What do you think?
Rate this book
Oxford History of England #15
English History, 1914–1945
This book begins on 4 August 1914, the day Britain entered the 'Great War', and describes the three decades of unparalleled upheaval and change up to the defeat of Japan in 1945, which marked the end of the Second World War. Twin themes of international conflict and mass unemployment in England predominate - besides giving a full account of foreign and domestic politics which were elaborated to deal with them, Taylor also pays particular attention to the impact of events on everyday lives. This book is an essential work from one of the finest historians of the twentieth century, which no one interested in the affairs of the UK will want to be without.
709 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1965
31 people are currently reading
567 people want to read
About the author
A.J.P. Taylor
114 books195 followersAlan John Percivale Taylor was an English historian of the 20th century and renowned academic who became well known to millions through his popular television lectures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 16, 2020
Marvellous. I started reading this because the 1918–1951 volume of the New Oxford History of England has not yet been published. In light of my keenness for an up-to-date summary, I was naturally concerned that this would be out-of-date — and it undoubtedly is. Still, Taylor would surely have agreed with this, given that he called his Origins of the Second World War a ‘period piece of limited value’ in his autobiography from 1983 — a mere 22 years after its publication.
Still, there is great value in Taylor’s summary of interwar politics. It’s concise and entertaining, but I also came to see why I’d found it somewhat hard to find a good summary hitherto; that is, because interwar politics was parochial and somewhat boring. Taylor asserts repeatedly how safe and middle-of-the-road Stanley Baldwin was, and that Ramsay MacDonald wasn’t far behind him. The great political subjects of the 1920s and 1930s were unemployment and Protection. Additionally, these were mainly National Governments, so the retrospective ‘fun’ of reading about close-run general elections is absent. Still, of course, these events had great implications for all in English society; we are just far away from the sexiness of Home Rule and franchise reform — predominant debates of earlier decades. But of course, once we are discussing Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement, this flare returns.
I recommend this to all, not least for the charming quips for which Taylor is famous. Perhaps reading this has made me even more excited to read the new volume (whenever it arrives).
Still, there is great value in Taylor’s summary of interwar politics. It’s concise and entertaining, but I also came to see why I’d found it somewhat hard to find a good summary hitherto; that is, because interwar politics was parochial and somewhat boring. Taylor asserts repeatedly how safe and middle-of-the-road Stanley Baldwin was, and that Ramsay MacDonald wasn’t far behind him. The great political subjects of the 1920s and 1930s were unemployment and Protection. Additionally, these were mainly National Governments, so the retrospective ‘fun’ of reading about close-run general elections is absent. Still, of course, these events had great implications for all in English society; we are just far away from the sexiness of Home Rule and franchise reform — predominant debates of earlier decades. But of course, once we are discussing Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement, this flare returns.
I recommend this to all, not least for the charming quips for which Taylor is famous. Perhaps reading this has made me even more excited to read the new volume (whenever it arrives).
December 31, 2010
The Observer's blurb, "compulsive as well as compulsory reading", applies fairly enough. Admittedly, at times during the long 30's, when everyone seems to take on absurdly Airstripish names (Lloyd George, Kingsley Woods, Neville Chamberlain), it all starts to sound like a discourse into Harry Potter politics, and it's hard to keep attention focused on lengthy discussions of "Protectionism" (tariffs and mercantilist trade aids, for the American reader). The footnotes are what save this book -- in them, Taylor feels free to shrug off his Objective Historian mantles, and basically just rail against the stupidities of whoever's running the show at that moment.
One star deducted for infuriating use of "strategical", an annoying affectation which Garner's Modern American Usage has burned from my mind.
One star deducted for infuriating use of "strategical", an annoying affectation which Garner's Modern American Usage has burned from my mind.
December 15, 2014
Having just written a note on Simon Jenkins's Short History of England, I suppose Taylor's book is at the other end of the spectrum of general histories. I first read this on publication in 1965 for my History A level. It was a great joy to read being in Taylor's style which combines a rapid pace, strongly expressed views and a wicked footnotes. I would still read this as a general introduction to English history in the period - partly I suppose because I have some sympathy with Taylor's views but also because it rattles along at a gallop through a complicated and challenging time.
