Thinking the Twentieth Century by Tony Judt

Thinking the Twentieth Century Reviews

• 
  Szplug

  I would have been content to slowly meander through this superb book were it twice its length, such is the sustained quality of the exchange between Tony Judt and Timothy Snyder throughout—one that took place after Judt's affliction with the ALS that would shortly take his life. The latter's mind, untouched by the disease's progression, remained an unbelievably organized and retentive storehouse of information gleaned from a life lived, studied, and reflected upon that had plenty worth being brought forth under the conducting queries of the youngish interlocutor, Snyder, an American historian whose professional interests shared much common ground—particularly Eastern European history—with his terminally-afflicted friend. Organized into nine chapters thematically aligned with the various stages that comprised Judt's interesting formative,academic and professional life experiences, each begins with the latter going solo, setting the stage through revelations and ruminations from his personal biographical journey; and then evolving, upon the introduction of Snyder's italicized voice, into a lengthy exchange of apposite questions and answers, postulations and expositions, and intertwined explorations centred upon the role of the intellectual, in a variety of fields, conflicts, ideologies and originations, across the span of tumultuous years that comprised the twentieth century.
  
  I think Judt's a stud. He expresses himself so eloquently, wields the language with which he crafts his well-considered and -reasoned opinions and theories with such immaculate skill, that Snyder cannot help but suffer somewhat in comparison. Yet with that said, the latter performed his particular function within this partnership close to perfection—Thinking the Twentieth Century is his older friend's puppy, and he knows and respects this. And while, in comparison, he comes across as more abstract and stratospheric, more an orator working from set piece declamations and even, at times, bromidic preciosity, it's demanded of the role he's taken on: which is to generate and maintain the flow of conversation by providing the skeletal frame that Judt will proceed to enflesh and enliven by means of precise and detailed agreement, argumentation, or exposition. Even when Judt bluntly dismisses a point or position taken by Snyder, the latter adroitly allows it to pass and proceeds to the next waypoint on the trail of their intellectual debate. While it's true that Snyder, if he'd contributed in greater depth, took issue with Judt that they might dig deeper into the discussion, would have helped in creating a more rigorously balanced conversation, my feelings are that, as determinedly constructed in the light of Judt's knowledge and terminal condition, it succeeded smashingly. I was delighted by the skillful pair, and passed through some four hundred pages without a single moment of tedium or impatience.
  
  And this is a book about the intellect. While Judt's personal details are interspersed throughout the conversation, simultaneously serving, as noted above, to set the stage for each chapter, I found the man to be fairly constrained and reserved in what he revealed—even rather humourless, though, given the topics at hand, and the grave condition of his afflicted status, that fact becomes understandable. Indeed, unremittingly sober and serious tones may be called for when the discussion ranges across material like the Holocaust; the rise and fall of Fascism and Communism; the Marxist Left in France, Eastern Europe, and the Western World; the Neoliberal advance in the face of the Left's retreat in the closing quarter of the twentieth century; the benefits and failures of Social Democracy; and the warpage inflicted upon modernity by the murderous ruin of two world wars bookending an extended global depression and appended with the sustained tension of a Cold War undertaken by two antipodal ideologies armed to the gills with nuclear weapons. Many of the names that graced the essays collected in
  Reappraisals appear within—Arendt, Hobsbawn, Kołakowski, Koestler, Camus, Blum, Sartre, Aron, Said—together with a bevy of the new, figures from both the academic and/or literary worlds, as well as the public voices and opinion-formers whose words provided much steerage in the turbulent world of politics and economics. Judt, who felt himself an outsider, someone struggling against the tide, never fully at ease throughout the course of his life, particularly admires those who were prepared to speak hard and unpleasant truths, take unpopular stands, when their voices mattered most. In response to a query by Snyder about what he wished for when he wrote The Burden of Responsibility, Judt says:
  

  I was moving towards the idea that all three men were genuinely independent thinkers in a time and a place where being independent placed you in real danger, as well as consigning you to the margins of your community and to the disdain of your fellow intellectuals.
  
  Maybe I thought this story worth telling because there is a subterranean twentieth-century tale to be told of intellectuals who were forced by circumstances to stand outside and even against their natural community of origin.

  The discussions of Judt's Jewish heritage and early-forged (and rapidly-soured) enthusiasms for Zionism and Israel are set against the legacy of the Holocaust and his later role as a lauded and decried critic of Israel, particularly in its relationship with the Palestinians. This Jewish background—to his own familial and the twentieth century's story—entwines around extended discoursing upon the Fascism and Communism that stood as the most formidable enemies of liberal democracy of the past century. Of interest was Judt's dismissal, against the probing by Snyder, of the worth of Fascist intellectuals to the discussion, deeming their separation from universality in the pursuit of top-level truths aimed at national and ethnic particularism fell outside the historical narrative and, hence, had little to teach us—an opinion that reverses itself when it comes to the communists and anarchists. He also ranges over his early academic investiture in the French Left and French Socialism, as well as the Eastern Europe that enthralled him to the degree that he learned the Czech language and immersed himself in the works and history of that fractious and troubled area so badly misused by the Red and Nazi armies that vied bloodily for and across their boundless expanse. With Judt's extensive understanding of this area, so potently applied within
  Postwar, complemented by Snyder's own appreciable academic and personal knowledge of the same, this lesser-known half of the European continent receives a degree of attention from the pair that sheds new light and shores up prior awareness.
  
  In my opinion, the book grows stronger as the chapters progress, culminating in a pair—American Moralist and Social Democrat—that see the two expounding profoundly upon the current state of the West, with the focus upon America. While Judt (and Snyder) are firmly of the Left, champions of social democracy, the former is glint-eyed when it comes to dissecting the faults and failures, the abrasions with reality that he has perceived on his side of the political divide. With the stoniness of a realist he pronounces upon the inherent faults he espies within the democratic process: its increasing proclivity for electing mediocre politicians, the tendency of a public exposed to ever greater economic and individual freedoms for impatience with the political process and hence desirous of a daddy figure who will steer the ship of state through messy problems and contentious states with a firm hand little concerned about the restraints inhering within the rule of law. To that end, Judt also muses about the ill potentialities for liberal societies within the massification of politics—in his determination, mass culture affects political orderliness like free markets affect economic stability. As for the state of politics in the Western world, Judt's assessment is bluntly succinct:
  

  The unpleasant truth is normally, in most places, that you're being lied to.

  Which is followed-up by an examination of how this culture of lies has become the norm in our political culture, and that serves as the focal point about which Judt makes his case for the perduring relevance and significance of the public intellectual as a purveyor of truth, no matter how uncomfortable the perch may prove to self or audience.
  
