A History of the Twentieth Century: The Concise Edition of the Acclaimed World History – A Vivid Year-by-Year Record of Wars and Technology from Aviation to Computers

by Martin Gilbert

Martin Gilbert, author of the multivolume biography of Winston Churchill and other brilliant works of history, chronicles world events year by year, from the dawn of aviation to the flourishing technology age, taking us through World War I to the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt as president of the United States and Hider as chancellor of Germany. He continues on to document wars in South Africa, China, Ethiopia, Spain, Korea, Vietnam, and Bosnia, as well as apartheid, the arms race, the moon landing, and the beginnings of the computer age, while interspersing the influence of art, literature, music, and religion throughout this vivid work. A rich, textured look at war, celebration, suffering, life, death, and renewal in the century gone by, this volume is nothing less than extraordinary.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World History, Audiobook, War, School, Reference

832 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

About the author

The official biographer of Winston Churchill and a leading historian on the Twentieth Century, Sir Martin Gilbert was a scholar and an historian who, though his 88 books, has shown there is such a thing as “true history”

Born in London in 1936, Martin Gilbert was educated at Highgate School, and Magdalen College, Oxford, graduating with First Class Honours. He was a Research Scholar at St Anthony's College, and became a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford in 1962, and an Honorary Fellow in 1994. After working as a researcher for Randolph Churchill, Gilbert was chosen to take over the writing of the Churchill biography upon Randolph's death in 1968, writing six of the eight volumes of biography and editing twelve volumes of documents. In addition, Gilbert has written pioneering and classic works on the First and Second World Wars, the Twentieth Century, the Holocaust, and Jewish history.
Gilbert drove every aspect of his books, from finding archives to corresponding with eyewitnesses and participants that gave his work veracity and meaning, to finding and choosing illustrations, drawing maps that mention each place in the text, and compiling the indexes. He travelled widely lecturing and researching, advised political figures and filmmakers, and gave a voice and a name “to those who fought and those who fell.”

https://twitter.com/sirmartin36

https://www.facebook.com/sirmartingil...

Reviews

[X · Rating 2 out of 5]

Should be renamed "A One-Sided, Biased and Selective History of The Twentieth Century".

First of all I listened to the audiobook version of the book, which wasn't bad.

What was bad, was how the book was written. The author seemed to me like an amateur. Its okay with me if you present your own (naturally, biased) view of the world, we are all biased in our own ways, and to different degrees. My problem, is when you become selective of what you write, and what you don't. My problem is when you only tell PART of the truth, and assume the rest is irrelevant. My problem is when you write the history based on your misconceptions, and not on the actual facts that are presented to you.

The book is presented from a "western" point of view. It exaggerates the mistakes and cruelty of others (USSR, China, Arabs, Germany in WWII) and underestimates the wrongdoings of so called "western" countries (imperial Europe, US, Israel, ..etc)

The book is very long, and it'll take me ages to point out each mistake, partial truth, biased opinion, and outright lie. But I can give you a few examples so that you can get the feel of it:

* The 20th century was full of wars (no surprise here), whenever a "western" country bombs civilians for example, its nearly always stated that it was "by mistake", whenever another country does the same, the author fails to mention this, I assume he thinks the others do it by purpose, all the time.

* Since I'm very familiar with the history of the middle east, I noticed many mistakes, like when he mentioned that the 10,000 (actually, it more like 30,000) people killed in Hama in 1982 by the Syrian Army were all "islamic militants" when we know that only a few hundred were. The rest were all civilians.

* He portrays the 1976 attack by Israel on Egypt as if it was an act of self defense, and that not an outright act of aggression. What Nasser said or didn't say, makes no difference.

* I understand that Jews suffered in WW2 (just like many other peoples), but the author throughout the book, mentions Jewish casualties regardless of how few. He even dedicates a whole paragraph to Anne Frank. But when it comes to Arab casualties, in the 1949 war for example, he does not mention them at all! It goes like this: " At the end of the hostilities, more than XX Jews were killed! Some Arabs died too."

* One of the things that annoyed me the most when he mentioned that Jihad meant "Holy War". Now you don't have to know Arabic to use an Arabic-English dictionary. The concept of "holy war" only came into the Arabic language after the Crusades. The real meaning of the word Jihad جهاد is "struggle", from the root "Juhd" جهد which means "effort".

* He portrays the Arab STRUGGLE against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza as "terrorist attacks against soldiers and civilans in which so-and-so died". But he fails COMPLETELY to mention that these acts of self defense (mostly) were not unprovoked. He doesn't mention any of the attacks on the Palestinian population by terrorist Jewish gangs in 1949 (like Haggana) or Jewish settlers (after 1967) or even the IDF (since 1949, and through the first Intifada). Reading the book، he gives you the impression that these Palestinian kids have nothing better to do than blow up themselves and kill some innocent "Israeli soldiers and civilians".

