Scan barcode
heathward's review against another edition
5.0
Very enjoyable. I would like to come back to this book after my comprehensive exams for a closer reading! I would have liked more focus on post-1945 and the effects of cultural productions on attitudes towards war, however.
whimsicalmeerkat's review against another edition
4.0
This book chronicles the move Europe made over the last century from being an overwhelmingly militaristic place, to its current state of primarily civilian life and composition. Sheehan does an excellent job of chronicling the forces that have made this possible, as well as the complex, and often difficult, relationship the US has with its European partners. Fascinating, well-written, and highly informative.
whimsicalmeerkat's review
4.0
This book chronicles the move Europe made over the last century from being an overwhelmingly militaristic place, to its current state of primarily civilian life and composition. Sheehan does an excellent job of chronicling the forces that have made this possible, as well as the complex, and often difficult, relationship the US has with its European partners. Fascinating, well-written, and highly informative.
krista7's review
5.0
Sheehan, a Modern Germanist, describes Europe's 20th century as a creation of a "civilian state," in which great social weight is placed on economic power and diminished prestige, power, and money are invested in military affairs. He traces the development of the civilian state through the usual road markers of the 20th century--WWI, WWII, Cold War, 1990s. The book that resulted from this investigation is a fairly brief monograph that might be used as an addition to a 300-level Euro course, serving to show how Europe's history is truly European (not German/French/Russian, etc.)
A few points of curiosity:
He compares Gorbachev to Lenin, saying Lenin feared releasing power (for his life) and therefore wouldn't, whereas Gorbachev knew (thanks to the civilian state) he would live, and so let matters take their course in 1991.
He suggests the mass popularity of WWI (as traditionally mentioned in texts) is a myth, and in fact a creation of a censored wartime press.
He suggests peace is a relatively modern idea, because it makes the life and death of individuals a matter of concern. (From a state wherein thousands would die namelessly--see the 30 Years' War--to a state for which the Unnamed Soldier would be enshrined, and all efforts made to make sure few went unnamed.) Peace as a concept is also born in response to mass-produced warfare, itself a product of the industrial age.
He points out the huge economic power of the EU (1/4 of the world's economy) and its almost invisible military presence.
Overall, the book is studded with interesting smaller points like this, and is an interesting argument for the development of concepts of peace.
A few points of curiosity:
He compares Gorbachev to Lenin, saying Lenin feared releasing power (for his life) and therefore wouldn't, whereas Gorbachev knew (thanks to the civilian state) he would live, and so let matters take their course in 1991.
He suggests the mass popularity of WWI (as traditionally mentioned in texts) is a myth, and in fact a creation of a censored wartime press.
He suggests peace is a relatively modern idea, because it makes the life and death of individuals a matter of concern. (From a state wherein thousands would die namelessly--see the 30 Years' War--to a state for which the Unnamed Soldier would be enshrined, and all efforts made to make sure few went unnamed.) Peace as a concept is also born in response to mass-produced warfare, itself a product of the industrial age.
He points out the huge economic power of the EU (1/4 of the world's economy) and its almost invisible military presence.
Overall, the book is studded with interesting smaller points like this, and is an interesting argument for the development of concepts of peace.