One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945 (The Global Century Series)

Rating:
Summary: well done book marred by bias
Review: Admirable in its goal and ambitious in its scope, David Reynolds' One World Divisible offers a truly global history of world events since 1945. Overall, it is a decent summary of the period (if 700 pages can be termed a summary) and could easily and confidently be used as a textbook for almost any modern history course, either as the central text or as a complement (I read it in class focusing on the Cold War). It touches on events in all parts of the world and also on social, economic, political, cultural, and technological trends. Reynolds does a particularly good job of chronicling the years of revolution 1989-1991, when so much was happening in so many different places.

However, for all its utility and detail, Reynolds' political opinions appear far too often--enough that it detracts from the book. Certain words and phrases (such as family values) receive the scornful, mocking quotation marks that academics often use. The tobacco industry is attacked. The American gun lobby is also criticized, and their positions result from a "selective reading of the Second Amendment." The Reagan administration, among other things, is termed "fanatically antigreen." "Many" senior Republicans who sought to impeach Clinton were also adulterers. Samuel Huntington is reduced to an opponent of multiculturalism. Margaret Thatcher responded to the Falklands crisis not only with resolution but also "relish." Vietnam protesters were "dignified."

I am also not quite convinced that his linking of various fundamentalisms (the American Christian Right with Islamic fundamentalists, for example) is appropriate or accurate. And his paean to series editor Paul Kennedy was a bit overdone. Beyond the political bias and some minor flaws of analysis, the book functions fairly well at least as a timeline and also as a generally cohesive picture of the past 50 years.

Rating:
Summary: well done book marred by bias
Review: Admirable in its goal and ambitious in its scope, David Reynolds' One World Divisible offers a truly global history of world events since 1945. Overall, it is a decent summary of the period (if 700 pages can be termed a summary) and could easily and confidently be used as a textbook for almost any modern history course, either as the central text or as a complement (I read it in class focusing on the Cold War). It touches on events in all parts of the world and also on social, economic, political, cultural, and technological trends. Reynolds does a particularly good job of chronicling the years of revolution 1989-1991, when so much was happening in so many different places.

However, for all its utility and detail, Reynolds' political opinions appear far too often--enough that it detracts from the book. Certain words and phrases (such as family values) receive the scornful, mocking quotation marks that academics often use. The tobacco industry is attacked. The American gun lobby is also criticized, and their positions result from a "selective reading of the Second Amendment." The Reagan administration, among other things, is termed "fanatically antigreen." "Many" senior Republicans who sought to impeach Clinton were also adulterers. Samuel Huntington is reduced to an opponent of multiculturalism. Margaret Thatcher responded to the Falklands crisis not only with resolution but also "relish." Vietnam protesters were "dignified."

I am also not quite convinced that his linking of various fundamentalisms (the American Christian Right with Islamic fundamentalists, for example) is appropriate or accurate. And his paean to series editor Paul Kennedy was a bit overdone. Beyond the political bias and some minor flaws of analysis, the book functions fairly well at least as a timeline and also as a generally cohesive picture of the past 50 years.

Rating:
Summary: A tough and Trying Read
Review: I am a high school sophmore. I was assigned this book for my honors report in my World Cultures class. When I was first told that this would be my book I was excited because I thought that I would learn a lot about history and be able to betterstand the world around me. NOPE! Im sure that I didnt understand a single word in the entire book. The book covered so many topics that each was given just an overview. No background information was offered an I continually had to ask my father what the millions of acronyms stood for. I hated the book. It was pure suffering for me to read. I wouldnt ever recomend this book to anyone who is looking to begin a study of history. Only if you have a strong knowledge of history, and you enjoy reading lots of ratios and whatnot would I ever reccomend this book.

Rating:
Summary: Simply great
Review: It is hard to believe but this breakthrough is a tangible reality. Full of in-deapth research, it covers a wide range of fledging issues in a humourous style. I enjoyed reading it.

Rating:
Summary: competent book but has significant flaws
Review: It is indeed quite difficult to encompass two human generations across the whole planet in a single volume of usable length. An author who undertakes such a task is faced with the dilemma of providing facts at the expense of thematic treatment or vice versa. I think that Mr. Reynolds has struck a competent balance. He does not rise to the level of Mr. Barzun but we should not level heavy denunciation for that fact. I imagine that Mr. Kennedy, the general editor of the series is more or less pleased with Mr. Reynolds' effort. That having been said, I am very disappointed in the level of care taken with the presentation of this volume. I have no training as an historian and do not spend my professional days dealing with these facts and issues. But even I was able to spot multiple factual errors in the volume. For example, the long-time ruler of Tunisia was Habib (not "Hamid") Bourguiba. And the recent president of Costa Rica--who won the Nobel Prize, for God's sake! --was Oscar (not Roberto) Arias. These mistakes on relatively simple items diminish the reader's confidence that the rest of the book is accurate. On a personal level, Mr. Reynolds' penchant for running down the character and capacity of American presidents (no matter what party) got a little tiresome. And do we really need to hear about Nancy Reagan's astrologer, not once but twice? Also Mr. Reynolds, like many leftish academics, has not the faintest clue what "supply side economics" was. Once more, people: the tax rate reductions DID NOT cause the deficits. The amount of revenue the treasury realized grew at the same rate under Reagan as it grew under Carter. Supply side economics said nothing about the spending side and it was here that the deficits arose. Finally, the book itself was very poorly proofread.

