Why do philosophers have to muck around in other disciplines that they are not qualified to examine? Glover gets quite a bit of his history wrong, such as two glaring errors: Operation Mongoose was the CIA op to kill Castro, it had nothing to do with invading the island. The NKGB and NKVD were not one in the same as he erroneously claims.



He appears to be operating under the inane assumption that history is a cookie-cutter, and historical events cannot be pigeon-holed if one is a serious student of history. The historical narrative matters; you cannot just cut out snap-shots of a small operation (such as My Lai) here and then tackle a giant topic like Nazism all in the same work. I cannot figure out how this book is organized: it isn't chronological. it isn't even all confined the the 20th century; the reasons he chose to talk about the situations that he does are unclear. Why have several chapters on World War One and none on World War Two? Why nothing on the Turkish genocide of the Armenians? Why nothing about the Rape of Nanking?



Unfortunately, I was forced to purchase this book for a course and I am thoroughly disgusted with the glaring historical errors of fact and interpretation that this ignorant philosopher has written.



Philosophers need to leave history to historians and talk about the abstract nonsense no one cares about in their ivory towers and leave other disciplines alone, as they have their own philisophical underpinnings.