  The final chapter has a particularly somber, almost elegiac air, ranging as is does about the uncertain and/or declining state of social democracy in tandem with the increasing turn to an unrestrained capitalism that has marked the recent decades. While always acknowledging its flaws, Judt's defense, abetted by Snyder, of the socialist state and all that it has achieved and allowed for its practicing nations and their citizenry is contrasted with the market delusions and destabilization metastasized upon a public that seemingly cannot competently deal with the burgeoning complexity of a frenetically-paced modernity while increasingly convinced that the state—in consideration of the victor in the competition between ideologies that ended at the turn of the nineties—is a lurking tyrant instead of proven guarantor against the inequalities and disparities engendered within liberal societies on the upswing of the capitalist pendulum; a provider of a host of services that are not performed, in their opinions, at any marked improvement when devolved upon private industry. He and Snyder also effectively note that social democracy, disparaged as lukewarm communistic planning by its right antagonists, came in a wide variety of implementations, mixing nationalization, regulation, government fiat, public-private partnerships, marginal taxation, etc, depending upon the respective histories of the countries involved. It's a nuanced approach to a subject often reduced to black-and-white sound bites. It's all a brilliantly explored and stated case—together with the previous chapter the high point of a book filled to the bursting with such.
  
  Now, I don't agree with Judt on everything. When he analyses the dreadful turn things took for social democracy in the seventies, his account continuously fails to adequately explore how fed-up the public itself had become, particularly in his native England, with the situation of striking unions, gasoline shortages, massive inflation, and stagnant industries—a generally perceived ineffectiveness by governments against a new set of problems at a remove from the memories of the interwar years—nor how popular the policies of Thatcher and Reagan were once they were similarly perceived to have produced, if not results, at least momentum. And both men appear unwilling to examine the turn of neoclassical economics past the figure of Hayek, which includes giving short shrift to its various developments in the postwar decades where it gradually emerged as a formidable competitor to the Neo-Keynesians. In his critique of how the War on Terror has been conducted, the notice given to fundamentalist Islam barely registers. When he declaims at length upon the ethics of the historian, and what constitutes good vs bad history, I felt he was at his most vague and tendentious. And he dismisses some thinkers that he has long disliked without making any attempt to view their positions with seriousness. It seems to me that several of those proponents of views he doesn't agree with were, in the postwar decades, intellectuals declaiming from lonely perches, ofttimes open targets for derision while pointing out truths as they saw them—that is, displaying the kind of intellectual spirit that Judt champions throughout.
  
  And yet, with that said, goddamn but is there a big heaping passel of wisdom in most of what he does say, a real timber of reflection that burnishes those words with lived life. I was particularly Jonesed because, at a number of points, Judt proceeded into explanations of subjects that I had myself considered and achieved an impressive (to myself, that is) synchronicity with the conclusions I had drawn. Finding such copacetic buttresses in a thinker like Judt can't help but render you a little bit aglow—I even noted how we both conceive (and perhaps misapply) a hypothesized link between Gödel and other limit-espying thinkers likes Keynes and Kołakowski. It remains that Judt is, overall, a reasonable and highly intelligent man who is unafraid to adjust his views when presented with new information or experience, and I personally rate such adaptable nature highly. That he was also one of the lone voices arguing against the Iraq War was something I noted then and appreciate even more now. Finally, that he is at his most earnest, eloquent, and effective when discussing the social problems facing our modern age is of worthy aptitude, for it was a question that he came around to time and again. He knew the perils of its being ignored, particularly amongst those intellectuals privileged enough to have gained access to a considerable portion of the public's ear. His closing caution from Reappraisals is worth being visited anew:
  

  As the great reformers of the nineteenth century well knew, the Social Question, if left unaddressed, does not just go away. It goes instead in search of more radical answers.

  Read this book, goddammit!
• 
  AC

  Imagine yourself - an intelligent, well-educated reader, fully versed in the mad turns of this wicked century... careening from catstrophe to catastrophe... soaked in bad faith... and yet phantasms of promise... and you are spending a series of afternoons in the living room of man who is dying and who is nearly a genius -- and you converse -- or rather, he converses, holds court -- and you try to sound smart once and awhile -- and sometimes he lets you get away with it... and often not... and you will have some idea of what Tim Snyder is up against....
  
  Snyder is fairly young -- early 40s -- and knows a lot. But it is all artificial. External and pretentious. It is history learned by the book. Judt, by contrast, breaths the ideas and men he discusses -- it is a part of his fabric -- stuff he has thought about for decades in a deep and serious way. He is not always right about his material -- but he is always there with his material. And often, he is deeply smart. (A very Judtean, very Upper West Side Jewish intellectual expression, of course...)
  
  This is not a book for everyone. But those who are well versed in the sad train of the 20th century, and who understand Judt's allergies -- his natural recoil from everything dogmatic, authoritarian, intolerant and arrogant..., his deeply humanistic anti-fascism... will find much of interest here.
• 
  OKSANA

  “Роздуми про двадцяте століття”
  ⠀
  Тоні Джадт, Тімоті Снайдер
  ⠀
  Видавництво Човен 2019
  ⠀
  ⠀
  Я випадково побачила цю книжку в переліку рекомендацій від Стасіневич Євгеній @litosvita
  ⠀
  Купила. Сфотографувала… і довго боялася взяти до рук.
  ⠀
  На перший погляд - складна, нудна й аж занадто інтелектуальна.
  ⠀
  Але.
  ⠀
  Вона абсолютно не така!
  ⠀
  Щиро вдячна видавництву «Човен» і пану Євгену за це відкриття!
  ⠀
  Щиро рекомендую для інтелектуального читання!
  ⠀
  Цитата:
  ⠀
  «Що ж, те саме питання можна поставити у зв‘язку з тим, що ми робимо зараз. Ми ведемо довгу серйозну розмову, яка триває не один місяць. Що ми з нею зробимо? Видамо книжкою. Якщо нам пощастить, ця книжка потрапить в огляди всіх добрих інтелектуальних журналів, а також «The New York Times”,- а тоді, якщо рецензії будуть позитивні, а видавництво Penguin і справді так вправно продає книжки, як можна припустити, у цій країні ми продамо нехай 80 000 примірників (і це буде ого яке досягнення). Будьмо оптимістами й накинемо ще 40 000 (ну дуже оптимістично) для решти англомовного ринку. А тоді, може, прорвемось далі, від Бразилії до континентальної Європи. Словом, якщо задамо жару, загальні продажі можуть сягнути 250 000 по всьому світові. Для такої книжки це вважалося б зовсім феноменальним досягненням.
  ⠀
  Анотація:
  ⠀
  «Ця книжка є історичною розвідкою, біографією та етичним трактатом», — вважає один із її співавторів американський історик Тімоті Снайдер. У фокусі його розмов із Тоні Джадтом – «історія сучасних політичних ідей у Європі та Сполучених Штатах; влада і справедливість у розумінні ліберальних, соціалістичних, комуністичних, націоналістичних і фашистських інтелектуалів від кінця XIX до початку XXI століть». На думку Тімоті Снайдера, одними із найважливіших у їхніх розмовах із Тоні Джадтом стали «роздуми про обмеження (і здатність до відродження) політичних ідей, а також про моральні поразки (і обов’язки) інтелектуалів у політиці». Водночас Роздуми про ХХ століття— це також і біографія історика й есеїста Тоні Джадта, який народився в Лондоні в середині XX століття, після катаклізмів Другої світової війни та Голокосту, у час, коли комуністи утверджували владу у Східній Європі»
  ⠀
  #примхливачитака
• 
  Lyubov

