Rating: 
Summary: Fear not, gentle reader.
Review: Dr. Johnson has written a monumental book detailing the history of the 20th century. Be advised that this book skewers many of the political left's icons, when they deserve it, just as it does those on the right when they deserve also, certain liberal whining aside.Particularly interesting is Dr. Johnson's ability to tie the moral relativism of the late 19th-early 20th century to political trends later in the century. This book is a must-read for any serious student of World events today.
Rating:
Summary: Highly Readable, Informative, Brilliant
Review: A brilliant narrative connecting the seminal history-making dots of the 20th century. Highly enligthening analysis of totalitarianisms and political myths--some of which are still bedeviling our 21st century. Revealing snapshots of major political personalities--Lenin, Nehru, etc. A book not to be missed if you want to be informed about the historical forces that are shaping our world today. Plus, Paul Johnson's prose is superb.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Waste Your Time
Review: "Pseudodionysius" is right: this book poses as history but is no more than sourish, simple-minded propaganda. As a historian, Johnson is a right-wing gossip. If that's what you want, fine; but if you want history, seen through a keen, sophisticated intelligence, there are many books far superior.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant Survey, but limited by Author's Politics
Review: Paul Johnson, Professor of Communications at the 'American Enterprise Institute' (a conservative think-tank) has produced an excellent overview of the history of the 20th century. Johnson gives an excellent coverage of the key historical events, ranging from the First World War to the Thatcherite and Reaganite era. But the book is coloured strongly by the strong injection at virtually every point by Johnson's own political views, which are strongly conservative. This is the strongest, and weakest, feature of the book. Johnson pulls no punches in blasting away at icons of the left (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) or blaming leftist political and philosophical policies for the ills of the 20th century world. Fortunately Johnson does portray nefarious political figures for what they really were, but some figures who certainly deserved similar criticism - Reagan and Thatcher included- are omitted. His adulation and praise for ruthless capitalism also tends to bias the work somewhat. Johnson nevertheless displays a keen and lively intellect, a deep sense of psychological insight, and a excellent writing style in this work. One very appealing feature is how he holds no bars in describing historical figures and their physical and psychological peculiarities, to the point where he repeats insults used to denigrate members of the U.S. administration in the 1930's and 40's. Despite Jonhson's polemical style and conservative viewpoint, his account is worth having on any history buff's bookshelves.
Rating: 
Summary: Be on your toes ...
Review: Johnson is at least honest - he makes his ideological slant very obvious. His programme is laid out most succinctly in the final paragraph where he lists "the underlying evils" of the twentieth century. They are: "the rise of moral relativism, the decline of personal responsibility, the repudiation of Judeo-Christian values, not least the arrogant belief that men and women could solve all the mysteries of the universe by their unaided intellects". In essence, this book is an ambitious interpretation of world history using the four fallacies listed above as the main criteria for explaining the prosperity or demise of nations. Regardless of whether this appeals to you or makes you wince, some words of caution are indeed necessary. To picture the world through a sharp contrast of black and white has its pros and cons. Where the outrage is clearly warranted, the fervor of his opinion is admirable and infectious. But the clarity of his dualistic viewpoint comes at the cost of oversimplifying history in many areas. As far as I can see, his outline of European history is more or less right. In fact, had he confined himself to the European/American theater, the book would have been more successful. When the author turns his gaze on other nations beyond the pale of the Judeo-Christian world the result is more dubious. Scrutiny of his chapter on Japan produces the following: "But until the twentieth century there were few references of any kind to bushido." (pg.181)
A: Nonsense. Excerpt from the notorious "Hagakure" (1716) by Tsunetomo Yamamoto: "Bushido to wa shinu koto to mitsuketari / I've discovered that Bushido is the act of dying". This followed by the most radical code of ethics ever uttered by the mouth of man. Also note that this book is in itself a rebuttal to an earlier Confucian definition of Bushido. Unformulated Bushido probably goes back much further. "But the internal disputes of the missionaries had led Japan to reject Christianity." (pg.177)
