A documentary showed up at r/Documentaries, with the title: Niall Ferguson's War of the World, with the following claim: "there wasn't two World Wars & a Cold War, but a single Hundred Years' War. It wasn't nationalism that powered the conflicts of the century, but empires. It wasn't ideologies of class or socialism driving the century, but race."
I am interested in how the author of this documentary is viewed by other historians, so is it worth to read/watch his works or he is a total whackjob and better not give any attention to what he says.
Edit: spelling and a word
Some historians have viewed the idea that most of the twentieth century was a long "crisis of empire" quite favourably. John Darwin is particularly influential in this camp, the last 150 pages or so of his book After Tamerlane deals with the unravelling of a Eurocentric world in favour of an American global empire. While I do think that empire was and has always been a driver of historical change I think Lawson is talking crap about nationalism. nationalism was and is a hugely destructive and creative force from about 1850 on in the arts, literature, music and politics and to claim otherwise seems a bit odd to me. The race comment.. pfft. where to begin? As for what other historians think about them: I'm sure they would not be so indiscreet to show their real feelings. In my opinion he is a part of the right wing echo chamber trumpeting western exceptionalism that borders on racism. If you want proper global history rather than polemic read John Darwin.