Although Roberts's 2006 work A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 won critical acclaim from some sections of the media,[42][43] The Economist drew attention to some historical, geographical, and typographical errors, as well as presenting a generally scathing review of the book. The newspaper referred to the work as "a giant political pamphlet larded with its author's prejudices".[7] More generally, Reba Soffer described him in 2009 as "devoted ... to public, polemical conservatism as well as to historical revisionism".[44]
He's too far right for The Economist. Also he's a baron.
It was announced on 14 October 2022 in Boris Johnson's 2022 Political Honours that Roberts would be raised to the peerage as a life baron. On 1 November 2022, he was created Baron Roberts of Belgravia, of Belgravia in the City of Westminster.
[...]
Support for the Iraq War and military intervention
Roberts supports a strong American military and has generally argued in favour of close relations between the Anglosphere nations. As an advocate for the general principle of democratic pluralism, he has argued that "[s]neered at for being 'simplistic' in his reaction to 9/11, Bush's visceral responses to the attacks of a fascistic, totalitarian death cult will be seen as having been substantially the right ones" in the long run. In many writings, he has come out in support of neo-conservative influenced socio-political viewpoints.
During the buildup to the Iraq War, Roberts supported the proposed invasion, arguing that anything less would be tantamount to appeasement, comparing Tony Blair to Winston Churchill in his "astonishing leadership". He additionally argued that acting against Saddam Hussein was in line with the "Pax Americana realpolitik that has kept the Great Powers at peace since the Second World War, despite the collapse of Communism".
In 2003, Roberts wrote: "For Churchill, apotheosis came in 1940; for Tony Blair, it will come when Iraq is successfully invaded and hundreds of weapons of mass destruction are unearthed from where they have been hidden by Saddam's henchmen." When such weapons were not found, Roberts still defended the invasion for larger strategic reasons, while arguing that his past views were based on credible assessments from intelligence services as well as other sources.
His Twitter account has a lot of recent tweets about his interview (interviews?) with natsec guy and ex-general David Petraeus. When Petraeus was head of the CIA under Obama - Petraeus basically committed espionage. He was married but he gave his sidepiece super top secret stuff. It was no accident or oversight. He intentionally gave her lots of documents to have a look at. Why? I guess to show off and be a total alpha idiot. She was writing a biography about him called All In. The case went to trial but it went away after he paid a fine. You can't make this stuff up.
Since Trump's 2016 win - I get constant reminders of how incurious most people are. The talking heads discussing the Gaza war on MSNBC and CNN are perfect examples. I started googling them and I quickly learned it's easiest to first check their Twitter account. On tv they might make all the right noises "After the war there needs to be a negotiated truce." But sometimes by just the third most recent tweet I can plainly see they are full of shit. They are acting not just like a pro-Israel account but a pro-IDF one.
And it doesn't matter at all. It was a reminder to me that the average American (and people in many other countries too - Hello, Argentina) - look at politics like sports. The minor players on the field don't matter. Who cares what their names are? Who cares what the details are? All that matters is the score and that that their team is winning.
"historian"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia?useskin=vector
He's too far right for The Economist. Also he's a baron.
How many historical grievances do you think Baron Roberts of Belgravia has forgiven?
A lovely gentleman
Yeah I figured he was a piece of work but he really exceeded expectations when I did the smallest possible amount of research
His Twitter account has a lot of recent tweets about his interview (interviews?) with natsec guy and ex-general David Petraeus. When Petraeus was head of the CIA under Obama - Petraeus basically committed espionage. He was married but he gave his sidepiece super top secret stuff. It was no accident or oversight. He intentionally gave her lots of documents to have a look at. Why? I guess to show off and be a total alpha idiot. She was writing a biography about him called All In. The case went to trial but it went away after he paid a fine. You can't make this stuff up.
Since Trump's 2016 win - I get constant reminders of how incurious most people are. The talking heads discussing the Gaza war on MSNBC and CNN are perfect examples. I started googling them and I quickly learned it's easiest to first check their Twitter account. On tv they might make all the right noises "After the war there needs to be a negotiated truce." But sometimes by just the third most recent tweet I can plainly see they are full of shit. They are acting not just like a pro-Israel account but a pro-IDF one.
And it doesn't matter at all. It was a reminder to me that the average American (and people in many other countries too - Hello, Argentina) - look at politics like sports. The minor players on the field don't matter. Who cares what their names are? Who cares what the details are? All that matters is the score and that that their team is winning.