What do you think?
Rate this book
Reflections on a Ravaged Century
"Illuminates the past with a mighty searchlight and clears away mountains of nonsense."―Gabriel Schoenfeld, Wall Street Journal Robert Conquest has been called by Paul Johnson "our greatest living modern historian." As a new century begins, Conquest offers an illuminating examination of our past failures and a guide to where we should go next. Graced with one of the most acute gifts for political prescience since Orwell, Conquest assigns responsibility for our century’s cataclysms not to impersonal economic or social forces but to the distorted ideologies of revolutionary Marxism and National Socialism. The final, sobering chapters of Reflections on a Ravaged Century concern themselves with some coming storms, notably that of the European Union, which Conquest believes is an economic, cultural, and geographical misconception divisive of the West and doomed to failure. Winner of the Ingersoll Prize; winner of the Richard M. Weaver Prize; a New York Times Notable Book. "Provides many glowing embers of reasoned and wise argument."―Richard Bernstein, The New York Times "A book that ought to be required reading for everyone about to enter college, and by every member of Congress."―Frank Wilson, Philadelphia Inquirer
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
13 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
Robert Conquest
132 books157 followersGeorge Robert Ackworth Conquest was a British historian who became a well known writer and researcher on the Soviet Union with the publication, in 1968, of his account of Stalin's purges of the 1930s, The Great Terror.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
April 2, 2024
(Slight corrections for readability and spelling made in April 2024 - otherwise unaltered)
I have only admiration for Robert Service and for this book but reading did lead me to wonder how it might read to those younger than me so I am going to preface my review with some more discursive personal observations.
On page one of his introduction he quotes W.B. Yeats:
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
and on page 2 quotes Richard Hillary, the Battle of Britain pilot who would die in the war who wrote who he wanted to prove to skeptics - like himself - that you could take on and defeat "the dogma-fed youth of the Luftwaffe."
When I moved to Ireland at the end of the 1960's W.B. Yeats' son was still a senator in the upper house the Irish parliament and I would spend three years at school with W.B.'s grandson. The Second World War was my father's war just as WWI had been his father's. As a child that I accepted that I might have to go to war (because I was half-American not because of my Irish roots) which seemed unremarkable though scary. All this is to point out that I am a child of the twentieth century and this book, published in 1999, is by a twentieth century historian, and it was published on the eve of the millennium. At that time there was a generation just entering their twenties for whom end of the cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union were things that they noticed, if at all, only as interruptions to their cartoon watching. Many of those millennium twenty year olds now have children entering their twenties.
I do not believe that the history of the twentieth century is any less relevant, it is probably more so, but as we approach the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first century there is a need for new reflections and observations drawn from those for whom there is a post-twentieth century history to provide contrast and perspective.
I don't say that the views of a younger generation will be better or more acute then Professor Conquest's; as a ten year old in 1968 I watched on TV news as 'young' people from Paris to San Francisco proclaim challenges to what was 'old' and a belief in new worlds and ways of doing things in music, clothes, morals and ways of thinking. They challenged everything and promised to be different and create a better world. Within not many years I could see that nothing had changed except that many of those young radicals had comfortably merged into conventional 'adult' life. Just over fifty years later in the immediate post 2008 financial meltdown there were young people around the world challenging everything and toppling tyrannies and linking up through the exciting new and revolutionary use of 'social media' which promised to liberate and change the world for the better. A little over ten years later 'social media' helped engineer a grotesques attempt by a demagogue to over through a free election in the USA and were was that new dawn that had seemed so imminent only a few years before in places like the Middle East?
Everything changes, everything stays the same. Robert Conquest's book is not a bad book, he has fascinating things to say but the past is a vast potpourri of lessons and not all of them are eternally relevant. As a product of the mid to late twentieth century this book is fascinating and thoughtful but I am not sure it is a book which will resonate with anyone under forty, or maybe fifty. We need a 21st century Robert Conquest to start finding the lessons from the 20th that matter today.
I have only admiration for Robert Service and for this book but reading did lead me to wonder how it might read to those younger than me so I am going to preface my review with some more discursive personal observations.
