A completely whitewashed and far right wing view of American "history"
358367
This book should not be read by any young mind. The treatment of Native Americans and African Americans is embarrassing and appalling. A two inch thick book covers the pilgrims all the way to President Clinton. The discussion of several presidents is beyond reproach.
4523568
This book is offensively racist against white people! Its ridiculous! Its filth like this that keeps America divided.  Unless like me this is required reading for a class, stay a million miles away, especially if you are white. This book will upset you, guaranteed!  This book blames everything on white people and the author is a racist liberal.
529924
this "Documentary" is right wing propaganda. when are the extreme christian minority going to stop lying to try to push their beliefs on everyone else. We are a secular nation and it has always been that way. stop trying to destroy the united states and the integrity of the founding fathers: It is unpatriotic and anti american.
4385549
This book is nothing but jew propaganda put out by the seizure dyke's jew handlers.  This woman is a congenital liar and corrupt criminal along with her kenyan mentor.  Her thirty years in politics have been tarred with one scandal after another.  Putting her in the WH would probably destroy the country irreversibly.  She is merely a puppet for the international jew whose agenda is world control.  She will flood the US with third world "refugees" which will further destroy white demographics and she will continue to start wars for Israel.  Her administration will be a hard core Stalinist regime with a strong white genocide component.  With all their strength, the Jews  basically, ALL the vocal Jews in the world  encourage non-white immigration into every country in which they are  located (except Israel). This is because the multicultural society is their fundamental political aim in order to realize the disintegration of national culture and identity in each nation. The massive presence of non-white immigrants is de facto white genocide designed to prevent the original white population from succeeding in any nationalistic outbursts against the Jewish domination over finance, politics, the economy, the law, and the media.  In the US, the 1965 Immigration Act is a good example of their efforts in this regard.  All Jewish intellectuals, without any exception, are focused on this question of building this pluralistic, diverse society and for this they practice constant vigilance against hate and racism generally directed toward white people.  All of this is designed to foment social disintegration and to advance their end game of total global Jewish supremacy and control.  It is proceeding exactly as outlined in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion -- their blueprint for world control.

The 2016 election is a clear choice between remaining a nation-state that serves its own people or becoming part of a soulless jew controlled anti-white globalism that treats humans as interchangeable widgets in the world market and as cannon fodder for jew proxie wars in the Middle East.  The US will be unrecognizable after four years of the seizure dyke's administration.  Most likely she will suffer a debilitating seizure shortly after entering the WH and become a vegetable sitting in a wheelchair in an obscure corner of the WH staring vacuously out of a window while the country is being run (into the ground) by a cabal of satanic jews.
1298491
And by REAL AMERICAN HISTORY, I mean empirically observed and verified facts, not some over-exaggerated facts created by some die-hard socialist with an ideological axe to grind against capitalism, which just got picked up by government propaganda artists and regurgitated by public school teachers and textbooks, such as the person below:

"Mr. N. obviously still thinks this book is complete fiction and has probably never had a United States history lesson in his comfortable life."

First of all, the book is widely cited as being responsible for the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, yet there was a previous Meat Inspection Act passed in 1891, practically fifteen years before the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. In the time since there grew to be hundreds, if not thousands of employees at the federal, state, and local levels. After Upton Sinclair wrote, had published, and had distributed The Jungle, the United States Congress at the time (specifically the 59th Congress) had a (now pay particular attention to these next few sentences class, as they provide far more factual information than your textbook describes) Congressional Hearing for their first session in June of 1906 where on page 194 of their Hearings on the So-called "Beveridge Amendment" to the Agriculture Appropriation Bill, where Indiana Congressman E. D. Crumpacker of Indiana noted in testimony before the House Agriculture Committee that not one of the hundreds of meat inspectors at the federal, state, and local levels "ever registered any complaint or [gave] any public information with respect to the manner of the slaughtering or preparation of meat or food products." There was even authoritative 1906 report of the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Animal Husbandry written. Its investigators provided a point-by-point refutation of the worst of Sinclair's allegations, some of which they labeled as" willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact," "atrocious exaggeration," and "not at all characteristic." On top of all that, there were millions of tourists visiting the Chicago stockyards each year, plus thousands of workers who at one time or another worked for the Chicago Stockyards. So how come it took one lone, heavily die-hard socialist to reveal this all? Or could it be that it just made it all up and greatly overexaggerated in order to push his socialist agenda? After all, it was Theodore Roosevelt who wrote about Upton Sinclair in his letter to William Allen White in July 1906, "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth." It is ironic that Upton Sinclair then decried the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, as he saw it for what it really was, a move to give more power to big business who got the taxpayers to pick up the entire $3 million price tag for its implementation as well asnew regulations on their smaller competitors, and another myth entered the annals of anti-market dogma.

