Rating: 
Summary: Like reading a box of 3x5 cards
Review: A good read. Most people think that totalitarianism in Europe was the result of a few extreme parties that took over governments by force. Nothing could be further from the truth. This book accurately chronicles the general failure of democracy in Europe, and the rise of autocratic regimes that the people were clamoring for.
The language in the book itself is a bit stuffy, ivory-towered, and hard to follow at times. But definately worth what you pay for it nonetheless.
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent book but, flawed by its ideology.
Review: First a disclaimer. Mr. Mazower is a cousin of mine.Dark Continent is an impecable reaserched study of 20th Century Europe. It's findings on ethnic strife are troubling and very relevant given the situation in the Balkans. This having been said, I do find fault with the book. Mr. Mazower has a rather skewed idea of conservatism, lumping Reactionaries, Monarchists, National Idealists, and Classical Liberals (American libertairians) together under the "Right". Furthermore, he fails to apreciate the ideological similarities between Stalinism and Hitlerism. I do believe that anyone interested in the rise of totalitarianism would be better suited to look elsewhere as well. (The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek comes to mind.) Nevertheless, Dark Continent is worth your time given its controversial nature and well thought out and research base.
Rating:
Summary: i highly recommend it
Review: I studied under Professor Mazower at Columbia University - he is a fascinating professor and outstanding writer, too. Great book and succinct argument. Also, if you'd like an introduction to the Balkans, pick up his Short History of the Balkans, you'll have the perfect introduction. AB
Rating:
Summary: Provocative
Review: In "Dark Continent" Mark Mazower has turned a bright light onto the frequently murky field of European politics. While by no means a comprehensive review of either 20th Century Europe, or even its politics, "Dark Continent" thoroughly examines the nature of the modern European state. At its most fundamental level, "Dark Continent" takes as its thesis that the view of the modern European state as naturally democratic is definitively false. It is perhaps obvious that Europe has been dominated by totalitarian regimes, whether fascist or communist, during the 20th Century. What is perhaps less obvious is the degree of intrusion which supposedly enlightened governments inflict on their populations. He correctly points out that socialism in its varied forms has frequently been (and continues to be) an excuse for greater government control. Ultimately he shatters the myth of a tendency towards European democracy and freedom. While Nazism and the USSR serve as overt reminders of this fact, it is the less obvious examples that drive his point home. By way of conclusion, he does not dismiss the European Union out of hand, but argues strongly that it is in no way a result of an evolutionary process. In other words, there is nothing in modern European history that indicates that it was either foreordained or that it is guaranteed to succeed. "Dark Continent" is a remarkable book that should be read for two interrelated reasons. The first is that if one assumes a natural benevolence in the political systems of Europe, one can not possibly hope to understand modern European history. On a related note, without a firm grasp of its past, it is impossible to understand what is going on in Europe's present, or to predict what may happen in its future.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating and informative look at post-WWI Europe
Review: In this fascinating history, author Mark Mazower traces this history of Europe from the end of the First World War, through to when the book was written in 1998. This is not a list of dates and battles, but so much more than that. The author traces the evolution of Europe's thought, and as such culture. It begins with the 1920s' embrace of democracy and the rise of the minorities issue, continues with the 1930s' rejection of democracy, the rise and fall of the extreme Right in the 1940s, the evolution of the two halves of divided Europe, and on to Europe's post-Communist development. I have read many, many history books; most being the standard list of names and dates, battles and elections. But every once in a while I encounter a fascinating book that goes into depth explaining how things developed and why. This book is definitely one of the latter. I especially enjoyed the inter-war period, which explained so much that was unclear to me; things like the development of the race issue, and the reasons behind the ethnic troubles that rocked so many middle and eastern European countries in that era. This book gave me a lot of food for thought. If you like a book that makes you think, then I highly recommend that you get this one. It is a fascinating and highly informative look at post World War One Europe.
Rating: 
Summary: A rough and tumble history
Review: It's not quite as dark as the title implies, but Mazower does take a sharply critical look at Europe from Versailles, 1919, to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Along the way, Mazower shows the tumultuous course of national politics and democracy as they struggled to fight off totalitarian regimes. There is a welcome focus on the Eastern Europe nations, Yugoslavia in particular, and how the battles for statehood resulted in numerous conflicts, chief among them WWII.
He charts the rise of Hitler and Stalin in a broad sense, noting how their regimes arose as a result of the inability of post-WWI democracies to establish their footings. Yet, he takes a more sensitive view of these regimes than one might imagine, noting that Hitler's New Order found early advocates beyond Germany, and the Soviet system brought initial successes with it in Eastern Europe. But, Hitler's racial view of nationalism, and Stalinism's rigid adherence to a centralized economy ultimately brought their downfalls.
