An enlightening read that gives the events of the 20th century an informed analysis using a very wide range of historical sources. A fantastic read I recommend to anyone who wishes to have a deeper view of our own inhumane past.

The following review might seem more like a pan, it’s not meant to be. I might have gone with 4*, felt like that would be false advertising, but would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys modern history.

The author’s thesis is that there was one single war raging, ebbing and flowing throughout the 20th C, with a few hiatuses and time outs between battles.

His thesis is interesting, instructive and gives this big, long, bouncy book a slightly different slant of mind than many standard histories. It is also quite heavily attention-weighted towards everyone’s favourite world war, WWII

I am sort of a fan of Ferguson, not a real fanatic, but have read enough of his work to come to grips with the sentiment that, although he is highly knowledgeable and has an extraordinarily high output of work, he inevitably falls short of his potential.

This book does nothing to disabuse me of this conclusion. It needed more cohesiveness and a sharper set of plot points to successfully pull off the author’s unusually ambitious intentions.

Ferguson proposes his thesis, states succinctly what that thesis is, supplies us with a huge, rambling and entertaining banquet filled with all manner of fascinating historical material (even though I consider myself relatively well read in modern military history, I hadn’t come across much of it before) and leaves it at that. In the end, his theses concludes as nothing more than a hypothesis. He doesn’t satisfy with his statements, just makes us hungry.

He final conclusion is that we may have seen the last of a War War. Any further conflicts are likely be localised, or regional, at worst.

As a gambler, that’s a bet I like, but wouldn’t take.

Described as an overview of the various wars that occured during the 20th century I knew this was going to be a 'heads down concentrate' kind of book and I wasn't wrong.

It started with one of the most excellent introductions I have ever read that could easily be published as a piece of work on its own. I just loved how Ferguson drew out similarities between H G Well's War of the World and World War One (and later Lord of The Rings and World War Two). Yet with subheadings like "Diasporas and Pales" much googling of word meanings was needed.

The language Ferguson used however was at times outstanding, where he describes World War One as a "gargantuan abattoir featuring cavalry charges by armed and armoured vehicles" or where he describes it as an "industrialized siege where trains would transport men to and from the front lines like shift-workers" or where he describes the wounded men being offered a cigarette "they inhale only to expire". I could go on quoting various sentences, indeed my copy of the book now contains so many highlighted sections it's almost visible from space.

As fantastic as the above examples show I can't lie and at times when Ferguson was describing "counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus" I had no idea what he was talking about. I think this however lies more with my ability to grasp world economics than Ferguson's ability as a writer.

The War of the World certainly packs a few punches with America often falling foul of Ferguson's literary blows. The parallels he draws between America and Germany, Hitler and Roosevelt, the laws around interracial marriage and mandatory steralisation were startling at times. Yet no-one particularly comes out of it well (how can you when you are at war?) As with the above quotes I could give endless examples but I'm only writing a blog and so will move on.

It was horrifying to read certain parts of the book, for example the 'Rape of Nanking' (something of which I had no knowledge of). When describing the unimaginable way the Jews were treated and exterminated Ferguson illustrates time and time again how this was not just carried out by a certain few but was the collective work of neighbours and colleagues, Poles and Latvians, nearly everyone it seemed. Ferguson saves his most brutal criticism for those involved in the concentration camps and again illustrates how this was not just the work of Hitler's most trusted men - a University thesis entitled 'On the Possibilities of Recycling Gold from the Mouths of the Dead', the railway company charging half-price discounts for transporting groups of 400 or more Jews to their deaths, "thousands of people turned Hitler's deranged dream of genocide into reality"

It was difficult at times to agree with all of the arguments Ferguson put forward - Would we really have had things all sewn up in a jiffy if World War Two had started a year earlier? Would public opinion really have allowed for it? And as mentioned above some points raised (mostly to do with money, (as always)) went over my head. I also would have liked a little more focus on other wars that occured during the twentieth century, obviously a lot of focus was given to World War Two but this is so often the case and it would have been interesting to read Ferguson's perspective on wars more usually swiftly glossed over.

The book was very informative but equally very opinionated. The lengthly bibliography clearly shows the time and effort that has gone in to it's writing but I think I was looking for something more generic and facutal than the thesis put forward by Ferguson. I enjoyed it, it provided numerous talking points but it was hard work and I'm always wary when a book is so opinionated of what someone else would be arguing. More reading needed perhaps!

There is something about this guy’s work that is a little annoying. Like his The Ascent of Money, it was almost there, but not quite. I needed something on World War Two recently and saw this and bought it, but it has a much broader interest than just that conflict.

