A. J. P. Taylor Quotes (1906-1990)

“Nationalism was the great common factor in the central European revolutions of 1848. Indeed it was a spirit never to be exorcised thereafter.”

“The First World War had begun – imposed on the statesmen of Europe by railway timetables. It was an unexpected climax to the railway age.”

“History gets thicker as it approaches recent times: more people, more events, and more books written about them. More evidence is preserved, often, one is tempted to say, too much. Decay and destruction have hardly begun their beneficent work.”

“In 1917 European history, in the old sense, came to an end. World history began. It was the year of Lenin and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom repudiated the traditional standards of political behaviour. Both preached Utopia, Heaven on Earth. It was the moment of birth for our contemporary world.”

“Every historian loves the past or should do. If not, he has mistaken his vocation; but it is a short step from loving the past to regretting that it has ever changed. Conservatism is our greatest trade-risk; and we run psychoanalysts close in the belief that the only "normal" people are those who cause no trouble either to themselves or anybody else.”

“I found Bismarck's personality fascinating...and he became one of the few I should like to recall from the dead.”

“Any scrap of Trotsky's writing is worth having. He can always provide the biting comment, the brilliant pen-portrait.”

“He accepted the realities of the world and would have gone down as a great President if it had not been for the trivial scandal of the Watergate.”

“Carlyle senses the masses, as no other writer has ever done; he expressed their outlook against his own conscious convictions... In the French Revolution there is no fault or weakness at all; it is a book without peer.”

“Muddled and lethargic as usual, he bore the final responsibility for the killings after the Easter rising, just as he bore the main responsibility for the failure of Home Rule – one of the most disastrous prime ministers in British history.”

“Even over George III we disagreed. I thought party principles still counted and once described Lewis as "the man who took the mind out of history". This was only another way of saying that he was a Tory Marxist. I was neither. Of course I admired his style. But mine was quite different except perhaps for always seeking a strong first sentence. I worked hard to make my style simple from the moment I began to write. Lewis was more oracular. Our methods, too, were different. I often relied on intuition; Lewis believed in laborious research.”

“This is a brilliant book; almost every sentence crackles and there is often a whiff of fire and brimstone in the air.”

“Mr. Taylor is a master of brilliant paradox, startling juxtapositions, and dogmatic brevity... But his brilliance suggests the crystal chandelier: sparkling at night but less impressive when closely examined by the cold light of day.”

“Mr. Taylor is in the very first rank. He is among English historians to-day about what Mr. Evelyn Waugh is among English novelists, a rescuer of forgotten truths, a knight of paradox, a prince of story-telling, and a great, maybe the greatest, master of his craft.”

“Mr. Taylor carries out his revaluation in the clear, sharp, epigrammatic prose which makes all his work as stimulating as champagne – and which makes one wonder, sometimes, whether it was all really as simple as that. His mind is a convex mirror in which events appear brilliantly coloured, brilliantly distinct, and sometimes a little distorted. He has many of the virtues of Macaulay, and one or two of his faults. The pattern is too sharply etched; the epigrams are too neat; the judgements are too final: but how refreshing it is to read a historian who is not afraid of patterns, epigrams and judgements!”

“The fine line, it seems to me, goes thus: there has to be a plausibility in your story. A history book—assuming its facts are correct—stands or falls by the conviction with which it tells its story. If it rings true, to an intelligent, informed reader, then it is a good history book. If it rings false, then it’s not good history, even if it’s well written by a great historian on the basis of sound scholarship. The best-known example of the latter was A. J. P. Taylor's Origins of the Second World War. It is a beautifully written tract, the work of a consummate diplomatic historian: an expert in the relevant documents, a competent linguist and highly intelligent. At first sight, all of the constituent parts of a good history book were present. So what was missing? The answer is hard to pin down. Perhaps the issue is one of taste. To claim—as Taylor did—that Hitler was not responsible for World War II is absurdly counterintuitive. However subtly expressed, the argument is so implausible as to be poor history.”

“His gritty, disrespectful, stay-at-home world contains nothing of the elements which made Britain the power whose passing he regretted – the derring-do of its soldiers and sailors, the colonial dynamism, the Kiplingesque ethos of its "imperial" working class. His is indeed a Little England, and one deformed by his insensitivity to anything aesthetic or spiritual in the way life is lived... [His influence conveyed contempt for] everything that the word "Establishment" stands for... a whole generation of schoolchildren was indirectly exposed to his wicked shafts of doubt and deflation.”

“Mr. A.J.P. Taylor is the only English historian now writing who can bend the bow of Gibbon and Macaulay... The result is a masterpiece: lucid, compassionate, beautifully written in a bare, sparse style, and at the same time deeply disturbing.”

“I picked up Alan Taylor at the Athenaeum and walked with him along the Strand and Fleet Street. Taxed him with being a fellow-traveller and asked him what he thought he was getting at. He was slightly disconcerted, I fancy, but said that he quite recognised the impracticability of the position of the Socialist who believes in working with the Communists, but that he prefers this position, even so, to working with Anti-Communists. I said it seemed to me quite insane. He is now a Fellow of Magdalen, Oxford and, altogether, very well dug into the economic system which he wants to destroy.”

“A. J. P. Taylor has written just such a challenging essay, packed with substantial summaries and spiced with brilliant observations, reflecting his scholarly maturity, his lucid mind, and his Vienna training under Pribram and the Austrian school of Friedjung and Redlich... An answer to a burning query, it is an impatient book, vivid and tempestuous, pointed and pugnacious, concise and overzealous, severe and sarcastic, ambitious and angry. Grandiose in style it often overshoots its mark. The profound is mixed with the wisecrack. It has the shortcomings of its virtues. It will shock the scholarly reader but it must challenge him too.”

“A serious historian must abide religiously by what is true. So no wonder universities would not appoint Taylor to the chairs he was anxious to get. He never seems to have understood why not, nor why his dreadful book about Hitler's war shocked so many people. An Oxford colleague called him "a dishonest historian".”

“Alan Taylor I did find very exciting as an undergraduate. I must say I find today's undergraduates do so too.”

“The book will also suggest that students of world politics should draw for their rules of interpretation rather less on Marx and rather more on Machiavelli.”