  Монументална.
• 
  Emiliya Bozhilova

  Старото клише, че в спора се ражда истината, тук би влязло във формат “в диалога се ражда истината.” И двете са подвеждащи, и двете имат смисъл.
  
  Когато двама историци с любов към ХХ век и неговите драми и открития седнат да си говорят, както правят Тимъти Снайдър и Тони Джъд, резултатът не е история, защото е твърде личен. Но не е и мемоар, защото е твърде исторически.
  
  Темите са безброй - ето само няколко:
  📚Ролята на интелектуалеца като позабравена неудобна памет за обществото кое е истина, и кое лъжа.
  📚 Ролята на държавата и каква държава всъщност искаме? Нека не отхвърляме социалната държава със смелия замах на американците и да не се люшкаме към сигурността за сметка на свободата, защото ще свършим с някой като Хитлер.
  📚 Ролята на историята - и тя не е да стои из прашасалите книги с невъобразимо сложни термини, а да бъде част от ежедневието на всеки, онзи наратив, който няма да допусне заблуда, пропаганда, манипулация и самодоволство.
  📚 На какво ни учат крайностите и конфликтите, политическите и културните течения? Нищо старо не е забравено, само мени формата си.
  📚 Отчужденост, провинциализъм, национализъм и глобализация; политика, етика и икономика (в която, твърди Джъд, има дори естетика); системи в хаос и в баланс.
  
  Историята не може без яснота, контекст и гледна точка. Джъд и Снайдер жонглират с тях на фона на Европа и САЩ, като понякога толкова много топки са във въздуха, че проследяването им затормозява. Но от шапката на историята изскачат винаги интересни зайци, когато фокусниците са ентусиазирани професионалисти както в случая.
  
  ***
  ▶️ Цитати:
  
  ⌛️ “изборът, пред който ще бъдем изправени с идването на следващото поколение, не е капитализъм срещу комунизъм, не е и край на историята срещу нейното завръщане - той е политика на социална кохезия, стъпила върху колективни цели срещу ерозията на обществото, разяждано от политиката на страха.”
  
  ⌛️ “големите победители в ХХ век са либералите от ХIХ век, чиито приемници създават социалната държава във всичките и многолики форми.”
  
  ⌛️ “Мислим, че живеем в глобализиран свят, но това е, защото мислим икономически, а не политически.”
  
  ⌛️ “…отсъствието на склонност към логично мислене има идеологически корени.”
  
  ⌛️ “…ако искаме да ни чуят на интернационалната сцена, трябва най-напред да действаме на националната.”
  
  ⌛️ “…по-добре е да се противопоставиш на националните митове, дори ако за това трябва да платиш с илюзиите си…”
  
  ⌛️ “…решаващото в случая с нацията не е дали нейните твърдения за миналото са истинни или лъжливи, а колективното желание и избор да вярва в тях - с всички последици от това.”
  
  ⌛️ “…истинността е непривлекателна и сложна, докато високите истини [големият национален разказ] изглеждат чисти и красиви.”
  
  ⌛️ “Опасно е да позволиш паметта да измести историята.”
  
  ⌛️ “Вярната бъркотия е много по-близо реалния живот от елегантно стъкмените неистини.”
  
  ⌛️ “Задачата на историка е да покаже, че дадено събитие се е случило.”
  
  ⌛️ “Ако всеки е критик, то значи всеки е роб.”
  
  ⌛️ “Най-големият риск […] не е в пренебрегването на миналото; типичната грешка днес е в невежественото му цитиране.”
  
  ⌛️ “Преди всичко: не можеш да съчиниш или да си служиш с миналото със сегашна цел.”
  
  ⌛️ “…най-важното качество на западния либерализъм е не неговата идейна привлекателна сила, а неговите институции.”
  
  ⌛️ “Онези, които успяват правилно да разчетат ХХ век […] е трябвало да могат да си представят свят, за който не съществува прецедент.”
  
  ⌛️ “Днес фашизмът има шансове само в страна, попаднала в капана на масово общество, комбинирано с нестабилни и фрагментарни политически институции.”
  
  ⌛️ “…грехът на интелекта през ХХ век: да се произнасяш за съдбата на други в името на тяхното бъдеще -такова, каквото ти го виждаш, - бъдеще, в което може да не си вложил нищо, но си си присвоил привилегията единствен да знаеш за него.”
  
  ⌛️ “Въпросът е дали по принцип приемаш, че трябва да разказваш историята от името на бъдещето, или смяташ, че равносметката се прави в края на всеки изминал ден.”
  
  ⌛️ “Голяма част от историографията […] представлява или принудително откъсване на отделни части от цялото, или решителен отказ да се правят каквито и да е отграничения.”
  
  ⌛️ “[…] в основанията на една модерна демократична политика трябва да стои нашето историческо съзнание за това какви могат да бъдат последиците, ако не успеем[…]”
  
  ⌛️ “Истината на автентичността е различна от истината на правдивостта.”
  
  ⌛️ “За да разбере дадено събитие, историкът трябва да се освободи от идейната рамка, в която то е разглеждано […]”
  
  ⌛️ “Стремежът да се представи сложността единствено като маска, прикриваща простотата, е една от бедите на ХХ век.”
  
