A helpful insight into the mind of a Communist/Marxist, 14 Oct 2008
Although only 40 pages long, you get an insight into the way that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels felt about the world they lived in and how it could change for the greater good (in their opinion anyway). I do encourage anyone with even a minor interest in European politics, to give this book a try.

Even though I was fascinated by the two authors ideology (Ultimately, the hope that a Proletariat will rise to conquer the all-oppressing Bourgeoise, in every country) I do feel that they did not make clear any kind of policies that they would enforce after they took power. All it seems is that they want to get the oppressers out, but after that they don't seem to know what they want to do (despite destroying any kind of private property and attempting to establish an equalised economy, which is mentioned countless times within the Manifesto). This failure to think of anything else may be one of the reasons why Communism failed so miserably in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that the theory of Communism is the greatest piece of political thought. It's just that when it is put not practive, it all goes horribly wrong. Communists (including Marx and Engels) seem to feel that everyone will just see that their ideology is the best, agree with them and allow them to do whatever they like. Marx and Engels fail to comprehend that not all humans think and feel about the world like they do, when people reach the top, they are corrupted by power and then their greed is all they care about (take Joseph Stalin as an example). It does seem that the authors are hoping for a bit much. I also found it funny near the end when they spoke of the "imminent" Proletariat uprising in Germany and that Communists should mainly focus on that country so that it could be taken from the Bourgeoise, when not even 100 years later we all know who was in charge of Germany. Definately not a friend of the Proletariat.

Overall, I found it to be a fascinating read, and credit to the well thought out introduction, which gave more imformation on the origins of Communism and the backgrounds of Marx and Engels. I recommend this book to everyone.


The introduction alone is worth your money, 01 Aug 2008
I will leave others to debate the relative merits of the actual Manifesto and say a couple of words about the introduction because the product distinction - criminally - doesn't seem to mention it. Gareth Stedman-Jones' introduction is a book in itself, longer than the Manifesto and an excellent and absolutely compelling introduction to the intellectual and historical context. By framing the intellectual debates of the Young Hegelians and others in a rich historical narrative Stedman-Jones makes them positively fascinating! He tells the story of the life of the young Karl Marx and describes his interactions with the intellectuals of the time, showing that Marx borrowed pretty much every element of his early (more philsophical) work from those around him but that his particular genius was to combine them all in such original formations. He even throws in a bit of completely original research about why Marx shied away from making his call for socialism a moral imperative (it was radical egoist Stirner's influence apparently). Its a hell of a lot of knowledge crammed into a very small space in a fascinating and readable manner and will double your appreciation and understanding of the Manifesto itself. All in all: if your trying to work out which edition to buy - get this one for the intro!

The Communist Manifesto - still relevent, 30 Jul 2008
After the Berlin wall fell, the so-called "communism" that "Marx envisioned" fell with it. Or so we are told. In actuality the class struggle that Marx wrote about in this booklet is still alive and kicking. The proletariat is still, according to Mr. Marx, destined to overthrow the bourgeoisie, fulfilling its' historical role. But we are told "No"; capitalism is the answer to all our problems now, it offers us democracy and freedom. Nothing could be father from the truth. In fact, capitalism doesn't work at all for the majority of the world's people: it is a grotesque caricature of freedom that Marx understood exactly. The victory of the individual comes with the destruction, the mass overthrow of capitalism. Do not let the likes of Firedman and others fool you. Serfdom already exists; the Soviet Union and others were just as fake as capitalism, and, as Marx pointed out "The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class".

This is not a manifesto like the Labour Part has a manifesto. It is a philosophical document that is invaluable to the labout movement and to working people worldwide.

Future prospects, 28 May 2008
Read this in context and as of its time. It's a Manifesto, just as Labour or the Conservarives or George Bush put out party manifestos at each election (or at least they did when they at least pretended to have policies and an idiology that went beyong simply making the world safe for the rich to get richer).

It's an election leaflet, party rallying call and outline of policies all in one. And what is the message? You poor take courage, you rich take heed...the World Turned Upside Down (where the rich and powerful become equal to the rest of us) is dawning. As a Socialist Party member that is this reviewers life work.



This edition has the greatest literary introduction ever, 16 Sep 2007
Greatest explanatory introduction ever, in fact could be as important or good as the book itself, really does Engels justice.

A helpful insight into the mind of a Communist/Marxist, 14 Oct 2008
Although only 40 pages long, you get an insight into the way that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels felt about the world they lived in and how it could change for the greater good (in their opinion anyway). I do encourage anyone with even a minor interest in European politics, to give this book a try.

Even though I was fascinated by the two authors ideology (Ultimately, the hope that a Proletariat will rise to conquer the all-oppressing Bourgeoise, in every country) I do feel that they did not make clear any kind of policies that they would enforce after they took power. All it seems is that they want to get the oppressers out, but after that they don't seem to know what they want to do (despite destroying any kind of private property and attempting to establish an equalised economy, which is mentioned countless times within the Manifesto). This failure to think of anything else may be one of the reasons why Communism failed so miserably in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that the theory of Communism is the greatest piece of political thought. It's just that when it is put not practive, it all goes horribly wrong. Communists (including Marx and Engels) seem to feel that everyone will just see that their ideology is the best, agree with them and allow them to do whatever they like. Marx and Engels fail to comprehend that not all humans think and feel about the world like they do, when people reach the top, they are corrupted by power and then their greed is all they care about (take Joseph Stalin as an example). It does seem that the authors are hoping for a bit much. I also found it funny near the end when they spoke of the "imminent" Proletariat uprising in Germany and that Communists should mainly focus on that country so that it could be taken from the Bourgeoise, when not even 100 years later we all know who was in charge of Germany. Definately not a friend of the Proletariat.