"The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair is a novel that illustrates the blunt reality of accurate historical event of the 1920s"

No, as I've just pointed out, it was largely fictional propaganda, just like Michael Moore. If you really want to know how bad things were like during the Industrial Revolution, then ask yourself why we constantly had newer and better technologies available to the public and dirt-poor people like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and others constantly fulfill the American Dream, which happens a lot less in America thanks to all of the government controls on the economy.
180212
Left-wing claptrap & literary porn. Don't waste your time!
1815990
This tiresome leftwing screed would be funny if it were not so poorly written and badly researched. The book is presented as a debunking of the SDI concept and a refutation of the idea that it contributed to the fall of  the Soviet Empire. The book really is a window into the tortured mind of  the left, and how their denial of Reagan's role in destroying the Soviet  Empire is as crazy as those people who deny the Holecoust. Technical  inaccurancies riddle this little rant, which along with selective quotes  and scurrilous conclusions condemn the book to be an embarssment rather  than a contribution to the history of the 80s.

--Mark R. (...)
3362699
I would love to read a good book about the Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  This is not it. The most alarming aspect  of the book is that the author, Eric Metaxis, consistently displays extreme Christian right-wing views on his Twitter feed.  In particular, he is shamefully unapologetic about his support for Trump, the bigoted, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, "pussy-grabbing" climate change denier who made fun of a disabled reporter.  To quote John Fugelsang, "The people who actually believe Obama is Muslim are people who actually believe that Trump is Christian."  Trump's own "faith" was belied by the fact that  when he read a Biblical passage at Liberty University, he prefaced the reading by announcing that he would be reading from "Two Corinthians."  NO church-going Christian would use such words. While Metaxas in this book writes about the rise of Hitler in Germany, and Bonhoeffer's Christian response, he paradoxically misses the parallels to the rise of Trump in America.  So how can one hope to learn anything from this biography?
2433205
Juan Cole is a typical example of a researcher falling in love with the subject of his study, and becoming unable to apply any critical thought when discussing it.
Daringly, he defends the most controversial Muslim entities, and one by one he finds justifications, excuses, and similar Western analogues for each of them. Unfortunately, it is all bogus whitewashing.

When discussing the WTC attackers, the author has to mention how they were shocked by the Israeli shelling of Qana in Lebanon, 5 years before the attacks. He compares the Muslim terrorists to American terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. This comparison is plainly wrong. Islam is totally unique in the proclivity of its believers to carry terror attacks, especially at the heart of its opponents' territory.

McVeigh is a single extremist American with a handful of followers and sympathizers. Christian organization like the Lord's Resistance Army is hardly known and certainly doesn't bother anyone outside its operation region in Northern Uganda and its neighbors. On the other hand, we have seen Muslim terrorists give up comfortable lives, crossing seas and oceans in order to strike terror in the hearts of their enemies.

