Rating: 
Summary: Eye-opening even if you don't share Hobsbawm's conclusions
Review: Hobsbawm was the first historian to fashion the concept of the "Short 20th Century" as the ideological struggle touched off as a consequence of the First World War and ending with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Most of the other histories of the 20th Century -- either global or European -- have accepted this framework, with good reason. In "Age of Extremes," Prof. Hobsbawm makes sense of an often-chaotic period in world history. The title is especially apt, as the main movements in the struggle were driven by extreme manifestations of all kinds of ideology, on both the right (Nazi-fascism, militarism, capitalism) and on the left (Communism). While I do not share all of Hobsbawm's opinions and conclusions, his insights are a great starting point for understanding the turbulence of the 20th Century. His interpretation is also refreshingly different from the post-Cold War triumphalism of some other authors. He also does not ignore the strivings and yearnings of emerging nations that did not play a leading role in the ideological struggles of the great powers. The tone of this material suggests that these groups may play a more central role in the drama of the new century. As we look to the 21st Century with some uncertainty (after the events of Sept. 11), Hobsbawm's book is a good way to find out how we got to this point in history.
Rating: 
Summary: Well written anachronistic thinking
Review: Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes presents a marxist view on world history while marxism has proved to the world that it just cannot work. In that sense, it is a pity that prof. Hobsbawm, who is admittedly a prolific writer, invalidates any thesis he would have liked to present in this book by using marxist philosophy in writing history. By focusing on Russia as being the determining force of 20th century history, he presents a distorted view of what were the central issues in international relations in the 20th century, of which Russia was only one of several. Hobsbawm should read Hayek and then rewrite this book. For sure it would be better then and certainly more accurate.
Rating:
Summary: The 19th Century was as bad as the 20th
Review: I agreed with most of the complimentary comments made in other reviews, but the underlying theme of the book, which is stated in the title, is at best a half-truth. Hobsbawm thinks the "Short 20th Century" was the age of extremes--among other things he says it was extremely violent. That's true, but where he goes wrong is in contrasting this violence with his idealized Eurocentric view of the 19th Century. Several times he says the 19th Century was an age of moral progress, and that the 20th Century saw a regression into barbarism. If one only looks at events inside Europe this is true. It is manifestly false if you look outside of Europe. Hannah Arendt knew better than this--in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism she says the mass murders of the 20th Century dictatorships were prefigured in the mass murders of the imperialist powers. King Leopold II of Belgium was responsible for millions of deaths in his Congo Free State--in one of his earlier volumes Hobsbawm mentions the atrocities in the Congo, but vastly underestimates their extent. Adam Hochschild in his book King Leopold's Ghost uses the middle-range figure of ten million dead. And this isn't the only example of "megadeaths" before 1914. Mike Davis in the recently published "Late Victorian Holocausts" shows that the British policies in India caused most of the tens of millions of famine deaths in that country during the late 1800's, not to mention the one million dead in Ireland. This is comparable to what Stalin did in the early 1930's, except that Stalin's famines killed fewer people. Nor are manmade cataclysms limited to countries directly under the control of European imperialists. China went through civil wars which killed 20 million, followed by a series of famines which killed tens of millions more. These were mostly preventable deaths. (And to some degree the European-imposed opium trade contributed to the weakness and corruption of the Chinese rulers of the time. 18th Century China had a much better record in famine relief.) Add to this the massive numbers who died in northern Africa under the French, the American conquest of the Philippines, etc..., and you have a 19th century which, considering the smaller world population then, was every bit as bad as the 20th. Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian who specializes in the 19th Century. It is surprising to see how little he seems to know about the horrific results of European imperialism. What happened in the 20th Century, as others have pointed out, was that the brutality of the imperial era was brought back home to Europe.
Rating: 
Summary: I was dumbstruck and amazed by its comprehensiveness
Review: I come across this book when I am studying to pass the exams to become a diplomat and I realize that it is not only a history book, but a 20th century reference book that covers most of its socio-economic-cultural "événements". In fact it is a veritable treasure-trove for the well-wired world citizen.
Rating:
Summary: I won't become a communist
Review: I may not be an expert as I'm only 15 years old but here goes what I think about this book. It's Hobsbawm's view of History and it's strongly influenced by the remains of Hobsbawm's commitment to the communism I think this may have twisted his vision. This is very bad because so many people read the book and sometimes when you don't have enough knowledge you are influenced by the author's thoughts and his vision becomes your vision.
Rating:
Summary: Not only clear, but engaging also ...
Review: I recommend this book to everyone who wishes to understand (or at least begin to do so) the 20th century... In my opinion, that is an imperative, because if we don't understand our past, we won't be able to see our present clearly, and we will also be deprived from a good perspective regarding our future. As Hobsbwam says, things "can only be understood as part of a particular historical context".