Overall, I found it to be a fascinating read, and credit to the well thought out introduction, which gave more imformation on the origins of Communism and the backgrounds of Marx and Engels. I recommend this book to everyone.


The introduction alone is worth your money, 01 Aug 2008
I will leave others to debate the relative merits of the actual Manifesto and say a couple of words about the introduction because the product distinction - criminally - doesn't seem to mention it. Gareth Stedman-Jones' introduction is a book in itself, longer than the Manifesto and an excellent and absolutely compelling introduction to the intellectual and historical context. By framing the intellectual debates of the Young Hegelians and others in a rich historical narrative Stedman-Jones makes them positively fascinating! He tells the story of the life of the young Karl Marx and describes his interactions with the intellectuals of the time, showing that Marx borrowed pretty much every element of his early (more philsophical) work from those around him but that his particular genius was to combine them all in such original formations. He even throws in a bit of completely original research about why Marx shied away from making his call for socialism a moral imperative (it was radical egoist Stirner's influence apparently). Its a hell of a lot of knowledge crammed into a very small space in a fascinating and readable manner and will double your appreciation and understanding of the Manifesto itself. All in all: if your trying to work out which edition to buy - get this one for the intro!

The Communist Manifesto - still relevent, 30 Jul 2008
After the Berlin wall fell, the so-called "communism" that "Marx envisioned" fell with it. Or so we are told. In actuality the class struggle that Marx wrote about in this booklet is still alive and kicking. The proletariat is still, according to Mr. Marx, destined to overthrow the bourgeoisie, fulfilling its' historical role. But we are told "No"; capitalism is the answer to all our problems now, it offers us democracy and freedom. Nothing could be father from the truth. In fact, capitalism doesn't work at all for the majority of the world's people: it is a grotesque caricature of freedom that Marx understood exactly. The victory of the individual comes with the destruction, the mass overthrow of capitalism. Do not let the likes of Firedman and others fool you. Serfdom already exists; the Soviet Union and others were just as fake as capitalism, and, as Marx pointed out "The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class".

This is not a manifesto like the Labour Part has a manifesto. It is a philosophical document that is invaluable to the labout movement and to working people worldwide.

Future prospects, 28 May 2008
Read this in context and as of its time. It's a Manifesto, just as Labour or the Conservarives or George Bush put out party manifestos at each election (or at least they did when they at least pretended to have policies and an idiology that went beyong simply making the world safe for the rich to get richer).

It's an election leaflet, party rallying call and outline of policies all in one. And what is the message? You poor take courage, you rich take heed...the World Turned Upside Down (where the rich and powerful become equal to the rest of us) is dawning. As a Socialist Party member that is this reviewers life work.



This edition has the greatest literary introduction ever, 16 Sep 2007
Greatest explanatory introduction ever, in fact could be as important or good as the book itself, really does Engels justice.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

John Boyne's The Boy in Striped Pyjamas will no doubt acquire many readers as a result of the subsequent film of the novel, but viewers of the latter would do themselves a favour by going back to the spare and powerfully affecting original book. Bruno is nine years old, and the Nazis’ horrific Final Solution to the ‘Jewish Problem’ means nothing to him. He's completely unaware of the barbarity of Germany under Hitler, and is more concerned by his move from his well-appointed house in Berlin to a far less salubrious area where he finds himself with nothing to do. Then he meets a boy called Shmuel who lives a very different life from him -- a life on the opposite side of a wire fence. And Shmuel is the eponymous boy in the striped pyjamas, as are all the other people on the other side of the fence. The friendship between the two boys begins to grow, but for Bruno it is a journey from blissful ignorance to a painful knowledge. And he will find that this learning process carries, for him, a daunting price.

A legion of books have attempted to evoke the horrors of the Second World War, but in this concise and perfectly honed novel, all of the effects that John Boyne creates are allowed to make a maximum impact in a relatively understated fashion (given the enormity of the situation here). The Boy in Striped Pyjamas is also that rare thing: a novel which can affect both children and adults equally; a worthy successor, in fact, to such masterpieces as To Kill a Mockingbird and The Catcher in the Rye -- both, of course, books, dealing (as does this one) with the loss of innocence. --Barry Forshaw

A helpful insight into the mind of a Communist/Marxist, 14 Oct 2008
Although only 40 pages long, you get an insight into the way that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels felt about the world they lived in and how it could change for the greater good (in their opinion anyway). I do encourage anyone with even a minor interest in European politics, to give this book a try.