A: Try instead the mass persecution of Christians in the early 17th century culminating in the War of Shimabara (1637-8) led by the "boy messiah" Amakusa Shiro. "... [Japan is] in some respects closer to the society of ancient Egypt than to that of Post-Renaissance Europe." (pg.177)
A: This is a ridiculous comparison. The only reason he invokes this ludicrous analogy is to say that the Tenno was regarded as a living-god. That much is true, but the most cursory glance at Japanese history will show that the Emperor had no power since the samurais took over (end of the 12th century) until 1868. Not much of a pharaoh then. "Nor did Japan's long isolation imply serenity. Quite the contrary." (pg. 178)
A: From the foundation of the Edo Shogunate in 1600 to its collapse in 1868 the era is known as the Era of Great Peace for a very good reason. Aside from some peasant uprisings (notably that of 1617-8), the persecution of Christians, an odd rebellion by a radical Confucian (1837), there was an utter lack of wars. This in marked contrast to Europe. "Western importations from mid-nineteenth century onwards left the social grammar of Japan quite untouched." (pg.178)
A: If the eradication of the privileged Samurai class doesn't count in the Civil War of 1868, then I don't know what does. "The town itself was an import. Even Tokyo was, and until very recently remained, an enormous collection of villages." (pg.182)
A: In the seventeenth century, the population of Edo (old name of Tokyo) numbered over 1 million out of ~30 million as a whole. This would make it one of the largest (and the most overcrowded) cities (let alone villages) in the world... This also casts a shadow over the rest of the book: how much of it is true and how much is twisted to conform to his thesis? For example, the chapter called "The European Lazarus" focuses the limelight on European prosperity and its Catholic leaders Adenauer, de Gaulle, and de Gasperi. He underscores with little subtleness the link between Christian leaders and a nation's prosperity: that the lack of moral relativism leads to a better society. The damning evidence against this thesis is precisely in the most conspicuous deficiency in his world history: the Lazarus of the Far East. The history of how impoverished nations became indurialized democracies ought to be interesting. Yet the author merely glosses over it in the final chapter. The reason? Possibly that the prosperity of the Far East democracies is largely outside of the Judeo-Christian world and rather inconvenient for his thesis. What he does say about ethics in the Far East can be summed up by this indictment on Japan "It failed completely to absorb the notions of individual moral responsibility which where the gift of the Judaic and Christian tradition ..." (pg. 177). This is depressing. To claim that the Judeo-Christian tradition alone has a monopoly on moral responsibility is highly contentious. It almost seems that Johnson in his eagerness to dismantle the moral equivalence of multiculturalism, is swinging to the other extreme which multiculturalism was originally meant to mitigate: cultural imperialism. Love it or hate it, the book at least presents a thoroughly entertaining account of the world, even if you don't share his view. His strength, in my opinion, is in the fulmination against totalitarian regimes. But then again, you could get a concentrated dose of his anti-totalitarian ardor in his more historically accurate 'Napoleon'. I would recommend that book over this one. The very fact that this book has become an institution suggests that many readers saw what they wanted to see reflected in his book. Unfortunately, this revision of world history is more propaganda than history. If you are willing to delve into this tome - and especially, if you sympathize with his Catholic viewpoint - I urge you: be on your toes. Check the facts.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining
Review: Johnson is a very fine writer of history books rather than a real historian (who should be an academic who specialises in a field and goes to the primary sources for data). His mind veers from ancient Egypt to modern America, and his use of primary sources is not evident if you study his endnotes, although he cites many books without specifying pages. This habit shows in his other books also, most notably his "History" of America. But he does present his facts and figures impressively and in style. So, although I disagree with many (but not all) of his opinions, and would give him a D for his views, I think his English deserves an A. For serious histories of the 20th century I recommend Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes and Michael Howard's edited Oxford History of the 20th Century. The standards of these are much higher. Especially the latter, which is co-authored by the best in their fields. But these books, though serious - or rather because they are serious - make dull reading compared to Johnson's lively, humorous prose laced with deadly sarcastic wit. Think of Johnson's books as entertainment and you'll have a great time. Think of them as storehouses of history knowledge and you're bound to be led astray. If Johnson updates this book (his best-known work), I hope he'd focus on the huge success story that is China. The opinionated Johnson, who is notoriously (or if you prefer, famously) right-wing and revisionist - though in youth he was a radical leftist - is curiously silent in his books and numerous public statements on the most far-reaching capitalist revolution in modern history, happening before our very eyes. Free market forces there are destroying state controls, unleashing explosive human potential, slowly but surely lifting one and a quarter billion people out of poverty, bringing hopes of middle-class wealth to literally a fifth of mankind. If Johnson needs an example to illustrate the virtues and benefits of capitalism, he can do no better than to look at China. But the Eurocentric pundit seems to have an aversion to that part of world, being too far away even for his rambling mind. Instead he dug deep into the mysteries of ancient Egypt (of all places) - presumably without touching the hieroglyphs, which I suppose he couldn't read. And so he produced another "history" of that dry-as-dust, otherworldly and unchanging civilization, as fascinating for its UN-capitalist, slave-driven economy as it is irrelevant to anything in our Modern Times.) I would also be interested to know if he realistically believes the UK will survive in the future in its present form, or only perhaps as "Untied" Kingdoms of England and Scotland and Ireland. It's a good idea to read Johnson with fellow Brit historian Eric Hobsbawm together. Hobsbawm is very learned and notoriously (or famously) left-wing......but not as gut-splittingly funny as Johnson. Read them together and then draw your own conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Superb Historian and Storyteller
Review: "Modern Times" is an exceedingly well-written account of the history of the twentieth century--from the time of the First World War to the Nineties. With the skills of a superb storyteller, Paul Johnson manages to cover, in about 800 pages, all of the important events, personalities, issues, trends, and organizes them into twenty coherent essays. Drawing on his own formidable knowledge base and a wealth of source material vast and deep, his account of key historical events are fascinating, often accompanied by interesting and obscure details, such as private conversations between the key figures, contemporaneous commentaries, evidences recovered long after an event, etc., which are not on pages of most history books.
Everyone who reads this book will discern the author's conservative undertone, although that tone has not interfered with the truthful presentation of historical events. Johnson does not only narrate; throughout the book, he quite liberally offers his own interpretation and causation analysis of events, and his assessment of the movers and shakers of their times. This conservative undertone, I must say, is Johnson's trademark. Johnson expresses his own sentiment judiciously and lets the reader judge his views along with his work.
His conservative sentiments notwithstanding, I find Paul Johnson to be, first of all, credible, and then also balanced in his treatment of issues. (By balanced, I don't mean not taking sides; I mean presenting both sides.) Quite distinct from the ideologically predisposed, Johnson does not pull punches, even with figures he professedly admires.
This is the second book of Paul Johnson's that I read, the first being "Intellectuals". I enjoyed both books tremendously. Although I am not as incensed as some reviewers about his liberal use of foreign phrases, titles and quotes within the text, often without English translation, I AM mildly annoyed by it. Overall, I highly recommend this book. I find it to be the most impressive of narrative history books. You will find it an excellent investment of your reading time.
Rating:
Summary: ugh!?!
Review: I am a high school student that is in the process of reading this book, and I do not like it one bit. The text is too heavy and he throws in an awful lot of french words. I am having a tough time meeting my assignment deadlines from this book. All in all, I think he should have slowed down and tried to make it a bit easier to read.
