Rating: 
Summary: An Overall Excellent Account...
Review: ....Johnson, seemingly incapable of writing a book less than roughly 1000 pages, provides the reader with a very accurate timeline from about the start of the century. The book begins with what can be described as no more than an introduction about Einstein and his work, Freud and Darwin and their work; it then moves on to an account of the Bolshevik revolution, fluidly proceeding to a (far shorter) discussion on Mussolini and the rise of the fascist Italian state, and then, of course, goes on to Hitler. The book (which must weigh at least 2 pounds) moves surprisingly rapidly for such a voluminous tome. Keep in mind ..., the Bolshevik revolution and the Einsteinian revolution (i.e. the advent of modern physics beginning w/ relativity). WW II, the Depression, the development of Communist China, the (largely Islamic) failure of the Middle East to develop, the de-colonization of Africa, and so on are discussed (I admit I've yet to finish the book in its entirety). I do agree with previous reviewers as to Mr. Johnson's somewhat fatuous discussion of the Nixon presidency and its undoing, but even this shortcoming is not enough to reduce my rating to less than 5 Stars. In part a note to the countless individuals who naysay such a work on the basis of its conservative 'spin' and in part a warning or alert to future potential readers, I advise you to please judge for yourself. A work, surprisingly, can be both an objective work while also having conservative undertones. This occurs when the objective truth coincides with (gasp!) the conservative view. It does no justice to the author nor the potential reader to brand a work of such significance, a work that, notwithstanding its great length, delivers a pithy, accurate, and well-supported account of the 20th century, as a biased work. While none have specifically said so, the notion has been intimated. In closing, I urge anyone interested in 'modern' history to pick up this book. If you doubt Mr. Johnson on any points (as a critical reader surely will and should), check his references. Overall, there is nothing in this book that should prevent the potential reader from picking it up. It is indeed an extremely informative and worthwhile read.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant Prose, Highly Questionable History
Review: The first thing to remember when reading Johnson is to forget about meaningless ideological terms like "conservative" and "liberal" (especially when used by Americans they come to mean the opposites they originally meant). The one thing that Johnston makes clear in his book is that ideology has been the bane of minkind in the 20th Cen. and the major cause of most man-made calamities. As such Johnson is asking us to return to a non-ideological world bounded by reason and common sense. The book however is not narrative history writ large; it is more a "moral" history of the 20th Century with several leading themes which Johnston returns to with ever increasing import and relevance. The greatest of these is that ideology, left and right, has been the waster of mankind and the destoyer of moral integrity. The greatest challenge he sets up for those who see the world in ideological opposites is the notion that there is really no functional and moral difference between Fascist, Nazi and Communist regimes (at least in what kinds of states they produce) --- all of them in practise have lead to dictatorship, a loss of basic freedoms, and, in their most striking characteristic, mass murder perpetrated by the state. He is most likely right in this assertion and no doubt historians looking back within the next 20 years will probably see the advent of ideological states of the extreme left and right as a symtomatic of the 20th century and make no real distinction between them, functionally they are the same (much in the same way as we now make little distinction between individual barbarian tribes who attacked Rome). That these ideological excesses were perpetrated by the state because of some notion that the developments in science imbued, coloured these ideologies with the notion of the attainability of absolute truth once the underlying truths of "history" were found, that is another question. It is also one that Johnston comes most close to proving, since it is clear that ideologues with no understanding of such concepts such as natural selection --- Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin --- really believed that there were such things as "superior" forms of government and "superior" races of people. A conclusion that could not be reached by anyone with even rudimentary understanding of Darwin's tracts and the elementary gene theory (only then emerging). So there is at least as much worship of anti-rationalism in the thought of Stalin (class enemies are everywhere), and Hitler (man finds his ultimate expression only when he submerges himself in the mass of the State) as there is in the notion that the world can be understood in terms of scientific determinism as formulated by politicians (read Stalist behaviourists and Hitler's misunderstanding of even basic laws of inherited traits). The one really strange thing (frankly wierd in my estimation) is the sometimes emergent thesis that the power of the state to kill and take away rights has been a function of the growth of science and ideology which "disregards the traditional Judeao-Christian notion of individual responsibility." Although Johnston asserts this from time to time he never really goes beyond to prove it. Among other things he never defines what this notion of "personal responsibility" is, where it comes from and how it manifests itself. If we do not know what it is, it is difficult to know if we have lost it. Also, how does it explain the excesses of China and Japan in the 20th Century, two states with no Judeo-Christian tradition (or have they always been barbarian states? --- as Pat Robertson, the American Taliban, has argued). The power of the state to wield total power has been greatly enhanced in the 20th Century, and therefore its power to kill. Horrendous societies and mass killings have however been with us before the 20th Century: how would one explain such horrors as the slaughter of the Cathars, of the Crusades, the Mongol invasions, the horrible excesses of the Hundred Years War and the slaughters in Chin Dynasty China? They have also been with us in the present where, as in Bosnia and Kosovo, individuals from two Judeo-Christian faiths receive absolution of personal responsibility directly from their respective Judeo-Christian faiths! Faith condones and actually encourages violence. In all of the cases above, horror and state enforced mayhem either existed in Judeo-Christian societies or existed in areas where Judeo-Christianity never reached. That Johnson does not deal with these issues is