Scan barcode
simonmee's review
4.0
A J P Taylor, a historian who ascended to the godhood of three initials, was not a humble man. The Course of German History was sharp enough when he first wrote it… …to 16 years later add a preface about how good you were at writing another country’s modern history:
It is an advantage, and a rare one, for a writer on German history to be an Englishman, not educated in Germany; this advantage at any rate I possess.
…is to wave your waxen wings at the sun.
Is Taylor right about the Germans that one looks in vain in their history for just milieu, for common sense? I do not know, but it is sure compelling reading.
The Vibes
It is a common canard that Wedgwood’s [b:The Thirty Years War|287542|The Thirty Years War|C.V. Wedgwood|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1646336259l/287542._SY75_.jpg|278974] was impacted by the appeasement of the times in which it was written. This must surely must be doubly so for 1945’s The Course of German History, with Taylor painting the German people as, well…
But no other people has pursued extermination as a permanent policy from generation to generation for a thousand years; and it is foolish to suppose that they have done so without adding something permanent to their national tradition.
I wonder what about 1945 gave him such a negative view.
The Course of German History is also “of its time” in that it is not rigorous with its citations, mainly in that they don’t exist. Going out on a limb here, I assume that the doyen of British historians did do a significant amount of research. However, Taylor is still a real “vibes” guy, and if the vibe isn’t good, such as during the 1848 revolutionary period:
For the first time since 1521, the German people stepped on to the centre of the German stage only to miss their cues once more.
…Taylor will let you know, and you just have to assume he’s reading those vibes correctly.
You can write a history on vibes, and most histories do have a “vibe” of some sort. However, the issue with vibes is that they change. Taylor changed his views on Hitler and Bismarck in later books – not massively, but notably. It is not unreasonable in principle for one’s views to change with the evidence, rather it is a sign of emotional maturity. The problem here is that it is hard to get past the impression that Taylor’s views changed according to “vibes” rather than a careful review of new evidence. Would Wedgwood have written a different narrative history at a different time in her life? I’m willing to say: Yes! But it feels like she is stung more for it more than Taylor, who is far more sweeping with his judgments – Wedgwood was snippish towards individuals, whereas Taylor calls the German people exterminating barbarians.
Taylor does ride those vibes like few other authors could, defying 80 years of time with memorable, if not pithy, judgments:
Like a rich parvenu, Germany, lacking nothing but self-possession, cried out for the possessions of others; convinced that if she could but ruin and destroy her neighbours she would be at last stable and contented.
The Details
To be fairer to Taylor than his own introduction is to him, he does, particularly in the latter part, write at length about the industrialists in the Ruhr pairing up with the Prussian Junkers to dominate different aspects of German life:
How could the German people be persuaded to accept indefinitely the political monopoly of the Junkers and the economic monopoly of the great landowners and capitalists?
…and there’s a prolonged (and interesting discussion) about how their demands drove internal and external German policy. Again, it is not overly detailed and I would want to be careful with the assertion that the colossal Germany Navy was bait to content heavy industry - even if one was good for the other, was that correlation or causation?
There’s also the interesting interplay between Prussia and Austria for the stewardship of the German people, along with the concepts of “Greater Germany” and “Little Germany”. The interactions with the Poles and Bohemia also loom large in this history, along with the lack of direction that led to the First World War – while Kaiser Wilhem II is unflatteringly portrayed, Taylor does not seem him as the driver of Germany’s problems. The rise of Hitler also significantly differs from the popular view of a decadent German “redirected” by a force of nature – elements of rearmament and irredentism well predating him.
As a criticism, The Course of German History is a negative history, with Taylor strongly expressing his preference for a divided form of Germany (and presumably a separate Austria). I see the flaws portrayed in the German people reflected at times in the recent history of other countries, such as Britain’s Brexit travails – suggesting that at least some of the vibes might be universal at time.
But what is the Judgement of History?
I can’t tell you whether Taylor is right, but he creates coherent narratives of cause and effect, which is important. Not because Taylor is right about the causes, or the effects, even that the effects flowed from causes, but because it provides a yardstick to judge, criticise, test the hypothesis. The Course of German History is not “one damn thing after another.”
