veganellewoods's review against another edition
2.0
I know that everyone thinks Hobsbawm is such a great historian and all that jazz, but his writing style is too annoying to handle for a book this long. He starts every paragraph (okay, like every other paragraph) with "yet," "however," or "although," as if the whole book is him making statements and then contradicting himself. He gives meaningless, forgettable statistics throughout and overall this is the kind of book that you can spend 40 hours reading and still take away nothing away from.
ethanhedman's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
Hobsbawm necessarily paints with a broad brush, but still paints a picture complete and deserving of praise. The author does not necessarily have a specific overarching argument beyond the title: the century was perhaps the most transformative in the history of mankind and several paradoxes and destruction and creation happen in the span of 80 years.
Hobsbawm, himself a German born in the early 1900's, analyzes the economic, political, social, and artistic ebbs and flows of the twentieth century. The first world war was horrific, but only horrific enough that its resolution perfectly set up a conflict that would dwarf it in scale and suffering. Before going into the history of the second world war, the author does touch on the Spanish Civil War - which he correctly identifies and the first proxy battle between competing ideologies in the Cold War to come.
The second world war forms the brief cooperative union of these ideologies - communism and capitalism (only due to Hitler's insistence on attacking the USSR) - and its devastating aftermath vast swaths of the world with the exception of the United States perfectly places it in control. *In 1959 in the USSR there were 7 women for every 4 men.* The outcome of the ideological split is somewhat predetermined.
Hobsbawm's strongest analysis comes in the failure of the Communist camp (specifically the USSR) to capitalize at various hinge points where it could have, if not spread thoroughly throughout the world, have maintained its position juxtaposed to the Capitalist world.
Finally, the author does appear prophetic at moments in predicting not only the ecological breakdown "The forces generated by the techno-scientific economy are now great enough to destroy the environment, that is to say, the material foundations of human life" (584), but also in his analysis of how inept governments are to deal with this crisis - ineptly. He is, as obvious as it may seem now (he wrote this in 1994), correct because of the effect that the trauma and joy - the experience - of the Age of Extremes had on the world, the political system, communication, and people's ideas of themselves and each other. How could one operate under other assumptions that would allow for empathy for people one has never met? or for those who have yet to be born?
Hobsbawm, himself a German born in the early 1900's, analyzes the economic, political, social, and artistic ebbs and flows of the twentieth century. The first world war was horrific, but only horrific enough that its resolution perfectly set up a conflict that would dwarf it in scale and suffering. Before going into the history of the second world war, the author does touch on the Spanish Civil War - which he correctly identifies and the first proxy battle between competing ideologies in the Cold War to come.
The second world war forms the brief cooperative union of these ideologies - communism and capitalism (only due to Hitler's insistence on attacking the USSR) - and its devastating aftermath vast swaths of the world with the exception of the United States perfectly places it in control. *In 1959 in the USSR there were 7 women for every 4 men.* The outcome of the ideological split is somewhat predetermined.
Hobsbawm's strongest analysis comes in the failure of the Communist camp (specifically the USSR) to capitalize at various hinge points where it could have, if not spread thoroughly throughout the world, have maintained its position juxtaposed to the Capitalist world.
Finally, the author does appear prophetic at moments in predicting not only the ecological breakdown "The forces generated by the techno-scientific economy are now great enough to destroy the environment, that is to say, the material foundations of human life" (584), but also in his analysis of how inept governments are to deal with this crisis - ineptly. He is, as obvious as it may seem now (he wrote this in 1994), correct because of the effect that the trauma and joy - the experience - of the Age of Extremes had on the world, the political system, communication, and people's ideas of themselves and each other. How could one operate under other assumptions that would allow for empathy for people one has never met? or for those who have yet to be born?
gabesteller's review against another edition
5.0
Wooooohooo I finally finished all four of these damn books!! And this one was like almost twice as long and I fuckin swear to god the type was EVEN SMALLER so it should count as fuckin two books but whatever.
Despite small type was still siiiick and maybe my second favorite. super enlightening chapters on the social world of the working classes in the 1910s-30s and discussion of culture under communism vs. capitalism.
But esp loved the 70’s-91 part cuz that’s all this deterioration really started. And towards the end hes talking about the new millennium and hes like man seems like theres a lot of mass shootings in America, and it seems like the undermining of public sector govt’s unable to deal with true catastrophes, and the ever growing strength of capital is sabotaging nations and their democracies all over the world, and frustrated populations may drift towards demagogues.
I mean fuck you are you kidding me!! We could see all this shit in 1991 and we could barely even begin to THINK ABOUT doing anything about it in 30 years!! F*@&$%%#$#ck!!!!!
Despite small type was still siiiick and maybe my second favorite. super enlightening chapters on the social world of the working classes in the 1910s-30s and discussion of culture under communism vs. capitalism.
