The late Tony Judt has written a fantastic book here. A testament to the historian's aspiration to the status of literature. While adopting a broadly chronological approach to 60 years of European history (going right up to the Iraq war and beyond!) he embraces social, economic and cultural arguments that buttress what is still essentially a history of personalities - something I think that is lacking in modern historical scholarship. Usually its one or the other - that personality shapes history and thus the structures, or that the structures are everything and personality is merely incidental and a consequence of that. Judt is broad minded and allows events, persons and social changes to develop before you, coalesced around an enviable writing style and some wonderful prose.

You will learn lots reading this book. And I mean lots, because it is big. But it doesn't ever feel like a chore - you want to keep reading to the extent that you find yourself still awake at half past two in the morning, reluctant to enter the land of nod. Its size should not deter anyone - once engrossed, you are a victim to its magesterial sweep and grandeur.

Judts big idea (He introduces the book by contrasting people with one big idea and people with hundreds of small ideas, saying that he is of the latter camp) is that Europe came to terms with its postwar guilt by accepting the futility of warfare, extremism and violence and embracing a broadly social democratic consensus built on the welfare state, the EU and 'ever closer union' of the people of Europe. The eastern bloc is dealt with in detail as well, and we come to learn of the many tragedies of Soviet oppression over some 45 years - the ruthless tyranny of Stalin, the crushing of Hungary in 1956, the smattering of that elusive liberty that overcame Prague for a brief Spring in 1968. Its ultimate demise was a combination of internal economic absurdities merged with the unintended consequences of Gorbachev's liberalisation. As he said, there was nothing 'inevitable' about the break up of the Soviet Empire or of the collapse of communism. Judt helps explain how this unexpected and truly cataclysmic event took place.

Does this deserve a 10? Certainly. There are some minor defects, such as overuse of terms like 'anachronistic' or 'surplus rural population'. But these are minor irritants, irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. There is also the question of the utility of meta narratives of this nature - compromised inevitably by what it excludes as opposed to what it discusses - but these are for naught. As historical writing goes, Judt is right up there at the top. A credit to his profession, with the writing gifts of the most talented novelists. His recent death is a mortal blow to the world of historical writing, and this will rightfully be regarded as his great magnus opus.