Mazower covers a lot of ground, and doesn't present anything new, but he does put the tumultuous 20th century in perspective. He avoids staking out an ideological viewpoint, criticizing Thatcherism with equal vigor as he did Stalinism, as both failed to recognize the will of the people in their attempts at reforming their national economies. In the end, it is social democracy that prevails, albeit of a surprisingly apolitical tone that has taken a detached view to events such as the war in Yugoslavia, and the attempts to create a stronger European Union. As Mazower noted, it is goods not dogma that people want.
Rating:
Summary: A disturbing account of the fragility of democracy
Review: Mazower gives a chilling account of how during this last century in Europe democracy has until only recently been accepted by most states. The popularity of ideas e.g. fascism and communism should not be overlooked despite the received wisdom today that such systems were evil. This account of European history this century is by no means comprehensive. Nevertheless, it does reflect on some of the more unsavoury issues that are conveniently forgotten by today's, and even more so yesterday's, writers of legends. Mazower provides the reader with a historical perspective that has the barbed-wire attached. His book is in no way revisionist it simply shows Europe in all its glory and disgrace. A very stimulating and thought-provoking account.
Rating:
Summary: A Look From a Distance
Review: Mazzower's 400-page history of the 20th Century is an interesting account of some critical "blocs" of history, if you will . If you are looking for an incisive, in-depth analysis of specific events, this might not be the book for you. What Mazzower does is look at the political, social and economic ambiance of a certain period (pre-WW1, between the wars, post-WW2 and post-communism) and see, once the pounding of Fascism and Communism is over, what kind of political, economic and social environment has emerged from the ashes. In other words it looks at the passage from A to B without paying too much attention to that which lies in between - the "events." But Mazzower's analysis of the A's and B's - politics, economics and social conditions - is very thorough and helps better explain the bumpy road between the two points. This is a tableau painted with large brushes and sweeping daubs (the color is mainly red). If you look at it from a certain distance, you see a picture emerging; you descry trends, and might even see millions of miniature, ant-like beings whose lives are being altered, if not atrociously ended, forever. For detailed analyses of the critical periods, you should turn to other books which specialize on a specific period. (For the fall of Communism - the weak point in this book - two works come to mind: Michael Dobbs' Down With Big Brother, and David Reminck's Lenin's Tomb; for WW1 and WW2, Keegan is a good start).
Rating:
Summary: The non-inevitable triumph of democracy in Europe
Review: The central thesis of Dark Continent is that the triumph of democracy in Europe was in no way preordained; rather, it emerged as the victor in an "unremitting struggle" between three rival ideologies: fascism, communism and liberal democracy. This struggle was at the heart of European 20th century history. Prior to the Great War, Europe had three republics; after 1918, there were thirteen. Yet, democracy was unable to secure itself in the interwar years. In fact, by the 1930's liberalism "looked tired," and the "will and action" that appeared to be the hallmark of fascism and communism gained widespread appeal on the continent. The real end of WWII, which began with the reconstruction of Italy in 1943, left two ideologies standing: communism and democracy. Even on the eve of its demise, most analysts assumed that communism would reform itsel, rather than disintegrate. It was thus not until 1989 that "cooperation" began to replace "competition" as the modus operandi of European nation-states. This book manages to provide a holistic view of 20th century Europe while retaining a description of specific events about which I knew little. I include in the latter his discussion of the first German model colony in south of Lublin in Zamosc, the vast migration of Germans in the aftermath of the war and the decision, at leat outside France, not to pursue for prosecution the established arms of the state, particularly the police force. This book ought to put to rest any distinction between the "old" and the "new" Europe. Mazower informs us that continent itself has only recently found its footing after a hundred years of turmoil.
Rating:
Summary: europe painted black
Review: This is an excellent book, well worth the time. On the other hand, it is not a good introduction to 20th C. European history, it is too polemical (my copy has a blurb recommending it as survey reading for undergraduates, something which it definitely is not - the ideal reader should already have a good idea of European history before tackling this). Bad points: I nearly took a star off (or even two stars off) for the sentence in chapter 8 which attempts to allocate (at least part of) the blame for the Stalinisation of postwar eastern Europe to the west. He generally seems to go easy on the excesses of communism, and Stalinism in particular: yes, there is plenty of condemnation, but also a slight impression of omlettes and broken eggs. (Note to Prof. Mazower: that would be 35 million eggs, according to Alexander Yakovlev's best estimate). The discussion of the post-war west degenerates into a rant in places, where the first half of the book is a much more considered and convincing polemic. Something a little less intemperate would have made a more effective point. It is difficult to say for certain in a book that attempts to cover so much in 400 pages, but I get the impression that Mazower's grasp of economics and economic history is not on par with his social or political history (that omlette again). The analytic epilogue is weak. Good points: the (resolutely pessimistic) argument for most of its course is well argued and provoking. The discussion of the fall of communism, if isolated from the discussion of the West that came before is very good. The central argument, which ties up with an analysis of the disaster of the collapse of Yugoslavia (where Mazower is on home ground) as the last working out of WWI is elegant and provoking.
| 
