[Onelifetogive]

“Fortunately, the English-speaking peoples’ wars are fought by professional soldiers under the direction of elected politicians, with intellectuals having very little to do with them until they are safely won, after which they can criticize with hindsight and moral superiority.”

I wish this were so...

[traviskicks]

thanks for posting this, looks like my type of historian. :)ill try to check it out.

[traviskicks]

"The policies of free-trade liberalism, which in the nineteenth century made Britain the economic powerhouse of the world, were revived in our own time to achieve the same for the United States and its trading partners."

What say you protectionists? :)

[Old Professer]

This is far too long a read here to fully digest between fundraisers but I am bookmarking it before it is translated or lost.

[Desron13]

Seems to me that virtually all of his points are right on the mark.

[Old Dirty Bastiat]

These are compelling arguments, but I wonder if the author is focusing too much on language rather than freedom. It is easy to conflate the two since English speaking people are generally the most free, but I think a closer correlation to prosperity can be found by studying the correlation with economic freedom. As far as military alliances go, it's true that the alliances tend to be among English speaking countries, but again, these countries also happen to be free. When is the last time two free countries were on opposite sides in a shooting war?

[BnBlFlag]

The problem is, the U.S. is on the road to becoming a Spanish speaking country.

[truth_seeker]

Saw the author on cSpan book review. It was published before the 2006 midterm elections.

He stated that the British Parliament would NOT undertake the non-binding bill passed in the House.

He said the bill undercuts the troops, which he said the House of Commons would NOT do.

Interesting.

[GATOR NAVY]

bump for later read.

[Fraxinus]

bump till later comment

[Fraxinus]

rather than “the century of the common man” or “the American century,” Roberts calls it the century of the English-speaking peoples, and emphasizes that it is far from over.

A key point often glossed over by those who in an effort to get jingoistic readers is that the British empire was still a very important institution untill almost 1950. Central and Eastern Europe was more concerned by British efforts (and then often not very) than US actions, given that the only group with an interest in the US was the Jews who prior to 1914 were moving to the US in significant numbers. Out side of Latin America the US was only important in China and the Philippines, even Japan at this period (pre 1914) was more interested in the actions of Germany and Britain.

Also highlighted is the tendency of culturally similar groups to be allies when threatened thus the current and enduring alliance between Australia and the US. The other big shift to be discussed is the shift of military and cultural leadership from Britain to the US without a war fought between the countries. Even today entertainment acts and other cultural displays can come out of any of the English speaking countries and go on profitable tours of many or all of the rest.

[TexasRepublic]

The British historian Andrew Roberts credits the English speaking peoples' ascendency to the Protestant ethic. Accepting that thesis, then, due to the decline of Christianity in the English speaking world, it isn't hard to predict the eventual marginalization of the English speaking world. Hello, Islam!

[foolscap]

bump

[Ciexyz]

Most interesting.

[rmlew]

Hollywood is not the only offender. Recent British films set in the 1930s often portray the English upper classes in league with the Nazis. Merchant Ivory’s 1993 film The Remains of the Day was a memorable contributor to the genre. It was true, Roberts acknowledges, that not only the upper classes but most Britons were in favor of appeasing Hitler for a time. Their principal reason, however, was not sympathy for Nazi ideals but because everyone realized that up to 1938 Britain was in no shape to fight the Germans. Roberts puts appeasement into perspective. It encompassed a policy of buying time to develop armaments, which was one of the main reasons the Royal Air Force had enough Hurricanes and Spitfires to win the Battle of Britain in July 1940. That victory, Roberts writes, should be ascribed more to Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill, who only became Prime Minister in May that year, long after the vast majority of planes had already been produced.

Rank revisionism. Until 1937, Germany was militarily weak. In fact, had Grat Britain and France chosen to modernize their arms and pay attention to Germany, they could have won even in 1938.

[syriacus]

This sounds like a very interesting book which ought to generate a lot of discussion.

[nicollo]

*bump*

[Textide]

The author is scathing about the moral equations used by today’s intellectual critics of President Truman’s decision. “Fortunately, the English-speaking peoples’ wars are fought by professional soldiers under the direction of elected politicians, with intellectuals having very little to do with them until they are safely won, after which they can criticize with hindsight and moral superiority.”

That's a great quote. The integrity of the politicians in power is a key component if that statement is to ring true. Their willingness to be swayed by 'intellectuals' (i.e. those not in power that oppose anything involving arms) has to be considered a factor in the success or failure of any conflict in which we're involved.

Nice review, thanks for posting! I'll definitely be picking this one up.

[USMCVet]

ping for later

[FreedomPoster]

Bump. Glanced at this book at the bookstore a few days ago. Will now go back and buy it.