Mark Mazower\'s Book Dark Continent

Mark Mazower's book Dark Continent takes an in-depth look into post World War I Europe and sees a triangular rebellion among the leftist regime, right fanaticism and liberal democracy. His ultimate thesis based on this violent period of time strays from normative thought. He does not conclude that it was a fait de complete that democracy would win the day. "What all ideologies have in common is that they like to present their own utopia as and End to History," he writes (xi). They "read the present into the past" and then make the assumption that democracy was so deeply rooted that the result was already growing. Not so, he disagrees. This was just one possible outcome, especially with the strength of nationalism.

World War I destroyed all of Europe's empires and heralded in a new democratic world (41). Yet, stresses, Mazower, this also signaled a triumph of nationalism. None of the nation-states of central and eastern Europe was really ethnically homogeneous (42). "Versailles had given sixty million people a state of their own, but it turned another twenty-five million into minorities."

Mazower spends relative less time on the threat from the political left, due to its inherent economic problems and because the Communists "never formally renounced the idea of the judicial equality of sovereign states" (379). He devotes most to the much stronger threat of Fascism. He notes that "Today, it is hard to see the inter-war experiment with democracy for the novelty it was: yet we should certainly not assume that democracy is suited to Europe" (5). Although it would be nice to believe that the outcome of the Cold War guarantees the "deep roots" of democracy, "history tells us otherwise." By the 1930s, it did not seem Europe wanted to fight for its democratic beliefs: "Europe found other, authoritarian, forms of political order no more foreign to its traditions, and no less efficient as organizers of society, industry and technology." Also, there were authoritarian states as Italy, where Fascism was not an enigma.

No where were nationalism and authoritarian political forms more visible and viable than in post-World War I Germany, where government was safeguarding the "quality" (author's quotes) and quantity of the nation's human stock (77). Even this Nazi racist imperative did not repulse other European nations, which was "the apotheosis of very widespread trends in European social thought." Laws for voluntary sterilization passed in the 1920s and '30s in such countries as Switzerland, Finland and Estonia (97).

Looking at the other possibilities or outcomes of what "could have" happened is what makes Mazower's approach in his book so fascinating. In fact, this is the strongest aspect of the Dark Continent -- the examples, sources and background that he provides in support of his argument to make the account of the appeal of fascism so convincing. He gives the scenario of the three factions -- Communism, Fascism, and Democracy -- standing off against each other, but then offers enough behind the scenes information that leaves the reader wondering, "What if?" Mazower does not take the usual approach that "of course, against all odds, democracy will prevail," nor does he say that the democracy now in place is all that it is cracked up to be.

Hitler's fanaticism and obsession actually drove German nationalism into the ground. Yet, what would have happened if Hitler's approach had been less subtle, the move toward European expansion slower and less intrusive? Mazower argues that Hitler and his supporters came closer to success than anyone would like to believe. Some of the victims of Hitler's occupation did not necessarily fight as hard as they could, and some actually gave support to the German occupier. The bottom line, writes Mazower, is that with another twist or turn, events in Europe could have ended differently.

For example, Mazower also argues against British historians who see President Roosevelt, not Hitler, as the major foe. They attest that Germany is dominant in Europe regardless, and if WWII had not occurred, Britain would have preserved its empire and its leading international role. Mazower says this is ridiculous, for Hitler was not "as A.J.P. Taylor once famously implied, 'just another politician'...The Second World War did not start because of diplomatic misunderstanding or confusion, nor even because of Hitler's deceit or duplicity. Rather it started because -- very late in the day -- Hitler's opponents realized they were faced with a 'clash of worlds'" (74).

The book is less strong in a few other areas. For example, Mazower does not spend enough time and intrigue on what was happening with Communism during this period. Understandably, he believes that Fascism was the one of three triangular factors to fear the most. However, because he set up his theme to be which of three ideologies was going to come out on top, he needed to give equal billing to each. His argument is stronger as a two-prong democracy vs. fascism or nationalism scenario. It is difficult imagining that the Communist state had enough to pull to assume power over the Western European nations. The Communist ideology was too alien in most cases. However, it is not hard to envision that a less psychotic leader than Hitler could play on Europe's nationalist leanings.

Secondly, Mazower's book is about Europe during the 20th century, so understandably it would not include much on the United States. However, America's involvement in WWII and the Cold War is an integral part of the scenario and did have a major impact on the outcome of events. Another "What If," of course, is what if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States had not declared war? What would have happened in the European arena then? Lastly, Mazower made the decision to look at what took place in Europe from an ideological perspective, not from what actual events occurred or what people were involved. Yet in this case, especially, the individuals involved were so significant to what happened. How can one divorce ideology from such personages as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc. Again, how would the 20th century played out without one or more of these individuals participating as a leading actor?

A mostly agree with Mazower's approach and conclusions. In fact, it is most interesting at this point what the future will bring as far as Europe is concerned. Mazower once again leaves readers with an open question. Given the fact that the European countries each have their own identities and are nationalistic in spirit if not politically, is it truly possible for them to expect to be a united front? Especially with the increase in globalization and economic competitiveness, can, as Mazower ask, "Europeans give up their desperate desire to find a single workable definition of themselves" and deal with their diversity in a peaceful way?