It is best to read The Course of German History as an example of the vibrancy of historiography. Read it not because it is right (and perhaps no history book ever is), read it for what Taylor thinks is right.
It is an advantage, and a rare one, for a writer on German history to be an Englishman, not educated in Germany; this advantage at any rate I possess.
…is to wave your waxen wings at the sun.
Is Taylor right about the Germans that one looks in vain in their history for just milieu, for common sense? I do not know, but it is sure compelling reading.
The Vibes
It is a common canard that Wedgwood’s [b:The Thirty Years War|287542|The Thirty Years War|C.V. Wedgwood|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1646336259l/287542._SY75_.jpg|278974] was impacted by the appeasement of the times in which it was written. This must surely must be doubly so for 1945’s The Course of German History, with Taylor painting the German people as, well…
But no other people has pursued extermination as a permanent policy from generation to generation for a thousand years; and it is foolish to suppose that they have done so without adding something permanent to their national tradition.
I wonder what about 1945 gave him such a negative view.
The Course of German History is also “of its time” in that it is not rigorous with its citations, mainly in that they don’t exist. Going out on a limb here, I assume that the doyen of British historians did do a significant amount of research. However, Taylor is still a real “vibes” guy, and if the vibe isn’t good, such as during the 1848 revolutionary period:
For the first time since 1521, the German people stepped on to the centre of the German stage only to miss their cues once more.
…Taylor will let you know, and you just have to assume he’s reading those vibes correctly.
You can write a history on vibes, and most histories do have a “vibe” of some sort. However, the issue with vibes is that they change. Taylor changed his views on Hitler and Bismarck in later books – not massively, but notably. It is not unreasonable in principle for one’s views to change with the evidence, rather it is a sign of emotional maturity. The problem here is that it is hard to get past the impression that Taylor’s views changed according to “vibes” rather than a careful review of new evidence. Would Wedgwood have written a different narrative history at a different time in her life? I’m willing to say: Yes! But it feels like she is stung more for it more than Taylor, who is far more sweeping with his judgments – Wedgwood was snippish towards individuals, whereas Taylor calls the German people exterminating barbarians.
Taylor does ride those vibes like few other authors could, defying 80 years of time with memorable, if not pithy, judgments:
Like a rich parvenu, Germany, lacking nothing but self-possession, cried out for the possessions of others; convinced that if she could but ruin and destroy her neighbours she would be at last stable and contented.
The Details
To be fairer to Taylor than his own introduction is to him, he does, particularly in the latter part, write at length about the industrialists in the Ruhr pairing up with the Prussian Junkers to dominate different aspects of German life:
How could the German people be persuaded to accept indefinitely the political monopoly of the Junkers and the economic monopoly of the great landowners and capitalists?
…and there’s a prolonged (and interesting discussion) about how their demands drove internal and external German policy. Again, it is not overly detailed and I would want to be careful with the assertion that the colossal Germany Navy was bait to content heavy industry - even if one was good for the other, was that correlation or causation?
There’s also the interesting interplay between Prussia and Austria for the stewardship of the German people, along with the concepts of “Greater Germany” and “Little Germany”. The interactions with the Poles and Bohemia also loom large in this history, along with the lack of direction that led to the First World War – while Kaiser Wilhem II is unflatteringly portrayed, Taylor does not seem him as the driver of Germany’s problems. The rise of Hitler also significantly differs from the popular view of a decadent German “redirected” by a force of nature – elements of rearmament and irredentism well predating him.
As a criticism, The Course of German History is a negative history, with Taylor strongly expressing his preference for a divided form of Germany (and presumably a separate Austria). I see the flaws portrayed in the German people reflected at times in the recent history of other countries, such as Britain’s Brexit travails – suggesting that at least some of the vibes might be universal at time.
But what is the Judgement of History?
I can’t tell you whether Taylor is right, but he creates coherent narratives of cause and effect, which is important. Not because Taylor is right about the causes, or the effects, even that the effects flowed from causes, but because it provides a yardstick to judge, criticise, test the hypothesis. The Course of German History is not “one damn thing after another.”
It is best to read The Course of German History as an example of the vibrancy of historiography. Read it not because it is right (and perhaps no history book ever is), read it for what Taylor thinks is right.
More...