On page one of his introduction he quotes W.B. Yeats:
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
and on page 2 quotes Richard Hillary, the Battle of Britain pilot who would die in the war who wrote who he wanted to prove to skeptics - like himself - that you could take on and defeat "the dogma-fed youth of the Luftwaffe."
When I moved to Ireland at the end of the 1960's W.B. Yeats' son was still a senator in the upper house the Irish parliament and I would spend three years at school with W.B.'s grandson. The Second World War was my father's war just as WWI had been his father's. As a child that I accepted that I might have to go to war (because I was half-American not because of my Irish roots) which seemed unremarkable though scary. All this is to point out that I am a child of the twentieth century and this book, published in 1999, is by a twentieth century historian, and it was published on the eve of the millennium. At that time there was a generation just entering their twenties for whom end of the cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union were things that they noticed, if at all, only as interruptions to their cartoon watching. Many of those millennium twenty year olds now have children entering their twenties.
I do not believe that the history of the twentieth century is any less relevant, it is probably more so, but as we approach the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first century there is a need for new reflections and observations drawn from those for whom there is a post-twentieth century history to provide contrast and perspective.
I don't say that the views of a younger generation will be better or more acute then Professor Conquest's; as a ten year old in 1968 I watched on TV news as 'young' people from Paris to San Francisco proclaim challenges to what was 'old' and a belief in new worlds and ways of doing things in music, clothes, morals and ways of thinking. They challenged everything and promised to be different and create a better world. Within not many years I could see that nothing had changed except that many of those young radicals had comfortably merged into conventional 'adult' life. Just over fifty years later in the immediate post 2008 financial meltdown there were young people around the world challenging everything and toppling tyrannies and linking up through the exciting new and revolutionary use of 'social media' which promised to liberate and change the world for the better. A little over ten years later 'social media' helped engineer a grotesques attempt by a demagogue to over through a free election in the USA and were was that new dawn that had seemed so imminent only a few years before in places like the Middle East?
Everything changes, everything stays the same. Robert Conquest's book is not a bad book, he has fascinating things to say but the past is a vast potpourri of lessons and not all of them are eternally relevant. As a product of the mid to late twentieth century this book is fascinating and thoughtful but I am not sure it is a book which will resonate with anyone under forty, or maybe fifty. We need a 21st century Robert Conquest to start finding the lessons from the 20th that matter today.
October 5, 2016
Though the book came out in 2000, it remains more relevant today as we go through a shift in political temperament and direction.
June 6, 2019
Robert Conquest is an expert in one field (Soviet communism). The problem is he thinks he is an expert in a lot of things. Among other things, he advocates for (the equivalent of) Brexit, defends imperialism, denies climate change, and maybe least but not last, tells youth to get off his lawn.
His technique is usually the same: start off with a set in stone opinion, and cherrypick quotes that agree with it. He's quite well read so no dearth of that. Dissenting voices do not get a mention (except for obviously silly ones that he likes to ridicule). Even facts are left deliberately unscrutinized. For example while defending British imperialism he claims the Indian government changed the definition of famine, implying famines happened after independence but were not called such. The reality is that there were enough safeguards so that keeping the old definition of famine didnt make sense; "droughts" did happen and were dealt with poorly, but with nowhere near the millions of deaths caused by utterly callous British policies that led to famine. And yes, nowhere does he mention the utter theft, if you will, of the Indian economy by the Raj; oh yeah his grandfather helping write a Marathi book must excuse that.
I recalled while reading this book the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: you read a shit chapter on something you know about (British Raj in India), but then read another chapter on something you dont know much about (say, EU) and believe it totally. I wanted to avoid that. In short I do not trust Conquest on any topic outside of his field of expertise.
Regarding Soviet communism though, he is mostly right. And the book is informative there. But it's worth pointing out again that not everything the USSR did was shoddy as Conquest would have you believe. Soviet science and math is highly respected, they were at or near the top of building heavy machinery, even their books were beautiful. However, cars did break down and there were bread lines and they missed the computer revolution, and state control of everything is utterly horrible and soul- (not to mention economy-) killing.
If Conquest had just talked of communism, I'd have given this book a higher rating. But some of the other stuff pissed me off too much.