  ⌛️ “Всичко ние по-скоро представляваме огромни подземни пещери, които дори сами не сме обходили […]”
• 
  Margarita Garova

  Как да гледаме на изминалия двайсети век? Със сигурност не еднозначно. Това е векът, в който се случиха двата най-кървави конфликта в човешката история, плюс няколко по-малки, но сравними по жестокости. Възникнаха и отмряха тоталитарни идеологии, няколко империи се катурнаха в небитието, създадоха се нови държавни субекти, които преминаха криво-ляво и в двайсет и първи век. Но миналото столетие е и време на епохални научни открития, културни преобразования и социални трансформации, благодарение на които днес хората живеем много по-добре от нашите предци.
  
  Синтезът на целия политически, социален и интелектуален опит на двайсети век е най-малкото трудна задача. С нея се заемат две от големите имена в съвременната историческа наука – Тони Джъд и Тимъти Снайдър. Под формата на дълъг разговор между двамата на читателя се представя задълбочен и всеотдаен разказ-история на интелектуалните идеи от миналия век. Паралелно се случват два разказа – личната и професионална история на Тони Джъд (потомък на източноевропейски евреи, англичанин по националност) и историята на големите идеи на двайсети век. Двете линии са по-близки отколкото изглежда на пръв п��глед – Джъд не крие предишните си марксистки увлечения, после прегръща идеите на ционизма и живее за кратко в Израел, по-късно става апологет на социалната държава и социалдемокрацията. Неговият идеен път е и общо взето пътят на големите политически идеи на двайсети век.
  
  В ролята на задаващия въпроси влиза американския историк Тимъти Снайдър. Неговата роля е изключително важна за книгата по две причини. Първо, когато Снайдър предлага на Джъд идеята за нея, последният вече страда от неличима смъртоносна болест, която засяга двигателните му функци�� и осуетява самостоятелното писане. Второ, Снайдър стои близо, но не твърде, до Джъд в интелектуален и идеен план и е не само обикновен навигатор на разказа, но и провокатор, който, ако съществува такова нещо като умение да зададеш правилния въпрос, то това умение Снайдър го владее перфектно. Двамата спорят, доразвиват идеите си, допълват посоката на мислите си и създават нещо, което никой читател с изявени интереси в областта на историята и политиката, не бива да подминава с лека ръка. Допълнителен плюс е, че и двамата имат подчертан академичен интерес към историята на Източна и Средна Европа.
  
  Невъзможно ми е да обясня „за какво се говори“ в тази книга. Не само защото това е книга за идеите, а и защото се чете като непрекъснат анализ, поток на съзнанието, роден от умовете на двама блестящи ерудити. Ето само много малка част от засегнатите теми:
  Проблемите на Холокоста от етична и историческа гледна точка, защо във Великобритания шансът да дойде фашизъм е бил минимален, каква е разликата между това да си двоен агент във Великобритания и останала част на света, еволюцията на левите течения, защо за британците Словения е по-екзотична от Бирма, разликите между съветския и нацисткия терор, защо Ваймарската република се оказва толкова крехка, защо в английската политика като цяло липсват интелектуалци (това не важи ли за политиката по принцип?), за ролята на историка (дори в чисто педагогически смисъл, не само обществен), защо е важно да отграничаваме история от памет, корените и характера на източноевропейското дисидентство, и най-вече, нещо, което винаги ми е било толкова трудно за проумяване - притегателната сила на марксизма сред западните интелектуални кръгове.
  
  Да, именно порядъчното внимание, което двамата историци отделят на проблемите на марксизма, към който Запада има толкова нееднозначно отношение, са един от най-интересните моменти в книгата. (Само за сравнение, сред горките източноевропейски народи това отношение е доста по-еднозначно, нали самите те са изпитали изкривените форми на марксизма на гърба си).
  
  Освен широтата на темите (макар че истинската тема е една и това са големите идеи на двайсети век), друго достойнство на книгата са непрекъснатите културни паралели между европейците и американците по отношение намесата на държавата в частната сфера и социалните блага. Джъд подозира, че това ще е големият дебат на сегашния век – каква държава и колко държава искаме.
  
  „Да мислиш двайсети век“ ни среща и със знакови, познати и не толкова познати, имена на мислители и интелектуалци, и за някои от тези фигури читателят ще иска да узнае повече и да предприеме свое собствено проучване. А това е безспорно предимство на добрите нехудожествени произведения. (Аз се поразрових за Леон Блум и Реймон Арон).
  Идеите на Джъд и Снайдър дават много силни аргументи в полза на социалдемокрацията и социалната държава, която те коментират изключително задълбочено – като генезис, еволюция и предимства. С което обясняват и защо австрийският икономист Фридрих Хайек не е бил съвсем прав, когато твърди, че всяка държавна намеса в икономиката неизбежно ще доведе до диктатура.
  
  Чисто фактологично, книгата няма да шокира един добре образован читател, който е запознат с второ и третостепенните факти от историята на двайсети век, но може и да не ги е избистрил концептуално и контекстуално. Това прави тази книга. Тя предлага обаче не само интелектуална, но и литературна наслада с високия си и все пак достъпен стил. Разкрива двамата си автори като хора с невероятна историческа (а вероятно и не само) чувствителност като мислители, хуманисти, интелектуалци от световно значение. С което затвърждават идеята, че истинският учен не стои морално извън своето време.
  
• 
  Jonfaith

  Rigging the past is the oldest form of knowledge control: If you have power over the interpretation of what went before (or can simply lie about it), the present and the future are at your disposal. So it is simple democratic prudence to ensure that the citizenry are historically informed.
  
  
  This sort of text defies a review. Being a recorded and transcribed conversation, it requests a similar treatment. The nature of the book is that Tony Judt facing ALS was physically unable to write and instead enlisted the support of Timothy Snyder for a series of conversations comprising an intellectual history of 20th Century Europe and the U.S. Bracketing these exchanges are Judt's autobiographical ruminations on childhood and academia, his immersion in both Zionism and Leftist studies and his unexpected arrival somewhere outside that trajectory. This book was essentially thrust into my hands last weekend. I had went to visit my friend Harold who runs a book stall at the monthly hipster flea market. We began discussing Žižek and before long it was on to corporations moving to the Balkans and "right to work" states. Heidegger's ontological theology gave way to bullshit post-humanism and why I, jon faith, should be reading the lectures of Foucault. That last point resonated. Drawing attention back to Judt's book, there is something to be said for conversation the point therof, not simply the wagging of lips. I am not of the mind that regards discussion as Hegelian, that somehow synthesis is achieved, but I still enjoy the crackle and contemplation of such exchanges.
  
  Judt reflects evenly on ideology and trends in social thought. He articulates nicely the tension between civic responsibility and moral responsibility. He doesn't believe that books will correct much. The people who read them already agree with the author. There is no chance of influence. Strangely enough, he endorses investigative journalists with responsibility of social change. Not by themselves but it is their efforts which can sway a somnambulist world view. Provided of course that core education hasn't eroded completely by that point. Following the pedagogic thread, he is more aligned with a conservative, research driven history than its hyphenated ilk. I found his thoughts on such fascinating.
• 
  Boris

  Thank you for your thoughts Tony Judt!
  Amazing thinker, amazing intellectual journey into 20th century!
• 
  Antonia

  Приключих я часове преди Русия да нападне Украйна и от тогава на мога да се концентрирам върху нищо друго освен новини свързани с тази абсурдна война.
  В тази книга има много отблясъци върху развитието на двайсети век преди, по време и след двете войни. Написана е под формата на разговор между двама изключителни историци, ерудити, интелектуалци, ако щете и философи, добре изследвали всички исторически и културни нишки на изминалото столетие.
  Тимъти Снайдър задава въпросите и посоката на дискусията, но много често допълва, конкретизира и интегрира още повече детайли в контекста на темата. Тони Джъд, от своя страна, започва всяка тема с кратък биографичен разказ на период от живота си. Тези лични допълнения ми бяха много полезни, защото проследяват развитието на идеите, възгледите и научните му интереси. Преди тази книга го познавах единствено от критичните му статии за Израел, но тук се удивих от професионалния му интерес към Средна и Източна Европа и дълбоките познания не само за историята, но и за културата, философията и литературните течения на тези страни, рефлектирани от големите събитя белязали ХХ век. Тимъти Снайдър не отстъпва в познанията си, сякаш и у двамата липсва таван на ерудицията, затова и за момент не изгубих интерес и можех да чета този разговор до безкрайност.
  Със сигурност бих се върнала отново да препрочета някои глави, а може би и цялата книга. Това е една много добра хронология на събитията, идейните течения и културата през ХХ век.
• 
  Roksolana Sviato

  Історія ХХ століття як історія ідей. Амбітно? Так, але, як зазначає Снайдер, тільки з таким співрозмовником, як Тоні Джадт, він наважився б на такий задум. І не так уже це й нереалістично, коли співрозмовниками є двоє фантастично ерудованих у різних царинах гуманітаріїв із фотографічною пам’яттю, які, не маючи при собі нотаток, легко покликаються на десятки книжок, прочитаних чи то рік, чи то півстоліття тому, і здатних докладно відрефлексувати свою інтелектуальну еволюцію – від юності до поточного моменту. І то байдуже, ідеться про історію як науку, ідеології чи економічні ідеї.
  
  Весь відгук:
  http://litakcent.com/2020/01/17/shho-...
• 
  Велислав Върбанов

  „Да мислиш двайсети век“ е чудесна и много стойностна книга! В нея увлекателно е разказана биографията на големия историк и интелектуалец Тони Джъд, както и е представен неговият изключително проницателен поглед върху идеите и събитията от миналото столетие...
  
  
  
  
  „Ако проблемът на западните демокрации е там, че са буржоазни (каквото и да значи това), то онези, които живеят в тях и ги критикуват отвътре, могат да упражняват критиката си без риск: да разкритикуваш една буржоазна демокрация, не струва нищо и с нищо не заплашва самата система. Докато да се отнасяш критично към демокрацията в Германия отпреди 1933 г. най-често е означавало да допринасяш активно за нейния край. Накратко казано, интелектуалците във Ваймарската република, щат не щат, са били принудени да изпитват на собствен гръб политическите последици от своите словесни пристрастия. На никого в Англия не е бил налаган подобен избор - нито тогава, нито сега.“
• 
  Maryana Kuzemska

  Маст-рід на карантині, зокрема останній розділ про долю соціал-демократії і кризу, яка має змінити все;)
• 
  Buck

  Unremittingly, almost oppressively brilliant. I want to re-read this book when I grow up.
• 
  Pyrx

  Неотдавна четох същия формат на разговор в публицистична книга със Станислав Лем, също бях впечатлен. Имат и сходен произход, различна професия. Дядото на Тони Джъд Енох Ют е от Варшава. И останалите му дядо и баби са от други точки /по-забутани/ на Източна Европа. Майката на Тони е родена в Англия, баща му се мести там. Тони Джъд първоначално специализира френска история, живее и в Париж, малко в Израел, мести се в различни университети в САЩ, връща се в Англия, накрая се установява в Ню Йорк, по неговите думи "по случайност". Има много приятели емигранти от Източна Европа. Така че авторът може да се нарече космополит, но вътре в книгата става дума, че все пак повечето хора предпочитат да стоят в родината си.
  Преди да говори за голямата история и политика, Джъд преминава и през родовата си история. Все пак той е роден, когато половината ХХ век е изтекъл.
  Книгата е ясно разделена на глави, съобразно неговото пребиваване, интереси и събития, например "Потомствен социалист" ... и "Американски моралист - баналостта на доброто". Основният акцент е на годините 1920- 1970, като в анализите му е оформен един период 1936-1956 г, който разглежда заедно като причини и следствия. На думите му за фашизма и комунизма няма да се спирам особено, след като за тези загубили режими е говорено много и е достатъчно ясно. Това не значи, че не си струва да се чете.
  Марксисти днес вече няма, но трудовете на Маркс са повлияли в огромна степен на случилото се през Века, и Джъд от позицията също на заинтересуван за благото на всички съставни членове на обществото коментира къде покойния Карл греши. Той зачита анализите му на Френската революция и ранните му трудове до 1845 г. /Кога?/
  Изобщо в "Да мислиш двайсети век" се говори задълбочено за история на идеите - философията на Кант, която отделя морала от религията, Хегел, икономистите, Оруел, Сартр, Камю и др. Джъд критикува Сартр, а харесва Камю. Споменава се Кундера и Мирча Елиаде, последният бил фашист в Румъния. Какво е фашизъм?
  Всичко това е в стремежа да се създаде справедливата държава. Защо са се провалили демокрациите в началото на века - например Ваймарската република и социалната държава на Франция между войните?
  Оруел е проумял тоталитаризма, а други западноевропейци, изхождащи от морала на ХІХ век не са могли.
  От книгата научих, че под влияние на Сталин в Испания е създаден "Народния фронт" - ляво обединение, постепенно доминирано от комунистите, и впоследствие същия сценарий повтаря в източна Европа. ЦРУ пък е спонсорирало френската мисъл още към 1950 г, вече утвърдени личности /а по-нататък, каква мисъл вирее при спонсорство?/
  По-назад в книгата се говори за Полша, Чехия и други, но не и за България - ние сме с нищо забележими. Джъд обръща внимание и на моралния аспект на лустрацията - отварянето на досиетата - младите търсят облага от това, така че, ако бяха живели по-рано, да са търсили облага от друго. Друга дума, говорена у нас по по това време, вече позабравена, е плурализъм - приемането на различни мнения, в стремежа към една цел.
  