In "The Age of Extremes", Hobsbawm's explains us his idea that the 20th century began in 1914 (with the outbreak of World WarI), and ended in 1991 (with the collapse of the USSR). That is the reason why he calls it "the short century". He divides that "short century" in three parts: an age of catastrophe (from 1914 to the end of World War II), a golden age (1947 - 1973) and the Landslide (1973 - 1991).
Hobsbawm not only delves into politics, but also into economics, technology, and art, all with a profound knowledge of the subject and a caustic wit that I find irresistible. Yes, of course that there are a lot of history books regarding the 20th century. As a matter of fact, I've read many of them... But this is still my favorite, because it manages to both interesting and clear, entertaining and useful.
Belen Alcat
Rating:
Summary: A must !!! (not only clear, but engaging also!!!)
Review: I recommend this book to everyone who wishes to understand (or at least begin to do so) the 20th century... In my opinion, that is an imperative, because if we don't understand our past, we won't be able to see our present clearly, and we will also be deprived from a good perspective regarding our future. As Hobsbwam says, things "can only be understood as part of a particular historical context". In "The Age of Extremes", Hobsbawm's explains us his idea that the 20th century began in 1914 (with the outbreak of World WarI), and ended in 1991 (with the collapse of the USSR). That is the reason why he calls it "the short century". He divides that "short century" in three parts: an age of catastrophe (from 1914 to the end of World War II), a golden age (1947 - 1973) and the Landslide (1973 - 1991). Hobsbawm not only delves into politics, but also into economics, technology, and art, all with a profound knowledge of the subject and a caustic wit that I find irresistible. Yes, of course that there are a lot of history books regarding the 20th century. As a matter of fact, I've read many of them... But this is still my favorite, because it manages to both interesting and clear, entertaining and useful.
Rating:
Summary: Very objective
Review: In my humble opinion, the most valuable thing about this book is that the author has a neutral point of view with little bias, which is probably not very easy for those live only through the morden capitalism society. It is hard to do justice to the forms of different societies, from the advanced westen capitalism countries to the transformed easten european countries to the still alleged-communism countries, without looking back into the history. The author, standing on the historical point of view, argued vividly on the pattern of the dramatic evolution of the short century. It seems to me that the first part and second part of the book are more clearly argued than the third part, probably simply because the third part of the history is not far enough for us to have a panorama view. But overall, the book is very enjoyable to read.
Rating:
Summary: Lessons Unlearned
Review: In the first part of his book,the writer comments that the statements of the common people, he felt were more relevant in writing history. This small piece of his thinking indicates clearly that his book can not but be a work for the vox populi at the end of the 20th century. His non-dogmatic approach peeps through every page of his book. He did not hesitate for a moment to go against the commonly held notions about the history of the 20th century(1914-1991).His approach to Stalin shows how balanced he is in writing his book. But the book raises more questions than it could successfully answer. The book ends with a sort of pessimistic note , that is unbecoming of a Marxist thinker. The idea that Soviet Union, ironocally did good to its antagonist, the capitalist system; both in peace and war,is a good observation. The chapter 'The Golden Years', fails to explain the reasons for the unprecedented development of capitalism for over 25 years after world war second. This failure indicates that the writer did not get the fullest possible grip on the Marxist economics.This weakness is visible all along in various chapters.The concepts of 'scissors crisis' and the 'proletarian scissors' explain the origins and the end of the Soviet system well.The nature of competition between capitalism and socialism, as that of competition of unequals is a good observation. His attack on the third international, in distancing the Social Democrats is not realistic. The Leninist stand that the liberals are the biggest enemies of the proletarian movement, was vindicated all along by history. The observation that the Russia was not ready for even a liberal democratic upsurge in 1917, leave alone Bolshevik revolution was revealing.It proves that from the onset Russian revolution had its own roots of failure with in itself. The book shatters the illusion that Soviet Union stood for the revolutios world wide, all along. The Soviet Unions narrow agenda of holding on to power, and self-preservation was well elucidated by the author. This element of the Soviet policy infact has done more damage to the revolutions world wide, than benefit.The role of China, in fostering revolutions in the third world was put under scrutiny. The conclusions on the years of Great depression were educative.The observation that the western free-market advocates have forgotten the history proves the wholesale amnesia of the mankind and its leaders in particular. The futile attempt to restore the 19th century type of free-market economy was well demonstrated all through the book. The book overall is objective. But at the same time not so penetrative of the 20th century developmens. It can be used as a starting point to critically study the history of the 20th century. But, after reading the book the reader will have more questions along with many clarified doubts.
Rating: 
Summary: The Age of Extremes, A twentieth -Century Life
Review: It is hard to believe that this book,"autobiography" is written by one of the gratest living historians.Not because of the awkward sentences but because of the obvious lack of depth. It consists of an endless parade of the names of his friends who are embodiment of intelect,dedication and idealism of Communism.The author himself so often unabashedly proclaims himself "intelectual",with all atributes of moral superiority.But what is the content of this moral superiority? What is the ideal of Communism? On these points the author is silent.
|