His technique is usually the same: start off with a set in stone opinion, and cherrypick quotes that agree with it. He's quite well read so no dearth of that. Dissenting voices do not get a mention (except for obviously silly ones that he likes to ridicule). Even facts are left deliberately unscrutinized. For example while defending British imperialism he claims the Indian government changed the definition of famine, implying famines happened after independence but were not called such. The reality is that there were enough safeguards so that keeping the old definition of famine didnt make sense; "droughts" did happen and were dealt with poorly, but with nowhere near the millions of deaths caused by utterly callous British policies that led to famine. And yes, nowhere does he mention the utter theft, if you will, of the Indian economy by the Raj; oh yeah his grandfather helping write a Marathi book must excuse that.
I recalled while reading this book the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: you read a shit chapter on something you know about (British Raj in India), but then read another chapter on something you dont know much about (say, EU) and believe it totally. I wanted to avoid that. In short I do not trust Conquest on any topic outside of his field of expertise.
Regarding Soviet communism though, he is mostly right. And the book is informative there. But it's worth pointing out again that not everything the USSR did was shoddy as Conquest would have you believe. Soviet science and math is highly respected, they were at or near the top of building heavy machinery, even their books were beautiful. However, cars did break down and there were bread lines and they missed the computer revolution, and state control of everything is utterly horrible and soul- (not to mention economy-) killing.
If Conquest had just talked of communism, I'd have given this book a higher rating. But some of the other stuff pissed me off too much.
August 12, 2012
Sidney and Beatrice Webb were leaders of the British Fabian Society and founders of the London School of Economics. The Fabian Society believed in combining socialism and democracy, taking a position between Communism and free-market capitalism. The Fabians believed that academics and intellectuals were wiser than businessmen, and so should have a substantial role in guiding the economy. The Fabians also played a major role in the British Labour Party. During the 1930s, the Webbs wrote a positive account of the Soviet Union called Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation. The Webbs dismissed reports of a famine in the Ukraine, as did fellow Fabians George Bernard Shaw and Herbert George Wells. Wells interviewed Stalin in 1934 and praised him for his honesty. A French politician, Édouard Herriot, visited the Ukraine in 1933 to see for himself, but Stalin knew ahead of time that he was coming, and hid all signs of famine before Herriot arrived. Reporting that there was a famine in the Ukraine was a crime, punishable by being sent to a forced labor camp for five years. There were some reporters who told the truth about the Ukrainian famine, most notably Malcolm Muggeridge.
Even after the crimes of Stalin became known, some Westerners have treated the Soviet Union with too much respect. In 1975 President Gerald Ford refused to meet with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, when he came to the United States after the publication of his exposé of the Soviet forced labor camps, The Gulag Archipelago. Ford did not want to offend the Soviets. Conquest quotes John Kenneth Galbraith in 1984 praising its lack of unemployment.
Conquest says that ignorance of history has been a major cause of the disasters of the twentieth century. He also mentions that Thomas Jefferson thought that history was the most important subject that students should be taught in primary school.
Even after the crimes of Stalin became known, some Westerners have treated the Soviet Union with too much respect. In 1975 President Gerald Ford refused to meet with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, when he came to the United States after the publication of his exposé of the Soviet forced labor camps, The Gulag Archipelago. Ford did not want to offend the Soviets. Conquest quotes John Kenneth Galbraith in 1984 praising its lack of unemployment.
Conquest says that ignorance of history has been a major cause of the disasters of the twentieth century. He also mentions that Thomas Jefferson thought that history was the most important subject that students should be taught in primary school.
July 21, 2021
Excellent interpretation of a difficulty century.
April 3, 2018
More of a commentary on the effects of the major events (WWII and the Cold War) and the ideologies behind them than a survey of them - not the book to read unless you are somewhat familiar with the basic facts of these events already. Part One was more interesting, and I appreciated the more humane, narrative/reflective approach (as opposed to a facts and figures approach) that Conquest uses to describe Cold War events and ideas. Part Two dragged at times but some of Conquest’s thoughts on culture were interesting and ring pretty true today, especially comments on the UK’s involvement in the EU and people’s commitment to ideological causes with more passion than action.
