A comprehensive review of the 20th century. His thesis is interesting and his case for it does not really establish itself to the final pages of the book. However his history of the 20th century is in depth and his transition from one topic to the next is quite engaging. Worth the read, especially for any minor history buffs. ( )

I'd like to give this a 4.25.

The War of the World is a massive undertaking, Ferguson's attempt to determine why the twentieth century was both the world's bloodiest even though it fostered the most advances in quality of life. In an enormous synthesis of hundreds of scholarly works and primary sources, Ferguson takes his reader on a grand tour of the earth from before the First World War and takes it to 9/11. The themes he deduces from his analysis of all this material can be simmered down to two. (1) The amazing, breakneck-paced advances in the technological and business world, the market, which fostered better health, longevity, and the like also created a world where business interests and bloated, powerful governments were needed to manage the globe-encircling economies - in short, technology and bureaucracy engendered the rise of totalitarianism, sort of a mechanized absolutism that Louis XIV or Catherine the Great could only dream of. (2) The breakdown of multi-ethnic empires, which, Ferguson contends, tended to promote peace between ethnic minorities, coupled with the concomitant economic disruptions during their break-ups led to ethnic violence and genocide. Usually this was preceded by significant intermarriage between members of ethnic groups (often majority-minority pairings) and social integration into the larger society.

You put these two things together and you get volatility - to say the least. What is the result of this? The West is losing to the East - and by East he means specifically China, Japan, and the Middle East, but mainly China. The subtitle to the American edition is "Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West." He gets the point across that the West ain't what it used to be, but not as clear in proving, to me at least, that this means the East will win. Ferguson, who could be called a historian of empires, if anything, I'm sure sees similarities between nineteenth-century British subsidization of the US economy and twentieth-century subsidization of China's. This is a cause for concern. The decline of Western birthrates, the economic problems that will come upon an aging, declining Europe full of lazy socialists will lead to economic and then social anarchy. Ethnic violence (Europe is still fractured by ethnicity and now full of Muslims of all races and cultures) will likely ensue. What does this all mean? Who knows. Ferguson sees the twentieth-century as one big ongoing war, at least until 1953 and the end of the Korean Conflict (saying this wasn't really like the Cold War conflicts that followed). His assessment that the West really didn't win the Second World War is convincing - it's hard to say the good guys won and the bad guys lost when one of the "good guys" was Stalin. That and even the UK and US, in my opinion the two greatest and most benevolent nations (empires) in the history of the world, resorted to what could be called war crimes (Dresden, Tokyo, etc. - ask Curtis LeMay).

But perhaps I am saying too much about this book. More generally: the content is wonderful; Ferguson's writing is clear, lucid, and engaging; new ways to look at things and intriguing bits of trivia pop up left and right. I recommend this book for any historian, especially those interested in the two named world wars. Some problems. Ferguson's thesis is a bit lost in all the fun, and perhaps unproven by the end of it all. His epilogue does not reiterate his introduction, but gives an incomplete history of the Cold War. Naturally, though he begrudgingly (and perhaps insultingly) mentions Thatcher (Ferguson is a Scot), he fails to mention Reagan and his impact on ending the Cold War. No biggie. He contends that the so-called Cold War was, in fact, nothing but inter-ethnic conflict under a different rubric as the European empires withdrew from their colonies. Unfortunately, he doesn't dwell on this enough to prove his point. His post-1989 examples too are given short shrift, and, lastly, he can't really place Islamic terrorism in his mold.

To finish, the content footnotes (using *, †, and ‡) are neat and informative but the small-print, back of the book, "354 'marriage...' This Book" style endnotes is annoying. I hate this new-fangled style of notes that popular presses seem to be adopting. But what can I do, being a lowly history Ph.D. student? ( )

Niall Ferguson begins "The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" with a simple question - what made the twentieth century, particularly the period between 1912 to 1953, the most bloody period in human history? Asides from this Ferguson also links this conflict with a shift of power away from the west and towards the east where in succession Japan and then China made vast steps in catching up with their more advanced neighbours.

The thesis seems well thought out and Ferguson has ample amount of supporting evidence to support his ideas, but his thoughts become disjointed as his narrative moves forward - losing most of its touch as the book nears its close. The final Epilogue seems almost anti-climatic, serving as only a mild movement towards the current political situation following the September 11th terrorist attacks. Simply put Ferguson doesn't manage to put together all the threads he put forward at the outset, leading to a book that comes off as half-finished. ( )

The introduction is the best part - engaging and packed with ideas. The body of exposition disappoints however - flabby and with the feel of being put together by a team of researchers. ( )