A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: A One-Volume Abridgement

Product Information

Roberts's other great enemy is Europe. Britain, acting as 'an abusive parent' to the Commonwealth, entered the former European Economic Community in 1972, under the 'moral cowardice' of Heath, in 'the dour, drab defeatist Seventies'. His subtext seems to be that British foreign policy should return to a version of the 'splendid isolation' of 1900, but in partnership with American global isolationism. November 19, 2022: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume 4, The Great Democracies, by Winston S. Churchill (Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc., New York, 1958) I am reading history lately. This is so I can better foresee if my country is heading towards political dissolution. That's all I'll say about my motivations. This first of four volumes of Churchill’s long history of the English (up until the mid-twentieth century) is essentially a tale of murder and mayhem. The characters may have worn fancy clothing and lived in castles and other mansions, but their behavior, as reported here (perhaps inadvertently), was more suggestive of primitive tribalism.

Churchill almost never reflects upon whether exercises of blatant military or political power were 'right'. He does, of course, discuss the political imperatives driving the decisions of the men (mostly) and women who controlled the state at the time. That is his major contribution. When I came across words that meant nothing to me, not in my vocabulary, I had to stop, and then look up on my Kindle or computer. Churchill's A History of The English-Speaking Peoples is written with characteristic vigor and poetic flare—always attentive to the broader international picture in its portrayal of individual events. His British patriotism comes across in his elevation of British historical figures and his demonizing of various French (or otherwise non-Anglo-Saxon) entities. In this way, his work can be read as an example of the racial exceptionalism with which many British citizens understood themselves during the early years of the twentieth century.This is not a new book, of course. Originally written in the mid-1950s, after Churchill's time in politics, his four volumes represented a well-researched, comprehensive review of history from pre-Christian Roman times to the eve of the First World War. This version is a single-volume abridgment by Christopher Lee, originally released in 1958.

This work clearly evidences Churchill's interest in military history. I found his reputation as having spun a "great men of history" narrative is partially deserved. I say "partially" because Churchill also strikes me as incredibly cognizant of political and social changes driven by more mundane organizational and administrative efforts of government over the years. The latter certainly makes for a less sexy historical narrative, but Churchill covers it convincingly and with energy. Uniquely in the Churchill canon, the British, U.S. and Canadian first editions of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples were published simultaneously. Volume I was published on 23 April 1956. The fourth and final volume was published on 17 March 1958. September 17, 2022: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume 2, The New World, by Winston S. Churchill (Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1956) and who now preserve, nourish, and develop them in their own ways." (Preface to Volume I of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples) The third volume – The Age of Revolution Churchill charts the rise of Great Britain as a world power and the long rivalry with France, the shadow of the French Revolution, the rise of Napoleon and his defeat at Waterloo.At one time Britain inhabited and ruled much of France but with the divine intervention of Joan of Arc, France was once again an independent nation. (Needless to say, printed map of where Joan of Arc lived and traveled to meet the King and had to stop and read more about Joan of Arc on Internet.) As with the U.S. first edition, there was also a Canadian Book-of-the-Month Club issue similar in style to the Canadian first edition, but bound instead in red cloth with blue spine panels and no head and foot bands. Firstly, he's a whig historian. For Churchill The History of the English-Speaking Peoples is a story of unstoppable progress towards a set destiny of world hegemony and endless greatness. He makes much of habeus corpus, of the spreading out of enlightened British folk across the globe, he recites all of the various constitutional debates that led to English Common Law, and he lovingly charts the growth of Parliament as an institution. It is very triumphalist, and that will bring him censure from more modern historians who aren't so keen on shouting about the British war record and the fact we haven't had a revolution since 1688 and that Anglos have controlled the world since at least 1815. I think they're too pessimistic. It's certainly true that not everything the British have done is worthy of praise, and making excuses for some of the Empire's handiwork is downright shameful to attempt, but I don't think it can be seriously denied that the world is a better place for it, in the end, and the new-founded countries Britain left behind are certainly a proud legacy. Churchill, refreshingly, knows this. But that does not make him an unworthy guide through history. In fact, I assert some of the most appealing parts of the narrative are Winston's evaluations of the different characters and events, which he can be relied upon to deliver as they exit the scene. All of these are entertaining and some are downright enlightening. He points out that Charles I, for instance, had genuine qualities as a general, considering he ruled a country that had known seventy years of peace, while Oliver Cromwell is censured because he was the only military dictator England has ever known, ruling with no popular consent by force alone, and parallels are drawn with the twentieth century that I wouldn't have thought of myself. Burr is nothing more than an "evil genius". He has implied sympathy for the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, but he does a decent enough job justifying it and clearly isn't a fan of slavery. He also gives a much-needed new perspective on the Indian Mutiny: the British were not the only belligerents who shamed themselves in 1857. I was genuinely interested to see how he would take the U.S. Constitution, but somehow he manages to convincingly portray it as a restatement of British Common Law principles: At first sight this authoritative document presents a sharp contrast with the store of traditions and precedents that make up the unwritten Constitution of Britain. Yet behind it lay no revolutionary theory. It was based not upon the challenging writings of the French philosophers which were soon to set Europe ablaze, but on Old English doctrine, freshly formulated to meet an urgent American need. The Constitution was a reaffirmation of faith in the principles painfully evolved over the centuries by the English-speaking peoples. It enshrined long-standing English ideas of justice and liberty, henceforth to be regarded on the other side of the Atlantic as basically American. This book does not seek to rival the works of professional historians. It aims rather to present a personal view on the processes whereby English-speaking peoples throughout the world have achieved their distinctive position and character. I write about the things in our past that appear significant to me and I do so as one not without some experience of historical and violent events in our own time. I use the term 'English-speaking peoples' because there is no other that applies both to the inhabitants of the British Isles and to those independent nations who derive their beginnings, their speech, and many of their institutions from England, and who now preserve, nourish, and develop them in their own ways."

This is an exasperating book. Roberts writes with all the popular verve of the best narrative historian. His account is peppered with arresting might-have-beens; if the Treaty of Versailles had dismembered Germany in 1919, would Nazism have taken root? If the Ottoman Empire had not been similarly dismembered, would the Middle East be the mess it is today?

Roberts rightly lampoons those who claim a moral equivalence between the terrors of Mao and Stalin and the abuses of the West. He then uses this argument perversely to shrug off Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. He remains blind to the damage they have caused to the moral credibility of the very values he espouses. At no point does he consider whether the Bush presidency may in itself be an aberration threatening a political culture that has secured the links between liberal democracies across the Atlantic and Pacific. A surprise was how hostile, land grabbing for the purpose of stealing jewels and anything of value, and simply cruel, were the Vikings. I had never read much of their conquests until now. And of course, had to stop and print out maps of the travels and conquests of the Vikings all over Europe.