* and so on ..

I gave the book 2 stars, not 1, because its not all garbage. If you know how to think by yourself, and distinguish all the biases and personal opinions and incomplete truths, and you want to revisit the history of the previous century, then read the book.

BTW, for a balanced, thorough, and entertaining treatment of middle eastern history, I really recommend "A History of The Modern Middle East" by William L. Cleveland. Its probably the best history book I have ever read.

[Gina Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

AmblesideOnline year 11 history spine option. This is the “ concise” edition of a much more extensive three volume work. Honestly, it felt a bit like trying to drink from a fire hydrant. There is SO much information. I’ll definitely encourage my student to read a little bit every day and to make sure she’s following along on the included maps. I’m toying with the idea of trying to find a larger blank map and having her record important dates and happenings in the respective areas. I learned a lot but I also feel like I need to go back and read it about 12 more times because I know I missed so much! Lol

[Caleb Gerber. (Right makes Might) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Martin Gilbert’s A Concise History of the Twentieth Century may be labeled “concise,” but at over 800 pages (or nearly 30 hours in audiobook form), it’s anything but light. That said, it delivers a sweeping, detailed chronicle of a century defined by war, revolution, ideology, and technological upheaval.
Gilbert’s strength lies in his command of the global narrative. He brings together events from every continent, showing how interconnected the 20th century truly was. His prose is clear and sober, often letting the facts speak for themselves, especially in chapters covering the world wars, the Holocaust, and the Cold War. He doesn’t inject much personal interpretation, which can be refreshing—or frustrating—depending on what the reader is looking for.
The audiobook experience, while engaging overall, could be overwhelming due to the density of names, dates, and global developments presented in rapid succession. At times, the book feels more like an annotated timeline than a cohesive narrative. Depth is sacrificed for breadth, which is understandable given the ambitious scope, but it leaves some areas—especially cultural and intellectual history—underexplored.
Overall, I give it 3.5 stars. It’s an impressive achievement and a solid resource for anyone seeking a global overview of the 20th century, but its sheer volume and relentless pacing make it better suited for reference than for casual listening.

[Hunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Covering the an entire century in 800 pages necessarily forces a certain selection and brevity. However, read this and you will get a flavor of the last century. It should dispel any romantic notions that it was "the best of times".

[Brian Wiseman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Martin Gilbert's history of the 20th century is informative and eye opening. It is extremely helpful in understanding how each of the world's nation states have come into being. If you want to understand the world of the 21st century then I highly recommend this history of the 20th century.

[Andrew Thorpe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very informative, very dry.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

i went looking for a big, epic twentieth century survey and this delivered the goods. despite its scope and intimidating length, it's pretty engaging throughout. i listened to the audio version (30 plus hours!) which was great - kind of like tuning in to BBC radio, only hearing news about WWI or something.

this is totally one of those books that attempts to present history as something linear, conventional and "neutral." the linearity is actually its great strength (much as the embattled avant-gardeist within me may hate to admit it). by starting at the beginning and ending at the end, gilbert forced me to make connections across a variety of different ideologies and cultures, especially during the 1930's. like all attempts at neutrality, it fails completely. instead, it presents a mainstream western view of world history, with an unusual emphasis on britain and the states. accordingly, the post-WWII atrocities of western europe and the u.s. are mostly minimized as tragedies that good people failed to prevent - while similar crises from the communist and muslim world are usually more intentionally malevolent in gilbert's estimation. for example, there's a sentence about the iranian revolution where the shah is described as "fighting the forces of islamic fundamentalism" which struck me as a particularly misleading morsel of information.

some of these biases are inevitable - in fact, a history book without any bias would probably also lack any personality. one deeper problem with gilbert's history is its almost total ignorance of latin america and the caribbean. for instance, gilbert feels the need to devote a few paragraphs to the election of john major in the u.k. (surely one of the 20th century's most riveting moments), but fails to include any mention of either of haiti's duvalier's. latin america is almost completely absent from his account until the post-colonial era. and even there, its role is mostly limited to the cold war posturing of the time - cuban missile crisis, reagan vs. the sandanistas and so forth.

on the other hand, gilbert is surprisingly informative when it comes to eastern europe and possibly even the middle east, though his pro-israel sympathies occasionally cloud the picture he paints. there's also lots of good information about antisemitism in the soviet union, something that often gets brushed to the periphery in discussions of it. he also has a particular fascination with traffic accidents, which prove to be a far greater danger to human life than i ever considered them to be!

here's the bottom line - gilbert's politics are almost certainly to the right of my own. at one point he brags about george h.w. bush reading one of his books and getting the idea to compare saddam hussein to hitler in a speech - why would anyone want to take credit for that? but setting my own biases, this is a rock-solid history that really helped me fill in several of the gaps in my understanding of what lead up to the world i inhabit.

