Taylor concentrates on the influence Germans divided history and expansion into Slavic areas had on their actions toward other nations. Not everyone will like his thesis, but it deserves a hearing. The book, which was long out of print, is well written, making it a pleasure to read.

This is a beautifully written biography of the most famous British historian of the twentieth century. It takes its place as the best book on Taylor, far better than the earlier books by Robert Cole and Adam Sisman. Kathleen Burk, similarly a prolific and professional historian, is especially good on Taylor's methods of work, and on the importance of his contributions to historical knowledge and debate. Taylor was one of the best ever diplomatic historians, yet he was also an inspirational populariser of history. He combined excellent scholarship with an unusual ability to make history accessible, through his many books, newspaper articles, book reviews, lectures at universities, speeches at meetings, and radio and TV talks and appearances. Diplomatic history is rather unfashionable today, but, as he wrote, it "deals with the greatest of themes - with the relations of States, with peace and war, with the existence and destruction of communities and civilisations." He analysed the profound and specific causes of historical events, so we can say that imperialism ensures that there will be wars, yet that each particular war occurs at a particular time for specific reasons. All his writings explored the causes, histories and outcomes of the world wars, but he also wrote about a huge variety of other themes. Unfortunately, Burk does not mention his many newspaper articles opposing the Common Market, a shared antipathy that largely explained his continuing links with Lord Beaverbrook. She concludes that his three finest books were The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1918, The Origins of the Second World War, and English History 1914-1945. Other readers will have their own favourites. I would also recommend The troublemakers: dissent over British foreign policy 1792-1939, and Professor A. J. P. Taylor on Europe: the historian who predicted the future.

Burk, like Taylor, shows how the study of history is endlessly fascinating. Yet above all, Taylor was concerned to assist us all to understand how people make history.

What A. J. P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe suffers from in being nearly fifty years old, it more than makes up for in style. It is a riveting book that is smattered with wit and an author's thorough knowledge of his subject. Alternate titles might have been The Struggle to Prevent the Mastery of Europe, or the Decline and Fall of the Balance of Power.

Taylor's unyielding faith in diplomacy reflects a Cold War notion that any political problem can be solved by maintaining a diplomatic balance. He deftly navigates the Byzantine web of diplomatic intrigue to show how negotiations, not war, ultimately resolves crises. His whig interpretations are at times blatant. Conservative Russia and Prussia are often "humiliated" and "old fashioned" while liberal France fell victim to its own "ingenuity" or suffered "shattered prestige."

Not all events are treated equal. The 1867 Anschloss or the 1894 Dreyfus Affair receive practically no attention, while obscure diplomatic conventions receive detailed analysis. Great leaders like Napoleon III or Bismarck receive Taylor's praise while British statesmen of lesser stature receive criticism. Taylor is also anti-imperial, stating that colonies are a sign of weakness (though he later seems to suggest the opposite). His treatment of the coming of World War One is perhaps his greatest weakness, or perhaps this is where the book is most dated. He seems to be somewhat surprised that war erupted in the face of diplomatic failure. He fails to see that many at the time lost faith in diplomacy and allowed the war to happen.

In the end, though, this is a fine work. Taylor interjects personal philosophies throughout the book. "Men learn from their mistakes how to make new ones (p. 111);" "Once men imagine a danger they soon turn it into a reality (p. 450); and "A historian should never deal in speculations about what did not happen" (p. 513) are but a few examples. (This last is a personal favorite as it flies in the face of alternative history.) Clever recto page headings and use of dates keep the reader aware of what is happening, and Taylor is a master of the semi colon. All in all this remains a very informative work.

I think what made me start loving Alan Taylor is the passage from "Struggle" about Louis Napoleon's government being "run by gangsters". After a lifetime of school histories unwilling to venture a judgement, scrupulous in their aridness, this was a revelation.

Taylor suffered ostracism for his outspoken views, especially from Oxford, where his trampling of sacred cows prevented him from gaining a professorship. On the other hand, his rival, Hugh Trevor-Roper, played the Tory historian and prospered. (It was, of course, Trevor-Roper who staked his reputation as an historian on the authenticity of the fraudulent Hitler diaries of 1983, hopefully giving Taylor the last laugh. But being an establishment historian, Sir Hugh was immunized from serious career consequences.)

If you want to understand the century past, you must begin in the century previous, in about 1848. When Taylor deposits you in 1918, you will be on secure footing while reading his, "Origins of the Second World War" or Ian Brendon's "Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s," leading you in turn to WWII, which brings the nineteenth century to a close in 1945. It is said that Alan Taylor liked paradox. I wonder how he liked this one.

This is A.J.P. Taylor's masterpiece of history. Taylor is an exquisite writer, with a unique style that cannot resist the irony and contradictions inherent in the actual fabric of European diplomacy. This sprawling tale of folly and pretension is informed by Taylor's exhaustive reading of the official foreign affairs correspondence of the respective nations involved, as well as his own mastery of modern European history. His prose is consistently edged with wit on the verge of sarcasm, always keen to the absurd roots of tragedy. For Taylor there are no sacred cows: every class, every institution, every political party, even cynicism itself, fumbles in the dark, toiling under the weight of its illusions and contradictions. One does not emerge from this book with an enhanced respect for statesmen, generals or revolutionaries. This is one of the few history books I plan on reading at least twice.