Even though I was fascinated by the two authors ideology (Ultimately, the hope that a Proletariat will rise to conquer the all-oppressing Bourgeoise, in every country) I do feel that they did not make clear any kind of policies that they would enforce after they took power. All it seems is that they want to get the oppressers out, but after that they don't seem to know what they want to do (despite destroying any kind of private property and attempting to establish an equalised economy, which is mentioned countless times within the Manifesto). This failure to think of anything else may be one of the reasons why Communism failed so miserably in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that the theory of Communism is the greatest piece of political thought. It's just that when it is put not practive, it all goes horribly wrong. Communists (including Marx and Engels) seem to feel that everyone will just see that their ideology is the best, agree with them and allow them to do whatever they like. Marx and Engels fail to comprehend that not all humans think and feel about the world like they do, when people reach the top, they are corrupted by power and then their greed is all they care about (take Joseph Stalin as an example). It does seem that the authors are hoping for a bit much. I also found it funny near the end when they spoke of the "imminent" Proletariat uprising in Germany and that Communists should mainly focus on that country so that it could be taken from the Bourgeoise, when not even 100 years later we all know who was in charge of Germany. Definately not a friend of the Proletariat.

Overall, I found it to be a fascinating read, and credit to the well thought out introduction, which gave more imformation on the origins of Communism and the backgrounds of Marx and Engels. I recommend this book to everyone.


The introduction alone is worth your money, 01 Aug 2008
I will leave others to debate the relative merits of the actual Manifesto and say a couple of words about the introduction because the product distinction - criminally - doesn't seem to mention it. Gareth Stedman-Jones' introduction is a book in itself, longer than the Manifesto and an excellent and absolutely compelling introduction to the intellectual and historical context. By framing the intellectual debates of the Young Hegelians and others in a rich historical narrative Stedman-Jones makes them positively fascinating! He tells the story of the life of the young Karl Marx and describes his interactions with the intellectuals of the time, showing that Marx borrowed pretty much every element of his early (more philsophical) work from those around him but that his particular genius was to combine them all in such original formations. He even throws in a bit of completely original research about why Marx shied away from making his call for socialism a moral imperative (it was radical egoist Stirner's influence apparently). Its a hell of a lot of knowledge crammed into a very small space in a fascinating and readable manner and will double your appreciation and understanding of the Manifesto itself. All in all: if your trying to work out which edition to buy - get this one for the intro!

The Communist Manifesto - still relevent, 30 Jul 2008
After the Berlin wall fell, the so-called "communism" that "Marx envisioned" fell with it. Or so we are told. In actuality the class struggle that Marx wrote about in this booklet is still alive and kicking. The proletariat is still, according to Mr. Marx, destined to overthrow the bourgeoisie, fulfilling its' historical role. But we are told "No"; capitalism is the answer to all our problems now, it offers us democracy and freedom. Nothing could be father from the truth. In fact, capitalism doesn't work at all for the majority of the world's people: it is a grotesque caricature of freedom that Marx understood exactly. The victory of the individual comes with the destruction, the mass overthrow of capitalism. Do not let the likes of Firedman and others fool you. Serfdom already exists; the Soviet Union and others were just as fake as capitalism, and, as Marx pointed out "The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class".

This is not a manifesto like the Labour Part has a manifesto. It is a philosophical document that is invaluable to the labout movement and to working people worldwide.

Future prospects, 28 May 2008
Read this in context and as of its time. It's a Manifesto, just as Labour or the Conservarives or George Bush put out party manifestos at each election (or at least they did when they at least pretended to have policies and an idiology that went beyong simply making the world safe for the rich to get richer).

It's an election leaflet, party rallying call and outline of policies all in one. And what is the message? You poor take courage, you rich take heed...the World Turned Upside Down (where the rich and powerful become equal to the rest of us) is dawning. As a Socialist Party member that is this reviewers life work.



This edition has the greatest literary introduction ever, 16 Sep 2007
Greatest explanatory introduction ever, in fact could be as important or good as the book itself, really does Engels justice.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

Some wry irony but a little lightweight for the subject , 17 Nov 2008
This is a very simply written short novel describing Auschwitz from the perspective of a nine year old boy. The writing is clear and very easy to read, divided into short chapters, some wry irony throughout. However, I personally felt that the naivety of the boy was somewhat overplayed: would a nine year old really be so unaware? Some of the boy's language and mispronounciation producing puns that only work in English, such as 'Fury' and 'Out with', I found a bit contrived and the constant repetition began to grate. I'm not sure I could really believe the storyline, although the ironic impact of the ending was strong. It provided a much lighter treatment of the subject than offered by Primo Levi and Ken Keneally for example, but because of this the book is somewhat lightweight and lacking impact. However, it is still an easy and thoughtful read.

Just read it, 15 Nov 2008
I'm going to keep this review simple: just read this book. Do yourself a favour, and grab it before the story is ruined by any movie trailers/previews etc...

I too finished the book in 2 days, and will risk spoiling a lot by mentioning anything other than it's about the holocaust, and a friendship between two young boys. AMAZING STUFF.

The Boy In Striped Pyjammas, 15 Nov 2008
I was reccomended this book by a friend who's really in to books set during wartimes. We don't often find that we like the same stories as i'm more in to thrillers and fantasy. However, I gave the book a shot and I'm glad I did. It was a very easy read but i think that made the story all that more effective. The narrotor, you see, is a young boy and the great saddness of his story and his time is intensified when seen through his naive eyes.

This book is one which leaves the reader stunned, thinking for a long while after, moved and leaking tears.

I reccomend that you read it and, if you like it, read 'The Book Thief'. Another book I was advised to read, by my Grandad this time, and found it so unbelievably detailed, passionately written, effective, and movcing that i was blubbering for days.

Laura Gray, 15.


Absorbing yet inplausible, 13 Nov 2008
I found it hard to believe that a child of Bruno's age could be so unaware of what was taking place in Nazi Germany. He seemed to have never noticed Jews wearing the Stars of David on the streets, nor even to have heard the word Jew until he hears it from Shmuel. He meets Adolf Hitler and is underwhelmed by him. Given that his father is a high-ranking official in the Nazi regime this seems unlikely and it somewhat undermined the book's credibility for me.

Also the fact that he befriends Shmuel for over a year is a farce. Any one who has studied the Holocaust knows that Jewish children were killed as soon as they entered the concentration camps.

Nevertheless, it is an absorbing book to read. The ending brutal. Throughout the book you know that this story cannot end happily and you are steeling yourself for various outcomes. Having said that, I didn't see the one that came... and it hit me hard!!

This is a quick and easy book to read, but I don't think I will forget it easily.

Boy in the striped Pyjamas, 13 Nov 2008
Unfortunatley, I have not been gifted with the best imagination and therefore often lose interest in many books I read. Not in this case I could not put it down. I loved it from page one. It was written so brilliantly through the eyes of this innocent young boy and yet leaving you under no illusions as to what exactly is going on. I have already passed it on to 3 of my friends who have all loved it as much as I have. Definately the best book I have read. Best read without finding out any information on the book or storyline allowing you to take this journey with Bruno with no preconceptions. The Film based on the book recently released comes nowhere close to the greatness of this book, do not see it first!

A helpful insight into the mind of a Communist/Marxist, 14 Oct 2008
Although only 40 pages long, you get an insight into the way that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels felt about the world they lived in and how it could change for the greater good (in their opinion anyway). I do encourage anyone with even a minor interest in European politics, to give this book a try.

Even though I was fascinated by the two authors ideology (Ultimately, the hope that a Proletariat will rise to conquer the all-oppressing Bourgeoise, in every country) I do feel that they did not make clear any kind of policies that they would enforce after they took power. All it seems is that they want to get the oppressers out, but after that they don't seem to know what they want to do (despite destroying any kind of private property and attempting to establish an equalised economy, which is mentioned countless times within the Manifesto). This failure to think of anything else may be one of the reasons why Communism failed so miserably in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that the theory of Communism is the greatest piece of political thought. It's just that when it is put not practive, it all goes horribly wrong. Communists (including Marx and Engels) seem to feel that everyone will just see that their ideology is the best, agree with them and allow them to do whatever they like. Marx and Engels fail to comprehend that not all humans think and feel about the world like they do, when people reach the top, they are corrupted by power and then their greed is all they care about (take Joseph Stalin as an example). It does seem that the authors are hoping for a bit much. I also found it funny near the end when they spoke of the "imminent" Proletariat uprising in Germany and that Communists should mainly focus on that country so that it could be taken from the Bourgeoise, when not even 100 years later we all know who was in charge of Germany. Definately not a friend of the Proletariat.

Overall, I found it to be a fascinating read, and credit to the well thought out introduction, which gave more imformation on the origins of Communism and the backgrounds of Marx and Engels. I recommend this book to everyone.


The introduction alone is worth your money, 01 Aug 2008
I will leave others to debate the relative merits of the actual Manifesto and say a couple of words about the introduction because the product distinction - criminally - doesn't seem to mention it. Gareth Stedman-Jones' introduction is a book in itself, longer than the Manifesto and an excellent and absolutely compelling introduction to the intellectual and historical context. By framing the intellectual debates of the Young Hegelians and others in a rich historical narrative Stedman-Jones makes them positively fascinating! He tells the story of the life of the young Karl Marx and describes his interactions with the intellectuals of the time, showing that Marx borrowed pretty much every element of his early (more philsophical) work from those around him but that his particular genius was to combine them all in such original formations. He even throws in a bit of completely original research about why Marx shied away from making his call for socialism a moral imperative (it was radical egoist Stirner's influence apparently). Its a hell of a lot of knowledge crammed into a very small space in a fascinating and readable manner and will double your appreciation and understanding of the Manifesto itself. All in all: if your trying to work out which edition to buy - get this one for the intro!

The Communist Manifesto - still relevent, 30 Jul 2008
After the Berlin wall fell, the so-called "communism" that "Marx envisioned" fell with it. Or so we are told. In actuality the class struggle that Marx wrote about in this booklet is still alive and kicking. The proletariat is still, according to Mr. Marx, destined to overthrow the bourgeoisie, fulfilling its' historical role. But we are told "No"; capitalism is the answer to all our problems now, it offers us democracy and freedom. Nothing could be father from the truth. In fact, capitalism doesn't work at all for the majority of the world's people: it is a grotesque caricature of freedom that Marx understood exactly. The victory of the individual comes with the destruction, the mass overthrow of capitalism. Do not let the likes of Firedman and others fool you. Serfdom already exists; the Soviet Union and others were just as fake as capitalism, and, as Marx pointed out "The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class".

This is not a manifesto like the Labour Part has a manifesto. It is a philosophical document that is invaluable to the labout movement and to working people worldwide.

Future prospects, 28 May 2008
Read this in context and as of its time. It's a Manifesto, just as Labour or the Conservarives or George Bush put out party manifestos at each election (or at least they did when they at least pretended to have policies and an idiology that went beyong simply making the world safe for the rich to get richer).

It's an election leaflet, party rallying call and outline of policies all in one. And what is the message? You poor take courage, you rich take heed...the World Turned Upside Down (where the rich and powerful become equal to the rest of us) is dawning. As a Socialist Party member that is this reviewers life work.



This edition has the greatest literary introduction ever, 16 Sep 2007
Greatest explanatory introduction ever, in fact could be as important or good as the book itself, really does Engels justice.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

Some wry irony but a little lightweight for the subject , 17 Nov 2008
This is a very simply written short novel describing Auschwitz from the perspective of a nine year old boy. The writing is clear and very easy to read, divided into short chapters, some wry irony throughout. However, I personally felt that the naivety of the boy was somewhat overplayed: would a nine year old really be so unaware? Some of the boy's language and mispronounciation producing puns that only work in English, such as 'Fury' and 'Out with', I found a bit contrived and the constant repetition began to grate. I'm not sure I could really believe the storyline, although the ironic impact of the ending was strong. It provided a much lighter treatment of the subject than offered by Primo Levi and Ken Keneally for example, but because of this the book is somewhat lightweight and lacking impact. However, it is still an easy and thoughtful read.

Just read it, 15 Nov 2008
I'm going to keep this review simple: just read this book. Do yourself a favour, and grab it before the story is ruined by any movie trailers/previews etc...

I too finished the book in 2 days, and will risk spoiling a lot by mentioning anything other than it's about the holocaust, and a friendship between two young boys. AMAZING STUFF.

The Boy In Striped Pyjammas, 15 Nov 2008
I was reccomended this book by a friend who's really in to books set during wartimes. We don't often find that we like the same stories as i'm more in to thrillers and fantasy. However, I gave the book a shot and I'm glad I did. It was a very easy read but i think that made the story all that more effective. The narrotor, you see, is a young boy and the great saddness of his story and his time is intensified when seen through his naive eyes.

This book is one which leaves the reader stunned, thinking for a long while after, moved and leaking tears.

I reccomend that you read it and, if you like it, read 'The Book Thief'. Another book I was advised to read, by my Grandad this time, and found it so unbelievably detailed, passionately written, effective, and movcing that i was blubbering for days.

Laura Gray, 15.


Absorbing yet inplausible, 13 Nov 2008
I found it hard to believe that a child of Bruno's age could be so unaware of what was taking place in Nazi Germany. He seemed to have never noticed Jews wearing the Stars of David on the streets, nor even to have heard the word Jew until he hears it from Shmuel. He meets Adolf Hitler and is underwhelmed by him. Given that his father is a high-ranking official in the Nazi regime this seems unlikely and it somewhat undermined the book's credibility for me.

Also the fact that he befriends Shmuel for over a year is a farce. Any one who has studied the Holocaust knows that Jewish children were killed as soon as they entered the concentration camps.

Nevertheless, it is an absorbing book to read. The ending brutal. Throughout the book you know that this story cannot end happily and you are steeling yourself for various outcomes. Having said that, I didn't see the one that came... and it hit me hard!!

This is a quick and easy book to read, but I don't think I will forget it easily.

Boy in the striped Pyjamas, 13 Nov 2008
Unfortunatley, I have not been gifted with the best imagination and therefore often lose interest in many books I read. Not in this case I could not put it down. I loved it from page one. It was written so brilliantly through the eyes of this innocent young boy and yet leaving you under no illusions as to what exactly is going on. I have already passed it on to 3 of my friends who have all loved it as much as I have. Definately the best book I have read. Best read without finding out any information on the book or storyline allowing you to take this journey with Bruno with no preconceptions. The Film based on the book recently released comes nowhere close to the greatness of this book, do not see it first!

magnificient documentary and close analysis, but..., 30 Sep 2008
This is an excellent book, with a qualifying 'but'. If you want to understand the dynamic of 'Hitlers Empire', how it developed and collapsed, and the details of its particular favour of genocidal gangsterism, then this will satisfy all the curiosity you have, and then some. My only complain about the main content is that it is a bit short on personalities (though this may be an unavoidable problem - the focus of the book is, after all, on process and governance). You get little real feel for the _people_ who did all this. Mazower does not mention anyone having nightmares, or developing a drink problem (lots of people are mentioned as having drinking problems, but only for the usual, soap-opera sort of reasons, not because of a day job in the mass murder business), but there must have been some. Neither does he really give you a feel for the different sorts of people involved: it is difficult to differentiate the knuckle-draggers from the Schubert fans. I would have liked to learn more about the intellectuals, but they don't get much coverage (there is surely a good book there, in fact).

The problems start to appear when Mazower moves from documentary and close analysis to interpretive framework. His major theses - there are two - are familiar, but much enlarged from the core of his earlier 'Dark Continent': first that the Nazis were the culmination of the process of ethnic cleansing and national consolidation that completely restructured Europe in the 20th C., and second that what was new about them is really only that they did to _europeans_ what european colonial powers had been doing to non-europeans for centuries - this is some sort of variation on the old A.J.P. Taylor position. I have no problem with the first thesis, but I don't buy the second. Paul Schroeder has argued that Napoleon was the first to give Europeans a taste of what being on the object, rather than the subject side of the verb 'to colonize' meant, and my impression is that Napoleon's version was probably closer most of the time (though, note - and it is certainly germane - Napoleon's version was not very nice either). Yes, there were times and places that were like the Ukraine (the Belgian Congo, for instance) but not in general. And when Mazower tries to argue otherwise, his prose is littered with the tells characteristic of someone trying to hammer historical facts into an ideologically conditioned prior. For instance he tends to move smoothly from 'there exists' to 'for all' far too easily (minor example that comes to mind: the true observation that some Ukrainian post-war exiles were nasty pieces of work morphs slopily into a remark that vaguely implies that the post-war Ukraininan exile community in the 'States consisted solely of genocidal gangsters imported by the CIA). He writes, in the conclusion, presumably thinking of the British 'if they lacked the ideology and the resources to systematize mass killing on the scale of the New Order, they also lacked the fundamental sense of urgency'. I like the implication of that: as if the major reason why the Brits didn't try to recycle the population of India into lampshades was that they didn't have a good management consultant on the job (I somehow get the impression that Mazower doesn't like management consultants either). It is hard to square Mazower's basic argument with, for instance, Burke's impeachment of Warren Hastings; that Burke could do this, even if he eventually failed, suggests a whole bunch of moral and legal assumptions about what you could do out in the colonies that didn't apply in the Nazi case. How - why? - would anybody have impeached Erich Koch? There is also the secondary point that, in the end, Warren Hastings was no Erich Koch.

The reality is that Hitler (together with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other lovables) was a phenomenon unique to the 20th C. and Mazower, in spite of his ambition otherwise, convincingly shows this. It's more than enough of an achievement.

Excellent, 26 Aug 2008
This is a first class book which allows a comparative reading of the Nazi occupation of different countries of Europe. What it really shows is the difficulty of trying to see Nazi occupation as a monolith. In reality the practice pursued in the different occupied countries varied enormously- according to which German administration was dominant in the occupied country, according to Nazi stereotypes of each country and what they hoped to achieved from occupying it, according to how the population of each country responded, not forgetting that Nazi occupations generally became more severe with time. A complex history but well worth reading about.

Britain colonized India, Germany colonized Europe. Europeans didn't like the taste of their own medicine, 01 Aug 2008
It's easy to work out if you'll like this book. The subject is, how did Nazi Germany administer and rule the countries they conquered and annexed? If you're already rolling your eyes and struggling to keep a yawn down, then clearly this book is not for you. On the other hand, if like me, you think, "wow, what an interesting subject," then you will probably like this book, and it should fulfil your expectations with ease. I only skipped about four pages about France's art scene and underground politics, and a page at the end that waffled on about the post war economy, so it's not a dull difficult to read book.

It goes into a fair amount of detail of how each country was handled differently. Eastern countries like Russia and Poland (the Nazi's took Poland off the map and renamed it the General Government) had the law revoked for their citizens and had to endure brutal regimes due to racial hatred. Western countries were usually left to administer themselves after some political purging had taken place in the civil service, and a new Nazi sympathetic Government had been put in place. The book seems to suggest that we should be thankful for bureaucracy, as it's all the legal paperwork that stops our governments from turning on its citizens - it's the countries with weak legal bureaucrats that get away with murdering and arresting people for flimsy political reasons.

There is a lot of interesting stuff about how the Wehrmacht (German army that took commands from the political leaders but were not 100% under their thumb) and the SS (I guess you could describe them as the Nazi party's army, mainly responsible for policing and racial issues) each wanted to handle things differently. The Wehrmacht, who willingly perpetrated many atrocities, at least had generals who from time to time wanted to cooperate and be nice with the locals, but the Nazi high command would always reject it and instead insist on brutal repression. In the Eastern countries the SS had a large presence, and so the Final Solution was mainly carried out in those countries were the racial hatred was at its most pronounced.

The racial prejudices of the Nazi high command is also exposed as maybe being the main weakness in their war effort. Their refusal to work with existing governments once they took over a country created great strains on the German system that couldn't be eased by using the locals. You definitely see the pointlessness and impossibility of racial segregation, and that mass murder and forced migration were desperate but unworkable solutions that were improvised on the spot. I get the sense that they got too far into the war and that they ended up chasing their own tails following racial guidelines that they quickly realised made no sense.

It's clear that if Hitler was willing to compromise a bit here and there, and didn't automatically order his people to close their hearts to pity and beat what they wanted out of others (ie. some carrot to go with the overused stick) then Germany might have had a chance of winning. If countries could have seen something good in being under German control then they might have been happy to remain as such. As there were no benefits, just an endless list of brutally applied negatives, they had to fight back. If Hitler could have been nice from time to time, who knows what the world today would be like?

It had a great review in The Spectator's book pages, 20 Jul 2008
This book had a really excellent review in the London Spectator magazine dated 5th July. It made me put this book on my wishlist. One of the central theses of the book is that the Germans themselves were surprised and unprepared for the complete collapse of their Western European enemies in 1940. Thus, there were no settled policies, and given the subjective nature of racial hatred, and the competing heirarchies of SS, the Army, Civil Service and competing Gauleiters, chaos was inevitable and, ultimately, cost Germany the war. Mythical concepts of German destiny and racial hatred prevailed over military necessity and pragmatism. Mazower quotes Goebbels saying, perhaps ironically, 'If anyone asks us how you conceive the new Europe, we have to reply that we don't know.'

Eye-Opening, 18 Jul 2008
Brilliant! This immense and wonderful book is a revelation, not just about the extraordinary state of Nazi occupied Europe but about world politics before and after.

A helpful insight into the mind of a Communist/Marxist, 14 Oct 2008
Although only 40 pages long, you get an insight into the way that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels felt about the world they lived in and how it could change for the greater good (in their opinion anyway). I do encourage anyone with even a minor interest in European politics, to give this book a try.

Even though I was fascinated by the two authors ideology (Ultimately, the hope that a Proletariat will rise to conquer the all-oppressing Bourgeoise, in every country) I do feel that they did not make clear any kind of policies that they would enforce after they took power. All it seems is that they want to get the oppressers out, but after that they don't seem to know what they want to do (despite destroying any kind of private property and attempting to establish an equalised economy, which is mentioned countless times within the Manifesto). This failure to think of anything else may be one of the reasons why Communism failed so miserably in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that the theory of Communism is the greatest piece of political thought. It's just that when it is put not practive, it all goes horribly wrong. Communists (including Marx and Engels) seem to feel that everyone will just see that their ideology is the best, agree with them and allow them to do whatever they like. Marx and Engels fail to comprehend that not all humans think and feel about the world like they do, when people reach the top, they are corrupted by power and then their greed is all they care about (take Joseph Stalin as an example). It does seem that the authors are hoping for a bit much. I also found it funny near the end when they spoke of the "imminent" Proletariat uprising in Germany and that Communists should mainly focus on that country so that it could be taken from the Bourgeoise, when not even 100 years later we all know who was in charge of Germany. Definately not a friend of the Proletariat.

Overall, I found it to be a fascinating read, and credit to the well thought out introduction, which gave more imformation on the origins of Communism and the backgrounds of Marx and Engels. I recommend this book to everyone.


The introduction alone is worth your money, 01 Aug 2008
I will leave others to debate the relative merits of the actual Manifesto and say a couple of words about the introduction because the product distinction - criminally - doesn't seem to mention it. Gareth Stedman-Jones' introduction is a book in itself, longer than the Manifesto and an excellent and absolutely compelling introduction to the intellectual and historical context. By framing the intellectual debates of the Young Hegelians and others in a rich historical narrative Stedman-Jones makes them positively fascinating! He tells the story of the life of the young Karl Marx and describes his interactions with the intellectuals of the time, showing that Marx borrowed pretty much every element of his early (more philsophical) work from those around him but that his particular genius was to combine them all in such original formations. He even throws in a bit of completely original research about why Marx shied away from making his call for socialism a moral imperative (it was radical egoist Stirner's influence apparently). Its a hell of a lot of knowledge crammed into a very small space in a fascinating and readable manner and will double your appreciation and understanding of the Manifesto itself. All in all: if your trying to work out which edition to buy - get this one for the intro!

The Communist Manifesto - still relevent, 30 Jul 2008
After the Berlin wall fell, the so-called "communism" that "Marx envisioned" fell with it. Or so we are told. In actuality the class struggle that Marx wrote about in this booklet is still alive and kicking. The proletariat is still, according to Mr. Marx, destined to overthrow the bourgeoisie, fulfilling its' historical role. But we are told "No"; capitalism is the answer to all our problems now, it offers us democracy and freedom. Nothing could be father from the truth. In fact, capitalism doesn't work at all for the majority of the world's people: it is a grotesque caricature of freedom that Marx understood exactly. The victory of the individual comes with the destruction, the mass overthrow of capitalism. Do not let the likes of Firedman and others fool you. Serfdom already exists; the Soviet Union and others were just as fake as capitalism, and, as Marx pointed out "The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class".

This is not a manifesto like the Labour Part has a manifesto. It is a philosophical document that is invaluable to the labout movement and to working people worldwide.

Future prospects, 28 May 2008
Read this in context and as of its time. It's a Manifesto, just as Labour or the Conservarives or George Bush put out party manifestos at each election (or at least they did when they at least pretended to have policies and an idiology that went beyong simply making the world safe for the rich to get richer).

It's an election leaflet, party rallying call and outline of policies all in one. And what is the message? You poor take courage, you rich take heed...the World Turned Upside Down (where the rich and powerful become equal to the rest of us) is dawning. As a Socialist Party member that is this reviewers life work.



This edition has the greatest literary introduction ever, 16 Sep 2007
Greatest explanatory introduction ever, in fact could be as important or good as the book itself, really does Engels justice.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

Some wry irony but a little lightweight for the subject , 17 Nov 2008
This is a very simply written short novel describing Auschwitz from the perspective of a nine year old boy. The writing is clear and very easy to read, divided into short chapters, some wry irony throughout. However, I personally felt that the naivety of the boy was somewhat overplayed: would a nine year old really be so unaware? Some of the boy's language and mispronounciation producing puns that only work in English, such as 'Fury' and 'Out with', I found a bit contrived and the constant repetition began to grate. I'm not sure I could really believe the storyline, although the ironic impact of the ending was strong. It provided a much lighter treatment of the subject than offered by Primo Levi and Ken Keneally for example, but because of this the book is somewhat lightweight and lacking impact. However, it is still an easy and thoughtful read.

