- File Size: 3785 KB
- Print Length: 461 pages
- Publication Date: June 27, 2011
- Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
- Language: English
- ASIN: B0058F9HOC
- Text-to-Speech: Enabled
- Word Wise: Enabled
- Lending: Enabled
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,813,257 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
OUR CENTURY: A Brief, Chronological History of the Bolshevik Revolution, World War I & II, and the Cold War Kindle Edition
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
Top Customer Reviews
Genuine independent researchers such as Mr Hof who attempt to enlighten us by daring to challenge that fabricated history have a tough job on their hands. As Mark Twain wrote "it is easier to fool the people than to convince them they have been fooled". Mr Hof touches many raw nerves and will undoubtedly find his work attacked by establishment hacks, but he can be absolutely reassured that the nastier the attacks the closer he is to the truth. Our Century is attacked by one such reviewer and denigrated for having unreferenced quotations, but Mr Hof can again be reassured by the fact that he is in the company of other superb writers, Howard Zinn to name but one, in providing citations in the narrative. Perhaps, of course, the writer of that absurd and haughtily dismissive review would also dismiss A People's History of the United States. 'Academics' get hung up on referencing just about every facet of their work, but that is counterproductive to truth if the primary or secondary sources referred to are corrupted.
Our Century asks and answers big questions and Peter Hof bravely challenges the fabricated history of the past 100 years. His observations on the true causes of the First World War should be required reading in universities and schools. His revelations about the extent of the collaboration between the Wilhelmine Government and Lenin are engrossing. Hitler, that inevitable product of the Versailles Treaty and funding from Wall Street, blamed the failure of Ludendorf's 1918 spring offensive on paralysing strikes in the Berlin munitions factories organized by Lenin and the Comintern. The Kaiser himself had blamed Communist subversion for the unprecedented mutiny among German armed forces. There are many such fresh insights in this book, and I am certain readers will find the material on the intensity of the civil war that engulfed Germany after WW1 fascinating.
This important work is to be thoroughly recommend to all with an open mind, willing to take a critical view of the world around us today, and seeking out truth.
My wariness was grounded in the prologue and first chapter, available free. Quotation by author Peter Hof from the "milestone book" of a Holocaust denier--Harry Elmer Barnes--does little to engender faith, but one must not rush to judgement, and there can be much to learn from engaging intelligently with those with whom one disagrees. (John Keegan, don't forget, had been impressed by David Irving.) I had noted the lack of footnotes or endnotes in the free downloads but supposed that these would be included in the price paid for the full e-book.
Alas, no! My investment was poorly repaid. Not even page numbers to locate them, far less sources for the book's extraordinary claims. Our Century is littered with quotations but as not a single one is sourced it's impossible to verify any of them or examine its validity in context.
This book is as littered with inaccuracies as with quotations, some betraying quite impressive ignorance. Mr Hof evidently has never heard of the War of the Austrian Succession or the Seven Years War, or even of Frederick the Great, for he believes that Prussia "never before  played a dominant role in European politics". Even more extraordinary is his claim that "historians have generally neglected to emphasise the full extent of the calamitous French defeat [in 1870] and its subsequent effect upon the course of European politics". The Dreikaiserbund absolutely did not "evolve" into the Dual Alliance: the Alliance was so inconsistent with the Dreikaiserbund that its terms were kept secret.
"For Russia, Bosnia-Herzegovina would be the Balkan equivalent of Alsace-Lorraine"--how? It was not a disputed Russian province. And this is far from the only example of the need for Toulmin Logic to explain the author's arguments.
The pretence of "British tactics" of encirclement of Germany doesn't square with the acknowledged British attempts to reach agreement with Germany as late as 1912, or the alleged Franco-Russian conspiracy to conceal from Britain the terms of various Balkan alliances (which presumably included Russia?--Mr Hof doesn't explain).
How is one to reconcile the Kaiser's alleged benign view of the French expedition to Morocco in 1911 with Berlin's despatch of the Panther to Agadir? Mr Hof does not explain.
Nor does he reconcile with his thesis--that the Great War was brought about by Anglo-Franco-Russian aggression--his quotation of the Russian Foreign Minister's acknowledgement in 1912 that British military assistance to her Entente partners would be contingent on "an invasion of the German army through [neutral] Belgium". That even in 1914 Sasonov could not be sure that Britain would be more than "a benevolent neutral" undermines the central thesis of a British-engineered "encirclement plot". Sasonov twice acknowledged, by Hof's own admission, this conditionality, yet Hof draws the remarkable conclusion from Sasonov's quoted correspondence that "The Great War came because France and Russia wanted it and Britain consented".
From this leap of logic Mr Hof jumps to "the timely and flawless despatch of the British Expeditionary Force to France", perhaps drawing from some experiment in guided imagery or self-hypnosis; certainly not from history. Mobilisation of the BEF was delayed by three days--when every hour counted--while the British government debated what Mr Hof alleges was agreed years in advance, and this delay contributed to an almost-fatal suspicion toward perfidious Albion in the mind of the commander of the Fifth French Army, to the right of the BEF, a suspicion that greatly imperilled the Allied left wing. Furthermore, so "flawless" was the despatch of the BEF that a fifth division was scrambled to the original complement on the very eve of the Battle of Mons, so hastily that much of its support was missing, thereby imposing an extra load on the other four divisions (in particular, perhaps, on despatch riders).
There's more; much more. Mr Hof's understanding of the Balkan Wars is so transparently tenuous that magnanimity almost forbids taking him to task for claiming that "the Turks were defeated" in the Second Balkan War (in which they actually recovered Eastern Thrace, lost in the First Balkan War to Bulgaria; it was Bulgaria that was defeated in the Second Balkan War. By "the Third Balkan War" historians, unlike Mr Hof, mean the one launched by Austria against Serbia in late July 1914; the one that Germany manipulated into European, and soon World War.)
Mr Hof quotes from an Austrian Ministerial Council memo of 7 July 1914: "such stringent demands must be addressed to Servia that will make a refusal almost certain, so that the road to a radical solution by means of military action should be opened"--yet Germany and Austria are supposed to have been the victims of Anglo-Franco-Russian aggression?
There's nothing sinister in Poincaré's visit to Russia in 1914, or anything of unseemly haste after his previous one: his first had been as prime minister, his second was as president of France, and the two countries had been allies for twenty years--of course President Poincaré visited! Mr Hof's dark assertion that "this mysterious visit continues to intrigue historians" is the sort of cant that distinguishes the conspiracy theorist from the historian that Mr Hof pretends to be with this silly book. There was nothing "mysterious" about Poincaré's visit, and it never "intrigued" anyone other than the likes of Mr Hof.
This is not to say that all parties in the Great War, with the exception of Belgium, did not play some role in its instigation; but it's a long time since Fritz Fischer proved that his own country bore the brunt of blame, and to see this hoary chestnut once again raked out of the ashes of Weimar and Nazi Germany is depressing. However, the fact that no commercial publisher will back Mr Hof's views lifts one's spirits somewhat.
There's no need to read further. Life's too short and there are too many good books to waste time in reading bad ones to their far-fetched ends. Anyone who wants to read conspiracy theory ought to try David Irving, who at least knows enough history to write plausible nonsense.