November 20, 2007
The historian and poet who first documented Stalin's Great Purge offers his thoughts on the ideological frenzies of the twentieth century, their nature and causes and their many destructive effects. The second half, which is meant to give an idea of where we are headed in the twenty-first century is, understandably, less specific and thus less satisfying, but still intriguing, especially for Conquest's thoughts on the rise, or resurgence, of corporatism and the future of the nations that make up the English-speaking world.
February 8, 2016
Ever read a history book you could NOT put down? This one! Conquest's keen discernment of our recent past provides him, and thankfully us, a near-prescient vision forward. What a pleasure to read!
Read
January 10, 2021had to abandon this.
it's written at a level that i estimate is about 15 iq points outside of my comprehension zone.
i admire conquest, and maybe i'd be better off trying to drill into his interviews or other formats where he's be a bit more understandable to me.
i made it 80 pages in and decided to give up. none of it was landing for me, i couldn't understand what he was saying, so i moved on.
it's written at a level that i estimate is about 15 iq points outside of my comprehension zone.
i admire conquest, and maybe i'd be better off trying to drill into his interviews or other formats where he's be a bit more understandable to me.
i made it 80 pages in and decided to give up. none of it was landing for me, i couldn't understand what he was saying, so i moved on.
March 4, 2017
Conquest knows his stuff, and some of this book is downright prophetic (e.g. warnings of Brexit and other developments from 2016). But the book wanders rhetorically, and starts to become a polemic against Stalinism, and then pivots into random musings for an international alliance of former British colonies. Overall, underwhelming.
May 11, 2022
Written 20 years ago the author gets his wish with Brexit. I wonder what he makes of it.
Otherwise excellent book and explanation (if anyone every needed one) why communist utopia is insane.
Otherwise excellent book and explanation (if anyone every needed one) why communist utopia is insane.
October 5, 2022
Insightful overview of the ideologies and utopian dreams that lead mankind into bloodshed during the 20th century, as well as a prescient anticipation of the issues to come. Blunts its force at the end with speculation of an Anglosphere that is more pipe dream than sober proposal.
January 15, 2018
Just a really solid read...chock full of some very interesting anecdotes.....
September 18, 2021
A really excellent summary of the last century's extremes from a British historian and political philosopher. It's a bit brexity but not in a mad way so that's OK.
April 10, 2022
I would have expected more about fascism/Nazism from the title, instead a polemic against Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism/etc. Great, you're right, Stalin was a monster, but there were some other things that happened last century that are pretty relevant today.
October 5, 2021
The author is too conservative to my taste. He praises past conservatives and I don't agree with the conservative agenda or values or ideas.
October 20, 2014
This is a series of essays on European history and politics by a British Historian who has written extensively on Russia and the Soviet regime. Robert Conquest is a conservative and rationalist scholar. I first read his "Harvest of Sorrow", which makes the case for Stalin using famine as an ideological weapon that killed millions of his own people in the Ukraine during the 1930s. He makes sharp judgements and provides strong arguments. The essays in the book are organized around the task of taking stock of the 20th century and wars and genocidal twin ideologies of Communism and Nazism. The first half seeks to provide some background into how these totalitarian excesses could have occurred and scarred the lives of millions. His politions are similar to those of George Kennan -- well reasoned, stteped in historical context, and unflinching in his policy implications - all in the tradition of containment. He is no friend of political correctness or lazy thinking. These are the strongest chapters of the book and will force the reader to sharpen his or her own view by deciding how much they agree with Mr. Conquest.
The second half of the book looks forward to suggest what the future might hold given such a rocky past century. This part of the book is less successful. It was written pre-2001 events and the Afghan and Iraq wars and so cannot account for the reshaping of the middle east from those events. To be fair, however, Conquest does not exclude the importance of religious fanaticism, but is not focused on Islam. He discusses various possibilities for improving transnational order, such as through the enhancement of the European Union or a reshaping of the Atlantic Alliance. He anticipates problems with Putin's Russia due to the expansion of Nato and the anti-Russian motivations for such expansions. He is not positive towards the EU and more positive towards enhancements of aliiances among Britain, the Commonwealth, and the US. On these chapters, the weakness is that is disavows any real consideration of how such enhanced institutions will even come into being - and the devil is in the details. His is more interested in cultivating a widely shared positive civic culture but says little about the organizational and institutional basis on which this must occur. He is also fairly thin on economics and globalization. His chapter on the lasting effects of empire is good, but does not really get into globalization issues.