June 19, 2024
Asquith, Lloyd George, McKenna, Churchill, Runciman, Curzon, Bonar Law, Kitchener, Balfour, Henderson, Birkenhead, Geddes, Addison, Amery, Baldwin, Wheatley, Chamberlain, Hoare, MacDonald, Sankey, Greenwood, Snowden, Eden, Attlee, Beaverbrook, Cripps.
So many people it gets really confusing but this is an unbelievably condensed history from '14-'45 so for what it aims to do I think it accomplishes it, however as expected from such a book it is a lot to grasp and the way it is written makes it slightly harder to understand. One sentence instantly goes on to the next and the next one and the next one. One page can cover cabinet shifts, infrastructure organisation, planning acts and multiple threats of resignation (seriously seems like all these men like doing is threatening resignation)
BUT, it was an interesting read and I wasn't bored at any point. Therefore Taylor succeeds on the most part.
So many people it gets really confusing but this is an unbelievably condensed history from '14-'45 so for what it aims to do I think it accomplishes it, however as expected from such a book it is a lot to grasp and the way it is written makes it slightly harder to understand. One sentence instantly goes on to the next and the next one and the next one. One page can cover cabinet shifts, infrastructure organisation, planning acts and multiple threats of resignation (seriously seems like all these men like doing is threatening resignation)
BUT, it was an interesting read and I wasn't bored at any point. Therefore Taylor succeeds on the most part.
October 3, 2012
Would be a 5 star except a lot of arcane detail about British politics that are hard for an American to follow. But there were two brisk outlines of WWI and WWII from a British prospective that were really valuable and it provided some real insights into the politics of British appeasement of Hitler. The Oxford History of England set is tremendous and each volume has a beautiful set of maps in the back.
February 10, 2017
The book is a solid history of England between the beginning of the Great War in 1914 and the end of World War II in 1945. The author does a good job of conveying to the reader how drastically the relationship the average Englishman had with the government changed over that time period. Taylor's history of the wars, particularly World War II is shaded by bias from his obvious socialist political leanings.
August 12, 2016
Taylor is not quite flavour of the month right now, but only because he is more sympathetic to the left than most latter day popular historians. It is still a joy to read, with some devastating humour in places (writes of one ministerial appointment: "from Caligula's well-stocked stable"). Thoroughly enjoyed this
October 21, 2025
Studying the past helps you make sense of the present. It helps ground you in what came before and helps you analyse the present. English History: 1914-1945 is a heavy-going history book that looks through the tumultuous years from the 1914 declaration of war on Germany, known as DORA (like Dora the explorer,) until the 1945 end of the Second World War. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the history surrounding the wars and interwar period with considerable depth. Written by A.J.P Taylor, the book offers readers a challenging read in understanding the approximately 30-year period, with some lovely line graphs at the beginning.
