Rating: 
Summary: A must read for a balanced view of our history and times...
Review: An excellent book for any serious student/reader of history. Johnson provides an alternative perspective that turns populist history and political correctness on its earn.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't be fooled by the engaging literary style of this book
Review: This is not a work of history, it is a polemical tract pushing a conservative, Euro-American centered, exclusionist political agenda. The "facts" are often wrong, and the conclusions frequently absurd. The most blatant example of this is the representation of leaders of the post-WWII Third-World liberation movements as being little more than thugs. Anyone wishing to read a worthwhile history of the twentieth-century should consult Hobsbawm's recent AGE of EXTREMES.
Rating: 
Summary: Paul Johnson Is A Very Clever Man
Review: Paul Johnson is a very clever man (obviously). I don't know where he picked up half this stuff but every line in this 800-page book is packed with something you've not heard or thought of before. The most impressive aspect of "Modern Times" is its sheer breadth and scope -- bottom line, its level of 'erudition'. But all the stuff about 'moral relativism' and the 'Bandung generation' came across as pretentious babble. I've no idea if PJ wanted to spice up a great historical narrative with a little philosopihical perspective, but I basically had no idea what he was on about. Anyway, if you're patient and just read through all that stuff, it is an incredibly rewarding read. One point: I like the fact that he shares his opinions openly, though interestingly, in most cases I disagreed with his characterizations. The portrayal of Roosevelt in particular seemed odd; although I did enjoy his total condemnation of Lenin. Well, I wasn't around to know if he's righ! ! t or wrong.
Rating:
Summary: Highly readable, with conservative bias showing
Review: Paul Johnson is the thinking conservative's historian. In "Modern Times" (the book that Dan Quayle read!), Mr. Johnson undertakes the huge task of illuminating the political, militaristic and philosophical underpinnings of the 20th century up to the Kennedy era. As the book progresses, Johnson's focus shifts away from the Weltenschauung of Western Europe and Russia towards that of the United States. One gets the impression that Mr. Johnson became disillusioned with Europe after the wars and turned to the U.S. in hope of its role in maintaining the "right" world order. His personal political views also begin to emerge gradually, and culminate in a diatribe on the Kennedy era. Despite its flaws, the book captured me immediately and held me, despite my more liberal views, to the end. It may be a good example of bias in the historian's art, but is nevertheless a great read!
Rating:
Summary: This book will set the tone for future historians
Review: Excellent book. By far the most accurate, interesting, informative, and insightful history of the twentieth century I have read. This book is a must-read for all serious students of twentieth century history. The high quality of the analysis and coverage of the rise and fall of modern collectivist movements offered in this book is simply unavailable elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: A great book.
Review: I read it twice. A superb discussion of the most relevant aspects of the 20th century. Very good discussion of the beginnings of the Soviet Union and its close cousin Nazism. A very good description of Peronism in Argentina and how it destroyed that prosperous country. I fully understand that the illiberals will not like this book. Good discussions on the devastation of the third world by the collectivist ideologues.
Rating: 
Summary: Give me a break...I was born at night, but not last night.
Review: Paul Johnson tells us that "Eisenhower was the most successful of America's twentieth-century presidents..." The reasons given to support this poppycock left me incredulous. This author insults the reader's intelligence. His scope and detail are breathtaking and only but a few readers could be conversant with much of it. However, having caught him in one very lame explaination of one very lame president, his whole work becomes suspect. This is in addition to his claims that Harding was also a great president and that the scandals of his administration were "inventions and myths". Wonder if he will be so kind to Clinton:) I hope he writes of the current administration...I can not wait to read it:)
Rating:
Summary: An excellent work of history, provocative and readable.
