|
Butz. I looked forward to reading this book immensely, and I was not disappointed. Also I recommend reading: "THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY" by Arthur R.
But even in the 30's Britain showed she could be clear headed by recognizing that it probably didn't matter to her who one the Spanish Civil War. It is like a college term paper rather than a published work. This ultimately spoils the book and renders his thesis "interesting" rather than "convincing." Opposing Nazi Germany becoming dominant in Europe and looking for a coalition of states to oppose that rise is completely aligned with those British policies, even if accompanied by multiple missteps during the lead up to WWII.
Simply pulling quotes out of the works of others won't cut it. Buchanan's thesis is interesting, but lacks proper support and relies too heavily on hindsight. The case that Britian -- egged on by Churchill -- got caught up in a war that did not involve its national interests and that in working to subdue one evil they enabled a far greater one in the USSR is laid in this book is interesting. The book is certainly thought provoking - but you can't help hoping it provokes someone to make another run at it and writing the book properly.If you step back, you are left with more questions than answers and this could have been avoided with a bit more work on Buchanan's part. Unfortunately this greatly reduces the credibility of the case. One of the traditional policy tools to achieve these ends was to create a collation of weaker powers to counterbalance any aspiring dominant power.
For that matter issuing guarantees in 1939 was a belated attempt to both avoid the lack of clarity that occurred in August 1914 as well as a recognition that Britain needed to shore up here credibility as an ally rather than a simply act of idiocy. Buchanan simply doesn't do enough to dispel the case that Britain was rationale in following this tack. As for Britain's throwing off Japan in favor of the US, Bucanan's implication that this led to Japan choosing an expansionist path and alignment with the Axis is completely unsupported. Either one of these threads needed a lot more work for them to carry weight.Britain certainly stumbled in multiple ways between the end of WWI and the start of WWII, and those stumbles were amply aided by France, Poland, Italy, the U.S., and others. It is like a prosecutor relying solely on hearsay - you might still think the prosecutor is on to something, but you're going to convict without something solid.The second shortcoming is a failure to play out some of the points about Britain's interests not being at stake. And as for not sticking more closely with Italy, both Britain and Germany saw that Mussolini's dream of rebuilding the Roman Empire meant that conflict with Britain was inevitable if that dream was to ever move forward. First off, if you seek to make a largely iconoclastic case, you need to do you research.
While in hindsight aligning with Poland didn't get them anything, forming a collation was the proven path for Britain (and for that matter, France). In addition the British worked hard to prevent the coast of Europe opposite them being unified under a single power. There does not seem to have been any primary research behind this book. For hundreds of years Britain had a policy of no power being dominant on the continent on the theory that should that ever occur, that power could then invest the necessary resources to overcome Britain at sea without the distraction of having to compete on land.
Exactly what I was looking for in under 500 pages. Having just finished the book all I can say is WOW. Well done. I can't be sold yet on the 'unnecessary war' conclusion but this book has definitely inspired me to do more reading on the subject. Admittedly, most of my knowledge regarding WWI and WWII came from high school history and Hollywood.Germany was bad, Hitler wanted to rule the world, the world had to stop him, etc. Step by step, Buchanan goes through the major events from pre-WWI to WWII and shows the logical progression of the actions of Europe, Russia, USA, and Japan, which caused millions of people to perish.
Excellent and authoritative review of events and shortsightedness that led us into World Wars I and II and present mess.
Nevertheless an interesting read. In this sense the author fails as being just as naive as he claims others throughout history to be. I smile because only a child would fined liar's promises of any credibility, lunatic's intentions of any indication and any words of a shrewd manipulator indicative of future action or lack thereof.
It is a smooth and a very entertaining read. a bit childish. I am a Pole and I find this book to be a great study of WWII's behind the scenes decision-making.
He writes "Hitler promised", "Hitler said", such and such a source indicated that "Hitler intended" - often as proof that the past was in some way different than otherwise thought. This being said I also think that the author's premise is.
how should I put it.
|