One interesting comparison between today and the 1920s was its political turbulence. The politics of the era were multi-faceted, with a genuine brief period of three-party politics. This was short-lived, but it is an interesting comparison to today, given how our politics has completely fractured. One of the dominant figures of the age presented by English History was David Lloyd-George. The book describes him as a highly charismatic but destructive politician who was partially responsible for destroying the Liberal Party. This is an unfair analysis because what really finished off Liberalism in Britain was its inability to balance its core commitment to free trade with the wartime economy of the First World War. Indeed, if there was a central feature of the politics of the period, it would be the general failures of Liberalism to solve the problems that Britain faced. This is seen by the World Wars, in which capitalist, free-market economies do not work in providing the materiel. The Liberals were also not able to transcend the change to a class-based political system, as the distinction between landowners and capitalists ended. Whilst the Liberals might be easy to see as being politically out of depth, it shows that political parties can become institutions that die. Perhaps this is the same as the Conservatives today, who struggle with adapting politically to the new multi-
The World Wars are easily seen as being destructive within the society of the UK. What English History does show, however, are the interesting details that are not usually discussed. Take, for example, the economics of the World Wars. Most books or online discussions of the wars don’t really look at this, but English History just goes into the depths of how Britain’s economy fared during the World Wars. In the First World War, the pound was still the global reserve currency. The war paradoxically actually drove up the cost of the pound from $3 to £1 before the war to around $7 to £1 during the war. This is a fascinating feature because of the expectation that a war usually would weaken the currency didn’t happen to the UK, not at least on the international markets. However, this was artificially created because of war spending, and of course, it came with massive increases in inflation because factories didn’t produce civilian items. Wages did go up between 1914 to 1920. The economic discussions of production within the World Wars were discussed as “war socialism”, which was somewhat accurate, as there wasn’t particularly
English History also looks at the smaller details of life between the wars, including culture, dress, the rise of consumerism and religion. I particularly found the religious section to be interesting. Christianity was going into decline. Whilst well over 70 per cent of the population were baptised as Anglicans, there were fewer than two million churchgoers at Easter in an Anglican church. Despite this, however, there were lots of people who sent their children to Sunday school on a Sunday.
English History is a tome of 20th century UK history. There is a considerable amount of information but it is worth a read if you are interested in British history or studying it. Anyone claiming to be a British patriot should be forced to read British history books. They might actually learn something instead of just erecting flags.
One interesting comparison between today and the 1920s was its political turbulence. The politics of the era were multi-faceted, with a genuine brief period of three-party politics. This was short-lived, but it is an interesting comparison to today, given how our politics has completely fractured. One of the dominant figures of the age presented by English History was David Lloyd-George. The book describes him as a highly charismatic but destructive politician who was partially responsible for destroying the Liberal Party. This is an unfair analysis because what really finished off Liberalism in Britain was its inability to balance its core commitment to free trade with the wartime economy of the First World War. Indeed, if there was a central feature of the politics of the period, it would be the general failures of Liberalism to solve the problems that Britain faced. This is seen by the World Wars, in which capitalist, free-market economies do not work in providing the materiel. The Liberals were also not able to transcend the change to a class-based political system, as the distinction between landowners and capitalists ended. Whilst the Liberals might be easy to see as being politically out of depth, it shows that political parties can become institutions that die. Perhaps this is the same as the Conservatives today, who struggle with adapting politically to the new multi-
The World Wars are easily seen as being destructive within the society of the UK. What English History does show, however, are the interesting details that are not usually discussed. Take, for example, the economics of the World Wars. Most books or online discussions of the wars don’t really look at this, but English History just goes into the depths of how Britain’s economy fared during the World Wars. In the First World War, the pound was still the global reserve currency. The war paradoxically actually drove up the cost of the pound from $3 to £1 before the war to around $7 to £1 during the war. This is a fascinating feature because of the expectation that a war usually would weaken the currency didn’t happen to the UK, not at least on the international markets. However, this was artificially created because of war spending, and of course, it came with massive increases in inflation because factories didn’t produce civilian items. Wages did go up between 1914 to 1920. The economic discussions of production within the World Wars were discussed as “war socialism”, which was somewhat accurate, as there wasn’t particularly
English History also looks at the smaller details of life between the wars, including culture, dress, the rise of consumerism and religion. I particularly found the religious section to be interesting. Christianity was going into decline. Whilst well over 70 per cent of the population were baptised as Anglicans, there were fewer than two million churchgoers at Easter in an Anglican church. Despite this, however, there were lots of people who sent their children to Sunday school on a Sunday.
English History is a tome of 20th century UK history. There is a considerable amount of information but it is worth a read if you are interested in British history or studying it. Anyone claiming to be a British patriot should be forced to read British history books. They might actually learn something instead of just erecting flags.
February 22, 2019
While I liked this book very much, I can't recommend it for the general reader. It's for policy geeks. Not much in terms of battle scenes. Mostly, it's about the British Parliament and the changing economy from the Great War through WWII.