  Честостта на Тони Джъд ме спечели още в първите 100 страници. По принцип освен непознати факти от историята, ме интересува приложимостта към настоящето. Освен общообразователните науки, професионално съм запознат с ученията на Адам Смит, Кейнс и други, които се споменават тук, и съвременното положение много се разминава с икономическата наука, която се изучаваше. В последните глави Джъд преминава към по-ново време, без да има конкретна много критика към личности /президенти/. Изказва се против войната в Ирак, намесата при чужди народи. Разговорът със Снайдер минава като на анонимно ниво, в метрото на двама от средната класа, какво не е наред?
  Може да не засяг�� всички политически теми, но запазва своята искреност. В новото време остава с ударение към социалната справедливост.
  
• 
  Justin Evans

  A very odd book for any number of reasons. The greatest cause of oddity is Timothy Snyder, who interviews Judt and edits his responses, while putting in a few words of his own, either when he has a particularly good thought, or when Judt's words need context. The oddness comes from the first third of the book, in which Judt repeatedly tells Snyder that being half Jewish isn't that important to him, and that Jewish history isn't that important when thinking about world affairs... and Snyder repeatedly asks Judt to talk about being half Jewish and the importance of Jewish history in world affairs. A friend suggests to me that this might be Snyder trying to clear his own name; recently, at least, he's been the target of anti-anti-semitism, because he had the temerity to point out that a lot of people died in Eastern Europe who weren't Jewish.
  
  The next cause of oddity is Snyder's bizarre beliefs i) that 'democracy' in the United States was destroyed by Bush v. Gore, as if a president being elected even though (I exaggerate for effect) 10% of the population voted for him, whereas 10.1% usually vote for presidents; ii) that the war in Iraq is somehow a treasonous rejection of everything that America stands for, rather than, say, business as usual. Anyway, Snyder is incapable of seeing his own time objectively; Judt is much better at that.
  
  Third, you get Judt's own slightly ridiculous self-glamorization as an outsider in the historiographical world--which ramps up, unexpectedly, *right when he's being made chairman of his history department and setting up his own little research establishment.* Some of Judt's points about the history profession, and academic life in general, are perfectly accurate; I'd be more impressed if he'd acknowledged how he benefited from the very life he's criticizing.
  
  And fourth, the differences between Snyder, an American liberal, and Judt, an ex-pat social democrat, play out very strangely. Watching the two of them discuss communism, socialism, the histories of those movements, and their relationship to contemporary politics is fascinating, but both seem to someone my age to be marked a bit too strongly with Cold War prejudices--Snyder particularly, but also Judt when he's in Isiah Berlin mode--against, you know, trying to make the world better. This clashes rather brutally with their repeated assertions that the free market isn't free, or all that good at making human life bearable. A little less skepticism towards changing the world would have been nice.
  
  On the other hand, all of these oddities get softened occasionally, as when Judt suggests that democracy is neither sufficient nor necessary for a good, open society.
  
  One final note: this is not an introduction to twentieth century history, intellectual or otherwise, and if you don't know much about it, I'm not sure you'll get much from the book. I'm sure I failed to understand plenty of allusions.
  
  
• 
  Mansoor

  
• 
  Marks54

  This book records an extended series of discussions between two great historians - Tony Judt (who wrote Postwar and Tim Snyder, who wrote Bloodlands. The focus is clearly on Judt, who at the time had recently been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and has since died. While Judt is the more distinguished of the two, Snyder is also a great scholar and a nearly perfect complement to Judt. The conversational format was chosen because Judt's disease is a progressive neurological disorder that soon kept him from writing further, even while his mind remained intact.
  
  The book is an odd collection of intellectual biography, professional discussion on the craft of the historian, intellectual history of the twentieth century, and discussion of the role of the academic as public intellectual in times of great change. The chapters begin with biography and then shift into other topics, generally following a chronological order.
  
  The discussion is fascinating on several levels. First, he (Judt) was an interesting person whom I only learned about after 2000. The discussion of intellectual history is refreshing and goes against most of the well worn categories familiar to many Americans. The tone is decidedly liberal but more importantly intelligent and critical. Whether one agrees or disagrees with them, these discussions are thoughtful and responsible and anything but ideologically stultified. This even includes discussions of economics, with which cultural historians tend to do poorly. The biography is also fascinating, although it pertains to an intellectual time very different from the present. The discussions on the craft of history are also stimulating. I have read history for a long time and frequently try to be clear about why I think some work or another is "good" history. The discussion here is helpful Additional areas of discussion, such as on the Holocaust and the history of Eastern Europe are also noteworthy. Be prepared to prod your memory, however, if you wish to keep up with the discussion. These two authors have forgotten more material than most of the rest of us have read!
  
  While the book does not have the focus of a major historical work, such as these authors are best known for, it is highly stimulating and holds the attention well. I expected it to be good, but it was actually very good.
• 
  Caroline

  So the choice we face in the next generation is not or capitalism versus communism, or the end of history versus the return of history, but the politics of social cohesion, based along collective purposes, versus the erosion of society by the politics of fear.
  
  And Judt argues that we need to do so based on a new project of defining what the United States' own values and goals are, not by looking to European social democracy for a set of institutions to import.
  
  This is a wide ranging, and for me uneven, but ultimately very provocative and informative collection of comments on topics of varying interest for any given reader. Judt talks about his own background and intellectual development, his youthful engagement with Zionism, academic politics in England, France and the US, and his marital ups and downs (including one instance of a complete disregard for teacher-student relationship ethics). These were of some interest, mainly to set a context for evaluating his opinions expressed in the content chapters.
  
  I confess to being out of my depth in the conversations about French philosophy and politics, not having read the people discussed. the sections on Eastern Europe were quite interesting. Since Judt knew a lot more about France than Eastern Europe, however, I can’t judge how reliable the latter part was. I thought there was a light treatment of some aspects of American politics and society, in particular the role of Evangelical Christianity in shaping policy on Israel. But they covered a lot of ground, so perhaps that’s unfair. In general, I sense that Judt’s interest in intellectual history was so focused that he missed or downplayed other factors to some extent.
  
