A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900

by Andrew Roberts and Winston; Churchill

Book Overview

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. Meanwhile, the British Empire was in decline but did not yet know it. Any number of other powers might have won primacy in the twentieth century and beyond, including Germany, Russia, possibly even France. Yet the coming century was to belong to the English-speaking peoples,...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0060875984
• ISBN13: 9780060875985
• Release Date: February 2007
• Publisher: Harper
• Length: 752 Pages
• Weight: 2.65 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.6" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Water For Elephants

This 648 page book is a synopsis of historical events which have had impact by the English speaking peoples of America, Great Britian, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand from 1900 to present. Major events include WWI, WWII, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, The War on Terror, and the Iraq War. Andrew Roberts is a Londonite and neoconcervative apologist who gives a fresh perspective of these historical events that, unlike liberal revisionist history, portrays the the English speaking people in a light they deserve with recognition of their accomplishments, their sacrifices, their fortitude, their benevolence, and their leadership in protecting the world from fascism, communism, and Islamic radicalism. This refreshing perspective, which is a rare find amongst history books, along with an enticing writing style and brilliant diction made this book very enjoyable. I will frequently reference this work and re-read portions of it. Looking forward to more from this author.

Tells the epic story of our times

I have just now finished Andrew Roberts' magisterial "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" and I can say without reservation that I have not felt so exhilarated by a history book since first closing the cover on Paul Johnson's "Modern Times" 24 years ago. Henry Luce said that the 20th century would be "the American Century." It would be more accurate to call it "the Anglosphere Century." Locked arm in arm, and not without squabbles and occasional bad feeling, the English-speaking peoples cam together in the 20th century to repel the assault on civilization by what can only be described as barbarism in four of its modern forms: Prussian militarism (twice), Communism, and now, Islamo-fascism. Well, three of them have been seen off, anyway. The fourth, we shall see. Roberts demonstrates decisively that no other possible correlation of forces could have accomplished these worthy goals. The English-speaking world's long history of government by consent, public audit of government performance, an impartial judiciary, and general sense of fair play gave it enormous advantages over the supposed "efficiency" of the Germans, the Soviets' ruthlessness, and (we all must hope) Osama bin Laden's frightfulness. And yes, Roberts has a point of view. He is unabashedly pro-free enterprise, pro-defense, worships Winston Churchill and even has some kind words to say about George W. Bush. All of this, particularly the latter, has caused many, including most of the loopier "reviewers" on this page - few if any of whom, I venture to say, bothered to actually read it - to go completely 'round the bend. Look, if what you want to keep you warm at night is a book that will tell you it's all Bush/Blair's fault and Al Qaeda will disappear like a soap bubble at noon on Jan. 20, 2009, then bookstore shelves are groaning with titles awaiting you. But if you want something that is going to put the current struggle into context, and shows how we have won before against far more formidible odds than we face today, then this one is for you.

Stephen Bainbridge: The Fourth Great Assault on the Anglosphere

A review has appeared in "TCS Daily" that makes me think the author gives this title five stars,because of this text: "It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to write a book that explicitly picks up where Nobel Prize winner Winston Churchill's famous History of the English-Speaking Peoples left off. In a provocative new book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 (HarperCollins, 2007), however, British historian Andrew Roberts largely succeeds in pulling off that daring stunt." and states: "Indeed, just as Churchill's History was intended to rally the Anglosphere in the early days of the struggle against Communism, Roberts' intent self-evidently is to rally the Anglosphere against Islamofascism." Well worth reading if you are interested in buying the book: [...]

Facts are stubborn things

Reviewers who've disparaged this author refuse to accept the objective facts discussed in his book and the inevitable conclusion that arises from these facts: uniquely among great powers, the US and Britain have mostly been a force for good in the world. Simply compare, as the author does, the overall progress and freedom of the American sphere during the Cold War to the terror and privation of the Soviet bloc. Or the fact that the legacy of Britain's Empire is, predominantly, a series of countries with freely-elected parliaments (versus the blood-thirty dictatorships that have taken root in France's ex-colonies). Or recall the genocides comitted over the years by other world powers (Russia, Germany, Japan, China, Turkey, etc.). Unless you're incurably hostile to democracy and capitalism (capitalism being the economic manifestation of democracy), or to the use of military force to defend democracy against fascists (of any stripe or religion), this book will resonate with you.

Robert's book will drive his inevitable academic critics to distraction.

I agree with the book review from the New Criterion. The English-speaking century By Keith Windschuttle The New Criterion February 2007 "In the past one hundred years, four successive political movements--Prussian militarism, German Nazism, Japanese imperialism, and international Communism-- mounted military campaigns to conquer Europe, Asia, and the world. Had any of them prevailed, it would have been a profound loss for civilization as we know it. Yet over the course of these bids for power, a coalition headed first by Britain and then by the United States emerged not just to oppose but to destroy them utterly" "The great achievement of British historian Andrew Roberts's new book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, is to put the significance of these feats into their proper perspective. Instead of emulating other historians who have portrayed the twentieth century as a cesspit of almost uninterrupted warfare, slaughter, and misery, Roberts snubs reproach and defeatism. His tale is of the triumph of light over the forces of darkness. He is even more at odds with his peers by identifying the common culture of the victors as the principal reason they prevailed." "Robert's book will drive his inevitable academic critics to distraction. This is especially so in his use of the historical record to defend current American foreign policy. The English-speaking peoples did not actively support the extension of representative institutions throughout the world out of sentimentality or naïve utopianism. It was hard-headed self-interest. George W. Bush did not invent anything new with his unilateralism, pre-emptive warfare, and regime change. Rather, he adapted old tactics to new and ominous circumstances. The so-called neoconservative drive to export liberal democracy actuated British statesmen such as George Canning and Lord Palmerston in the nineteenth century. Palmerston imposed regime change on Spain, Portugal, and Belgium, using the power of the Royal Navy to force liberal constitutions on countries that balked at first but later came to value them." The academic-media hegemony desperately wishes to suppress or disapprove the thesis of the book. If the book is true then American involvement in Iraq is possibly justified. If the organ of the academic-media hegemony, the Democratic Party implements a pull out and retreat from Iraq, the resulting bloodbath would the Democratic Party's responsibility and not a moral failing of the USA, just as in Vietnam.