I recently finished Andrew Roberts' A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 (2006), and have to say it is probably the worst book I have ever read. Factually wrong, poorly edited, written in a way that ignores half his own thesis, and just a weak argument overall, the only redeeming part is that I got it really cheap years ago (I was swayed by the title, which reflects on Churchill's famous series, of which Roberts meant to have a sort-of sequel).

The main point in the book is that the English-speaking peoples (UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, West Indies, but not Ireland and the rest) faced four major threats since 1900 (Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Communism, Islamic Fundamentalism), and worked together to ensure they defeated them all as "the last best hope for Mankind." However Roberts pays next to no attention to the minor parties here and effectively could have, and should have, just written about the UK and US, as in the 650 pages of this book Canada, Australia, and New Zealand probably get less than 20 pages (and Canada isn't mentioned once after the Second World War).

He's got numerous facts wrong, from claiming Canada had no policy restricting Chinese Immigration at the start of the century (the various Chinese Immigration Acts, which created the head tax, would argue otherwise), notes that the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was dropped at 8.15pm (it was in the morning), Nelson Mandela was released from prison in 1994 (it was 1990; he was elected president in 1994), and perhaps most egregiously, a photo of the aftermath of 9/11 claims "11 September 2003." Poor editing also says in successive paragraphs that Operation Barbarossa happened along a 1000, then 2000, mile front, and notes that the UK's entry into the EEC had a negative effect on trade with the Commonwealth, notably Australia, but fails to expand on that in any way.

Roberts is also not afraid to attack nearly every public figure, especially the British prime ministers Clement Atlee and Edward Heath. Heath especially doesn't seem to have been able to do anything right, and Roberts spends pages going on tirades against his various policies and perceived failures as prime minister. Similarly he criticizes US President Jimmy Carter for being one of the worst to hold that office, though fails to really establish a point. The exceptions to this are Thatcher and Reagan, the two of which sound like demigods to Roberts (who is an ardent Thatcherite).

He also constantly accuses "the Left" of ruining everything throughout the century, without expanding on who this group is, and it sounds conspiratorial often. This is especially apparent after the section on Watergate, where he outright accuses Hollywood of creating the idea of fear and distrust in the government amongst the populace, leading to all sorts of issues, or so he claims.

Roberts also reduces his own thesis by going on his personal crusades against issues: for instance on the Suez Crisis, rather than noting the contribution of Canada to helping end it (and giving Canada a mention, which would advance his idea that it was all the English-speaking peoples working together, not just the US and UK), he attacks Anthony Eden and his failings to preserve the British Empire, spending pages arguing that the Empire should have remained, and attacking the weakness of the UN as a body. This lack of representation of non-US and UK figures is really apparent throughout the second half, when as noted Canada is not mentioned once, despite having some major events occur (the last prime minister mentioned by name was Mackenzie King, who retired in 1948); Australia gains a few mentions but only because of its involvement in Vietnam and Iraq, while New Zealand faces a similar fate as Canada.

Roberts also downplays the major atrocities that the US and UK committed throughout, arguing that colonisation of the Philippines, for example, was good for the locals, as it civilised them. He argues that anything bad was not really that bad, often invoking the Holocaust or the Gulag as a comparable, but when one has to use the worst excesses to defend the policy, it is likely not a good policy. He also argues that the Iraq War was justified, and even insists the US and UK should have invaded faster, while trying to justify a connection between 9/11 and Iraq (something even Bush and Blair have moved away from).

The quality of work is also apparent in the sources used throughout. Often Roberts will cite unnamed historians and quote them, neglecting to cite them; he will rarely give a name to a quote from a historian, though a few do occur throughout. The bulk of his sources, however come from the Times Literary Supplement and other newspaper-based sources, which while a respected source of news and opinion, is hardy something to base a serious history off of.

Overall, it reads like a poorly-written, hastily-done work, and should not be considered a reputable book on anything related to its perceived topic. As Roberts himself notes in the introduction, "this book is emphatically not intended to be a comprehensive history of the English-speaking peoples, which would be impossible to write in one volume and anyhow probably rather dull to read;" he should have taken his own advice and avoided the topic altogether, for this sorry excuse of a book desecrates the idea of such a subject and is an insult to the works of Churchill.

I have a book request!

Quick backstory: My Grandmother was born in Carnieres, Belgium in 1923 and lived in a small town near Charleroi from about 1933-1945. She loved Belgium dearly and told me some stories. I could tell she missed it but did not like talking about the war. She is in hospice right now and doesn't have much time left.

I am going to visit Belgium sometime between this summer and next spring. My travel book gives a brief overview but stops around 1910. I love history, and would like to know more! What are some good books to read about Belgium's history from about 1910 to present?

Been reading some pop history about various sundry natural disasters, and a thread a week or two ago about the Minoan Eruption piqued my interest. Anyone have any recommended academic history books about natural disasters, whether the general concept or specific events, short term or long term, physical or cultural effects on society? Not sure if this has a name...catastrophic environmental history?

I'm reading Bind Us Apart: How Enlightened Americans Invented Racial Segregation. I read the introduction and agreed with the general overview it gave based off of prior knowledge about the subject. The main problem I have with it is that it focuses too much on specific exceptional examples instead of the bigger picture. Despite that it's still a good book so far and has added a bit of nuance to my thoughts on the intellectual history of race relations in the early years of the republic