Just read it, 15 Nov 2008
I'm going to keep this review simple: just read this book. Do yourself a favour, and grab it before the story is ruined by any movie trailers/previews etc...

I too finished the book in 2 days, and will risk spoiling a lot by mentioning anything other than it's about the holocaust, and a friendship between two young boys. AMAZING STUFF.

The Boy In Striped Pyjammas, 15 Nov 2008
I was reccomended this book by a friend who's really in to books set during wartimes. We don't often find that we like the same stories as i'm more in to thrillers and fantasy. However, I gave the book a shot and I'm glad I did. It was a very easy read but i think that made the story all that more effective. The narrotor, you see, is a young boy and the great saddness of his story and his time is intensified when seen through his naive eyes.

This book is one which leaves the reader stunned, thinking for a long while after, moved and leaking tears.

I reccomend that you read it and, if you like it, read 'The Book Thief'. Another book I was advised to read, by my Grandad this time, and found it so unbelievably detailed, passionately written, effective, and movcing that i was blubbering for days.

Laura Gray, 15.


Absorbing yet inplausible, 13 Nov 2008
I found it hard to believe that a child of Bruno's age could be so unaware of what was taking place in Nazi Germany. He seemed to have never noticed Jews wearing the Stars of David on the streets, nor even to have heard the word Jew until he hears it from Shmuel. He meets Adolf Hitler and is underwhelmed by him. Given that his father is a high-ranking official in the Nazi regime this seems unlikely and it somewhat undermined the book's credibility for me.

Also the fact that he befriends Shmuel for over a year is a farce. Any one who has studied the Holocaust knows that Jewish children were killed as soon as they entered the concentration camps.

Nevertheless, it is an absorbing book to read. The ending brutal. Throughout the book you know that this story cannot end happily and you are steeling yourself for various outcomes. Having said that, I didn't see the one that came... and it hit me hard!!

This is a quick and easy book to read, but I don't think I will forget it easily.

Boy in the striped Pyjamas, 13 Nov 2008
Unfortunatley, I have not been gifted with the best imagination and therefore often lose interest in many books I read. Not in this case I could not put it down. I loved it from page one. It was written so brilliantly through the eyes of this innocent young boy and yet leaving you under no illusions as to what exactly is going on. I have already passed it on to 3 of my friends who have all loved it as much as I have. Definately the best book I have read. Best read without finding out any information on the book or storyline allowing you to take this journey with Bruno with no preconceptions. The Film based on the book recently released comes nowhere close to the greatness of this book, do not see it first!

magnificient documentary and close analysis, but..., 30 Sep 2008
This is an excellent book, with a qualifying 'but'. If you want to understand the dynamic of 'Hitlers Empire', how it developed and collapsed, and the details of its particular favour of genocidal gangsterism, then this will satisfy all the curiosity you have, and then some. My only complain about the main content is that it is a bit short on personalities (though this may be an unavoidable problem - the focus of the book is, after all, on process and governance). You get little real feel for the _people_ who did all this. Mazower does not mention anyone having nightmares, or developing a drink problem (lots of people are mentioned as having drinking problems, but only for the usual, soap-opera sort of reasons, not because of a day job in the mass murder business), but there must have been some. Neither does he really give you a feel for the different sorts of people involved: it is difficult to differentiate the knuckle-draggers from the Schubert fans. I would have liked to learn more about the intellectuals, but they don't get much coverage (there is surely a good book there, in fact).

The problems start to appear when Mazower moves from documentary and close analysis to interpretive framework. His major theses - there are two - are familiar, but much enlarged from the core of his earlier 'Dark Continent': first that the Nazis were the culmination of the process of ethnic cleansing and national consolidation that completely restructured Europe in the 20th C., and second that what was new about them is really only that they did to _europeans_ what european colonial powers had been doing to non-europeans for centuries - this is some sort of variation on the old A.J.P. Taylor position. I have no problem with the first thesis, but I don't buy the second. Paul Schroeder has argued that Napoleon was the first to give Europeans a taste of what being on the object, rather than the subject side of the verb 'to colonize' meant, and my impression is that Napoleon's version was probably closer most of the time (though, note - and it is certainly germane - Napoleon's version was not very nice either). Yes, there were times and places that were like the Ukraine (the Belgian Congo, for instance) but not in general. And when Mazower tries to argue otherwise, his prose is littered with the tells characteristic of someone trying to hammer historical facts into an ideologically conditioned prior. For instance he tends to move smoothly from 'there exists' to 'for all' far too easily (minor example that comes to mind: the true observation that some Ukrainian post-war exiles were nasty pieces of work morphs slopily into a remark that vaguely implies that the post-war Ukraininan exile community in the 'States consisted solely of genocidal gangsters imported by the CIA). He writes, in the conclusion, presumably thinking of the British 'if they lacked the ideology and the resources to systematize mass killing on the scale of the New Order, they also lacked the fundamental sense of urgency'. I like the implication of that: as if the major reason why the Brits didn't try to recycle the population of India into lampshades was that they didn't have a good management consultant on the job (I somehow get the impression that Mazower doesn't like management cons