Habsburg Monarchy was in an awkward geopolitical situation in 19th and early 20th century. And she was a multi-national political entity. In such a situation, true independence is impossible. A. J. P. Taylor analyzed the situation excellently and his analysis helped me understand not only Austria(-Hungary), but also Germany(Prussia) and Russia.

After the revolution of 1848, Hungarian nationalism grew more and more. And after the Austro-Prussian War, Dualism of Austria-Hungary was established. While Habsburg Monarchy was European necessity, Hungary became Bismarck's necessity to check German liberalism. 'Empire of seventy million(ie, unified German-Austria)' was a threat not only to Bismarck but also to Francis Joseph. Francis Joseph hated liberalism and called in nationalism against liberalism. (It is interesting that the same liberalism can have different political meanings according to places.) And the nationlism encroached his empire.

Taylor simply omitted many important issues and concentrated on what he wanted to write. So this book is not recommendable to casual readers. But if you have some background knowledge of 19th century European history and are interested in nationalism of European countries, I believe you will never regret after reading this book.

Published in 1948, this concise book is a good overview of the Habsburg monarchy over the last century of its existence. It is written with the wit and sometimes sarcastic judgements for which Taylor was known well. Taylor's theme is the attempt of the Empire to cope simultaneously with the internal pressures exerted by the awakening of nationalism among the subject peoples of the regime and the external pressures of dealing with the rising powers of Germany and Russia. This is primarily a political history but draws astutely on relevant social and intellectual history. This book can only be read by individuals with a good basic knowledge of 19th century European history. Taylor shows that the survival of the Habsburg state was a paradoxical function of internal and external conflicts that embroiled it. The aggressive Hungarians, for example, wished to preserve it because it provided a vehicle for their domination of other ethnic groups within the historic borders of Hungary. Bismarck wanted to preserve the Habsburg state to avoid the diplomatic and internal political complications that would follow its dissolution. For decades, external and internal conflicts existed in uncomfortable equipoise punctuated by recurrent conflicts that never resolved any of the basic issues. Taylor provides a sophisticated analysis of this problem and interesting characterizations of the major interest groups and political figures involved. A particularly interesting aspect of this book is the concise analysis of developing nationalism. While this is not the main theme, Taylor provides some interesting insights into the development of nationalism in the various parts of the Habsburg state. He shows, in particular, the dynamic quality of nationalism, its origin in most cases as Romantic intellectual movements, and its development as being tied up in many cases with the organs of the Habsburg bureaucracy. There has been much written in recent years about the social construction of nationalism and recent events in the Balkans have given this topic a great deal of relevance. Taylor's analysis antedates by decades the writing of scholars like Benedict Anderson, whose book Imagined Communities has been very influential, but these recent scholars would have taught Taylor nothing. An interesting example of rediscovering the wheel.

This was the first book I read on the topic that later became the basis for my dissertation. Taylor captured the big picture best, wrote the best, brought in enough detail to tell the story vividly, stated his biases and viewpoint clearly, and did it in far fewer pages than most others. Absolutelyl necessary, but not for beginners. This should be your second book. All the more important today as the Soviet Empire breakup and discussion of the American "empire" bear close comparison with a REAL dynastic empire.

Taylor's work on Bismarck is strangely contradictory. While he often makes reference to issues in German history that only knowledgable readers would understand, he also deals with the subject matter in a very superficial manner. While I found the work engaging and quick to read, it left me with a lot more questions than answers.

If you are looking for an in-depth review of Bismarck's life, don't go here. But if you want a quick read that deals effectively with the greater issues of Bismarck's career, then this is it.