Review: Paul Johnson provides a sweeping, 19th century liberal view of the 20th century, and does it with style. His most compelling theme is that of the awfulness which has afflicted our century as rigid moral codes decay. His detestation of "moral relativism" is clear, and he convincing shows how, when people perceive the end as justifying the means - that the moral value of their actions is relative to the assessed worth of their ends - then there is no logical limit to what can happen. The communist revolutions of the century had a noble end in the minds of the revolutionaries themselves, certainly this was true in China. Yet, as each event in those revolutions presented itself, actions of great horror were done to protect the revolution. There are other, less dramatic examples.Johnson clearly argues from his traditional, Catholic, vantage point, and this must be kept in mind. For all that, his book is a very readable work of literature. I recommend it highly.
Rating:
Summary: My Favorite Book!
Review: Simply the greatest book I haver ever read. The 20th Century seen and narrated through clear, brilliant eyes. An important book for our times. Read at least once!
Rating:
Summary: The gospel according to Paul; the neo-con 20th century
Review: Yes, Paul Johnson covers an amazing range of history - but his grand sweep seems to have numbed the critical faculties of his readers. It is difficult in a short space to indicate the profound problem with this book but three examples - one broad, one middling and one small - may suggest the difficulty. Perhaps the single grand thesis that runs through all 784 pages is the evil of "moral relativity". Johnson never defines what moral relativity is. Somehow related to relativity in physics and a trait of everyone Johnson does not like. But what precisely is it? Relative morality is what makes the difference between murder and manslaughter and is the reason we don't punish returning soldiers as killers - because moral judgement is made relative to context. No society has ever lived by other than relativistic morality - only religious fanatics and dictators attempt absolute systems of moral value. (In a writer whose most recent book is "The quest for God : a personal pilgrimage" one must wonder). Some of the ugliest atrocities of this century may be interpreted as personal convictions pursued without the restraint of relativity to real circumstances or humanity - even if the excuse of atrocities for a greater good was often invoked. The unswerving personal will was always there; the "greater good" was always a fabrication. Johnson only believes in this kind of thinking if he likes where it is going. The choice is, to continue the analogy from physics, just a question of morals relative to whose frame of reference. Of course Johnson likes his own best.
The difficulty with Johnson - and the danger - is that he knows a lot more history over a wider range than any but quite scholarly readers. I began to smell a rat when he reached the Vietnam era - history I had lived through and could feel that his retelling did not ring true. Johnson admits that Kennedy, and perhaps Eisenhower, got the US involved in Vietnam for all sorts of small, ignoble and wrong reasons, but when he gets around to LBJ he roundly criticizes him for not pushing on to victory in what he has already acknowledged was an ill-conceived battle. And if believing that good is to win a bad fight just because you started it, even if the reasons were wrong - well if that's not moral relativity what is? This is moral nonsense. And does Johnson, looking at the student radicals of the 1970s really believe Schumpeter, that "the capitalism promotes its own self-destruction by its propensity to create and give full rein to an ever-expanding class of intellectuals". More nonsense. Johnson is just proud of resurrecting a now largely forgotten economic theorist who he feels was once the equal of the despicably relativist Keynes.
A great deal of Johnson depends on his extensive synthesis of more sources than anybody is likely to have read - but does he do it honestly. One can only spot check - but the quote in Chapter 18 of a powerful editor that "we've got to make sure nobody even thinks of doing anything like this again" is presented as though it is a reference to Nixon's 1972 election victory. In fact that is the next sentence. But this is more than even the most egotistical editor of any of those big East-coast liberal rags Johnson so hates would think within his power to broker - to never again permit a candidate they did not anoint to win the Presidency. Well checking the reference (page 364, not 264 of Safire) it has nothing to do with the election. The quote is taken from a gathering well after Watergate was under way and in the original quote in Safire's book the reference is to never letting another Watergate happen again. Safire does indicate that the press had it in for Nixon but the quote is taken out of context and given a new meaning. Johnsonian relativity ?
If this is what Johnson does to the 5% of history one knows, and the single quote one checks, how reliable is the remainder ? It has been remarked that once a spouse is caught in adultery they are never again quite trusted when they say they are going to the corner store.
|
