The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Audio Books on European History
This is the second in a series of recommended audio books. This one focuses on continental European history.
Recommended for everyone
The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. By Joseph Henrich. Narrated by Korey Jackson. While this book is global in scope, much of the action takes place in Europe. "WEIRD" means "Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic." If you are reading this post, you are likely WEIRD, and therefore compared to most humans past and present, you are weird.
As the author explains, the social sciences long labored under the misapprehension that almost all of human psychology can be generalized. So studies of the most available subjects of for psychology experiments—namely American undergraduates, a very WEIRD group—we believed to be informative about human psychology in general. To the contrary, modern Westerners are quite different psychologically from most humans throughout history. They are far more individualistic, open to novel experiences, and willing to trust strangers. Whereas most of the world operates on a shame culture (your acts dishonor your clan), the West operates on guilt (an internal sense of wrong-doing). So an average person in Pakistan would feel no shame about privately eating a tub of ice cream, whereas the same act creates intense guilt among some Westerners. Is accidentally taking a stranger's briefcase on a train morally different from intentionally taking someone else's briefcase? Westerners think the answer is absolutely yes, but most other humans, past and present, do not.
Tracing the odd development of the West through centuries of history and a mountain of social science research, Henrich finds the origins of WEIRD psychology in the Catholic Church's ban on cousin intermarriage. We now know that cousin prohibition is not based on science, in the sense of reducing birth defects. But the Church's ban on marriage even among very distant cousins forced people to marry outside the extended clan, and therefore to begin building trusted social networks with strangers. That set the ground for many other psychological changes.
In the audiobook, you can't see the author's many charts and tables, but I was OK with just the narrative descriptions of them. This book made me think a lot about Jonah Goldberg's The Suicide of the West, which examines the decline of civilizational values and the regression to tribalism in contemporary Western politics, especially the United States.
William Shirer
Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent, 1934–1941. By William Shirer. Narrated by Tom Weiner. In the mid-twentieth century, radio journalist William Shirer brought thoughtful news analysis to the American public. His first great book, Berlin Diary, presented his first-hand accounts of Germany's descent into Nazi madness.
End of a Berlin Diary: The Berlin Diary Series, Book 2. By William Shirer. Narrated by Grover Gardner. After the war in Europe ended, Shirer covered the San Francisco conference that created the United Nations. He then returned to Germany. Shirer found the German people fully accepted their defeat but not their responsibility. Instead, they blamed Hitler for not listening to his generals. Based on the first troves of captured Nazi documents, Shirer discovered that Hitler had been planning for war all along; he had rejected Mussolini's idea to start the war five years later. In Hitler's view, he was the indispensable personality to German military aggression.
The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940. By William Shirer. Narrated by Grover Gardner. The histories of how great republics collapse is not one that modern Americans can afford to ignore. Shirer begins his story with the creation of the French Third Republic in 1870, and the reader learns a lot about the worsening problems of the Republic well before Hitler took over Germany in 1933. Shirer details the foolishness of much of the French political class, the evil of some of it (such as Pierre Laval, who worked hard to kill the ailing Republic), and the gross military incompetence and leadership failure of the French government during Hitler's six-week blitzkrieg that conquered France in the spring of 1940. Most of all, Shirer ascribes the responsibility for the fall of France to the French people, who had been so exhausted by World War I and then by political warfare that they lacked the will to fight to save themselves.
More on World War II
Hitler's American Gamble: Pearl Harbor and Germany's March to Global War. By Brendan Simms & Charlie Laderman. Narrated by Damian Lynch. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11. Many historians have argued that Hitler would have been wiser to let Japan and the U.S. fight in the Pacific, while Hitler concentrated on the British and the Soviets in Europe. Hitler's American Gamble intensively covers intensively the events in Berlin, London, Moscow, Tokyo, and Washington in the crucial days between the Sunday morning of Pearl Harbor and the U.S. counterdeclaration of war on Germany on December 11. Notwithstanding Winston Churchill's later bravado, the British were terrified that lend-lease aid would be cut as America devoted its military resources to stopping Imperial Japan.
Hitler's decision to go to war with America was far from impulsive. The U.S. and Germany were already in a limited, de facto naval war in the Atlantic, as Hitler tried to sink ships headed to Great Britain. In his view, defeating the British required cutting their naval lifeline, and that meant that unrestricted submarine warfare against transatlantic shipping. Further, he viewed a Japanese second front against the Western allies as a great boon, and he let the Japanese know that if they attacked the Western powers, including the European colonies in Asia, he would join them.
