I do not normally choose to read a condensed version of any book, but this is the one that happened to show up in my personal library, so ... Anyway, some of my impressions might not apply perfectly (or at all) to the full version. When an obscure character was mentioned, I stopped reading, turned on my Kindle and read more about the person and how he/she related to the event happening.

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. Assizes -one of the periodic court sessions formerly held in each of the counties of England and Wales for the trial of civil or criminal cases; Churchill writes British history the same way I would probably write American history: with strong opinions of who are the "good guys" and who are the not-so-good. That is not a criticism, it is an observation. I actually find this more honest than the pretense of "objectivity" in too many authors. It is rather amusing, too, how Churchill will go on about the faults and failures of an important figure, and then end with a paragraph about his virtues, or about how his folly brought good to England in the end. and who now preserve, nourish, and develop them in their own ways." (Preface to Volume I of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples) Sir Winston S. Churchill, who himself made history as Prime Minister of Great Britain twice, twice (1940–45 and 1951–55.) He began the book in 1939 and delivered the book prior to the outbreak of WWII to his publisher with about half a million words. This book was finally published in 1956. However, this book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume I, The Birth of Britain, was the one I read and finally, finished.

About the contributors

This final of Churchill's great, multi-volume works spawned many single-volume spinoffs in the form of excerpted works that have become collectible in their own right. These include The American Civil War (1961), The Island Race (1964) , Heroes of History (1968), and Joan of Arc (1969). For those of us who believe that the Enlightenment values that have held Europe and America together for 400 years remain our best defence in the struggle with Islamic terrorist unreason, Roberts should not be permitted so crudely to limit the debate to either signing up to the Bush crusade or accepting the white feather. 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. TL;DR: The book succeeds due to Churchill's strong narrative, accessible style and intense focus on political development. It is useful to remember that books tell you as much about their author as they do about their subject; indeed, that's sometimes the point of reading them. And these four were penned by none other than Winston S. Churchill -- soldier, painter, politician, historian, war leader, and often voted the greatest Briton -- or even Anglo -- of the entire second millennium. "We are all worms", he once said, "but I do believe that I am a glow-worm".

The simultaneous four-volume U.S. first edition is certainly less stately in appearance, though in our opinion perhaps excessively maligned as being an unattractive edition. The second volume details Britain's relationship to the cultural Renaissance and the religious Reformation that gripped Europe in the sixteenth century. He proceeds to describe the English Civil War in the seventeenth century and Britain's brief experiment with Republicanism. He then details the efforts of King James II to restore Catholicism to Britain and his subsequent defeat at the Battle of the Boyne by the Protestant William of Orange, in 1688.The book was such an eye opening read for me, bringing together subjects and events I had heard about throughout my life, but didn’t ‘know’ about. At the independent suggestions of British publisher Newman Flower [2] and American editor Max Perkins, [3] Churchill began the history in the 1930s, during the period that his official biographer Martin Gilbert termed the "wilderness years" when he was not in government. Work was interrupted in 1939 when the Second World War broke out and Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and became Prime Minister a year later. After the war ended in 1945, Churchill was busy, first writing his history of that conflict and then as Prime Minister again between 1951 and 1955, so it was not until the mid-1950s, when Churchill was in his early eighties, that he was able to finish his work . Guys, applaud, please, I'm getting out of my comfort zone, mysteries. All with Jeff's Yoak's encouragement, and I'll say thanks, Jeff, when I finish. Maybe. 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.

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)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. The English-speaking peoples are invoked against the unreliability of everybody else. This is the sort of history that makes Arthur Bryant read like an academic monograph. Roberts's message is simple: when the English-speaking peoples stand side by side, history has a happy ending; when they do not, civilisation is threatened. The greatest threat has always been the rot within - liberals, churchmen, intellectuals, whose introspection tempts right-minded people to doubt their own moral worth. 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.

Sir Winston S. Churchill has been rightfully penned as the “Last Lion” (William Manchester) and if this is the case then certainly the “First Lion” would have to be King Henry II (the “Coeur de Lion” is King Richard I). King Henry II legacy is lasting in terms of organization and of the continuance of the British Commonwealth today. The masterpiece of Sir Winston S. Churchill work lays the foundation for the persons who are interested to pursue new interest along old lines – I personally have discovered many topics of interest now and I wish to study deeper, and learn in a fashion that is both eager and willing in the new forthcoming journey of our collective History. Here’s hoping Volume II will offer some touch of redemption for a people who, after all, have survived to do a few right and kind acts as a nation since then. August 13, 2022: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume 1, The Birth of Britain, by Winston S. Churchill (Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1956) Roberts is eloquent on the great moments of courage and defiance by Presidents and Prime Ministers and by many other now forgotten men - except for Margaret Thatcher, there is scarcely a woman mentioned - in the desperate circumstances of his grand narrative. 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?

I'd like to be notified of new arrivals in the following categories.

Given this history was written by a man who was a Anlgo chauvinist and full-throttle behind Britain's ambition on the world stage, the tale stops short of any self-criticism regarding Britain's colonial ambitions. Thus, this book's narrative needs to be taken in context with other works. For instance, there is no reflection on the rightness of what Great Britain's leaders did to grasp control in South Africa and India, for instance. He includes brief histories of Canada and Australia as well, and his glossing over the treatment of both lands' original inhabitants is callous to the extreme. This history will endure; not only because Sir Winston has written it, but also because of its own inherent virtues - its narrative power, its fine judgment of war and politics, of soldiers and statesmen, and even more because it reflects a tradition of what Englishmen in the hey-day of their empire thought and felt about their country's past." The Daily Telegraph 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. 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." Moving from American Reconstruction – we read of the Boer War; the first event that brought Churchill to the forefront of activity – it is this same chapter (and final chapter) to which we learn of the love the United Kingdom had for her majestic Queen Victoria – an era concluded with her death and as Sir WSC is compiling these words in the late 1950s he is clearly attempting to write for future generations the era to which he became a man and to which the British Empire had struggled to gain throughout all of her existence. Interested parties such as myself and for others who take keen interest to History must be able going forward to reflect upon these words, this History, this love of one’s nation, and in particular this extraordinary man and show to future generations what the struggles of others before us have achieved so that we may move forward.