|
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 | 
 enlarge | Author: Andrew Roberts
Publisher: Harper Perennial
Category: Book
List Price: $18.95
Buy New: $9.95
You Save: $9.00 (47%)
New (24) Used (10) Collectible (2) from $9.25
Avg. Customer Rating:  39 reviews
Sales Rank: 26319
Media: Paperback
Edition: Reprint
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 752
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.8
Dimensions (in): 8.8 x 5.7 x 1.6
ISBN: 0060875992
Dewey Decimal Number: 900
EAN: 9780060875992
ASIN: 0060875992
Publication Date: March 1, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: May have small remainder mark on bottom. 100% money back guarantee. All books shipped from Strand Bookstore, New York City, USA.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
A magisterial history inspired by Winston Churchill's famous opus, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 is an engrossing account of the twentieth century, with a unique perspective on our turbulent times. In 1900, where Churchill ended the fourth volume of his History of the English-Speaking Peoples, the United States had not yet emerged onto the world scene as a great power. Yet the coming century was to belong to the English-speaking peoples, who successively and successfully fought the Kaiser's Germany, Axis aggression and Soviet Communism, and who are now struggling against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Andrew Roberts's History proves especially invaluable as the United States today looks to other parts of the English-speaking world as its best, closest and most dependable allies.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 34 more reviews...
 A refreshing change... June 12, 2008
'A History of The English Speaking Peoples' by Andrew Roberts
Andrew Roberts has penned a refreshing, enjoyable and erudite history of English-speaking nations in 'A History of The English Speaking Peoples'. Refreshing, I say, due to the fact that he is unapologetic (for the most part) for and sympathetic to these nations capitalistic economies, approaches to foreign policy and support for spreading democracy. Refreshing, because so much of the history that has been written over the last many decades have pilloried the English-speaking peoples over these aforementioned subjects.
A clear narrative this is not: the book may seem disjointed, at least at the start, however you'll soon get the feel for Roberts' voice and settle in well. He jumps from topic to topic which may take adjusting though his prose is superb and you'll find a good deal of humor as you move along. I've seen this book described as a right wing polemic, and I suppose I can understand why, though I rarely see the knives come out for Chomsky's or Zinn's new releases. For those right of center, you'll find this read extremely enjoyable; for others who reside comfortably in the center this will serve, if nothing else, as a fine alternative for the left wing polemics; those left of center will likely seethe.
 Save us from the British wingnut apprentices. April 10, 2008
2 out of 11 found this review helpful
Britain turns out some marvelous writers who can sometimes go on at great length about a world of things that Americans barely comprehend.
The is, unfortunately, a long history of some of these talented writers getting wrapped up into the politics of others and for the most part getting it wrong. There is a surplus of such writers who became expatriate parts of the neo-con revolution that catapulted conservatives into power -- and brought such shame and disgrace to the United States with torture, incompetence and block-headed stupidity.
Iraq is only the most obvious example. Someone could argue with that expression of opinion. But one thing you cannot say is that Iraq is in Africa or Latin American. It would be wrong and you'd instantly think that writer was stupid.
Mr. Roberts may be stupid or flip or just careless. This book is unworthy to be associated with a title connected to Winston Churchill, who knew how to write and how to use facts, even if he did on occasion spin them to his advantage.
The promotionary material for this book and the jacket of the one that I bought is without intention, a laundry list of inaccuracies.
Mr. Andrews announces that in the early years of the 20th century, the United States liberated great sections of the globe from an oppresive European power. You could stop right there.
Whatever you think about the Spanish-American war, it was not fought in the 20th century. it as fought in 1898, a closing year of the century previous. It was over before 1899 dawned.
The last thing we need is more fact-careless imperial writers, especially one who is noted for his connection with a Tory Party in Britain that has destroyed itself to the point of irrelevance. But perhaps the lack of luster of Labor will allow them to return to power.