A Bridge Too Far. By Cornelius Ryan. Narrated by Clive Chafer. By August 1944, the German army on the Western Front was close to collapse. The Allies devised a daring plan to end the war by Christmas: British paratroopers would seize the Rhine River crossing at Arnhem, in the Netherlands. British tanks and infantry would fight their way north to join them at Arnhem. The bridges on the way to Arnhem would be captured and held by American paratroopers. If the Allies could get across Arnhem and onto the north German plain, they would have a clear path to Berlin. But the Germans were able to reconstitute their forces just in time. They slowed the British army advance long enough so they could wipe out the paratroopers near Arnhem. The Allies' failed Operation Market-Garden, Sept. 17-25, 1944, is still debated today by military historians. Cornelius Ryan's epic 1974 book, later made into a fine epic movie, is just as enjoyable as ever.
The Battle of Arnhem: The Deadliest Airborne Operation of World War II. By Antony Beevor. Narrated by Sean Barrett. Beevor's 2018 book mines previously overlooked military archives to provide fresh insights on Market-Garden, including the experiences of the Dutch people.
Although the printed books by Ryan and Beevor have maps, the audio books do not, and you will need a map to follow the story. Maps are available, inter alia, at the History of War website.
How to ruin everything
Six Months That Changed the World: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919. By Margaret MacMillan. Narrated by Margaret MacMillan. The Versailles peace conference after World War I is widely blamed for helping to cause World War II, and its harmful effects are still with us today. How did the leaders at the conference end up making such catastrophic decisions? Read this deeply researched book and find out.
The Russian Revolution. By Richard Pipes. Narrated by Michael Page. Bad as the Versailles conference was, nothing in the twentieth century would lead to as much death and misery as the Bolshevik coup in Russia in November 1917. In this massive book of over 41 hours, Richard Pipes, one of the greatest of all Western scholars of Russia, describes the decades of government failure that paved the way for the Bolsheviks, including the inability of reformers to establish a functional constitutional monarchy.
The Bolsheviks could not have won without the single-minded, ruthless leadership of Lenin, one of the most evil and successful men of the century. The democratic socialists who had overthrown the Tsar in March 1917 were fully aware that the Bolsheviks intended to seize power and exterminate democracy and democrats. But the Russian democratic socialists were inept, poorly led, and too timid to confront the mortal peril. The Bolsheviks were always a small and militant minority, lacking popular support even among the workers' councils ("soviets") in whose name they purported to act.
The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution. By Timothy Tackett. Narrated by Michael Page. An up-close examination of how a revolution that began based on the Rights of Man degenerated into totalitarian state terrorism. Short answer: the revolution really did have a lot of domestic enemies who wanted a restoration of the monarchy, and the revolutionaries became so consumed with factional in-fighting that they confused disagreement with disloyalty.
Ukraine
The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine. By Serhii Plokhy. Narrated by Ralph Lister. An excellent one volume survey of the history of this long-troubled region, starting with the Black Sea settlements of the ancient Greeks, up through Ukraine's 2014 Maidan Revolution against Russian-controlled oligarchy. You will learn how what we today call "Russian" culture actually began in Kyiv; the complexities of the many ethnic groups in Ukraine; the history of Russian, Polish, and Austrian Empire efforts to exploit ethnic divisions in order to rule parts of Ukraine; the nation's brief independence after World War I; the horrors of Tsarist, Nazi, and Soviet rule; and stories of Ukranians who collaborated and those who resisted.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Henrich finds the origins of WEIRD psychology in the Catholic Church's ban on cousin intermarriage.
Meh. Or maybe feh.
This kind of monocausalism is far too pat, smacks too much of trying for the blinding insight that all the complexities can be traced to a simple driving force.
Whereas most of the world operates on a shame culture (your acts dishonor your clan), the West operates on guilt (an internal sense of wrong-doing).
Another pretty big simplification.
"Whereas most of the world operates on a shame culture (your acts dishonor your clan), the West operates on guilt (an internal sense of wrong-doing).
Another pretty big simplification."
To be fair, any one-sentence explanation is going to be a simplification. I'd argue that the shame/guilt dichotomy is a subset of a more important difference: the centrality of the individual in Christian theology, and by extension, culture. Christianity's emphasis on the individual soul and individual dignity was in stark contrast to most of the rest of humanity, where the focus was on the the family/clan, and the individual was intentionally de-emphasized.
To be fair, any one-sentence explanation is going to be a simplification.
Of course that's right. So maybe we should avoid one-sentence explanations of the entire flow of world history.
Besides, ISTM that someone might feel guilty because they dishonored their clan, or be ashamed of a bad deed that did not reflect on the clan. Maybe it was completely undiscovered, or the victim was also a clan member, and the news never reached outsiders.