Rating:
Summary: One World Divisible; idea of global society - risible
Review: Tackling world history of course is no laughing matter and although Reynolds exhibits his sense of humor throughout, there is no doubt that he takes his work seriously (based on the massive amount of research that went into this book) and there is nothing frivolous at all about the central theme of 'One World Divisible'. The basic view is that world history since 1945 has been very contradictory. Reynolds sees a "dialectical process of greater integration" but also "greater fragmentation". He says "the tools of unification...also served as weapons of disintegration - creating new states and sects, reinforcing old cultures and nations". This view of world history as one of change through the conflict of opposing forces is not limited to the ideological battles of the cold war nor even the armed battles of regional hot wars. Reynolds includes the conflicts arising from "reaffirmation of national culture in the face of globalization". Forces that act to seperate at the same time that instant communication, technological revolutions and the global economy are shrinking the world; opposing forces that make the idea of a global society ludicrous. Reynolds however is not talking about a 'Clash of Civilizations' as in Samuel Huntington's book; he still sees world history since 1945 as being primarily a story of nations, not cultures.

In steering away from focusing on cultural influences in world history Reynolds gives us his own personal cultural perspective. The book, he says, is "a limited and personal view"; personal being that of a white middle-aged English academic. The world view of many historians fitting this description sees the cold war as the fulcrum on which all latter 20th century history rests. Not so with Reynolds. He sees this as Western self satisfaction and a blinkered view of history and he certainly does not see victory in the cold war as any great portent for the West. There is a much broader view here, and a wealth of knowledge about the wider world; other worlds even, such as the 'Third World' or the developing world.

'One World Divisible' is encyclopedic; it's full of statistics, tables, dates and mini biographies of world leaders. The amount of data available, strangely enough, is one of the weaknesses of the book. Reynolds has an easy narrative style and a dry sense of humor that make reading enjoyable, but the humor is not able to hold out for the distance - over 800 pages, and the narrative can't quite bring all the data together neatly enough. In the end the book suffers from the same fate as Reynolds' history - coming together but also apart - one book divisible.

Rating:
Summary: A Leftist Look at the Last 55 Years
Review: Yes, writing a global history is an impossible task. However, there are varying degrees to which you can succeed. David Reynolds comes up short with his book titled "One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945".

Reynolds' main theme is that, while advances in telecommunications have made communication easier and faster to all points of the globe, the world is not converging into a monocultural monster. Reynolds' believes quite the opposite is happening. Mass communication and increased education have aided the fragmentation of empires like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and France. The western European withdrawal from empire and the collapse of totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe have created many new states and allowed the rising consciousness of formerly suppressed ethnic identities.

Reynolds supports his thesis well but, aside from a few disgruntled French farmers, anyone with the requisite intelligence to even read a book such as this already knows it. Reynolds portrays his theme as if it were reinventing contemporary conceptions of the world when in fact all he is doing is reinforcing what any educated person already knows.

Regarding the actual history that Reynolds writes, he does well up until about 1980. The closer he gets to the year 2000, the more Reynolds gets wrong. He seems to have a particularly difficult time explaining the American scene since roughly the Ford administration. Two egregious mistakes he makes are blaming America's deficits on the Reagan tax cuts and claiming that Clinton was impeached for his sexual improprieties. What caused the large deficits of the 1980s was not Reagan's tax cuts but his inability to reign in (or his indifference to) excessive Congressional spending. Furthermore, Bill Clinton was impeached for having committed perjury and suborning others to do so too. I doubt the leaders of the impeachment push would have gone after Clinton for infidelity considering most of them were guilty of that same character flaw thereby making themselves obvious targets of public ridicule.

At least Reynolds does acknowledge that his interpretation is open to discussion. He has the sense to know that any history of such a recent period will not be definitively written for some years to come and it likely won't be beholden to this one.

Rating:
Summary: A Leftist Look at the Last 55 Years
Review: Yes, writing a global history is an impossible task. However, there are varying degrees to which you can succeed. David Reynolds comes up short with his book titled "One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945".

Reynolds' main theme is that, while advances in telecommunications have made communication easier and faster to all points of the globe, the world is not converging into a monocultural monster. Reynolds' believes quite the opposite is happening. Mass communication and increased education have aided the fragmentation of empires like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and France. The western European withdrawal from empire and the collapse of totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe have created many new states and allowed the rising consciousness of formerly suppressed ethnic identities.

Reynolds supports his thesis well but, aside from a few disgruntled French farmers, anyone with the requisite intelligence to even read a book such as this already knows it. Reynolds portrays his theme as if it were reinventing contemporary conceptions of the world when in fact all he is doing is reinforcing what any educated person already knows.

Regarding the actual history that Reynolds writes, he does well up until about 1980. The closer he gets to the year 2000, the more Reynolds gets wrong. He seems to have a particularly difficult time explaining the American scene since roughly the Ford administration. Two egregious mistakes he makes are blaming America's deficits on the Reagan tax cuts and claiming that Clinton was impeached for his sexual improprieties. What caused the large deficits of the 1980s was not Reagan's tax cuts but his inability to reign in (or his indifference to) excessive Congressional spending. Furthermore, Bill Clinton was impeached for having committed perjury and suborning others to do so too. I doubt the leaders of the impeachment push would have gone after Clinton for infidelity considering most of them were guilty of that same character flaw thereby making themselves obvious targets of public ridicule.

At least Reynolds does acknowledge that his interpretation is open to discussion. He has the sense to know that any history of such a recent period will not be definitively written for some years to come and it likely won't be beholden to this one.