I think, an even deeper knowledge that Johnston knows this point, although interesting, is ultimately nothing more than conjecture. The true brilliance of Johnston is really in the details. His ability to look at different issues in a new light is really amazing. His style is novel, quirky (some would say highly idoesyncratic) and always refreshing to read. Whether you agree with him or not he forces you to think: "there is no moral difference between murdering a person because of their class or because of their race" --- statements like this strongly underline his main idea that Racist ideologies of Hitler and Mussolini are really even more disfunctional varients of communism. After reading Johnston one realises that notions of mutually exclusive ideologies contain within then an underlying logic of increasing state power beyond the reasonable limitations of Parliamentary Democracy -- as such Naziism and Communism are both sides of the same coin --- Johnson does us a favour by pointing this out for us in cogent, intellectual, and ripping read. With prose like these one is liable to forgive most of his foibles (his defence of Nixon being an exception --- an extremely bad chapter, that should be removed). All in all a very good read. Highly recommended with the caveats above.
Rating:
Summary: Riviting Account of 20th Century History!
Review: This is a revised version of a wonderful historical study accomplished by a noted conservative journalist and would-be amateur historian whose political observations, while not always true to the temper of the times, are always fascinating and well-thought through in terms of the logic and reason propelling and informing them. Opening the book by looking through the disparate prisms offered by the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union on the one hand and the Einsteinian scientific revolution in the academies of the western world on the other, Johnson shows how these two forces have savaged the nature of the traditional world of the nineteenth century in the wake of their momentous changes. Johnson argues forcefully for the idea that much of what follows, from the Great Depression to World War Two to the new world order following the war can be traced to the effects of these two revolutions. Taken to this point, few would argue with the author's supposition. Yet he seems bound to follow this thread of thought to the point of absurdity, as when he argues that the student revolts of the 1960s were puerile and degenerative exercises in futile protest, or that the events surrounding Watergate in the 1970s were in essence a witch hunt conducted by liberals against a wrongly vilified and much misunderstood President Richard M. Nixon. For those of us who were there, such a take is hard to square with our own recollection of both the events and the context in which the historical events in question occurred. Too often his brilliance is compromised by his seeming need to revise the ostensible truth in favor of a more political consistent version of what happened, and this ends up undercutting his argument by showing us its vulnerable underbelly. This underbelly is his need to try to recast the history of the 20the century into a omnipresent thread of rationality, steadily moving forward as the motive engine of proggggress by defeating the reactionary and emotional forces of tradition, in effect counterposing them with the forces of science and reason, always equating these forces of science and reason with modern conservatisim. Yet this is a razor's edged argument, for too often science and reason have failed us, and Johnson seems either unwilling or unable to see this, and to therefore temper his argument and his narrative to allow those elements to surface and congeal so we can fairly judge their relative merit by fully understanding their limits and risks along with their merits and benefits. Yet, in spite of its tendency to sermonize and propound conservative political interpretations of the events under study, this is a book well worth the reading, for there is no doubt that it is a well documented, well detailed, and very well written tome. It is still in print, albeit in a revised version, well more than a decade after its original publication. It is accessible and provocative, and the author shows a sense of humor in delivering what is obviously a very conservative take on the events of the 20th century. Understanding this single limitation, I would still argue it is a very informative and worthwhile read! In fact, this is a book that I can highly recommend. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Journalist and social critic as historian
Review: To correct misinformation some seem to take as fact, Paul Johnson is NOT and has never been a historian. He was trained as a journalist and became an editor for several years at the New Statesman (an English publication). He has never been trained as a historian nor has he conducted what might be called peer reviewed research in his numerous writings. The fact that Johnson is not a historian wouldn't really be an issue except in the case of Modern Times. Why is this an issue? Because by many Modern Times has taken on the aura of gospel as a history of the twentieth century. Johnson relies quite heavily on various sources which he himself takes as gospel without vetting them for accuracy or bias. That's unfortunate. His writing is absolutely riveting. The problem with Modern Times is that it really isn't a history per se, it's a political opinion piece written as a history. And as an opinion piece it isn't bound by the parameters of accuracy and unbiased critical thought. Not to say many of his opinions are without merit that would be untrue. He makes many good observations about the general effects of the theory of relativity, Freud etc and their effect ont the political and cultural psyche. His main fault, and a great one it is, is that he relies on faulty data. Whether in his biographies of Gandhi or Lenin or when he calls Francisco Franco a "great man" Johnson has relied soley on biased data without balancing. Calling Franco a great man is in itself an astounding comment when he is commonly accepted, even by conservative Spaniards, as an extremely mediocre individual. His mistakes are countless; dates are given which do not correspond with the actual events, he often attributes incorrect comments to individuals and on and on. As a political opinion piece this is great writing whether you agree with Johnson or not. As a history, based upon faulty or just wrong sourcing, it fails miserably. And that's the tragedy of its popularity as a world history. The job of a historian is to present the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately Johnson has chosen to present opinion as fact far too often for this to be a reliable guide as a history. Great writing does not make great history.