I bought the WEIRD people book. That cousin theory is remarkable, and requires remarkable evidence. I want to learn more about it.
We think we are right, and what the Chinese Commies are doing is unthinkable. They have the reverse viewpoint.
The challenge is difficult and requires a lot of hard work, no one wants to do.
The dose response curve shows too little of a remedy does not work, and too much is toxic. It has to be worked on for the sweet spot, with testing of different doses of individualism vs clanism.
"This kind of monocausalism is far too pat,"
Bernard,
An historian does not get famous by explaining myriad complexities but by articulation of a simplistic motivating force that can be written on a tee shirt.
Don,
Probably true, Don, but note that Henrich is not a historian but a human evolutionary biologist. IOW, he is a bit out of his lane here.
I'll agree with you there.
I think it is human nature to seek simple and universal explanations to complex questions, and there are always people willing to provide those explanations, especially when they can get rich and famous doing so. [cough, Ibram Kendi, cough]
Yes.
Kopel: Henrich finds the origins of WEIRD psychology in the Catholic Church's ban on cousin intermarriage.
bernard: eh. Or maybe feh. This kind of monocausalism is far too pat, smacks too much of trying for the blinding insight that all the complexities can be traced to a simple driving force.
CRT: Its all YT's fault!
bernard: I think I'm in love!
Who or what is YT?
Whitey.
I'll throw in a recommendation for the "Tides of History" podcast on the rise of modern Europe (focusing around 1500 AD).
https://wondery.com/shows/tides-of-history/season/3/
The narrator/historian (Patrick Wyman) also wrote a book called the Verge, which covers the same time period and is also very engaging (he also made an audiobook for it)
Although not on the list, I was reading Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" recently, and was struck by how much of it is the foundation of our common understanding of the era. In an era where historical understandings are always being challenged and reevaluated, Shirer's account feels like it is set in stone.
Most would be surprised by some of the good things Shirer says about the Third Reich.
Have these been approved by Homeland Security?
Given the topi of Eruopean history, today's CNN headline stikes an ominous chord
"NATO scrambles fighter jets to intercept Russian planes"
The US-driven march toward war continues.
Your statement is butt-ironic given the purpose for this is the painful lesson learned from WWII, that not standing up early just encouraged the empire to continue expanding because the resistance was weak.
I'll risk war because it won't happen because early resistance is put up this time.
When we drive Russia into using a small nuke on Ukrainian soil, the butt irony will be yours. Your view of history suckers you into accepting the "wisdom" of the US-drive response, which is nothing short of a interminable war as a means for regime change in Russia.
By the way, you are risking war because it means the complete annihilation of another country not your own.
Brave man, you are
There is certainly a problem with saying, "We'll fight to the last Ukrainian."
But here we seem to acting at the specific request of the country - Ukraine - which might be annihilated. It's not as if Putin is interested in any diplomatic settlement that doesn't just give him whatever he wants.
So what is your proposal? Just concede Ukraine to Russia? Hope the Ukrainians can hold off the Russians on their own?
My proposal is that Mr Biden be a lot more real in is attempt at Realpolitik. He seems intent in pushing Russia over the WMD line so that he can announce to the world, "I told you so."
How about you explaining what the gain is by getting the entirety of the Ukraine reduced to a (possibly radioactive) ash in a multi-year war?
"How about you explaining what the gain is by getting the entirety of the Ukraine reduced to a (possibly radioactive) ash in a multi-year war?"
That is, of course, one of the risks Ukraine faces. They also face the risk of losing their freedom and being subjected to despotic rule for who knows how long. They face the certainty of many deaths and untold destruction.
Balancing those risks is not something I can or should do for them. But if they do decide to fight, I think we should support them.
If we get in our time machine and go back to 1950, should the Korean people risk everything and fight, or just accept rule by Kim Il-sung? How about Greece after WWII? The Finns?
Norway chose the risks and benefits of NATO; Sweden chose the risks and benefits of neutrality.
After WWII many countries in eastern Europe sized things up and submitted to Soviet rule. Those decisions are not mine to make, one way or the other.
To a certain extent Don, that's Ukraine's choice, re nuclear weapons.
Ukraine knows it is defending itself. It knows that Russia just might be crazy enough to use Nukes. And Ukraine keeps defending itself.
+1 to what Bernard11 said.
Additionally, the risk I want to minimize is seeing a mushroom cloud out my window. And I don't want to minimize that risk over the next month; I want to minimize it over the extended future. Minimizing that risk this month is not the same as minimizing it over the next decade or three.
You may be absolutely convinced that cutting aid to Ukraine is the best way to minimize that risk long term, but I'm far from convinced of that. There is a risk that Putin wouldn't be satisfied with just Ukraine. Even if we cut off aid to Ukraine and withdrew from NATO I'm not sure we can evade that risk long term.
