3 things explain the violence of the 20th century…
1. Ethnic conflict (including theories of racial difference)
2. Economic volatility
3. Empires in decline (and emergence of new empire states)—imperialism

By the ‘descent of the west’ the author means merely that the west no longer rules the world.

Гарна комплексна популярна праця по світовій історії 20 століття. З акцентом на війнах. Більшість концентрується лише на двох світових війнах, але Фергюссон дивиться ширше на все полотно, як безперервнмй рух протистояння народів. Мені сподобалось.

Compelling account of the blood-soaked 20th century, with Ferguson making a compelling case that much of the violence was rooted in the conflicting pursuits of empire-building and ethnically homogeneous nation-states. Eminently readable and filled with telling anecdotes, sharp research and deep insight.

Quite often while reading this book, I forgot what the central thesis was. Large sections read like conventional, yet fascinating histories, on a number of different topics relating to the "Decline of the West."
In his conclusion, Ferguson sometimes veered toward Jean Raspail territory, or threatened to. It would have been useful to note that the young men from North Africa who are increasing in Europe are descended from the same Roman Empire stock as everyone else around the edges of the Mediterranean. Anyway, the history lessons alone on the wars and interwar period are worth the price of admission.

There's too much to say about this book to fit here. Consider this an off-the-cuff review while it's still fresh in my mind, and with sincere intent to revisit it with a fuller critique down the line.

I'm not exactly sure what Ferguson was trying to do with this book. At times it reads like a comprehensive history of the inter-war years, highlighting events that show a continuity between them. But, at other times, it's a rehashing of common historical information that neither challenges mainstream concepts of the first half of the 20th century, nor adds to them. The result is a sprawling mass of information that doesn't ever feel like it comes together as a book. As a set of essays? Sure. But not as a full work of history.

Normally, I wouldn't begrudge a historian a certain level of coherence or organization. I've read enough history to know that, sometimes, the best historians often make you really work at understanding the points they're trying to bring up. But when I finished the book (and the rambling nature of the Epilogue certainly did not help here), I just felt like, what little new there was here, didn't require half of what had been included.

A deeply disturbing book, as it was intended to be. Makes one (this one at least) doubt his faith in humanity. While there are very good reasons to be optimistic about the future, we cannot afford to forget our history--and our troubling tendency to repeat it.

Ferguson closes this massive book this way: "(W)e remain our own worse enemies. We shall avoid another century of conflict only if we understand the forces that caused the last one--the dark forces that conjure up ethnic conflict and imperial rivalry out of economic crisis, and in doing so negate our common humanity. They are forces that stir within us still." Reflecting on the truly mind-numbing violence and cruelty of the 20th century described chillingly in this book, I wonder whether if "shall" is the right word to use in that passage. Merely "understanding" the "dark forces" is not enough, it seems to me. We must find a way to conquer them. And that may not even be possible.

I highly recommend this book, with the caveat that potential readers should expect to be left gloomy.

One star for Ferguson and three for the team of researchers behind him. They did a wonderful job.

This is not "a revolutionary look at humanity's most murderous century" so much as a scattershot economic and military history of Eurasia, 1940-1945. There's several places where Ferguson attacks other authors' claims, but targets rather dubious, second-rate literature--there's no great corrections to Shirer, or Trevor-Roper, or Beevor, or Tuchman, or any of the other accepted canon. These challenges furthermore regard "controversies" like to what depth Stalin had planed a preemptive invasion of Germany--great questions for a targeted history, but by no means a new synthesis of a war, let alone a century of war, let alone the socioeconomic, nationalist, racial and other drivers of those wars.

Whether Stalin and the NKO wargamed for a first strike westward seems anyway moot, unless their plan included the phrase "two thousand kilometers of fascist dogs non-stop whuppin' our asssssssssssssss along the unpaved road to Stalingrad" and was decorated in the margins with little Stukas strafing massed Soviet infantry. Even then, it's the Red Army under the Terror, so every corporal who studies the plan ends up shot within a week anyway.

It's war, and nazis, and strategic bombing, and bizarre ethnologists, and fairly well-written, so it's a pleasant enough read. It's not necessary, however, for even the most amateur historian of the Great Wars, and there's better introductions to the story.