[Bryana Beaird · Rating 3 out of 5]

I started off thinking I was going to love this book, but found myself growing increasingly irritated by Gilbert’s obvious bias in favor of a central world governing system and disturbed at times by his naiveté regarding late 20th century foreign policy. While I didn’t come away feeling like I had both sides of all of the stories, I did appreciate the sheer volume of numbers the man was able to cram into the text in a reverent and respectful way that I felt portrayed well the appalling suffering of the world at war throughout a turbulent century.

[Sunil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative yes, comprehensive yes. A perfect reference book, but you can't afford to read a polarised book in an increasingly fragmented world. Going through the events, one realises how so much of twentieth century was bloody, including the minor events that are so forgotten now from collective consciousness, say the British acquisition of Tibet, Japanese naval victory over Russia 1904 etc.

Full marks for effort but the content is embarrassingly western centric. Do keep salt beside the table.

[Od Busakorn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I started the book with a goal to review important events of the 20th century for better understanding of the current, ongoing, unraveling of the start of the 21st century. I did not expect a complete account of all major world events. That goal is moderately met. The book has merits as well as some significant shortcomings, hence three stars.

First of all, one has to commend the author's undertaking to collect vast information from a century that underwent so much and many major changes. The book read like more an inventory of events than a book with analysis. At times it read like a series of newspaper headlines. I don't have a problem with that per se. You can only pack so much in 800+ pages and it's impossible to get into the details. However, the book suffers from the typical bias towards politics like the media. It is mostly filled with wars and conflicts and too light on other aspects, not least scientific and technological discoveries and development that arose in the last century. The inclusion of advancement in terms of human rights and the timeline of environmental concerns is a good one as these two aspects are an important part of human history.

Even in its favored area of politics, it is uneven due to its western-centric geographical coverage. The book is billed as "world history" but the focus is largely on the NATO countries, Europe and America. (Yes, perhaps not in a small part due to available information in English, a Western language. But this could be rectified with a conscious effort to balance the coverage.) In the early part of the century most non-Western countries were mentioned more or less in the limited context of colonization. Even major countries like India and China did not get much coverage towards the end of the century, when both experienced a rising prominence. The Tiananmen Square protests in China gets about 2 lines and the economic crash of 1997 in Asia was not mentioned at all. These gaps are in contrast to the relatively minor accounts of events that happened in Europe. Yes, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union was a major event but need every small former Soviet state be covered in details at the expense of the major countries like China and India? Much is also covered in the Middle East, mostly involving Israel. Bombings and numbers of casualties, large and small, specifically of Jewish people, were often mentioned and specific details of violence and perpetuators given, whereas the numbers of casualties on the Palestinian side were often left out, or if included, not given similar specific details. I am not an expert on the Middle East politics but have read enough about the Middle East to question the objectivity of the author in this particular area. At the end of the book I feel more informed about the major wars, hot and cold, and am left with an impression that human history is a series of violence and a confirmed realization that we are plagued with ignorance and hence inability/unwillingness to learn from history.

All in all the book was worth reading for a quick review of events, but there are gaping holes in the "world history" that I guess one would have to fill in oneself with other books.

[Writemoves · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read most of the book probably 60% or more. I focused on the history before my birth in 1952. It’s a very dry book. I did not notice any political leanings or ideology been expressed. It read like a newspaper from the 1960s. Just the facts...

Gosh it was a depressing read. There were so many stories around acts of barbarism, innocent people being killed, dying of starvation etc. It was hard to consider most of the world “civilized” where so much hatred and violence occurred.

Human kindness and civility did not keep pace with the rise in technology though much of that were in weapons of war.

We are not starting the 21st century much better. Heck, the world may not make it to 2100.

The author did document the influenza or pandemic around 1918-1921. No vaccines or social distancing prescribed back then.

Incredibly long book, close to 1,000 pages. Die hard scholars and readers of world history should take this refresher course of 20th century history.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's difficult to find a history of the 20th century that isn't thousands of pages long, and is well written. This is just under 700 pages (of reading) and the writing is decent. However, the format made this book a slog. It is written chronologically, by year. Which means that you are constantly jumping from one country and situation to the next. Holding all the threads in your mind is challenging. Another issue is that there are too many details in the second half of the book. It's difficult to write history that isn't very old, one doesn't know what information is vital yet. So I give him a bit of a pass on that, but still, I warn you. If you are using this book for teaching a class as I have, I would consider stopping around chapter 9 and having the class research the major events that follow.