The idea behind this is fascinating – pretty much that we like to think most of the conflicts of the last century were ideological, when in fact they were mostly ethnic. There is some fascinating stuff on the formation of Turkey and the expulsion of the Greeks to facilitate that and some disturbing bit and pieces about Stalin and Soviet (or rather Russian) exceptionalism, but as always the most disturbing information here is on the Nazi. The information here about the invasion of Poland and the consequences of it due to both the Soviet Union and Germany is horrific. I used some of this when teaching WW2 recently – particularly his explaining that the Germans literally killed girl guides as part of their policy of removing all possibility of there being ‘leaders’ who might form a resistance.

But although there is a remarkable amount of fascinating material in this book it doesn’t really work. I’m not sure how much ethic divisions really define the last century or if they are enough to explain everything. Power is much more interesting than just skin colour or how many fingers you use to cross yourself with. Economic power would seem a much more interesting way to explain the world.

However, I’ve been selective in my reading of this book and will eventually need to go over the bits I skipped. Which was, truth be told, most of the book. There is a television series to this one too, but I still haven’t watched the money one, so getting around to watching this one might be a bit of a problem as well.

The explanations that we learn in high school for history's most horrible events tend to remain with us unchanged, unless we really look deep. Ferguson challenges many of the assumptions about the causes of the 20th Century's dreadful violence and is convincing. Living in Jerusalem, I've often seen how conventional wisdom about the persistent violence of the Middle East seems to miss the mark. That only makes me more convinced that Ferguson is right in refusing to accept the reasons advanced by historians 50 years ago for, say, the Nazi's campaign against the Jews. Our ideas ought to be constantly developing and responding to new research, and Ferguson's book is the best way to get a very broad sweep of these new perspectives.

OK today I have the time to follow up on this book. This is a bit off the cuff but for those undergraduates of you who didn't read it until the day before you were assigned to speak in front of the class it will give you some nuggets to work with.

Firstly the author Mr. Furguson has a penchant for writing what one might almost call big history that is looking beyond the titles we find convenient when analyzing say the 20s or the 30s or even World Wars One and Two. This author may delve into some of that and use some of the same vernacular but his historiography lies somewhere entirely.

Here he reexamines the history of the late nineteenth through about the mid 20th century and offers up some very insightful notions that are at once obvious and also terrible in their ramifications.

The title of the book is no coincidence and points directly to H.G. Wells invasion thriller and argues persuasively I think that it has already come to pass. No extraterrestrials mind you. Just one human lower others to sub-human status for war making and political purposes. The author examines the ethnic upheavals taking place particularly in eastern Europe in the first half of the century noting that the tendency towards ethnic cleansing was not unique to one group or another. The phenomena was much more widespread and the reason this was noted earlier is part being too close to the subject and part the enormity of the Holocaust.

Throughout time there have been attempts by one group to rub out another group. What changed in the last century was the rise of industrials and mass destruction. Communication became instant and means by which virulent thought could be disseminated to the masses. Add to this long standing European feuds and pograms and you see the rise of the settings needed for a new term to be invented. Genocide.

The author makes the case that the real underlying issues in the wars of the last century can more or less be traced to racial and tribal origins and goes about describing what was happening on the ground that causes him to reach this conclusion. This is s topic of much debate to this day particularly in places like Poland where no national reconciliation has ever taken place. The Germans were meticulous record keepers and the fact is they even comment that the Poles where more ferocious anti-semites than them. What we so often think of as a German thing was in fact widespread among other groups as well. The German may have been leader of the kabal, he may have even been it's worst perpetrator, but he was far from the only one killing Jews and other people in cold blood.

The author goes to note how the rules of war seemed to change radically somewhat in the First World War and then radically in The Second World War where by the end of the war all sides were essentially trying to destroy the other without reference to civilian bystander or military participant.

If one looks at Rwanda... Where did such an awful thing spring forth from? Surely every idea has it's nexus it's source? What about Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? What he's getting at is the lines that traditionally have been used to define warfare have fundamentally changed and that Total War, genocide, and mass attrition have in an odd way become the de facto standard today. He argues the period starting around 1900 and running at least until the end of World War Two or Korea represent not a series of separate wars but rather a modern fifty year world war.

Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

How many times have we heard these words? We have had generations since the closure of the period author specifies and they have all seen it in the methodology handed down to use from ancient times. In a sense the author has proposed a new overarching schema to help better understand the underlying causes of war and what really causes it. He argues it's not economic in nature though economics can play a role. I think he says it's really boiled down to the not entirely tamed beast within the heart of man and it's expression through nationalism. Nationalism became the new tribalism armed now with the machine gun, tank, bomber, even nuclear bomb. It only needs a machete to show expression as in Rwanda.

