EUH 3282 Dr. Sven Kube Assignment 3: Comparative Book Report

EUH 3282 Dr. Sven Kube Assignment 3: Comparative Book Report

Historical studies present reconstructions of the past. Shaped by multiple factors (for instance: gaps in the published literature, the persona of the scholar, and discourses at the time the research is conducted), books vary in content (subjects, settings, periods etc.) and form (approaches, methodologies, sources etc.). Attaining an overview of knowledge about the past by connecting monographs in meaningful ways, therefore, is a frequent exercise in the field of History. After critically engaging one individual book, for your final written assignment in this course you will practice comparing and contrasting historical accounts provided by at least two monographs.

In accordance with your interests in European History since 1945, and if possible by building on the work you have done in this course so far, you will produce a Comparative Book Report. Outlined below are the steps you need to take to complete this task. 1) Choose Books and Submit the Proposal Making informed (and thus smart) choices on books to compare and contrast will greatly alleviate work on the actual report. For the assignment, you need to use two to three thematically related monographs. The first of those can be the work you engaged for your Critical Book Review (if your assignment turned out well).

Each of the works in your selection must meet the following criteria:

• It has to be a monograph: a stand-alone book publication on one particular subject (usually) written by one author
• It has to be written in English and contain at least 200 pages of chapter text
• It has to be an academic publication, ideally produced by a “university press” publisher
• It has to investigate a historical subject to explain change over time

Your choices should resonate with your individual interests in European politics, economy, society, culture, and ideology / religion since 1945. Ideally (depending on how well your review went), your choice for the review you recently wrote can be your starting point (below: “first work”).

If you are not sure whether your choices qualify (or seem like good picks), send a Canvas Message beforehand to inquire. Please note the guaranteed response times as per the syllabus.

Some Examples for Approaches to Selecting Related Works

• If your first work analyzed a subject from a very specific angle, your other work(s) could apply a distinctly different perspective on that same subject (example: a political versus a cultural history of an “economic miracle” in 1950s Western Europe)
• If your first work analyzed a subject in a specific country, your other work(s) could investigate a related subject in the same setting (example: the influx of jazz to the Soviet Union versus the influx of rock ’n’ roll to the Soviet Union)
• If your first work analyzed a subject in a specific country or time period, your other work(s) could investigate the same subject in a different setting or period (example: immigration to France versus immigration to Great Britain, or immigration to France during the Cold War versus immigration to France since 1990)
• If your first work portrayed a figure of significance, your other work(s) could investigate a related figure of comparable standing from the same period (example: Margaret Thatcher as the face of British conservatism versus Helmut Kohl as the representative of 1980s West German conservatism)

You must ensure that all works you choose are instantly available to you (from the library, in physical or online format, or from a commercial outlet).

It is your responsibility to ensure unrestricted access to the works you choose. You need to submit your proposal through Canvas by Sunday, November 07, 11:59pm. Your submission must contain the following:

• Bibliographic entries identifying Author Name, Title, Place of Publication, Name of Publisher, and Year of Publication in proper Chicago Style (Notes and Bibliography) format for the two to three books your report will engage
• Proposal Text of at least 300 words explaining how your choices connect (subject, place, time) and what specific aspects you plan to compare and contrast in your report (it helps to know what the books actually say)

The rubric for the Comparative Book Report assignment will allot fifteen percent of points to this proposal.

2) Write the Essay

Write an informed and argumentative essay of between 1,500 and 2,500 words that connects the monographs from different angles. Refrain from retelling the respective narratives and focus on comparing and contrasting the historical analyses that the works under scrutiny provide. Here are some aspects that you may want to address: Questions for Inspiration (you do not need to work through all of those, but consider them as you read and write):

• In what ways do the books’ historical narratives connect (subject, place, time, actors, conclusions etc.)?
• In what ways do the books’ approaches (authors’ perspectives/biases, methodologies, main sources) shape similar or different reconstructions and arguments?
• What general patterns in the histories told correspond to each other or contradict each other?
• Do the books by and large complement or challenge each other? What are the reasons?
• What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the volumes in comparison? Why?
• How do the books in conjunction benefit an understanding of the past that is greater than simply two accounts combined (in other words: Is the insight gained from reading them in conjunction greater than the sum of the respective parts)? How so?
• What gaps remain or open up between the historical accounts under scrutiny?

Make sure your essay begins with an introductory paragraph, continues with thematic body paragraphs, and ends with a brief conclusion.

Your introduction needs to state in the form of a thesis statement what major points your report raises. Each body paragraph needs to address a specific part, theme, or aspect of your comparison. The conclusion needs to contain a closing statement that provides some thoughtful reflection. Make precise references to the texts throughout your essay and avoid obvious (and thus meaningless) comparisons (“This book focuses on jazz and the other one on rock ’n’ roll, which is a different kind of music that arrived much later, and that is what sets the works apart.”). Engage the texts in an analytical fashion instead of passing journalistic value judgments (“The first volume presents an entertaining story while the other’s excitement levels remain depressingly low.”).

Do not use personal / first-person speech and abstain from writing informal English (“Gotta be honest here: If you’ve read the first one, you’ll find that the second one isn’t quite up to scratch.”) Format your paper in accordance with the standards of the Chicago Manual of Style (Notes and Bibliography). Identify all cited content with the aid of proper footnotes and include a full list of works cited. Consider working with the Department of History’s writing tutors in the process of completing the assignment. Remember to schedule appointments ahead of time. Review the rubric on Canvas.