  However, the last few chapters on the recent past and future of the United States, particularly as opposed to Europe, did pose some excellent questions or suggestions. So, I would say skim the parts that are not up your alley, and focus on those that are. I think the sections can be read fairly independently, although they do build.
• 
  Nevena Zaharieva

  Една от най-добрите книги прочетени тази година :)
  
  Истината на автентичността е различна от истината на правдивистта. Да бъдеш автентичен, означава да живееш така, както би искал да живеят другите. Да бъдеш правдив, означава да признаеш, че това е невъзможно. И истината на човеколюбието е различна от истината на критиката. За да извикаш на бял свят най-доброто у себе си и у другите, са ти необходими и двете, но не можеш да им се отдадеш в един и същи момент.
• 
  Lysergius

  Absolutely superb conversation between two of the leading historians of our age. Impossible to put down, every page sparkling with wit, insight and serious erudition.
• 
  Maria Blindiuk

  • у розмові Снайдер ставить себе в позицію слухача, учня поряд із Джадтом – це підкуповує
  
  • плавне й зрозуміле лінкування всіх -ізмів
  
  • актуальне:
  необхідність послуг держави помітна в кризу – коли держава не надає ці послуги
• 
  Vanessa Maderová

  3.5
  I am so perplexed by this book. On one hand, it has been nice to read a mainstream, as opposed to a radical account of the (intellectual) history of the 20th century, whereby Judt and Snyder give a different, often illuminating, twist to a set of our shared intellectual references. Judt was a brilliant historian whose scope of expertise continues to amaze me, and I especially enjoyed (some of) his analysis of British and American societies.
  
  On the other, the book, being a product of a conversation between two highly educated, liberal intellectuals, one could not ignore the snobbery and self-righteous tone that permeated every level of their analysis – from suppositions such as that any ‘educated’ 14-year old could read and comprehend Engels, to the openly condescending and patronising tone when referencing Hobsbawm, Sartre and … basically anyone on the Left.
  
  Also an immanent critique point: did it not occur to them absolutely inconsistent to shit on any identitarian analysis while compartmentalising the book into chapters according to the different identities that Judt assumed in his life?
• 
  Ива Попова

  !
• 
  Georgina Koutrouditsou

  Ο 20ος αιώνας είναι ένας αιώνας τόσο μακριά, αλλά και τόσο κοντά σε εμάς. Χαρακτηρίστηκε ως σύντομος από τον μεγάλο ιστορικό Έρικ Χομπσπμάουμ, καθώς συνέβησαν πολλά συγκλονιστικά γεγονότα μέσα σε λίγο χρονικό διάστημα. Άλλωστε μη ξεχνάμε ότι μόλις μέσα σε 89 χρόνια πραγματοποιήθηκαν δύο αιματηροί πόλεμοι και ένας Ψυχρός που επηρεάζει άτυπα ακόμα την καθημερινότητα μας. Το 1989 ο Φουκουγιάμα μίλησε για το τέλος της Ιστορίας, άραγε επαναλήφθηκε;
  
  Είναι πολύ δύσκολο στην επιστήμη του χρόνου να οδηγούμαστε σε συμπεράσματα και κρίσεις εάν δεν έχει περάσει ένα εύλογο χρονικό διάστημα. Όταν ζεις όμως κάποια γεγονότα, γίνεσαι μέρος τους και έχεις την ικανότητα να καταλάβεις τη σημασία τους στην ιστορικ�� γραμμή, τότε σου είναι πολύ δύσκολο να αποστασιοποιηθείς. Ο Tony Judt υπήρξε ένας από τους σημαντικότερους μελετητές της νεώτερης ιστορίας που έφυγε πολύ νωρίς, μόλις στα 62 του χρόνια, ωστόσο πρόλαβε να ζήσει τόσα πολλά και να γράψει γι’ αυτά θέλοντας να ερμηνεύσει και αυτός με τη σειρά του τον περασμένο αιώνα.
  
  Το βιβλίο «Σκέψεις για τον 20ο αιώνα» είναι μια άτυπη βιογραφία τόσο του ίδιου όσο και μιας εποχής, η οποία όπως χαρακτηριστικά αναφέρει, δεν μπορεί κανείς να εκτιμήσει πλήρως εάν δεν συμμερίστηκε κάποτε τις ψευδαισθήσεις που δημιούργησε.
  
  Η ιδέα του βιβλίου γεννήθηκε από μία ανάγκη του Judt να καταγράψει μια μεγάλη πνευματική ιστορία των ιδεολογιών που μελέτησε, εκ των οποίων κάποιες τον καθόρισαν και ως προσωπικότητα. Ήθελε να είναι ένα βιβλίο-κληρονομιά για τις μελλοντικές γενιές, ώστε να είναι σε θέση να τις ξεχωρίζουν και πάνω απ’ όλα να τις κατανοούν. Ο σοσιαλισμός, ο εθνικισμός, ο συντηρητισμός, ο φιλελευθερισμός, ο μαρξισμός, ο σιωνισμός, ο ευρωπαϊκός φεντεραλισμός και ο θρησκευτικός φονταμενταλισμός και οι εκφάνσεις τους αποτελούν μέρος του παραπάνω βιβλίου.
  
  Ωστόσο δεν παρουσιάζονται στο τυπικό πλαίσιο ενός βιβλίου που αφορά τις πολιτικές επιστήμες. Τα εννιά κεφάλαιά του αποτελούν τα βήματα της ζωής του Judt που τον διαμόρφωσαν σταδιακά τόσο σε προσωπικό επίπεδο όσο και σε επαγγελματικό-ακαδημαϊκό.
  
  Ένα χαρακτηριστικό του βιβλίου, που δείχνει το πόσο σπουδαίος δάσκαλος υπήρξε, είναι και η μορφή γραφής του. Ο διαλογικός χαρακτήρας του κειμένου με τον εξίσου σημαντικό συνάδελφο, αλλά και μαθητή του, Timothy Snyder μας παραδίδει μια αριστουργηματική μορφή του δημοκρατικού διαλόγου, της ανταλλαγής ιδεών και προβληματισμών αλλά και της ευρυμάθειας που πρέπει να χαρακτηρίζει έναν μελετητή της ιστορίας.
  
  Ο Judt υπήρξε ξεκάθαρα ένας πνευματικός άνθρωπος, του οποίου τα γραπτά κριτικής σκέψης και προβληματισμού για τα κοινά και όχι μόνο μέσα από το βήμα που του δίνονταν στο New York Review of Books και στη New Republic τον έκαναν πρότυπο δασκάλου αλλά και δημοκρατικού πολίτη. Όπως τόνιζε , μόνο αν διατυπώνουμε με σαφήνεια περίπλοκα επιχειρήματα σεβόμαστε την ικανότητα των ανθρώπων να κατανοούν. Και μόνο ένας καλά ενημερωμένος (ανα)γνώστης μπορεί να κρίνει εάν είναι καλό ένα έργο της ιστορίας. Γιατί χωρίς την ιστορία, η μνήμη μπορεί να αξιοποιηθεί καταχρηστικά και εις βάρος του πολίτη.
  