The future is hard to predict accurately; perhaps cutting off Ukraine would be the safest long term option. But that is far from obvious. I think if you advocate for that you have to make your case.
As an additional issue aside from minimizing our personal risk, there is a moral issue of aiding innocent people being attacked. Different people will value that altruism differently. To me it has value. One of the things in my lifetime that the United States can be very proud of, IMHO, is that South Korea is ruled from Seoul, not Pyongyang. We have been doing that for over 60 years, at considerable cost. We don't have vital interests there, but it is the right thing to do. I certainly don't view it as exploiting South Korea. IMHO, of course - everyone values these things differently.
Please notice that I what I have actually advocated: That Mr Biden keep his mouth shut about favoring regime change and keeping NATO planes far from the border.
We really do seem to be itching for a direct confrontation over the bodies of many more dead Ukrainians.
I did not run to be POTUS, a tired old man with a history of running his mouth did.
"That Mr Biden keep his mouth shut about favoring regime change and keeping NATO planes far from the border."
I agree there - I wouldn't be talking regime change, war crimes, etc. I'd stick to 'restore the borders of Ukraine'.
Some people are dictator-appeasing cowards.
And obsolete culture war casualties.
Evil cannot be appeased, it must be confronted and defeated.
Well, perhaps. But it's also worth being veeerrry careful with wars; once you get on, you have to ride it to the end, and that end can be hard to predict.
WWII (from the allied side) is the classic example of appeasement not working. But look at if from the Japanese perspective. How bad could it be if we just take some of Manchuria? But one thing led to another, and it ended pretty badly.
Or WWI - the Austro-Hungarians thought 'we don't have to take that stuff from little ole Serbia'. Everyone else thought 'Nice! A quick little war to settle things!'. Oooops. Maybe the Czar should have thought harder about how willing he was to support his Slavic brethren. Maybe everybody should have worked a little harder to compromise.
And the problem is, it's hard to know up front if you are looking at WWI or WWII.
"But it's also worth being veeerrry careful with wars; once you get on, you have to ride it to the end, and that end can be hard to predict."
That is just my point.
Biden squinting his eyes and calling for regime change is not the way to see where the US is going.
Why aren't you in DC protesting the rampant evil going on there?
Why aren't you?
Aren't the federal law enforcement authorities, as we speak, trying to round up anyone who participated in the last DC protest? (No, not just those who "rioted" -- anyone.)
Easy to say when you are not on the front line.
How about you by a ticket to Poland, cross the border and lend your shoulder to the fight?
Don's position on Ukraine is evolving. Prior to the invasion, he claimed Putin was such a genius he'd run rings around Biden and the West. Now he believes the Russian leader will commit global murder-suicide in a snit, just because his war is such a catastrophic blunder. Needless to say it would still be the West's fault (for arming Ukraine).
Personally, I don't think Putin will go for murder-suicide, believing he's too fond of his looted billions, gargantuan villas, mistresses & luxury baths in deer antler blood. But what do I know? I didn't think the man was so imbecilic as to invade in the first place.
Maybe Don can close the loop by holding global murder-suicide as "genius".......
I don't understand this sentence. Stealing is stealing. Is the second case taking from someone you know? Or is it taking from a different stranger, who happens to not be on a train?
Also the previous sentence a double negative.
I think the cases are:
A)You pick up the wrong briefcase by mistake
B)You deliberately pick up a briefcase that you know isn't yours
In American culture, the former is a careless oopsie with no moral valence (assuming you return it when you discover the error), but the latter is a morally bad theft. Apparently some cultures view them as morally equivalent.
I'd be curious to see the details on this. I suspect he is thinking of the weregeld system, where to avoid constant violence and revenge, there was a system of "fines" for common offenses by one clan member against another clan -- which included things like murder and rape.
Edit to add: Those fines were based on "damage" to the aggrieved clan, so intent did not really factor into the calculus.
I think the idea is that in the accidental case you take the other person's briefcase because you mistake it for your own.
Ok, clearly some joker nefariously edited my quote to insert "accidentally" there, which was transparently not there when I posted because I never would have missed something so obvious.
Hi! You can send 100 different people to the archives of historical documents and they will all understand something of their own)) There is no single interest in historical data. My niece was doing an essay on the topic of the golden age in Europe. She is an LGBT activist and she looked for the pros and cons of the position of women in the past and in our time. Of course it all came down to the fact that we were lucky to use woman dating site - https://www.onenightfriend.com/couple-looking-for-women.html I agree in general, but it seems to me that there are also many who prefer patriarchal values. How many people - so many opinions.