I recommend the book. You can get your mind around it and then look at how the racial tensions express themselves within the United States in political and social warfare among other things. I was more critical of some earlier works of his but I think he's on to something here.

A necessary book for a better understanding of the first 3/4 of our XX century. Comprehending de underlining reasons of wars, conflicts and violence perpetrated by States and leading political ideas of the previous 100 years is fundamental to better grasp our present world. The author made a brilliant work on consolidating and interlinking tragic political ideas to conflicts. Contribute perhaps to educate present minds to beware of putrid truly genocidal ideologies to rise again dressed as something new or fresh.

I loved this book! I love his fast paced writing style, it keeps the reader glued to every page. His take on everything may not be popular but it is always interesting to get different views on the same subject so maybe the well read reader can form his or her own opinion from the array of facts found in list of books on this subject. Ferguson has been one of my favorite history writers only because of his entertaining style not so much for his academic interpretation on his subject however. Well worth reading and then read some other good hisorians. Seek out as many varied takes and then form your own opinion.

The more I read authors from "revered" institutes (like Oxford) the more I lose respect for these institutes. What a waste of pages. Yes, the author has a few nuggets of uncomfortable truths that the West is unwilling to acknowledge (esp the fact that WWII was not a fight of good vs evil but evil vs evil) but the author is highly biased towards the Anglo-American view of the events

Quick to denounce Hitler for his Aryan (read White) supremacy, the author fails to see the same flaw in Churchill (or in the British people, for whom he has only praise; Someone needs to remove those rose-tinted glasses). He dismisses the death of Indians (3mn+ Bengalis) calling the equivalence of two oppressive colonial regimes facile. He even goes to a great extent to justify the deaths

1. Quit India angered the Brits; (there is a line which reads like "Sure we killed a few million. What about Gandhi eh? Quit India was also violent. Some 60,000 injured. So much for peaceful protests ha. No one tells Gandhi anything".) This stupid equivalence is used to justify the moral stance of the Brits
2. It was war and India was declared as a resource center (occupied hostile territory) by Brits (indicating that the methods were "unfortunate but understandable")
3. The famine was triggered by a natural disaster and Churchill wasn't really to blame;

According to the author, Churchill (or the British Raj) would be as evil as the Nazis IF they had killed leaders systematically. For me, that was the point where the author and the book lost all relevance. It is just another highly biased portrayal of global events. His coverage of the forces at play White-washes the crimes of the British Raj. Germans industrialized Killing of Jews. British gobbled up cultures and created systems of oppression that could have lasted for millennia. They were not different. They were the same ideologies, directed at different sets of people in different parts of the world on different timescales. Their cost to humanity has been the same and they deserve equal amount of scorn and denunciation.

Funnily enough, the only true representation of the British Raj in the book comes from a source that the author quotes (but doesn't comment on). Hitler rightly called out the moral hypocrisy of the Raj in subjugating the people in the name of democracy and modernization and author was kind enough in adding (or maybe not vigilant enough in removing) that quote

Also, the blurb is misleading. The book does not cover the whole of 20th century. It is just about the two world wars and there are much better books on each of the subjects.

Overall, it is a biased collation of various other works, paraded as a new take on events. Can skip the book for sure.

An absolute slogfest. Took longer to read than the Battle of Verdun.

This is the first book by Ferguson that I've read. I was pleased with this effort--it was well-researched, and although it covers material amply familiar to any 20th century history buff, it was engaging not only because of Ferguson's fluid style but also because of his unconventional take on the causes and dynamics of human conflict and cruelty. You may or may not agree with some of his interpretations but he makes convincing arguments which make one want to research the topic in greater depth.

A couple of caveats: Ferguson assumes his readers have a basic familiarity with political economy and macroeconomic concepts, in addition to the traditional history-book versions of WW1/WW2. If you're new to these topics, it's still a good and informative read, but you may find yourself skipping over parts of Ferguson's analysis. Second--Ferguson does not spare the reader one jot the horrors of man's inhumanity to man--some of his descriptions of the pogroms, rapes, massacres, and genocides of the 20th century are stomach churning and filled me alternately with revulsion, incredulity, sorrow and despair--if any single lesson is to be drawn from this book it is that it is all too easy for historical, political, social, and economic forces quite beyond our control to transmogrify the supposedly civilized into murderous beasts and sadists.

One more minor point: the maps in my edition (a penguin softcover) were fairly useless--I wish an editor had taken the time to create maps which contain the majority of places or geography mentioned in the book! I had to use my own atlas to visualize a lot of what Ferguson was discussing.

Clear, concise and compelling, Ferguson narrates the war history of XX century in a fun and enlightening way. Gives reasonable causes for many of that century’s conflicts and provides an overview of modern world history.