Trevor
Rating:
Summary: The History of Woe and Wishes
Review: The liberal view of history is so widespread that any deviation is subject to immediate criticism. Johnson goes after modern cultural icons with vigor, examining and reassessing all the way. He has perfected a writing style that is highly readable and entertaining with common components: Broad assumptions, intricate details supporting his idea and unique, incredibly interesting biographies of those that made a difference - known or unknown. The 20th century IS the collectivist century. Every variant of collectivism from communism, fascism, tribalism, socialism and religious classism has been tried with catastrophic results. The eagerness with which "leaders" (most from academia) experimented on whole populations is truly horrific. Glowing theories always gave way to human suffering. Millions have been sacrificed in the name of collectivism just this century - USSR, China, Germany, Cambodia, Turkey, Africa... Oddly, speaking ill of this most anti-democratic "theory" is seen as somehow impolite. Johnson records the fight and the fighters (on both sides) of this battle. Naturally the US and Britain emerge with glowing marks - and why not? Those two have saved the world many times. Germany would have won WWI and WWII without US intervention. Europe would be one vast socialist graveyard without the opposition of Truman. Korea, Japan and parts of South America would be "Peoples States" without our help. Relativism has spread to almost all facets of human existence with perhaps the most dangerous one being that all cultures are morally equivalent. This book aptly demonstrates that this has not - and is not - true.
Rating:
Summary: If God is dead He was shot at Verdun.
Review: Or perhaps Ypres. This book covers in vivid detail the twentieth century, from the period immediately after The Great War to the fall of The Soviet Empire. Or, to be more accurate, just as the Soviet government is about to collapse. A century in which Einstein, Freud and Marx turned former certanties into doubt. Johnson asserts that not even the findings of Darwin or Galileo hit the the world so hard regarding its beliefs. Rather like a boxer who has been punched into cobwebland but somehow still on his feet, it staggers about, unsure which corner is his. In this cloud of uncertainty, Nietsche becomes the true prophet of the age when he declares that "God is Dead" i.e; when he perceives that the end of religious conviction by the educated classes leaves humanity with only one value: the 'Will to Power.' As European vigor collapses in the wake of the horror and ultimate futility of WW1, benevolence and optimism retreat in full while the 'Will to Power' manifests itself into a new political model; the 'Gangster/Statesman.'
A host of absolute bastards from Hitler to Castro, and of course their countless victims. Critics of Johnson appear to dislike his uncompromising reporting of socialist atrocities. I am at a loss as to what to recommend to neo-nazis but communist apologists still have Noam Chomsky as well as thousands of other sequestered academics to read who will console them with excuses for mass murder. Don't worry, somehow, it'll always be America's fault. So if the Third Reich or The Third World is your cup of tea, skip this book, the facts may upset your theories. Far more valid critiques are Johnson's whitewashing of Watergate as 'presidential misdemeanors'--he almost gives the impression that The Washington Post launched a witch hunt a la McCarthy which led to the disaster of Cambodia. (!) Johnson also indicts Roosevelt of frivolity and downright stupidity following the end of WW11. He makes a convincing case but while voicing Churchill's objections to Roosevelt's naivete, he is not clear as to why Churchill did not raise an outcry when thousands of Slavs were led 'at bayonet point' back to the waiting arms of Stalin and his death camps by the English. Nevertheless this is easily a 5 star book. The 'Gangster/Stateman' Nietschean thesis may not be news to most readers but the intricacies will. No, I did not know that Lenin greatly admired Mussolini who began his political climb as an Italin Marxist, nor did I know that in the artificially created "Yugoslavia" debates in her parliament culminated with pistols blazing away. I did not know how badly the German armistice was blundered by Wilson subsequently turning the treaty of Versaille into a de facto unconditional surrender instead of a negotiation, a fact which both stunned and embittered the Germans. I did not know that Poland more than doubled her size by 1921 thanks to the treaty which allowed her to invade Ukraine, Russia, and most of her neighbors. And this is only a brief summary of the FIRST chapter. If you love history, treat yourself to this book.
| 