Some did happen in the early years of the 20th century. The United States discovered it really wasn't fond of imperialism after all, even when most of the truth about it was hidden. The "possessions" we acquired from Spain did not willingly become American colonies. They were coerced. They were quite pleased to have our help in breaking colonial ties, but our causes for war were slight, coming in a fury of Yellow Journalism and war fever. It starts to sound familiar.
We don't have a problem with Cuba just because of Castro. It's much deeper. We seem to have made progress in Puerto Rico, but our citizens there, while better off than most of the caribbean, are hardly great examples of our skills in Imperial remnants.
But it is in the Philippines where our war in the early years of the 20th took place. It was a war to put down the forces of independence. The Phllippines had declared independence before the first American soldier set foot there. Our conservatives of that period demanded that we put the insurrection down. So it began. Hundreds of Thousands of Filipinos died. Their leader, Aguinaldo, was captured through deceit and coerced into agreeing to support American occupation.
The War had been raging since hostilities with Spain had ceased. The depth of the conflict and the expectation of a long bitter war were concealed from the American public during the 1900 campaign to re-elect McKinley. The methods of warfare were brutal in the extreme and rationalized by claiming they did it first.
Prisoners were routinely tortured. One Army account, in sworn testimony, was that of more than 160 men who were waterboarded, aka the water cure, only 25 survived. The Army was forced to investigate and discovered that war crimes were common. There were courts martial and a few careers ruined and others suffered not a burp -- as judgments were ignored in some cases of the connected.
The U.S. Government's own Philippine Commission was sickened by the extent of the problem. Among those who acted was General Nelson Miles, a distinguished Civil War veteran who was probably the most efficient killer of American Indians during the wars against them. He was no Custer and those were dirty wars as well.
But as the Commander of all U.S. Army forces, he could not accept what happened in the Philippines. He retired and the Imperialist officials spurned him.
The Philippine War officially ended in 1902, but it actually continued for more than a decade beyond that. There were rebel strongholds and they were rooted out. Some of the Islands could not be controlled, so everyone looked the other way after 1913. By then, the Imperialists in the United States were in disfavor everywhere.
When it was all over, we were forced to commit ourselves to independence or Filipinos. It eventually happened after the delay of WW2. But that long dirty war came at the cost of American dead not that far from what Iraq has cost us. And like Iraq, it was an open sore, the war between the people who did not care that we had strayed from our own ideals -- and embraced the worst.
Britain is a lovely country with a load of room for its own Tories to fulminate inaccurately. But perhaps Mr. Andrews could trouble himself with acquiring some facts instead of a right wing list of talking points based on fantasy.
He seems to have almost as much trouble with the facts as David Irving.
 Double standards February 25, 2008
3 out of 7 found this review helpful
Roberts book paints a very black-and-white view of anglo-saxon 20th century history. Attacks on 'the Left' are scattered throughout the book, as if 'the Left' was a single unifying philosophy that is characterised by Marxist revolutionaries.
Certainly there have been great achievements by some of those on 'the Right'. And some terrible policies from some of those on 'the Left'. But Roberts insists on promoting successes of 'the Right' and trying to justify their failures, while lambasting the Left at every turn.
The real world has shades of grey; it is in fact the political diversity of anglo-saxon democratic countries that have made them successful during the 20th century. Roberts would have us believe it is solely because of the leadership of Tory/Conservative visionaries - who succeeded despite the nefarious Lefties undermining their efforts. This view is pushed so much in the book that it detracts from the many more interesting insights he makes. The book reads best when it sticks to facts but Roberts emotive 'analysis' goes much too far and it becomes a sycophantic tribute to conservative leaders of the 20th c.
Aside from the obvious bias of 'Right' over 'Left', Roberts doesn't appreciate or acknowledge that most people do not fit neatly into those two groups.
+4 stars for the interesting coverage of the 20th century with (for me) new facts and insights.
-2 stars for the tiresome Tory/neoCon propaganda.
Bracing! December 27, 2007
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
This is a completely unapologetic paean to the Anglosphere.
