Ali’s Reviews > Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 > Status Update

The book sounds so intriguing!

Sepehr wrote: "The book sounds so intriguing!"

Very much so. Written with an intellectual depth and a lucidity of expression unique to Judt, the book is a masterful albeit compressed synthesis of the challenges that Europe faced and their unmistakable triumphs and inevitable shortcomings.

That makes it more tempting, however; the descriptions tend to be somewhat vague, I must say.
It is not clear which specific aspect of European history this book examines, nor is it evident which historical period it seeks to cover.

You have excellent mastery of grammar and vocabulary, I have to admit. It makes me curious about how that is so. Im more of a conversationalist than a writer.

Sepehr wrote: "That makes it more tempting, however; the descriptions tend to be somewhat vague, I must say.
It is not clear which specific aspect of European history this book examines, nor is it evident which h..."

I agree, the book does have a somewhat sprawling style and the structure is mostly thematic rather than chronological; it's more insightful commentary and less your classic history book. For those invested in post-war European history it is wonderful but as a starting point, it can be like entering uncharted territory. But all in all, Judt doesn't go much abstract and academic and thus you get the least amount of boilerplate, the minimum amount of theorizing and maximum extraction of the essential points and watershed moments served with a healthy dose of humanistic/literary topping.

As to your second point, I'm mostly aping Rick Atkinson, not much mystery to it :).

Thank you for your reply on such short notice. Based on your description, the book does not seem to be a conventional work of history; rather, it appears to focus on the causal and correlational dynamics of events. This makes me wonder what the reading experience might be like. I do not believe I have ever encountered anything quite similar, which makes it difficult to imagine its structure.
What book would you recommend reading beforehand?

And regarding my second point, what do you exactly mean by aping Mr Atkinson? Have you read much of his works? Or has there been courses?

Sepehr wrote: "Thank you for your reply on such short notice. Based on your description, the book does not seem to be a conventional work of history; rather, it appears to focus on the causal and correlational dy..."

No he doesn't really delve into causal and correlational; he shows and doesn't tell, in direct contrast to Odd Arne Westad's The Cold War.
If you want a more traditional and structured book but decidedly more dry and sober, you can give Ian Kershaw's Roller-Coaster: Europe, 1950-2017 a try. I have read parts of Kershaw's book but not back to back but he is a respected historian that doesn't pull anything out of his trousers and just lay bare the facts (which is not always fun for me to go through).

No I was just joking. But I'm a fan of Kurt Gödel that said the more we think about language, the more we are amazed that people can use it at all (I'm paraphrasing of course). I really don't know how we learn a language and I guess everyone's path is unique in internalizing it. Read the things you like, write about things you're passionate about, and immerse yourself in it; don't think too much about and don't get into the destructive loop of "efficiency", trying pointlessly to gauge how much you have "progressed" in a day or a week. Spend the time reading and doing what makes you tick (as Feynman said, do what you love in the most irreverent, undisciplined, original manner possible).

Since I am just beginning to delve into history and sociology, I need to try out different books to discover what resonates with me. I have been reading Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order, which I find quite fascinating, although at times difficult to fully grasp.
I will add the books you mentioned to my shelves — you have my sincere appreciation.
However, I should clarify something I raised earlier. As mentioned above, I am new to the study of history, and I worry that beginning with this book might leave me more confused than enlightened. I am not necessarily looking for a book that covers a similar historical timeline; rather, I am asking what I ought to read beforehand in order to acquire a more solid foundation.

And as to the second matter, colloquial dimentions of English language interest me the most; given that reading and writing have never been my strong suits.
I'm hugely goal-oriented when it comes to certain things, but the loop you mentioned sometimes makes me really irritated. However, I've proven to be persistent in areas I find either essential or genuinely engaging.

Sepehr wrote: "Since I am just beginning to delve into history and sociology, I need to try out different books to discover what resonates with me. I have been reading Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order, w..."

I have the least amount of curiosity about sociology, because I believe more in chaos than inherent order; an abstract pattern recognition applied to history raise an immediate mental eyebrow in my mind. Not to say they are completely useless, but it's just not for me. I'm here for the story, for the human dimension, for the limitations and their conflicts with ideals; how humans wish for something, get something else instead. There is always momentum in historical developments, especially if you take the long-long view; but its byproduct is not mere evolution, it is also devolution especially when a moral filter is applied. Long story short I read for the immediate. I don't really know much about sociology or Fukuyama to be a good guide. As for foundation, it depends whether you are looking for minutiae and detail or theoretical analysis. But I do believe that by taking a few courses and seeing how it is taught by academics, you get to know how the professionals do it; some are more focused on the big picture, some have their eyes mostly on the societal picture, and some are political. Synthetic works like Judt try to have a little bit of all of that, with economy as a framework to understand the interactions of societies and the link between the economic and the political order. There are so many ways to approach it that there is no single foundation, because after all anthropology is not an exact science, it can be approached methodically and with a good statistical clarity. I guess you already have an understanding of statistics, so that definitely helps. When you see historians making conclusions, most of what they say are approximations and cannot stand the rigor, either because there are not enough data or because the human mind cannot consider all the data at once. Beside that, economy is the crux of the matter and a lot of historians have no idea of it even when they throw its terms around. With these two, and a bit of basic sociology in your case, you're good to go.
For courses, I think Yale Open Courseware history and sociology classes are pretty good, especially the one on the American Civil War. If you want less detail and more coverage in shorter clips, Khanacademy might be a good place to start as well though you won't find much in terms of foundation.
And last, when I say I am not a fan of foundational thinking and big ideas, it doesn't mean that I disparage them all; it's a huge brain exercise and requires a lot of effort for me to wrestle with it and maybe I'm just making virtue out of necessity (the necessity being my limited attention span for the abstract).

Your last sentence is revealing; Not to say having goals are bad but I guess you've got to find something engaging because if something doesn't pull you in, experience shows that focusing too intently on the ultimate goal cannot do much for you and you end up being inspired for a little, bored out of your freaking mind the next minute. When it feels like I'm fighting and wrestling all the time, it usually is not the thing for me, though my pain threshold and patience are not strong.

Thank you for your time and for sharing so much of your insight. I am becoming more certain that I need to spend some quality time on these books and courses to find what really interests me. Nevertheless, as for now, I find myself drawn to both detailed framework and theoritical analysis. Out of the aspects you mentiond, I find them all intriguing, and essential; I believe that, as a member of society, I bear certain socio-political responsibilities that require an adequate intellectual foundation.

That said, by “foundation” I am referring to a broader historical background that would allow me to approach such books without becoming further confused by unfamiliar contexts.

Let me share something and put it to the test: I tend to assume that if one is not familiar with the key historical events of a given era or country, it becomes significantly more difficult to grasp works in history or political economy that address later periods. In my opinion, the idea still holds true for the most part. In response, you recommended those courses, for which I am sincerely grateful.

Last but not least, I think there has been a misunderstanding in the last part of the conversation. I should have mentioned that Im a goal-oriented person only on areas that I find either necessary or exciting. Much like how you described, I have a very low threshhold for activities that do not genuinely amuse me. If I do not percieve value or interest in something, I find it extremely difficult to keep up; it can feel mentally overwhelming and draining.

We can always talk more about what appeals to us later if you're in :)

Hey. How are you feeling?
I suppose you forgot responding