I would have given it three stars, but there was a table somewhere in the 300s with a particularly egregious typo, which I now can't find. Apparently there wasn't room in 746 pages for an index of tables. THANKS NIALL FERGUSON PHD.

I think that this was an absolute mess of a book because Ferguson spends the majority of the book discussing well established historical facts that he does not even bother to connect to his overall thesis.

Ferguson, in the introduction of his book, explains that the extreme violence of the twentieth century requires a serious explanation. He then says that since the majority of those killed were non-combatants one cannot rely upon a study of military history to explain this violence, one has to look elsewhere. For Ferguson, “three things seem necessary to explain the extreme violence of the twentieth century, and in particular why so much of it happened at certain times, notably the early 1940s, and in certain places ... These may be summarised as ethnic conflict, economic volatility” and the end of empire. When I first read these comments I was struck by the upmost banality of them (seriously, how the heck could anyone think that writing a book advocating for such a position could be developing our understanding of the twentieth century?). In addition, I do not think that it is remotely helpful to attempt to explain the violence of this century through such generalisations about its causes when you are dealing with such a vast and diverse period of history.

Finally, we come to the biggest problem of the book: the way Ferguson makes his argument. In sections of this book, I do think that Ferguson does make a good case that his three factors led to violence within the twentieth century. However, that vast majority of the book I don’t think even attempts to support argument and that, at minimum, 75% of this book should be cut. For example, in the epilogue of his book - a section that should focus upon supporting his argument that the rest of the violence post-1953 was caused by these three factors. The only problem is, Ferguson does not even both and he just lists historical facts and he does not even attempt to connect these facts with his thesis. For example, in a section of his epilogue he engages in a discussion of the Cuban Missile Crisis and then completely forgets to explain the impact that this crisis has on his thesis.

I would say that the biggest lesson I learnt from this book is that, why you may have a decent argument, you need to ensure that you don’t go off on random tangents.

Bloody brilliant....this is what revisionist history should be....a second reading has left me less enthused but still a very good book...but the descent of the West? Only if you decided America cannot be included in this. The 20th was, after all, the American century and the East did not begin its true rise until near the end of the century...mostly EU propaganda...but a very good book for all that.

Not "the Feel Good Book of the Year", so be prepared when embarking on this one.
This is a fairly unbiased analysis of humanity's ability to perpetrate unspeakable atrocities against one another, for bullshit reasons.
Although my fellow penman Robinson can plow through such tomes as these in next to no time, I did find this heavy going, although at no point did I not want to continue on.
Very insightful, confronting and compelling. Unfortunately this is not the history taught in schools but most definitely what we all need to learn from.
Sadly most will not.

In this monumental work, Naill Ferguson delivers a tour de force case that the last century was the most violent in human history with compelling evidenced to back up his claim. Beyond the extensive research, stunning data, and marshaling of remarkable first-hand accounts from World I & II, he reaches around the world documenting the mind-numbing violence exacted by man against man from the opening days of the century until we stumbled bloody and decimated into the new century and millennium. But this much more than just a historical narrative about 100 years of wars.

Its weight and worth are established through the unanswerable questions of why that he poses from salient moments of perspective?

Why did so much of these wars stem from racial prejudice that erupted into ethic hatred and cleansing? How can we adequately understand the widespread engagement in genocide? Even between pre-war neighbors and where there had been high levels of inter-racial marriage.

What is it about the bent in human nature that can explain the brutality, rage, retribution, sexual assault and wanton murder released in the throes of war? Were the strategic objectives of the war an adequate explanation for why the political and military leaders of "civilized nations" embraced carpet bombing and the appalling incendiary destruction of civilian populations. These taken with the innumerable deaths perpetrated by dictators and the moral darkness of the century becoming stunning.

While the increase in technological capacity for violence and destruction can account for the increase in numbers - this doesn't answer the underlying moral questions and leaves the last century weighed in the balance and found wanting. What a testimony to the bygone century . . . and opportunity for consideration of what these stories should tell and teach. O God, give us ears that can listen.