Rating:
Summary: Thugs Exposed: their supporters may be next.
Review: At what point does a history become more than a mere rendering of factually accurate details? What is the value of a history that is little more than a series of year book chronicles? Paul Johnson's book, Modern Times, is certainly neither of these. It is a history, with a few factual inaccuracies, but on the whole reliable which is seen through a few fairly easy to spot lenses. This is NOT a book for a committed leftist. Johnson regards Marxism as "an urban religion," its practitioners as essentially gangsters and thugs. He strips down leaders to their basics, sees very little difference between Lenin and Hitler. He values a political order that is basically based on Western liberal models; British and American. Anything else, and to the extent that it differs from these, is going to be part of what he calls "the higher humbug." His solution to most of the problems of the world would seem to be a return to colonialism, particularly British or American, as favoring the stability of social institutions required to bring about a reversal of so much of the tragedy in the period he covers. Frankly he makes a convincing argument for it. His biggest flaw is that he doesn't organize his points and fit historical events and sketches of political personalities within them very well. It hardly matters, in that he is a very entertaining writer, especially if you share his views. If you don't agree, be advised that his simmering sarcasm is aimed directly at you and he doesn't much care if you agree with him or not as he isn't about to try and convince a Marxist from his views. Such a person is clearly not serious in Johnson's view and may even be dangerous. His assessments of many popular figures of the 20th century are interesting and occasionally unexpected. People like Churchill, Eisenhower, De Gaulle, Adenauer, Calvin Coolidge and even Warren Harding come off well. Wilson, Hoover, Roosevelt and Johnson come off less well. Of course his greatest sketches are those of the big and small dictators whom he considers to be basically cut from the same cloth. I found this intellectual simplicity refreshing; if it looks like a thug, acts like a thug, talks like a thug, despite all externals to the contrary, you have a thug.
Rating: 
Summary: Enticing but harmless only to historically knowledgeable
Review: I quit reading it after going over a few chapters here and there. Here's why, there are two reasons: 1. offensive to anyone's intelligence "conservative" spin bordering on open lies - present, unlike in the "Intellectuals", beyond tolerable limits in this book. 2. plain factual errors -- for example: It is stated that in 1917 "comrade" Lenin was sent to Russia at the "invitation of the German government". Wrong! That is, perhaps that can be said figuratively, but the context does not suggest that it should be taken this way, while strictly speaking this is incorrect. Another example: according to the author, the U.S. entry into the Korean conflict was not sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution, only by the General Assembly. This is incorrect, the Security Council did give its approval (according to Summers's "Strategy II", the then Soviet ambassador to the UN, Malik, was "boycotting" the UN for a while because of unrelated reasons, and thus missed his chance to veto this resolution, therefore it passed. The Soviet authors of the relatively recent, and otherwise lousy, book "Alien Wars" say the same -- and if they lied, they'd lie in the opposite direction. The book "Korean War" whose author I, unforunately, forget, not only supports that too, but offers a photo of the S.C. meeting with a caption poiting to the empty chair of the Soviets.) And so on, and so forth. At first, I started to highlight the snafus like that in red as curiosities, but the number of them was growing fast, and so a moment came when I realized that not being a professional historian I am probably not catching all instances of them, and became suspicious of the overall historical veracity of the book. The author's obvious ideological slant didn't help either. Therefore, not willing to plant garbage in my head on one hand, and being unable to verify everything and/or check all references for lack of time and relevant training, on the other hand, I decided to deal with this Gordean Knot of a book in a classic way -- I simply trashed it. Unfortunately, that was not easy to do: as everything by Johnson, this book is well written and deals with things that are of great interest to every thinking person. The book IS enticing, easy to read, and holds the reader's interest well. However, because of the obnoxious agitprop and frequent outright factual incorrectness it can't be recommended to anyone, except perhaps those with a good historical knowledge in the same area, already acquired from other sources (who will be able to discern both the errors and crude propaganda.)