Cole also argues that the fanatic organizations like Al Qaeda are highly unpopular, and that the vast majorities of the Muslims are actually moderate. In order to support his assertion, he has to cherry-pick polls that support his views. A broader look at the polls of Pew Research will reveal that in 2002, before the Iraq war which was supposed to be the reason America is so hated, and when America was licking its wounds from the WTC attack, already did America had a bad public image in the Middle East, suicide bombing enjoyed a support of a large minority in several Muslim countries, like 33% in Pakistan and 43% in Jordan. In 2005, at least a quarter of the Jordanians, Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis had some or lot of confidence in Bin Laden.  It was only after the Muslim world saw that Al Qaeda has led to the American war on terror, and that the terrorists are actually killing much more Muslims than infidels, that the Muslim publics stopped supporting terrorism.
The book whitewashes any Middle Eastern Islamic entity, maybe with the exception of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, which are supported by the US.
The Islamic brotherhood is portrayed as a moderate, positive movement. Many of its teachings are indeed acceptable, but we have to remember that every page has margins. If a country is ruled by a religious party, and its youth are indoctrinated to believe that a book was written by god, and everyone believe it is holy and thus it cannot be criticized, then it is unavoidable that a portion of them will subscribe to a more extreme interpretation of the text. Therefore, in order to eradicate Islamic terrorism, the West should support no religious movement in the Muslim world.

When he deals with Iran, Cole falls completely into the pits of the Iranian propaganda. One must be quite arrogant, or gullible, to be so sure that Iran's nuclear program, with thousands of centrifuges enriching uranium to at least 20%, more than needed for energy and research purpose, is really a peaceful, civilian program. But what can you expect from someone who seas Iran as an eternal victim, downplaying its support of the Hezbollah terrorists, and always finds Israel the bad guy, even when getting attacked across an internationally recognized border?
850358
If you care at all about a fair and unbiased accounting of historical events in an "historical" fiction, I recommend you read the following reviews: "Follett's Falsehoods" and "Nauseating Leftist Revisionism." Both are found in the Amazon reviews. I can't add much more than these intelligent and objective criticisms of this book.

Follett is an amazing and gifted story-teller. The danger of that is that he "tells stories," and passes them off as historical accounts. Unintelligent or ignorant people buy the BS.  Others, however, see through the obvious left-wing agendas that attempt to tailor history to fit their fashionable ideologies. It's actually laughable how far they go to elevate their heroic liberal darlings to sainthood, and demonize conservatives by filtering its impact on the world to include only the negative. . Such black and white story-telling that dismisses the most central players and policies that ended the Cold War, simply to suit the writer's political taste, is not only intellectually dishonest, it's absolutely reckless and hypocritical. This kind of censorship of the truth, and propagandist story-telling reminds me of the kind of deceptive tactics used by a well-intended empire that once dreamed of a utopian system of equality, rid of social classes.

Other than that, AWESOME book.
3911184
The book itself is ok until it gets to modern times. Then it goes completely off the rails. It says that Al Queda "probably" committed the 9/11 attacks, as if there was some other option. It then goes on to say that the U.S. has repeatedly committed terrorist acts in the Middle East. The leftist leanings are so blatant in the dealing of modern history, one has to question how accurate or skewed the older historical analysis is.
4724410
I read parts of this "book" until my intelligence was thoroughly insulted and I immediately returned it to the library. What a stultifying simpleton this man is. He is someone who wants to appear to have all the answers without having any foundation of intelligent ideas. And unsurprisngly, this dolt absolutely embarrassed himself during a recent appearance on the "David Letterman Show" and what made matters worse was just how oblivious he was to his infinite stupidity. First, he claimed that no one should criticize President Bush "because we're at war and it's no good for the country." Come again? I say that such a statement is "no good" for democracy, which is something this submental gasbag has forgotten about. The right to openly disagree with an alderman or a president is guaranteed by the First Amendment. And this man is a graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government? Also, he insisted that Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, not have the right to be publicly upset with President Bush and the invasion of Iraq because "she's connected with left-wing elements in this country." What left-wing elements? I feel that Cindy Sheehan is as connected to left-wing elements as much as Bill O'Reilly is associated with logical reasoning.
1124246
Nothing like having a liberal  Brit write a one sided book on American history.  The book was 1100 pages of left wing view points of history. If you are a conservative or even middle of the road save yourself time and don't bother. The stories in the book were trite and like reading fiction from the 1950's.  I really enjoyed Pillars of the Earth but this was nothing like that.
2308756
This is by far the worst book on World War 2 I have every read.  The liberal "blame America first" viewpoint, along with the potshots at modern Republicans are simply shameless.

War is hell, any student of history is well aware of this.  Adams makes it appear that every American soldier in the war was an exhausted, bloodthirsty, rascist, bigoted, sex starved rapist, stuck with inferior weapons, incompetent leaders and a home front who didn't even bother to send enough condoms and alcohol to these poor boys about to die.

If you want insight into this crazy mindset, which is still pervasive despite having most liberal president in this history of the country in charge of our current war, this book does provide some, but the sickening defense of Nazi programs, and moronic comparisons of American strategy in the war as re-fighting the plains Indian are enough to turn one's stomach.  Otherwise only someone naive enough to think something like Hogan's Heroes is realistic could possibly benefit from this book.
2603990
This book presupposes that the foundation of the American Revolution apparently resembled the pretentious Jacobin egalitarianism of the French Revolution. With its highbrow aurora of seriousness and countless pages, it purports that the 1776 Revolution was about woman's suffrage and black liberation. It than shows that these 'evil dead white guys' (e.g. the founding fathers) came along and somehow betrayed all of this. Tise just regrets that the Jacobin fervor that befell colonial Haiti didn't hit home in America.
What is more striking to me is the fact that right-wingers who read books by Thomas Fleming and Patrick Buchanan are apparently buying this book as indicating by the related purchases. They need to do their homework and read some reviews before throwing away [money] on this book. You could, at least peruse this book at your library if my warning doesn't suffice. You'll see that this tome is little more than shallow politically correct revisionism in the spirit of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, which rewrites American history and mythologizes the Second Amendment through fraudulent scholarship, hyperbole and fanciful conjecture.
3384830
Goldberg would have been well advised to discuss why conservative views were not properly called fascist as well as why someone could call liberal ones fascist.  This might have given some insight as to how to characterize political views properly with things like single names and fundamental genres.
  He explicitly states that Woodrow Wilson, his least favorite American President, was not a fascist.  He then calls several of his policies explicitly that.  This seems like a harsh term even for Woodrow Wilson's policies. Wilson was probably at heart a popular leader, albeit sometimes heavy handed.  This historical episode also has to be viewed in context.  Charles Evans Hughes would have used the full power of his office to effect a declarartion of war on his first day of office, and repeatedly said so.  Wilson campaigned on neutrality. Belief in popular government is fundamentally at variance with any definition of fascism. Also, this author makes the same foolish mistake Pravda did in castigating The Cub Scouts as a werewolfesque, pagan, para-military organization.  Roosevelt's bugle calls at WPA projects were inspried by the non-military, help-you-to-take-care-of-yourself Boy Scouts.  Furthermore, fascism's "soft, socialistic spot for the poor" is badly mmisrepresented here.  Clearly, Hitler and Mussolini were co-opting large contemporary socialist movements in declaring "pro working man" policies.  Hitler's support for "working families" meant the marginalizing, sometimes eliminatiion of nearly everyone underemployed.  Read, most of the poor here.  His first gas chambers were in the asylums and the prisons.  "Non-productive citizens."  Obviously, such policies didn't do wonders for factory workers' bargaining positions.  Furthermore, The Third Reich was no leftist organization.  They killed an estimated ten million leftists out of twelve million political prisoners.  The author does a poor job of distinguishing fascism from general totalitarianism, although this may prove somewhat difficult to do. In short, most of this is a tour de force of exactly the sort of name calling he supposedly deplores.  Also, who was the first American journalist to castigate Mussolini at length?  George Seldes.  Where did he do so?  The Nation.
26194
I wanted to read a book that looked at Obama from a conservative perspective, but this book is an obscenity.  Unless you are of the right wing persuasion, and even then you might want to give it a second thought, don't waste your time on this book.  I'm all for free speech, but it would be appreciated if in that speech there is something more than lie after lie after lie. But then truth has never been much of a burden for the fanatical right.  Too bad Amazon doesn't have negative stars.  This book certainly deserves that class of rating.