Arrogant, confrontational, self-absorbed: one would be hard pressed to determine if these characteristics should be found in A. J. P. Taylor's Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman or if they should be in his autobiography. Moreover, it is curious that many other distinguishing characteristics of Taylor's Bismarck are in many ways reflections of Taylor himself. This parallel could even be extended one step further to claim that Taylor's assessment of Bismarck might be similar to the present assessment of Taylor; that is, both must be praised for their remarkable achievements but praised in such a way that they would be opposed to it.
Taylor, England's most flamboyant historian,# often broke the traditional bounds of the field. He brought history to television, radio and the newspapers. He closed the gap of the historical wait period by writing a history of the origins of War World II in 1961. His flashiness aside, he produced many historical masterpieces including Bismarck. In this work he goes beyond the face value of Bismarck's recorded statements and examines the actions, and subsequently his motives, to find the true character of this monumental figure. He develops the notion of a opportunistic and self-centered Bismarck as opposed to loyal servant of the king whose great foresight brought the unity of Germany.
One major theme of the book is chance. It is argued that it was stoke of luck that allowed Bismarck even enter the field of politics, the bad health of another deputy. Even his great foreign policy was based on providence. Repeatedly Taylor asserts that Bismarck had no plan, rather he would let events unfold and then act from there. Furthermore, when Bismarck intentionally carried a line of policy through it would normally backfire causing him more harm. Taylor remarks, the genius of Bismarck lie not in brilliant initiatives but in being able to recover from past blunders.
Closely related to the theme of chance is the notion that Bismarck had no enduring principles. His own greatness was the only value that he held to as he morphed from reactionary to liberal to conservative. He proudly boasted to the Reichstag "I have no fixed opinions... there are no eternal truths" (138). Beside his own will, the only other exception of complete devotion was his family. However, this might even be challenged. One the boldest claims of the book is that some of Bismarck's landmark achievements, unification and social reform, came as by-products for his bid to stay in power. Explicitly, his main motive for introducing bills was to split the Emperor and Reichstag and thus increase his power; and similarly his main motive for foreign policy was to split the Great Powers to increase Germany and subsequently his power.
In many respects it is a difficult task writing the biography of a man who is a deceptive diplomat. Bismarck's documents and speeches are overflowing with contradictions. It seems that Bismarck's policies stemmed from the hope of a desired outcome instead of personal convictions. Nonetheless, the historian has the difficult task of sifting through the political jargon to find the true motives of this complicated person. Taylor largely discredits Bismarck's talk of humble servitude towards the monarch and instead supports the Bismarck's claim of his own greatness. However, how can one claim certitude with a man who has changed his memoirs repeatedly, had no scruples in contradicting facts, and supported so many opposing principles? This is a contributing fact to the case that this debate will go on. As it does, Taylor's work will do much to help guide those who seek the motives and beliefs or the real Bismarck.

Arrogant, confrontational, self-absorbed: one would be hard pressed to determine if these characteristics should be found in A. J. P. Taylor's Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman or if they should be in his autobiography. Moreover, it is curious that many other distinguishing characteristics of Taylor's Bismarck are in many ways reflections of Taylor himself. This parallel could even be extended one step further to claim that Taylor's assessment of Bismarck might be similar to the present assessment of Taylor; that is, both must be praised for their remarkable achievements but praised in such a way that they would be opposed to it.
Taylor, England's most flamboyant historian,# often broke the traditional bounds of the field. He brought history to television, radio and the newspapers. He closed the gap of the historical wait period by writing a history of the origins of War World II in 1961. His flashiness aside, he produced many historical masterpieces including Bismarck. In this work he goes beyond the face value of Bismarck's recorded statements and examines the actions, and subsequently his motives, to find the true character of this monumental figure. He develops the notion of a opportunistic and self-centered Bismarck as opposed to loyal servant of the king whose great foresight brought the unity of Germany.
One major theme of the book is chance. It is argued that it was stoke of luck that allowed Bismarck even enter the field of politics, the bad health of another deputy. Even his great foreign policy was based on providence. Repeatedly Taylor asserts that Bismarck had no plan, rather he would let events unfold and then act from there. Furthermore, when Bismarck intentionally carried a line of policy through it would normally backfire causing him more harm. Taylor remarks, the genius of Bismarck lie not in brilliant initiatives but in being able to recover from past blunders.
Closely related to the theme of chance is the notion that Bismarck had no enduring principles. His own greatness was the only value that he held to as he morphed from reactionary to liberal to conservative. He proudly boasted to the Reichstag "I have no fixed opinions... there are no eternal truths" (138). Beside his own will, the only other exception of complete devotion was his family. However, this might even be challenged. One the boldest claims of the book is that some of Bismarck's landmark achievements, unification and social reform, came as by-products for his bid to stay in power. Explicitly, his main motive for introducing bills was to split the Emperor and Reichstag and thus increase his power; and similarly his main motive for foreign policy was to split the Great Powers to increase Germany and subsequently his power.
In many respects it is a difficult task writing the biography of a man who is a deceptive diplomat. Bismarck's documents and speeches are overflowing with contradictions. It seems that Bismarck's policies stemmed from the hope of a desired outcome instead of personal convictions. Nonetheless, the historian has the difficult task of sifting through the political jargon to find the true motives of this complicated person. Taylor largely discredits Bismarck's talk of humble servitude towards the monarch and instead supports the Bismarck's claim of his own greatness. However, how can one claim certitude with a man who has changed his memoirs repeatedly, had no scruples in contradicting facts, and supported so many opposing principles? This is a contributing fact to the case that this debate will go on. As it does, Taylor's work will do much to help guide those who seek the motives and beliefs or the real Bismarck.

AJP Taylor's "War Lords" divides each into his own chapter, including Mussolini, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, FDR, and a back section for Tojo, etc. I first read Taylor's book in college, and upon re-reading it, i noticed it is full of his own opinions, verging on egoism. The best thing about the book is actually the photos and captions; it is also divided well and easy to read. The rest is fact sprinkled throught Taylor's opinions, which he quotes his opinion as being "the right one." Don't waste your money on this, check a library first.