[Joao Vargas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good summary of the main milestones of 20th century even though some important facts are completely ignored. There's no mention to 1905 Bloody Sunday, nothing about Neil Armstrong and the moon landing, not a word on the 13 year war of Portugal in Africa (while some minor conflicts are referred several times - e.g. Sri Lanka, Lesotho...), nothing on the Catholic Church main happenings (WW2, John Paul II election...), superficial details on Watergate, too little coverage on EU history...There's good info on some topics (both WW, Irish conflict, Israel vs Arabics, China until some point, Cold War. In the end, it's a good overview for someone who knows too little about History but lacks relevant details for someone who wants to deepen the 20th century knowledge.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This abridged version of Martin Gilbert's history of the 20th century is very informative, but dry.

What really strikes anyone reading this book is that the 20th century was definitely the century of war -- not only the two World Wars, but also the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the various conflicts that followed the end of the Soviet era, and the many tribal and religious clashes that occured as former colonies struggled to adjust to independence.

As with any abridged work, the author has to focus on highlights and leave out a lot of details, with the result that he gives only a cursory look at cultural happenings and inventions in science and technology. (He also has a strange fascination with fatalities in traffic accidents.)

[Sérgio Vaz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vamos começar com um erro absurdo que o livro comete: ele afirma que o ano de 1999 foi o último do século XX, sendo que na verdade foi o ano 2000.

O livro deveria se chamar A história GEOPOLÍTICA do século XX, pois 99% do livro só trata desse tema.

Passou muito pouco pelos avanços da tecnologia, grandes invenções, esportes (Copa do Mundo não é mencionada), grandes nomes, tráfico de drogas, dentre outras coisas.

Livro cansativo, longo e ao mesmo tempo superficial.

[Francis Becerra · Rating 1 out of 5]

The good: it’s easy to understand and covers a great deal of ground.

The bad: this is absolutely US propaganda. Very biased and is an awful work of history. It makes absolutely false claims and misrepresents sources.

This book has little to no educational value due to its absolutely propagandistic nature. This lack of educational value makes the fact that it is easy to understand absolutely worthless if not nefarious.

[Shawna · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most depressing books I've ever read. If anyone questions whether we live in a broken world and thinks we are progressing along some sort of path of enlightenment, they need to read this book. But, I have a greater idea of the scope of world history for this century and a little insight into why things are happening today the way they are. Whew!

[Elle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book and read almost the entire thing-it is a thick volume. The last part was super helpful to me with history from the 1970s onward that I feel isn't touched on a ton in history books but is important context for what is occurring in the world today.

[Christie Wessels · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting overview of the 1900s from start to finish. It was a truly remarkable century, and I learned a lot, especially about what was going on in the world during my childhood years when I was fairly oblivious to the wider world around me.

[Greta Musteikienė · Rating 5 out of 5]

Skaičiau, kad kažkas ir klaidų rado (kažkur 3) ir požiūrio kampas kažkam nepatiko, bet kaip ne istorikei man tai patiko. Labai glaustai (jei 29 valandos audio knygos apie 100 pasaulio istorijos metų yra glaustai) bet iš esmės manau neblogai nušvietė dvidešimtą amžių visuose žemynuose

[Michelle Fournier]

DNF, but I enjoyed the start of this. read with girls year 11 at the beginning of the year, but could not keep up with it as time went on. Still, it is a good history choice and maybe someday I will finish it with another child.

[Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book. Concise recount of the major and some minor events that shaped the 20th century. Highly recommended.

[Liberty Sinclair · Rating 5 out of 5]

After starting this book in the beginning of the school year in August and just now finishing it. I must say this was so much information I couldn’t believe! So amazing!

[Chenoa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dull, but informative.

[Johannes Asfaw · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent worthwhile read

[Jeffery Guichelaar · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of lists of facts and events, which I mean is what you are paying for, but Ive read/heard ones that better weave the events of the 20th century together. That being said id still recommend it.

[Mary D]

Very informative. Very dry.

[João · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilhante e minuciosa análise sobre o século XX

[Nechamah Goldfarb · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good and thorough intro, leaving one the opportunity to be basically knowledgeable or to investigate further any and all areas.

[dizz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Had to read this shit for my history class.

I’d rather have my eyes gouged out than reread this shit.