Sacred Causes: Religion And Politics From The European Dictators To Al Qaeda: Pt. II [Hardcover]

There are three things that you should consider before buying this book. Firstly, are you a general reader or do you have a genuine interest in religion and politics? Secondly, do you prefer "neutral" commentary, or to read through the lens of the author? Finally, do you have a better than average background knowledge of C20th politics? The answer to these questions will largely determine whether you buy this book in the first place, as well as whether or not you manage to finish it.

Concerning the first question, the book interweaves politics and religion to the point where only a genuine interest in both would be enough to sustain the reader's interest. The subject matter is "heavy" anyway, and this coupled with the book's length mean that only the most interested need apply. Concerning the second question, this is most certainly not neutral, with Burleigh's views abundantly clear throughout, no more so than in his chapter on Northern Ireland, with his views expressed with somewhat unnerving ferocity. Having said that, his frankness throughout is a refreshing change to many history books, with their historians desperately trying to walk a neutral tight-rope so as to be all things to all readers, but not Burleigh. As a result, the heavy subject matter is much more digestible, punctuated with his frank statements that can at time genuinely amuse.

Concerning the third question, Burleigh's vocabulary is aimed at a highly educated audience, and he writes in such a way that assumes the reader has a very good background knowledge of the C20th and its political history. For instance, when talking of Poland he makes reference to the Home Army and the ZOMO, in both cases not offering a definition of what they were, on the assumption the reader will have sufficient knowledge about what they are already (or assumes that at very least they will be sufficiently motivated to find out).

One part of the book that is interesting to highlight is Burleigh's detailed and spirited defence of Pope Pius XII, and he conclusively rehabilitates Pius' ill deserved reputation as "Hitler's Pope". Alas, this section of the book is too detailed, to the point one could be forgiven for thinking this rehabilitation is a personal crusade on Burleigh's part. Indeed, the whole chapter is punctuated by long, at times quite droning quotes and vignettes about what the Catholic Bishop of this German province said or what a Protestant Bishop said in that province etc.

Another point to bring up is one or two obvious conflicts that Burleigh could have made more reference to, most notably the Yugoslav war where religious identity played a major role in the conflict and its political settlement, yet he makes next to no reference to it. Instead he focuses on Nazism and Communism, and as such often regurgitates that which is already widely known about their evils. In this respect, he almost falls into the trap of doing what he ironically criticises other historians of doing earlier in his book, namely going over old ground on topics that are already widely known. Whilst as an award winning historical author he is better qualified than most to criticise this, he should also be better qualified than most to avoid it.

All in all, this book is a mammoth text, and I liked much, much more than I disliked. It covers the two deepest and most complex topics possible (religion and politics) and attempts for the first time to weave them together in an encyclopaedic account of their inter relationship. Nevertheless, the book has a few weaknesses: whilst Burleigh's undisguised views are at times genuinely refreshing, at times they are stated too frequently (as with Pius XII) and at times too fiercely (as with Northern Ireland). Also, he overlooks certain conflicts (e.g. the Yugoslav war) and certain social developments like the rise of the Christian Right in American politics in the 1980. In summary, the book is a powerful and serious attempt to bridge a gaping hole in the historical literature about the inter relationship between politics/religion the C20th, one that will be rarely attempted again, and thus for the foreseeable future the book will perhaps be the definitive text on the matter.

"Sacred Causes" is an interesting read about the combination of religion and European politics in the 20th century. I thoroughly enjoyed a number of chapters, yet I was puzzled by the scope of this book and initially taken aback by the lack of the writer's neutrality.

The subjects seem to have been chosen rather randomly and length & depth of each chapter vary greatly. Burleigh spends for example a disproportionate part of the book in explaining the role of the Catholic Church before and during the Second World War, but barely explores the role of the Protestant churches in the same period.

My second point is that the writer is not the neutral scientist, but a historian on a (political) mission. Burleigh makes a (convincing) case for the rehabilitation of "Hitler's Pope" Pius XII and exposes IRA's behaviour and attitude in Northern Ireland as something that has nothing to do with religion. In addition, he accuses the "Left Church" of the marginalization of (Christian) religion in Europe and of "political correctness" obstructing common sense.

Burleigh seems more neutral when dealing with older topics. In the chapters on more recent topics, he seems a grumpy old man having a political rant... and I loved it. More than once, he made me smile and nod in agreement. All in all, this book can be read as a collection of independent chapters or as one book. Either way, this is not a read for casual readers.

I would have to concur with other reviewers here that this is an excellent book that does a fine job of bringing the reader through the tumultuous events of WWII and so on, including a fair and balanced and long overdue defence of Pope Pius XII, but falters on the subject of Northern Ireland. The author has hitherto been nuanced and balanced, and then suddenly can't contain his disgust and displays prejudices of his own, after hundreds of pages highlighting the prejudices of others. His disdain for all things Irish extends to Nobel Prize winning poets who are dismissed as "minor" poets and Irish television hosts and pubs and makes one wonder if the author has constantly been spelling certain Irish names wrong throughout his book by mistake or because anything Irish doesn't deserve his respect or attention. As excellent as the preceding chapters are, the Ireland chapter brings his entire thesis into question, not because he may or may not be right, but because it's so over-the-top and so extremely bitter. I actually agree with most of his points, but this is a historian who seems unable to restrain himself on one chapter and so harms his entire project. An extremely interesting book then leaves an uneasy taste. As one other reviewer has pointed out, the fault perhaps lies with the editor. As another example, when discussing the prisoners convicted of the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings, is it not worth mentioning to the reader that these men and women were later found innocent, or does this historian assume we are fully aware of all facts involved? If that is the case, what else has he misrepresented throughout the previous chapters? It's such a galling disappointment to go along with the author for so long through this book (which isn't an easy read) and then suspect him of being bigoted himself. His defence of Pius XII is admirable. It's a shame that he got carried away for the last third of the book.

Edit: Reading this book for the second time, I decided I should change my review from 3 stars to 4. While I can just grit my teeth through the Northern Ireland chapter, I have to admit this is an excellent book, which should be widely read.