But esp loved the 70’s-91 part cuz that’s all this deterioration really started. And towards the end hes talking about the new millennium and hes like man seems like theres a lot of mass shootings in America, and it seems like the undermining of public sector govt’s unable to deal with true catastrophes, and the ever growing strength of capital is sabotaging nations and their democracies all over the world, and frustrated populations may drift towards demagogues.
I mean fuck you are you kidding me!! We could see all this shit in 1991 and we could barely even begin to THINK ABOUT doing anything about it in 30 years!! F*@&$%%#$#ck!!!!!
frankied1's review against another edition
3.0
I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand i think it is a scathing anti USSR book, clearly written in the aftermath of the cold war with lots of scepticalism placed on the Soviet sphere that is not given to the US, and i also think it is heavily steeped in western chauvinism. Ie how Hobsbawm posited that much of the unrest and instability after 1990 was the result of Western states falling and not drawing out state lines and being the arbiters of nation state hood, when in reality the drawing of such borders down divide and rule tactics in the colonial epoch was a ticking time bomb for instability and uprising. On the other hand it was an interesting, relatively personal view of the short twentieth century, written very well and with poignant views to the future which reflected ideas in the period of which Fukuyama described as "the end of history". I think it was conflicted and represented an inner turmoil, in the Marxist historian who never gave up his membership of the communist party throughout the Cold War, and yet who was susceptible to Western chauvinism.
brannigan's review against another edition
2.0
In truth, this book deserves more of a 2.5 star rating, but I can't bring myself to round it up to three stars.
I have heard that Hobsbawm is a 'great', a history 'legend', so perhaps I came to this book with hopes that were marginally too high. Also I should mention I haven't read any of his first trilogy, concerning the 'long 19th century'. Still, I felt a bit let down by this book, which didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know about the 20th century.
Maybe it's because I'm not a historian - this seems very much like a historian's history, heavy on the broad themes such as the ebb & flow of fascism, the effect of the Great Depression on politics, the rise & fall of 'really existing socialism'. However, what it lacks is a good, coherent narrative (annoyingly, it bounces around chronologically which makes for a frustrating read - you reach the 1970s at the end of one chapter, but you're back in the Thirties at the beginning of the next chapter). I think it seems to assume the reader already has a thorough knowledge of the events of the 20th century, which is why it doesn't bother to explain things like the proximal causes and triggers of the first World War, the system of alliances, what the European Economic Community was, even the outcome of WW2 - these details are glossed over, which gives the whole book a confused, rambling feel.
There were some odd omissions as well, for a history of the 20th century - where was the civil rights movement? The women's suffrage movement? The foundation of Israel? I could go on, but maybe it is unfair to expect all major aspects of 20th century history to be included in a single volume. But then again, maybe Hobsbawm bit off more than he could chew...
To conclude, this book was OK. I wasn't really told anything I didn't already know, and there is a dearth of juicy anecdotes which can make parts of this book drag. There's something in Hobsbawm's style that leaves me cold, I don't know. 2.5 stars.
I have heard that Hobsbawm is a 'great', a history 'legend', so perhaps I came to this book with hopes that were marginally too high. Also I should mention I haven't read any of his first trilogy, concerning the 'long 19th century'. Still, I felt a bit let down by this book, which didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know about the 20th century.
Maybe it's because I'm not a historian - this seems very much like a historian's history, heavy on the broad themes such as the ebb & flow of fascism, the effect of the Great Depression on politics, the rise & fall of 'really existing socialism'. However, what it lacks is a good, coherent narrative (annoyingly, it bounces around chronologically which makes for a frustrating read - you reach the 1970s at the end of one chapter, but you're back in the Thirties at the beginning of the next chapter). I think it seems to assume the reader already has a thorough knowledge of the events of the 20th century, which is why it doesn't bother to explain things like the proximal causes and triggers of the first World War, the system of alliances, what the European Economic Community was, even the outcome of WW2 - these details are glossed over, which gives the whole book a confused, rambling feel.
There were some odd omissions as well, for a history of the 20th century - where was the civil rights movement? The women's suffrage movement? The foundation of Israel? I could go on, but maybe it is unfair to expect all major aspects of 20th century history to be included in a single volume. But then again, maybe Hobsbawm bit off more than he could chew...
To conclude, this book was OK. I wasn't really told anything I didn't already know, and there is a dearth of juicy anecdotes which can make parts of this book drag. There's something in Hobsbawm's style that leaves me cold, I don't know. 2.5 stars.
messagefromthedeep's review against another edition
5.0
Ein monumentaler Abschluss für Hobsbawms 200 jährige Geschichte der Menschheit. Überall findet man fetzen von sozialen Entwicklungen die man am eigenen Leib spürt, aber hier gebündelt als Teil eines kohärenten Gesamtbildes. Habe die Kapitel zu Kunst und Wissenschaft aus Zeitdruck übersprungen, werde sie aber schnellstmöglich nachholen.