But there is much to learn from the book for scholarly political activists. I learned that there are two kinds of socialism. Socialism of the economy (e.g. central planning and funding of the major economic sectors of the nation) is one, socialism or the political system is the other. Most social democracies are only the latter. The economy remains fundamentally capitalist, like Britain, France, Germany and Italy today.
I think those who find themselves defending Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez today should point out that they are not advocating any kind of centralized socialist control of the economy replacing capitalism. They want a social democracy that supports the survival and educational needs of Americans while allowing the American economy to remain overwhelmingly capitalist.
It was fascinating to see how the British system has for about a century now had a largely socialist Labour party fighting it out with the Conservatives in Parliament to support the rights and economic empowerment of the working class. There are various phases during the period examined by Taylor's book when the government was significantly socialist adding years to free public education, providing school up to age 14 before the first war up to 16 by 1970. This is very similar to the arguments now by progressive Democratic candidates calling for free public college and trade school.
The planners for WW II even evaluated whether or not they should support beef production because they could get ten times more protein from agricultural production instead (no talk about cow farts though!)
After the new post-WW II parliament formed, the King spoke to define the new vision for Britain and "announced an ambitious programme: nationalization of the coal industry and of the bank of England; social security; a national health service."
Despite over 70 years of embarking on this, to us radical, political socialist endeavor, Britain is still capitalist! So the Green New Deal is no indicator that it is a threat to capitalism. Certainly, Bernie and AOC aren't! Fear not, Trumpsters!
The book concludes:
"Despite nearly 400,000 killed in the war, the employed population was three million greater than in 1939, partly from an increase in the labour force, partly from the virtual elimination of unemployment. Moreover, the second war, unlike the first, stimulated or created new industries which could hold their own in peacetime.
"During the second World war, and not before, Great Britain took the decisive jump industrially from the nineteenth into the twentieth century... Electricity, motor cars, iron and steel, machine tools, nylons, and chemicals were all set for expansion, and in all of them output per head was steadily increasing.
"The very spirit of the nation had changed. No one in 1945 wanted to go back to 1939. The majority were determined to go forward and were confident that they could do so."
"The British were the only people who went through both world wars from beginning to end. Yet they remained a peaceful and civilized people, tolerant, patient, and generous. Traditional values lost much of their force. Other values took their place. Imperial greatness was on the way out; the welfare state was on the way in. The British empire declined; the conditions of the people improved."
So, this book completed in 1964, still inspired me in 2019. The urgency of the climate crisis and coming rapid sea level rise requires us to reorganize our political and economic systems with the urgency of a WW II-like national emergency to get off fossil fuels in ten years. We can do it. This book shows we have done similar massive reorganizations before.
But there is much to learn from the book for scholarly political activists. I learned that there are two kinds of socialism. Socialism of the economy (e.g. central planning and funding of the major economic sectors of the nation) is one, socialism or the political system is the other. Most social democracies are only the latter. The economy remains fundamentally capitalist, like Britain, France, Germany and Italy today.
I think those who find themselves defending Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez today should point out that they are not advocating any kind of centralized socialist control of the economy replacing capitalism. They want a social democracy that supports the survival and educational needs of Americans while allowing the American economy to remain overwhelmingly capitalist.
It was fascinating to see how the British system has for about a century now had a largely socialist Labour party fighting it out with the Conservatives in Parliament to support the rights and economic empowerment of the working class. There are various phases during the period examined by Taylor's book when the government was significantly socialist adding years to free public education, providing school up to age 14 before the first war up to 16 by 1970. This is very similar to the arguments now by progressive Democratic candidates calling for free public college and trade school.
The planners for WW II even evaluated whether or not they should support beef production because they could get ten times more protein from agricultural production instead (no talk about cow farts though!)
After the new post-WW II parliament formed, the King spoke to define the new vision for Britain and "announced an ambitious programme: nationalization of the coal industry and of the bank of England; social security; a national health service."