I'm not going to cover the contents. If you have any pride in the Anglosphere, you'll love it. If you're a guilt-ridden liberal, you'll hate it. My interest is more in what Roberts says about the Republic of Ireland (where I grew up), and what he leaves unsaid about the future.
About Ireland, well, Ireland (actually, the Government of the Republic - Irishmen have always volunteered for Britain's wars, and are still actively recruited by historically-Irish British units) gets a lot of backhand slaps about failures to engage with the Anglosphere at important moments. Fair enough, I suppose, but there's some history involved that gets skipped over completely.
For example, I remember a number of my older uncles describing public tortures and burnings-alive of IRA men by the Black-and-Tans in County Clare during the late 1910's and early 1920's. You know, like lynchings in the Southern US, except that the colonial power got to leave, without any shame or rememberance, except by those actually slaughtered, their families, and their country.
I may have missed it, but I don't remember a Black-and-Tan (not even a drink) reference in Roberts's book. If I missed it, forgive me. If he failed to mention it, well, there you go: this is more a paean than a bit of history, despite the title.
Beyond all that, Ireland has mostly been a Roman Catholic country, with views more to Louvain and Rome than to London. An accident of history, perhaps, but one Roberts was happy to ignore, even as he highlights what Ireland might have expected at German hands.
Bottom line on England/Germany/Ireland: A country that can sustain a different culture, despite 800 years of invasion and famine, and then see it off, is going to see anyone off. Do not discount the Irish bloody-mindedness highlighted in this book.
By the way, Irish people are not ignorant of what they missed by skipping WWII. For example, I remember when I was in secondary school in Ireland in the late 1970's and early 1980's learning about how Ireland, having abstained itself from WWII, was excluded from the Marshall Plan-inspired European economic miracle of the 1950s. So, Irish people themselves recognized they'd condemned themselves to being a relative economic backwater by failure to participate in a larger world war.
All that said, you can still go to Lahinch today and see a memorial sponsored by the crew of the USAAF B-24 "Travelin' Trollop" that crashed on Lahinch beach during WWII, and which testifies to the great treatment they got at Irish hands during "The Emergency".
OK, beyond Ireland, Roberts spends a lot of text describing how the Anglosphere wins when it works together, and how it loses when it works separately. In this, I think he's calling for stronger ties. I think this is now only partially possible. Canada, for example, is completely overwhelmed by PC sentiment, to the point where free speech is on the verge of being outlawed. The UK, meanwhile, is a breeding ground for Islamofascism, even as its Government signs away more and more sovereignty to the Beast in Brussels. The bottom line? Well, that the Anglosphere is increasingly a US-Australia alliance, and even that is in doubt now that Howard is gone.
Bottom line? A great book, full of stirring stories, well told (even the Clintonian holiday from history has its place). In the end, however, it highlights just how much the Anglosphere has lost to the worms that bore at it from within.
A Breathlesss Tour (de Force) of the Last Century December 12, 2007
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
This book was an exercise in ambition. Thankfully, for so many of us, the author was up to the challenge. To provide an overview of the the history of the English-speaking peoples -- and the peoples they affected -- over the last century and beyond is in essence, to provide an overview of a good deal of the history of the entire World. To weave strands of history into a cohesive story of how the English-speaking peoples have -- far more often than not -- being a force for good in a compelling and entertaining fashion required passion, research discipline with great attention to detail, and excellent writing skills. It required the passion, to challenge forcefully a broad range of "popular" denigrating assertions (whether anti-American, anti-Empire, e.g.), coming from both the Left and the Right. It also required a demonstrable commitment to detailed research over polemical rhetoric, in order to establish the plausibility of a claim without having to rely just on the plausibility of a big picture view. (And, I am sure that by doing that he probably laid an egg or two, but his errors of commission are minor.) And finally, it required being a pretty darn good writer, able to keep your interest from waning through the ups and downs of history. Greatly recommend to almost anybody. While it is much easier to like this book if you respect America/Britain AND G.W. Bush/Tony Blair, I would argue that this book should be even more interesting to anybody who respects America/Britain BUT hates G. W. Bush/Blair!
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
