Anónimo

A good general overview, should be recognized as a narrative history however

Revisado: 01-04-25

If you know a moderate amount or very little about WW2 and want a comprehensive one volume narrative history on it, this is likely the best available. It should be recognized as a narrative history however, my main criticism is that the author does let his narrative run away from the history at times. He is very clearly British with a significant bias showing at times; Churchill is painted as being too passionate and his faults are massaged with this narrative, British imperialism is mentioned in the abstract but does not form a cohesive part of the narrative, the repeated use of the term "anglophobe" to describe Americans. He has a very low opinion of FDR who is somehow both slyly manipulative and overly docile. He claims multiple times that the US did not actually commit to a Europe first policy and is upset that the US did not prevent the Soviet's from occupying more European territory, while simultaneously supporting British insistence on focusing on the North African/Mediterranean rather than an earlier invasion of France. Those criticisms being said, all the general information is here in one volume and it is a great resource so long as one keeps in mind that it is a narrative history and the authors bias.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Too broad for such a short book

Revisado: 02-08-24

Was hoping for more of a theological review which there certainly is some of in this book but the author tries to address so many topics that all of it can only be superficial. I think it would be very good as introduction for some but it wasn't what I was looking for despite broadly agreeing with the author

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

It's fine but old and the author confederate sympathies are apparent.

Revisado: 12-04-23

Potter can't seem to overcome his personal bias, being a conservative Georgian, the book is of course quite old at this point though being published in the 1970s. It hits all the important beats as far as events go but I would be very aware of his bias when considering his analysis which I would not consider as revisionist as say Shelby Foote but is still askew in favor of the slave states.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Excellent book and performance!

Revisado: 06-24-23

Fantastic performance by the reader, book also very good much more accessible than most of Faulkner's others but still with very interesting themes and characters.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Multiple inaccuracies, scope far too broad

Revisado: 06-16-23

I bought this on a whim assuming it would cover some of the specifics of the continental congress (I have read in other books there is not great documentation of especially the first continental congress due to espionage concerns). Instead it attempts to cover basically the entire goings on of the war including military engagements. So I'm not sure why they called it the continental congress as it is not specifically focused on that, they spend as much time on the battle of Saratoga as the articles of confederation. Secondly there are notable inaccuracies, claim that France in the treaty of allegiance wanted to reclaim the Louisiana territory (it did not and that land was transferred to Spain after the 7 years war, as they were actively recruiting Spain to join the war against Britain this makes zero sense and could be confusing for those uninformed of the 7 years war and French revolutionary wars) they also say King George declared the colonies in rebellion after being enraged by the olive branch petition when he actually did so before it arrived (given the length of time trans-atlantic travel took then) and refuses to even receive the petition. So I would say this is a very superficial review of the entire conflict (which is not suggested by the title) and with it's significant inaccuracies its hard for me to say it does more than an ok job of that. Honestly wikipedia would be a better resource for a very brief summary of this type.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Volumes could be more ideal

Revisado: 04-24-23

I'm sure it's no small thing to do an audiobook and Norton does a great job however the volume changes (sound mixing? not sure if the term) is difficult at times. To listen with headphones or in the car and have a near whisper transition to a man screaming is very unpleasant. Otherwise wonderful.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Narration is quite bad

Revisado: 04-07-22

I'm not normally one to complain but the narrator seems to have picked the most comical and annoying accents for the main characters as possible, it's very distracting and detracts from the work imo

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

audio fine, books pretty tangential

Revisado: 02-26-22

book attempts to cover a very broad number of topics yet focuses on extreme details, this makes it both too detailed and too superficial. very little discussion of the regional political situation or significant events, hyperfocused on daily aspects of life like housing construction etc. might be useful to some but I found it very unhelpful in understanding the time period

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona