Mazower says this is ridiculous, for Hitler was not "as A.J.P. Taylor once famously implied, 'just another politician'...The Second World War did not start because of diplomatic misunderstanding or confusion, nor even because of Hitler's deceit or duplicity. Rather it started because -- very late in the day -- Hitler's opponents realized they were faced with a 'clash of worlds'" (74). The book is less strong in a few other areas. For example, Mazower does not spend enough time and intrigue on what was happening with Communism during this period. Understandably, he believes that Fascism was the one of three triangular factors to fear the most. However, because he set up his theme to be which of three ideologies was going to come out on top, he needed to give equal billing to each. His argument is stronger as a two-prong democracy vs. fascism or nationalism scenario. It is difficult imagining that the Communist state had enough to pull to assume power over the Western European nations. The Communist ideology was too alien in most cases. However, it is not hard to envision that a less psychotic leader than Hitler could play on Europe's nationalist leanings.

Secondly, Mazower's book is about Europe during the 20th century, so understandably it would not include much on the United States. However, America's involvement in WWII and the Cold War is an integral part of the scenario and did have a major impact on the outcome of events. Another "What If," of course, is what if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States had not declared war? What would have happened in the European arena then? Lastly, Mazower made the decision to look at what took place in Europe from an ideological perspective, not from what actual events occurred or what people were involved. Yet in this case, especially, the individuals involved were so significant to what happened. How can one divorce ideology from such personages as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc. Again,...

In fact, it is most interesting at this point what the future will bring as far as Europe is concerned. Mazower once again leaves readers with an open question. Given the fact that the European countries each have their own identities and are nationalistic in spirit if not politically, is it truly possible for them to expect to be a united front? Especially with the increase in globalization and economic competitiveness, can, as Mazower ask, "Europeans give up their desperate desire to find a single workable definition of themselves" and deal with their diversity in a peaceful way?
Mazower mentions, for example, what happened in 1992 in Austria, when the Freedom Party under Jorg Haider's leadership rose as a result of the immigration issue. Although it failed, the anti-immigration petition failed but gained 417,000 votes. Even more up-to-date is what is taking place in Europe today with fundamentalism and terrorism?

Just recently, for example, (http://huibriethof.blogspot.com/2006/08/mark-mazower-europe-should-use-its.html) Mazower called a new, more active European role in the Middle East. He states:

The failure of the American-Israeli intervention in Lebanon, designed as a further step to create a "New Middle East," is, after the failed occupation of Iraq, the failed "democratization" diplomacy aimed at Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and after the failing efforts to isolate Iran and Syria, a not-to-be-missed opening for Europe to step in. No more as a divided and subordinated reserve of allies, but as a responsible and powerful bloc that protects the vital interests of its inhabitants. For the Europeans, there is much more and much longer at stake, than for the U.S.A.

Time will tell what the true outcome of the 20th century was.