Overall, given when this was written, this remains a valuable book by a very perceptive historian.
The second half of the book looks forward to suggest what the future might hold given such a rocky past century. This part of the book is less successful. It was written pre-2001 events and the Afghan and Iraq wars and so cannot account for the reshaping of the middle east from those events. To be fair, however, Conquest does not exclude the importance of religious fanaticism, but is not focused on Islam. He discusses various possibilities for improving transnational order, such as through the enhancement of the European Union or a reshaping of the Atlantic Alliance. He anticipates problems with Putin's Russia due to the expansion of Nato and the anti-Russian motivations for such expansions. He is not positive towards the EU and more positive towards enhancements of aliiances among Britain, the Commonwealth, and the US. On these chapters, the weakness is that is disavows any real consideration of how such enhanced institutions will even come into being - and the devil is in the details. His is more interested in cultivating a widely shared positive civic culture but says little about the organizational and institutional basis on which this must occur. He is also fairly thin on economics and globalization. His chapter on the lasting effects of empire is good, but does not really get into globalization issues.
Overall, given when this was written, this remains a valuable book by a very perceptive historian.
June 15, 2024
This book, it seems, is split into two halves that intertwine throughout the material. One half is the information that the author acquired through countless hours of research throughout his life. The other half, however, is the point the author is trying to prove.
If this was a school essay (not omitting that the book is probably the result of countless, highly proficient essays), it would be an Argumentative Essay claiming that the reason for all of the dictatorships of the 20th century were created by hypocritical Communist ideas. Towards the end of the text, there were desires for international unity between the U.S.A., Great Britain, the European Union, and other "Western" nations. (Seeing as how this book was published a year before 9/11, there really was national unity after all - be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!)
Even though the book also omits the problems with capitalism, there are just as immeasurable problems with it, such as South Korea, which has merely been referenced as a country with less infant deaths and higher living quality than North Korea. (More errors of the book can be found by observing the K-Pop industry, and China's censorship of U.S. movies.
However, no one knew about that in 2000, anyway.
Edit: This whole review is, to me, stupid and outdated.
September 25, 2011
Fascinating, but for me also a reflection of how dated the big Ideas of the early 20th century truly seem today. The propensity for self deception is ofcourse great, but communism is now basically a joke. Its incredible past power and continuing hold on some minds shows the incredible need for all to find "something" to believe in. Especially interesting is how intelligentsia was always a dirty word, and with reason. I found the last two chapters on the EU really interesting, because Conquest explains why it will not work from the cultural and civic angle that I have not seen explained so well previously. This book is a very good reminder to be truly critical and open minded - be clear headed about your motivations and about what you see.
September 18, 2012
Un libro a tratti insopportabile, provocatorio, fazioso. Tuttavia se affrontato con spirito critico aiuta molto a rompere con il pensiero forte novecentesco. Un libro su quella che Vattimo chiama la "violenza della metafisica".
Ah, su una cosa ci ha azzeccato: sulla fragilità dell'unione europea, "costruita per motivi ideologici". Tuttavia è palese: gli è andata di culo, perché prevede la crisi ma non le sue cause. Anzi, al contrario: l'Europa tiene perché tutti sono fermamente (ideologicamente?) convinti che sia indispensabile.
Ah, su una cosa ci ha azzeccato: sulla fragilità dell'unione europea, "costruita per motivi ideologici". Tuttavia è palese: gli è andata di culo, perché prevede la crisi ma non le sue cause. Anzi, al contrario: l'Europa tiene perché tutti sono fermamente (ideologicamente?) convinti che sia indispensabile.
Read
July 28, 2011The distinguished and prolific historian combines his considerable knowledge of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in an analytical treatise on how radical "ideas" can, and were, failures on a grand scale. The reification of the abstracts "Marxism" and "National Socialism" into working, material practice, caused nearly incomprehensible social catastrophe.
Currently reading
September 17, 2014ok
April 12, 2016
A conservative manifesto by the one-time advisor and speech writer to Margaret Thatcher.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews