A breezy history that confidently speeds through prehistory through roman influence, skips the carolingians, dips into the HRE and Teutonic Order and then grinds to a halt around the 1800s to develop a thesis about the horrible Prussian influence on the German soul, the impact of which not only results in WWI but is to blame for WWII and the lingering effects of which still resonate today. That latter point is what gets the most criticism in an otherwise pretty good speedrun. We get some postwar Germany and reunification as well. The very end is the most political as it relates to current world issues (Merkel, migration and AfD) and your opinion on that breaks by how much you agree with the author's take on said events. It's at least up to date, where a safer approach might have been to leave the narrative somewhere after reunification. ( )

Great short book which takes a very long term approach to history, essentially Charlemagne to the present. There is the real Germany, the south and west, at the heart of Europe. Then there is the east, dominated by Prussia and battling/cooperating with Slavs, Russia and the east. Latter is like the American old south, and he argues that tht needs to be understood and patiently tolerated. It won't change. Hitler's power, like the Junkers, lay on the east. ( )

Recommended ( )

Sparse smatterings of interesting facts intertwined with large sections of total hyperbole and bias. This is not a history book, rather an opinion piece on why Catholicism is the greatest thing to happen to Europe, whilst the 'barbaric' east Germans have always held it back. Perhaps if the author consistently took the same magnifying glass to the corruption and misgivings of West Germany, then perhaps the book would be slightly more rounded and balanced. There are some topics which display a total lack of understanding, and to be honest I struggled to read on past the misinformed part about Hegel. The conclusion also seemed off-kilter, is the author suggesting that East Germany be turned into an independent state just to save Europe? However, the author has excellent prose and can be funny at points, it's just a shame that this book reads more like a Dailymail-does-history opinion piece. ( )

Clearly written, easy to follow, enjoyable to read. My one complaint is that the maps were nearly illegible because the font was minuscule and only supposedly-different shades of grey were used. ( )

I found it quite strange which parts of history the author emphasized, and which parts he skipped. Apparently, the two world wars did not bear mentioning.
The author tries to paint a very pointed west-vs-east map of Germany. I'm sure he has a point, but it does not seem to be the whole truth.
This is particularly noticeable in his summary of the more recent events, which seem particularly single-sided.
Still, an entertaining little book. ( )

This reminded me greatly of “An introduction to the ancient Greeks”, which is a very good thing.

This is a survey history book. Openly so. But in taking to a study of a topic it is a good idea to read a survey book first. It provides the frame work for later study and insight and information.

And for a survey book this actually has quite a bit of nuance and insight in the first place. Something that one can’t demand but it is very nice to receive.

It took me three days to read. That’s with life demanding it’s attention. The writing style is friendly, easy and effective.

And not to be political, but in the current climate this is a good book to read. So do. ( )

An unusual history, this sets out to package a history of Germany into an easily-digested work, suited to our age of distrust of obvious experts. The style is highly journalistic, but meatier quotes are called out as we go along. Only when we reach the end does the author make their pedigree clear; not a historian, true, but certainly an academic, with access to academic sources. Some of the quotations made along the way were familiar to me, as well.

The thesis the book puts forward is that many of the values popularly thought of as "German" are actually Prussian; and much of the history of Germany in the 20th Century can be explained by pointing to Prussian hegemony over the rest of Germany, using the industrial and financial might of western Germany to drive their ambition. This is not a new idea - I first came across it in a work of current affairs written in 1916 - but I've not seen it expressed much in more recent histories.

The finger of blame is pointed at Bismarck, who set up a lot of mechanisms to steer Germany along the routes he wanted. The trouble is that after Bismarck fell, those mechanisms, from military institutions to clubs and societies, each with their own nationalistic agenda, carried on without him, and went along the routes of least resistance. The rest really is history.

Some have been very critical of this book, suggesting it is superficial, inaccurate, or even racist. But it has to be measured against its _target audience. There are Britons nowadays who stick to the idea of Germany as militaristic, expansionist, arrogant and likely to repeat the actions of the past. This book attempts to set them right.

In attempting to squeeze the whole span of German history down into fewer than 230 pages, a lot has to be missed out. Perhaps the two omissions I noticed the most were a discussion of the origins of Hitler's motivations, and German tensions within NATO in the 1980s. Hitler's obsession with Germany, as an Austrian, can only be understood with reference to the nature of Austrian politics in the 19th Century; the divide between those who felt Austria should be looking west and those who felt it should be looking east. As for NATO in the 1980s, the deployment of Pershing missiles to Germany upset a lot of people in the German establishment who saw this as an attempt by America to fight World War 3 away from the Continental USA. Having been bombed almost back to the Stone Age just a generation before, many in Germany were not prepared to undergo the same again - only much worse - on behalf of somebody else. NATO's Exercise Able Archer was the final straw, almost igniting that war because the Soviets were on the verge of mistaking it for a genuine attack. Hawes attributes the progress on disarmament that followed specifically to Helmut Kohl; but there was a major groundswell of opinion in West Germany that he could not ignore.

But these are minor matters. Another five or ten pages probably wouldn't have mattered; then again, this book has the advantage of being right up to date (my copy being the 2nd, revised edition of 2020), looking at Angela Merkel with some degree of perspective as she draws near to the end of her term of office, and casting Vladimir Putin as a modern-day Tsar.

If you have never read any German history or know nothing of the country, this is a quick start. It should not be the only source if you intend any sort of in-depth knowledge or analysis; but it is far from the superficial gloss some would have you believe. ( )

A bare-bones (minus a few phalanges and ribs) of what will eventually become Germany. The beginning is alright, if very superficial, but the rest is overshadowed by the author's political agenda, dislike for Protestants and rabid anti-Prussianess (or basically a dislike for anything on the east side of the Elbe). There were also numerous factual errors and typos. The inclusion of maps was usefull. There is no timeline or list of references, or even further recommended reading. In short, a poor offering.

( )

Germany has long been divided. This concise and informative short history provides a valuable insight into the country, including a unique theory about the rise of the Nazis.
The land we know as Germany was created when Charlemagne’s grandsons divided his empire. Louis was granted “everything” east of the Rhine but where “everything” ended wasn’t clear. It could’ve ended at the River Elbe or beyond. Subsequent rulers all wanted to take the Slavic territory beyond the Elbe.
The various kingdoms within Louis’ land joined centuries later in 1871 and became Germany. Hawes argues the amalgamation didn’t create a united country but a Prussian empire. That empire, ruled from the east, was financed by the prosperous west and south. Hawes says nothing has changed.
The Prussian period began in 1866 and ended in 1945 when not even the name survived. Hawes argues Prussian preoccupation of eastern domination was instrumental in Germany’s First World War defeat. The troops sent east could’ve bolstered forces on the western front.
Another division is religion. Louis’ land remained Catholic after the Reformation. The revolt against Rome came from the north and east that became Lutheran. Hawes argues religion helps explain Nazi support: it came from the Lutherans.
Hawes warns in these days of populism, the extreme left and extreme right in the east could unite into a frightening force.
It is only by understanding the past that we can understand the present. Hawes’s Shortest History is a valuable contribution. ( )

Finally allowed to get to read this, between many distractions, but what a pleasure. Such any easy read with a narrative pushing you through all the convolutions of Germany history. Fascinating, driven by a central theme that doesn't get mired in the many possible side issues and events.
The skill in keeping the narrative moving but carrying along the 'uninformed' reader is remarkable. Even the modern events of german history, where I thought I had some misty insight, were suddenly revealed in stark detail from an new perspective that had that solid ring of authenticity. Right bang uptodate, Merkle shapeshifts into a different persona.
Given all the convolutions and the many iterations before any sense of a Germany emerges, that the narrative can hold it all together with a strong positive sense of direction is all credit to the author. The inclusion of maps, too small and too sketchy to give any detail other than a glimpsed overview, were helpful but also annoying, particularly as my knowledge of german cities and locations is fuzzy. The bubble diagrams that are simplistic to a really idiotic degree, do serve to ram home the core of the themes being laid out so nobody but nobody can miss the point being made!
Clearly not a scholarly work, though the frequent clips to relevant quotes imply very well researched material, you have to surrender to his underlying thesis, Germany west of the Elbe and Prussia to east and never the twain shall co-exist, collaboratively. I am not in a position to even begin to unpick his thesis and for me it is immaterial. He has given me a kaleidoscope view into germany and what has made it tick and what is still driving even now after all the vicissitudes of recent decades.So thank you I take away a better understanding of germany and its place in the world order, subject to anyone whose has a better insight! ( )

A very short read that matches the title claim in not offering anything like an in-depth History of the most critical nation in the evolution of Europe - political & military developments are covered briefly in each era as the author divides his text - cultural-social-economic German development is hardly touched on at any stage.
It's worth reading, but obviously inadequate for a wider understanding of Germany. ( )

When I saw this book, I saw it as an opportunity to learn more about the history of Germany. Disappointment set in almost from the moment I opened the book. Non-existent documentation, an overly familiar writing style, and blatant political bias plagued the account. In a small book such as this, one expects superficial treatment; however, the author's biases seem to drive what he glosses over and what he treats more in-depth. The author needs to return to writing fiction and refrain from non-fiction unless he plans to document his work and ignore his own biases. I received an advance electronic copy through NetGalley with the expectation of an honest review. The book's index was not included in the version I read. ( )

The book isn't long, describes the overall history of Germany, is easy to read in terms of language and is fascinating.

It's hard for me to understand why this book is not getting good reviews but I'm not here to judge others. Perhaps all I needed from the book were small pieces of information that sat in exactly the right places and the correct language and made it the perfect book for me at this time.
( )

What shall we make of this book? Not easy!
First, almost no sources are given (towards the end a few names are mentioned, as an afterthought, so it seems) - thus the editorial standard falls short of wikipedia requirements and, in this respect, the book must be dismissed with the lowest possible mark, i.e. half a *! Then there is no index, neither a bibliography encouraging further reading. But further reading is definitely required as only the barest of bare bones are given, quasi a clean-picked skeleton that badly needs some flesh to be put on.

On the other hand, I found only minor factual errors (e.g. Nicolaus von Jersoschin was the translator, not the author of the Chronicle of Prussia) and as I turned the pages, it grew on me. Now, every historic narrative is subjective, an objective historiography does not exist: always a selection has to be made what to mention what to leave out, let alone an inevitable bias in the way events are related and this book is no miraculous exception! So, reader, beware! With this book it is simply impossible to disentangle his own opinions from those of others, neither are we told to what extend the given outlines are accepted or controversial.

The idea (his? or whose? - we are not told) that the seeds of WW1 and the Nazi 3rd Reich can be traced back to Britain handing 1814 the Rhineland with what soon became Germany’s industrial heart-land of the Ruhr to Prussia, thus strengthening Prussia to the extend that it can ride roughshod over all the little principalities in the Rheinbund and making Germany a Prussian empire in 1871 is interesting (but again: how widely accepted is this idea?). So Britain meddling where it has no business (and later, in 1938, under Chamberlain not meddling when it should!) may have a lot to answer for! Read it, but critically! And certainly it is not a book that should ever be quoted as a source! (VII-17) ( )