  Τον απασχολούσε πολύ το ζήτημα του ρόλου των εκπροσώπων του πνεύματος στην καθημερινότητα των απλών ανθρώπων. Είναι χαρακτηριστικές οι μελέτες του για το ρόλο των διανοουμένων στην πνευματική στράτευση και στην άποψή του ότι ο κύριος ρόλος τους είναι να αποκαλύπτουν την αλήθεια και να εξηγούν τι πήγε στραβά.
  
  Ένας πλούτος βιβλιογραφικών αναφορών διαπερνά τις σελίδες του έργου και καθιστά την ανάγνωσή του ένα πνευματικό ταξίδι στον κόσμο της ιστορίας, της πολιτικής επιστήμης, της φιλοσοφίας αλλά και του κινηματογράφου και των τεχνών ευρύτερα. Ωστόσο, οφείλουμε να τονίσουμε ότι ένας γνώστης του είδους που πραγματεύεται ο Judt θα προβληματιστεί από την μη αναφορά του σημαντικού Αμερικανού ιστορικού Howard Zinn.
  
  Ο 20ος αιώνας είναι μια συνεχής ιστορία ανθρώπινης δυστυχίας και συλλογικών δεινών από την οποία βγήκαμε πιο θλιμμένοι αλλά και σοφότεροι, αναφέρει σε κάποια στιγμή μέσα στο κείμενό του. Τα έργα που κληρονόμησε ο Tony Judt οφείλουν να γίνουν οδηγοί τόσο για τους ακαδημαϊκούς ταγούς, όσο και για τους πολίτες που έχουν ως στόχο την αξία της Δημοκρατίας.
  
  [Η παραπάνω κριτική δημοσιεύτηκε στο
  www.slpress.gr στις 12/09/2018
  https://slpress.gr/politismos/o-tony-...]
  
  
• 
  Ben Dutton

  The economic, political and social questions of how to form, run and maintain a culture are never going to go away. They were important questions two hundred years ago, and they are important questions today. Today they seem even more relevant: faced with a western economy that has still not recovered from a massive crash in 2008, and show no true signs of recovery, and where major wars are still being fought to bring this abstract concept of democracy to lands we feel need them.
  
  Historian Tony Judt, best known for his work Postwar, has been troubled by questions of economy and politics for many decades – and was working on another new book before his untimely death. This book, Thinking the Twentieth Century, is at first glance an unusual book. It is a conversation held with fellow historian Timothy Snyder about a whole manner of different concepts and countries: they shift across Eastern Europe, to France, Germany, the UK, and the USA. They cross decades. They reference people whose names will be unfamiliar to most readers. In fact, this comes across as probably the most intelligent conversation you’ll ever have the honour of listening in to. At the heart of this conversation are those questions that never go away.
  
  Not that Judt or Snyder provide solutions – they don’t think they’d ever presume to offer solutions – but what they do offer is new and interesting ways of looking at these age old problems. They illustrate why systems – be they political, economic or social – have failed, and they suggest ways in which the intentions behind those systems – intentions that still need realising, might be best realised.
  
  Like with all of Tony Judt’s books, this is a book that one does not absorb lightly, or quickly. Its lessons need to be considered, distilled in the mind, pondered about, argued with. They require work from the reader. Thinking the Twentieth Century may not be his best book – but for the person interesting in those big questions listed at the top of this review, it is certainly a book to engage with, disagree with, and be challenged by. It is important that somebody is asking the questions men like Judt and Synder are asking: but it would be better if more were, and that those who finally have to answer our economic, political and social questions had read it too.
• 
  Les

  Very hard to follow the first 2/3 of this book, unless you're a history buff.. I am not.
  However, the last 1/3 of this book is incredible.
  
  It portrays the 20th Century through the mind of an intellectual who actually experienced it.
  I now respect this man Tony Judt. Although, prior to this book I had never heard or read anything about him.
  
  
  Interesting take-aways:
  
  - We often take the notion that 'those in charge know best'. If we ever do question their stance, people say how could a commoner know better than the person in charge. This type of thinking leads to dictatorship. Trust your own opinion & express it. The people in charge do not always know best.
  
  -Intellectuals have an input valve (reading, listening, seeing, etc) and an output valve (their audience.).
  Their is no such thing as a 'global intellectual' because no one has a global audience.
  
  - America is one of the least globalized nations in the world.
  We feel the minimal impact of global events. We do not feel the true impact of wars and currency changes.
  And yet we have the most impact on both. Part of this is we are very isolated from the world by vast seas.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  Veronica Watson

  As someone who loves history and wants to study it for the rest of my life, this was like gold. Incredibly insightful, wise and brilliant. It's like sitting down with a preeminent scholar in your field and letting them pour into you. Tony, who had been diagnosed with ALS decided to sit down with Timothy Snyder and talk about thought in the 20th century, the ethics of history and being an intellectual. Timothy added to the great subject matter and they are very compatible scholars. In their conversation, they agree, they disagree and they clarify each other. The format is not like a book, it flows differently however, they set themselves up in a helpful structure so the themes unfolds.
  
  There were a few sections I felt they were less effective but the last two chapters, I took copious notes and I have to say, it gave my own thoughts perspective and context in a such a meaningful way.
  There's not many books like this.
  
  
  
  Premise: A+
  Research and Accuracy: A+
  Writing: B+
• 
  Kobi

  There is so much to absorb in this book. Thank you Michael for sending it to me, if any other fans want to send me a book, you can find my P.O. Box address for fan mail linked in the description below!
  
  There will always be a melancholy to a book that spend about 100 pages on fascism written pre-Trump. And there will also always be a crackling hope to a book that sings the merits of social democracies and the makings of political revolution. Boy, do I know some Marxists who would benefit from reading this lil ditty...
  
  We have so much to undo, and so much to learn from the people who have already tried the undoing and failed and the people who wrote about that trying and failing and then tragically succumbed to MLS but managed to pen one final series of conversations on shifting European borders and philosophies and the major themes of their life.
  
  **Should be called Thinking the European Twentieth Century
• 
  Judith

  Still reading and learning, many new concepts, ideas, questioning previous ideas, seeing things in new ways.
  An excellent book; I learned a lot.
• 
  Iana Dashkovska

  Інтелектуальна насолода