5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
on 16 February 2009
Firstly as an amateur historian, I did so enjoy this book. The author has a decidedly old-school conservative viewpoint of American History and gives short shift to any form of PCism.
Saying that, the work while written in an engaging simplistic manner, Dr. Woods seems to ignore blissfully any topics which cause it to deviate from it's shattering of PC icons (e.g. ignoring the Zimmerman Telegram as a major factor in the US entry to WWI.)
However, in general the author does provide alternative narratives to prevailing pre-conceived historical notions, and for that I recommend this book.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on 1 March 2015
I recently lost my copy of this book, so I have just bought another, this time from Amazon - the fact that I would buy another copy indicates that I think it is a book worth having. It is not a perfect history - and I certainly do not agree with everything in it (for example I think that Dr Woods underestimates the importance of slavery in the Civil War, and he almost ignores the world wide plans of Imperial Germany in the First World War), but it is a work that is worth reading and thinking about. At least Amazon U.K. does not push the absurdly biased "Publisher's Weekly" review that Amazon in the United States does. "Publisher's Weekly" always hates conservative books, so their reviews are worthless.
4 of 21 people found the following review helpful
on 30 June 2010
In my opinion, the way to view this book is part of a Catholic fightback, where the author is being careful not to tangle with the Jewish 'ZOG' which of course is much of established 'PCness'. Hence the odd partial PC-ness of this book.
To get the idea, consider Europe, where the Jewish/Marxian types - the descendants of the USSR mass murderers - promote immigration, much of it Muslim, presumably to damage the host countries. It's a three way war of white Europeans vs invaders vs Jews. So far, there's been an alliance, not necessarily even recognised, of invaders and Jews. Whether this will continue, I have no idea, though I hope not.
Now. In the USA, illegals etc are usually Mexican, not Muslims. As with Europe, we can assume a three way war of White American Protestants vs Catholic invaders vs Jews. (There are blacks too in the US but numerically they're less important, just as e.g. Hindus are less important here). Again, so far there's been a de facto alliance of Mexicans and Jews. I don't know whether it will continue - again, I hope not.
Woods's book I think must be predicated on that. He reconsiders WW2 as far as he dares - probably because the USSR more or less extinguished the Russian Orthodox church. He thinks the pilgrim fathers were all the same - as far as he's concerned, they're all Protestants. The official Catholic view on 'capitalism' is to frown on it, but support private property [I think - no doubt there are numerous encyclicals]. The Spanish Civil War was essentially Russian Jews vs Catholics, just as countries like Poland were the same - 'communists' vs Catholics. I think if you read between the lines, this is what Woods is hinting at, though there are of course other issues. Catholics like to think democracy developed through them. They are only just starting to fight back against the WW2 consensus. I think this explains the rather odd nature of Woods's book and I'd expect there to be further detail which confirms this.
(Why not comment with your thoughts?)