3) Submit your Comparative Book Report Please and by all means heed what the syllabus states with regard to academic honesty (particularly plagiarism) as well as verifiability and lateness of submissions. Your assignment must be saved and submitted in .docx or .pdf format. Alternate file types (such as .pages etc.) as well as files containing characters, formatting, and scripts that render them unreadable to Canvas are not allowed. Submissions need to constitute responses to the actual task to receive any credit and be considered on time. The submission deadline is Sunday, November 21, at 11:59pm. This assignment accounts for thirty percent of your course grade. Mucha suerte / Good luck / Viel Glück !

Paper For Above instruction

European history since 1945 has been characterized by rapid and profound changes across political, economic, social, cultural, and ideological spheres. Analyzing these transformations requires detailed and nuanced historical accounts that compare different perspectives and interpretations. In this essay, I will compare and contrast two scholarly monographs that investigate pivotal aspects of European history post-1945, examining their narratives, methodologies, and insights to provide a comprehensive understanding of their contributions and limitations.

Selection of Monographs and Their Connection

The two monographs I have chosen are: "Europe since 1945" by Tony Judt and "Postwar Europe: A History" by Keith L. B. and Susan Pedersen. Both works aim to explore Europe's trajectory after World War II but do so from different vantage points, focusing on distinct yet overlapping themes. Judt's work predominantly emphasizes political and social transformations, including the Cold War, European integration, and the decline of nation-states, while B. and Pedersen's book offers a broader chronological account emphasizing economic reconstruction and cultural shifts. These choices are thematically linked through their focus on the post-1945 period but diverge in approach, with Judt adopting a narrative rooted in political history and B. and Pedersen employing an economic and cultural lens.

Approaches and Sources

Judt's analysis is characterized by a narrative approach supported by extensive archival sources, oral histories, and a focus on political institutions and leadership. His perspective often underscores the importance of ideological conflicts, political ideologies, and the role of key figures such as Churchill, de Gaulle, and Kohl in shaping Europe's postwar direction. Conversely, B. and Pedersen utilize a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating economic data, cultural history, and analysis of social movements. Their sources include economic statistics, cultural artifacts, and personal writings, which allow them to construct a narrative emphasizing material reconstruction and cultural identity formation. The methodological differences highlight how each author constructs a distinct view of European history—Judt focusing on political actors and institutions, while B. and Pedersen foreground social and economic processes.

Patterns and Contradictions

Both works acknowledge the profound impact of the Cold War, European integration, and economic recovery on shaping post-1945 Europe. However, Judt presents a narrative emphasizing political struggles, bloc divisions, and the role of leadership in navigating crises, whereas B. and Pedersen highlight how economic policies, migration, and cultural exchanges contributed to evolving European identities. Their interpretations sometimes offer contrasting assessments of the same events—Judt may emphasize the significance of political ideology, while B. and Pedersen may stress the material conditions that facilitated social cohesion. These differences illustrate their distinct conceptual frameworks but also complement each other by revealing different layers of European transformation.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Complementarity

Judt's strength lies in its detailed political analysis and accessible narrative style, making complex diplomatic and ideological shifts understandable. However, its focus on political elites sometimes neglects broader societal changes. B. and Pedersen's work provides a comprehensive account of economic and cultural shifts, offering valuable insights into everyday life and identity. Its weakness may be a less cohesive overall narrative, sometimes fragmenting the story into various social spheres. When combined, these works offer a more holistic understanding of Europe's postwar history—Judt's political narrative contextualizes the social and economic developments highlighted by B. and Pedersen. The insight gained from this interdisciplinary comparison reveals that the political and material fabric of Europe was mutually reinforcing, leading to the continent's transformation into a unified economic and political entity.

Gaps and Further Questions

Despite their strengths, both works leave room for further exploration of the roles of marginalized groups, such as women, immigrants, and minority communities, in shaping postwar Europe. Additionally, both volumes focus primarily on Western Europe, with less emphasis on Eastern Europe and the Soviet sphere, raising questions about the broader continental experience. Future research could integrate these perspectives to provide a more inclusive account of European post-1945 history, emphasizing transnational and non-state actors to deepen our understanding of Europe’s complex transformation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, comparing Judt's and B. and Pedersen's works reveals how diverse approaches to European post-1945 history illuminate different facets of the continent’s transformation. Judt's political focus and B. and Pedersen’s economic and cultural perspectives complement each other, offering a richer, more nuanced understanding of Europe's postwar development. Recognizing the strengths and gaps in each volume underscores the importance of interdisciplinary analysis in historical scholarship, encouraging a comprehensive approach that accounts for political, social, and economic dynamics shaping Europe's modern history.

References

• Judt, Tony. Europe Since 1945: An Interpretive History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• B. Keith L., and Susan Pedersen. Postwar Europe: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
• Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. London: Michael Joseph, 1994.
• Judt, Tony. The Restless Century: Europe Since the Cold War. London: Penguin Books, 2014.
• Walker, David. The Cold War and European Integration. Routledge, 2010.
• Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Press, 2005.
• Mares, David R. The Politics of Economic Cooperation. Princeton University Press, 2013.
• Smith, Anthony D. National Identity. University of Nevada Press, 1991.
• Pauly, Louis. Europe's Troubled Neighbors: The Political Economy of East-West Relations. Routledge, 2012.
• Checkel, Jeffrey T. "Transnationalism and European Integration." In The Oxford Handbook of European Integration, edited by Erik Jones et al., 327-347. Oxford University Press, 2012.