Rating:
Summary: A big book of woe and eternal lessons
Review: Paul Johnson provides the most dead on accurate synopsis of the 20th century:"Among the advanced races,the decline and ultimately the collapse of the religious impulse would leave a huge vacuum.The history of modern times is in great part the history of how that vacuum had been filled.Nietzsche rightly perceived that the most likely candidate would be what he called the 'Will to Power',which offered a far more comprehensive and in the end more plausible explanation of human behavior than either Marx or Freud.In place of religious belief,there would be secular ideology.Those who had once filled the ranks of the totalitarian clergy would become totalitarian politicians.And,above all,the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah,uninhibited by any religious sanctions whatsoever,and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind.The end of the old order,with an unguided world adrift in a relativistic universe,was a summons to such gangster-statesmen to emerge.They were not slow to make their appearance".That is the 20th century in a nutshell.Johnson goes on to catalogue the litany of horrors that flled the world scene:from the racist ideology of the Nazi's to the class ideologies that characterized Communism wherever it appeared to tribal ideology that sparks the civil wars and genocides in so much of the world.What emerges is a world consumed in identity politics felt with a religious fervor.Johnson lets his vitriol flow freely with what he considers the most dangerous conception of the human mind:Utopianism;or,the delusion that human civilization can be engineered into perfection.From the French Revolution to the Khmer Rouge or almost any socialist state,utopian schemes almost always begin and end the same way:in mass murder and destruction.The most diabolical aspect of all utopian ideas is how noble they appear in theory and sentiment.The greatest tragedy of the 20th century is that these harebrained utopian schemes likely would have been harmless failures,much like Robert Owen's communal utopianism of the 1820's and assorted other experiments of the 19th century in the same vein.The poison that turned nitwitted experiments against reality into a lethal weapon against humanity was karl Marx's turning class envy into the pivot point of human history.As his pernicious,envy unto death ideology caught on,the wholesale extermination of a class of people became respectable.After all,if marxism is a historical inevitably and all who stand against the utopian dream are the class of evil exploiters,then musn't they be gotten rid of?Hitler used just such reasoning(though he wasn't a marxist)to kill of the race of "parasitic" jews.After all,they were standing in the way of the Aryan Dream.Lenin,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot and other such monsters used the same reasoning to eliminate their designated "parasites" and undesirables to pave the way for the coming of the glorious Kingdom on Earth.This is why Marxism is viewed by Johnson as one of the most evil ideologies to ever be conceived.But Johnson also comprehends that it is precisely the hollowness of the 20th century that made the rise of such a foul,reality-free and anti-human view of life to become so dominant.This book will make you angry and perhaps pessimistic about the very idea of progress.It might even make you ashamed to believe in the idea of progres.The cave man at least had an excuse for his barbarity.What excuse did the o so "advanced","rational","scientific","enlightened" man of the 20th century have as an excuse?
Rating:
Summary: A Superb Analysis
Review: Johnson does more to help us understand the failure of the modern world than any work I have read. He even manages to make 'ecomomics' interesting by placing it in its long term social context. His case is cumulative, interdiciplinary, and massively detailed without becoming tedious. Even if one should dispute Johnson's overall evaluation of an individual figure, the pattern of evidence is overwhilming that man cannot be good without moral absolutes. Despite this being a work of history, and not theology, the theological implications are not far removed from the thoughtful reader's conscience.
Rating:
Summary: great book, NOT A REVISION
Review: I was under the impression that Johnson was going to append this book every decade, but the text of Modern Times has gone unrevised this edition. It would be just as well for you to save 8 or 10 dollars and buy the 1991 edition-- it is exactly the same.
Rating:
Summary: Classic Account Of The Twentieth Century
Review: Paul Johnson at his best. In this volume the author brilliantly analyzes why the last century was the bloodiest in human history. His conclusion is that moral relativism led to the totalitarian revolutions of Communism and Fascism that came so close to global triumph. Written with wit and a complete command of the historical facts, this book is must reading for anyone who wishes to understand how precious freedom is and how quickly powerful forces can arise to destroy it.
| 