Despite over 70 years of embarking on this, to us radical, political socialist endeavor, Britain is still capitalist! So the Green New Deal is no indicator that it is a threat to capitalism. Certainly, Bernie and AOC aren't! Fear not, Trumpsters!
The book concludes:
"Despite nearly 400,000 killed in the war, the employed population was three million greater than in 1939, partly from an increase in the labour force, partly from the virtual elimination of unemployment. Moreover, the second war, unlike the first, stimulated or created new industries which could hold their own in peacetime.
"During the second World war, and not before, Great Britain took the decisive jump industrially from the nineteenth into the twentieth century... Electricity, motor cars, iron and steel, machine tools, nylons, and chemicals were all set for expansion, and in all of them output per head was steadily increasing.
"The very spirit of the nation had changed. No one in 1945 wanted to go back to 1939. The majority were determined to go forward and were confident that they could do so."
"The British were the only people who went through both world wars from beginning to end. Yet they remained a peaceful and civilized people, tolerant, patient, and generous. Traditional values lost much of their force. Other values took their place. Imperial greatness was on the way out; the welfare state was on the way in. The British empire declined; the conditions of the people improved."
So, this book completed in 1964, still inspired me in 2019. The urgency of the climate crisis and coming rapid sea level rise requires us to reorganize our political and economic systems with the urgency of a WW II-like national emergency to get off fossil fuels in ten years. We can do it. This book shows we have done similar massive reorganizations before.
January 25, 2024
What an intemperate book! I picked up a first addition in an Upstate NY used book shop years ago. Dug right in, and loved it. Of course, Taylor has too many shoot-from-the-hip opinions, and many of them are off base, but many are not, and they display a forthrightness and bravery most historians today are too timid (and intimidated) to express. We're all going to get some things wrong. Better to speak your peace and get on with things. And no, I'm not blaming this circumspection on "political correctness" or "wokeness"--far from it. I put the blame on a combination of the enforced house style of most History departments, the desire of young scholars to "sound serious", and the needs of a job market wherein you can never know who is going to be offended or annoyed by what, and therefore it is best to keep your powder dry. Taylor could not care less about these things, and the book benefits and is enlivened by that cavalier attitude. Old or not, give the book a shot.
January 28, 2024
An excellent, highly readable (but still thorough) walkthrough of English history from the start of the first world war to the end of the second. Having studied bits and pieces of this period before, this book helped give me a much more holistic view particularly of the political history.
My only criticisms would be 1. It IS very much focused on political history, and social history is only engaged with really when it intersects with politics - which is fine, and understandable considering the focus of academic history when the book was published, but you might think from the title that it had a broader focus, and 2. That since it was published originally in 1965 and revised in 1975, I'm sure there are some aspects from more recent historiography that are missing.
My only criticisms would be 1. It IS very much focused on political history, and social history is only engaged with really when it intersects with politics - which is fine, and understandable considering the focus of academic history when the book was published, but you might think from the title that it had a broader focus, and 2. That since it was published originally in 1965 and revised in 1975, I'm sure there are some aspects from more recent historiography that are missing.
May 1, 2023
Written in 1965 this as an eminently readable history book. When written it was a hugh success. Taylor's style is witty, insightful and compassionate. It concentrates heavily on British politics of the period and is all the better for it. Political history is put in context of the two world wars and the social changes of the 30s. It helps of honorary have a fair understanding of the events of the period. This is a classic of political and social history.
January 27, 2019
Very good overview of this period.
March 23, 2020
A bit old-fashioned style nowadays and quite judgmental, but overall very informative. Almost every page deserve its own book.
August 16, 2021
Recommended to me while at grammar school. Made more sense after my two bachelor's degrees
to-keep-reference
January 3, 2019De referencia en Postguerra.
January 16, 2017
This is the book that taught me what writing about history could be. Discursive, opinionated, and entertaining, Professor Taylor leads us through the history of England between and during two world wars in his own inimitable style, culminating in the last, glorious, uplifting paragraph, expressive of an optimism long gone.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews