogue written 8 years after the main corpus of the book the author touches current problems of Europe and tries to assess the future of EU. Here he finally lets his own thoughts flow free. He underlines that current Europe is very much like France or Netherlands a few hundred years ago soon after unification: no common cultural language, parochialism, mistrust if not hostility to any attempts to centralize decision making. If that eventually had been worked out for mentioned states, then EU has a chance too. At the same time, he compares EU with young United States of Washington and Franklin where government took only vary basic responsibilities like defense and international relations while leaving out all details to the authorities of states: why should cakes in Arkanzas taste the same as in Iowa? And look at the EU, everything is upside down: extremely detailed regulations on every small thing like the size of cucumber or number of cabins in public toilets and at the same time no consensus on the common defense and other aspects where Europe should act as a single united power.
And looking now back from yet another 10 passed years the worries of Mak prove to be valid.
What I didn't like in the book is the number of too obviously "journalistic" tricks like to pick up some particularly gruesome or sad picture somewhere from street life and present it so it would shock a reader. While travelling through impoverished counties of the former Eastern Bloc Mak can't stop repeating how many times he had seeing hookers along highways or how many times he had been offered a girl while being on a train.
-------------
A few quotes in the end.
Do we Europeans have a common history? Of course, everyone can rattle their way down the list: Roman Empire, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, 1914, 1945, 1989. But then one need only look at the enormous differences in the way that history has been experienced by individual Europeans. ... Put a group of Russians, Germans, Britons, Czechs and Spaniards at one table and have them recite their family histories: they are worlds unto themselves. Yet, even so, it is all Europe.
On the eve of the First World War:
Europe had been living in relative peace for decades, a situation often summarised by the phrase ‘inside Europe, balance rules; outside Europe, Britain rules’. ... Their [keiser Wilhelm II and his ministers] thinking and behaviour focused increasingly on an altered version of stability: outside Europe, balance rules; inside Europe, Germany rules.
At the beginning of the Great War:
‘Back for Christmas’ was the British motto. In Berlin, the kaiser told his soldiers that they would be home again ‘before the leaves have fallen’.
But for the time being, in summer 1940, she saw a continent that was genuinely impressed by this unprecedented German vitality: ‘Hitler, Europe felt, was a smart guy – disagreeable, but smart. He had gone far in making his country strong. Why not try his way?’
That was how many Europeans felt, and they all expressed it in their own way. In France they spoke of the ‘Pax Hitlérica’. In the upper circles of society, it quickly became fashionable to invite young SS and Wehrmacht officers to dinner. They represented a dynamism that had never been seen before, that could perhaps breathe new life into stuffy old France.
During summer 1940, the life expectancy of the British pilot was four, perhaps five weeks.
He [Jean Monnet, one of the pioneers of future EU] reminded us again and again: once you start thinking that a peace treaty is something final, you're in trouble. Peace is a process that requires constant work. Otherwise everyone will do what comes naturally; the strong ones will exert force, the weak ones can only submit.
Neither the hegemony of a given superpower nor the attempt to prevent wars by means of a balance of power have ever led to lasting peace. The big question remains: can power be replaced as a ruling principle in international relations by justice? And how can justice, if it is not to deteriorate into mere words receive access to power? Can we, to that end, develop other forms of power, in order to establish justice between states?
The collapse of the communist experiment was inevitable. For many it came as a liberation, but it was also a trauma, and this fact is systemically ignored in a triumphant Western Europe. It brought democracy and intellectual freedom, but only a small portion of the population was better off materially.
Looking at Europe from the East, you get a different perspective. Western Europe has always been content with itself, while people on the eastern borders have always been faced with the question: do we belong, or don't we? That's why there's so much talk in Eastern Europe about the nature of Europe, much more than in the West. What is Europe? What should Europe be? What should Europe become?’
About immigration in EU:
The problems surrounding certain groups of newcomers have in this way become a European issue – although the symptoms are different from one country to the next. With this, the chances increase that a permanent underclass will arise which, for whatever reason, will be unable to take advantage of the upward social mobility offered by European prosperity. In this way the global divide between rich and poor can slowly grow into fault lines that will tear apart European cities and regions.
Islam vs European values
Europe has in recent years become the unwilling front line in a conflict that must ultimately be fought out within Islam itself, a conflict concerning how such a traditional world religion must deal with secularisation, globalisation, individual liberties, women's rights and all the rest that goes with a modern society.