Mazower and the evolution of EuropeWatershed: "an event or period marking a turning point in a situation" - oxford dictionaries.1940s = a watershed moment?Criticisms:Mazower in this book is too Eurocentric and disregards the importance of decolonisation, the role of the USA for exaple, Europe had dominated the first half of the century perhaps, and however its role united in the second half of the 20th century had declinedDemocracy: With the ends of the ancien regime, "politicians promised the masses, enfranchised and mobilized as never before, a fairer society and a state of their own" (preface x). These perceptions of a new society differed, with Wilson who preached a world "safe for democracy" - liberal democracy, communism and fascism. In this sense there is disunity in Europe between states, and societies. Definition of empire is questioned Mazower points out correctly that USSR switched to capitalism not democracy therefore the disbandment of the Soviet Union was a not a win for liberal democracy - USSR's disunion also starts off the rebirth of nationalism in Europe, as well as class and religious tension which is indicated through the Yugoslavian Wars. In these wars there was racial and religious tension between the Bosnian Serbians and Bosnian Muslin Serbs and Croats. The nations who split up from the Soviet Union also had to rediscover national identity. Most assume that fascism and totalitarianism was something that slipped in out of error, and was an outlier but it was in fact democracy which was an outlier. Mazower shows that "liberal democracy was not universally accepted as the normal and natural form of government in 20th century Europe, and that fascism and Nazism were not simply aberrant deviations in otherwise steady growth of democracy" Bojan BugaricThere was actual competition between Nazism, facism and socialism and liberalism. Europeans accept democracy because they no longer believe in politics. (pg 404 - Mazower)The military combat of fascism showed the weakness of fascism to the public The fall of Communism according to Mazower was due to a loss of credibility due to economic failure rather than nationalist ideology. Comparison with other authors:Hobsbawn indicates that state socialism failed due to the fact that it didn't stick to the socialism vision it claimed to uphold, state socialism dispensed the democratic element of the socialist vision, e.g. Lenin said "from the start that the liberal horse was not a runner in the russian revolutionary race" (pg 58 age of extremes). According to Hobsbawn, socialism failed due to "...hardly anyone believed in the system or felt any loyalty to it, not even those who governed it." p488, age of extremes, whereas Mazower thinks that it was mainly a result of the weakness of the party rather than the strength of the opposition. Perhaps there is a correlation between the weaknesses of belief in the party. Due to the fact that no one believed it, it soon became weak. This is much like democracy in the interwar period where it did not thrive due to the lack of belief in the political system.Hobsbawn quotes that the popular appeal of fascism lay with its claims to technocratic achievement: "Was not the proverbial argument in favour of fascist Italy that 'Mussolini made the trains run on time'?" The Russian revolution showed that "capitalism had proved far easier to overthrow where it was weak or barely existed than in its heartlands." The Age of Extremes, p.82Future: The EU may be the only viable option for the foreseeable future, but Mazower sagely states that its significance will be economic rather than political or cultural, and must be placed in the context of global economy and shifting centres of world power (408-10).