Brendan Simms

Richard J. Evans was critical of Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy saying that Simms had overly favoured observations by A. J. P. Taylor of a Hobbsean view of European history, focusing on periods of strife while neglecting periods of cooperaton between European states.[8] Evans described the book as a "one-sided picture", adding that even Simms has to acknowledge that there were periods of cooperation.[8]

Evans also criticised Simms' emphasis on the primacy of foreign policy, noting that it leads Simms to odd conclusions such as the revolt against Charles I being driven by failure to protect Protestant German princes - the cause was domestic religious conflict.[8] Evans also cites counterexamples to Simms' assertion that conflict and foreign policy drove democratisation and the development of civil liberties: the Reign of Terror, the crushing of civil liberties in Britain during the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of Mussolini.[8]

He also points out that Simms rarely mentions economic factors, saying that when he does "it is often breathtakingly wrong-headed", citing Simms blame of the great depression in Germany on the French government rather than blind adherence to the Gold standard and the withdrawal of American loans after the Wall Street Crash.[8]

Evans criticises Simms for obsessing with Germany as the driving force in European history, pointing out that Simms ignores periods when French expansionism was the motor for war.[8]

Norman Stone praised the book as "lively and erudite".[9] He also praised the book for the focus on Germany and Simm's knowledge of it though he qualifies it by saying Simms is stronger on the 18th century than the 20th century due to the volume of material to be covered in the latter.[9]

Noel Malcolm praised Simms as "a historian of unusual range and ability", saying that "knowing what he wants to say is one of Simms’s strengths".[10] On the whole Malcolm praised the book, though on the primary of foreign policy although he describes Simms as having strong examples of it he did wonder if there may be counterexamples, including those where the foreign/domestic distinction is less clear.[10]

Richard Evans was also critical of Hitler:Only the World Was Enough, pointing out that Simms' claim that Hitler was a socialist did not stand up to examination.[11] Simms cited violence of Nazi stormtroopers against conservatives, but Evans pointed out that socialists and communists made up the overwhelming majorith of those 200000 thrown into concentration camps in Hitlers' first year in power.[11] Simms claimed that Hitler's rhetoric was more anti-capitalist than anti-communist, but Evans points out that the anti-communist rhetoric dominated the political portion of Mein Kampf.[11] Simms claims that Hitler had managed "to nationalise German industrialists by making them instruments of his political will" which Evans disputes - the reason Thyssen and Krupp supported him was that Hitler's rearmament policies were profitable for them.[11] Also, increased demand for arms led to increased exploitation of workers.[11]

Simms claimed that Kristallnacht was caused by "Roosevelt’s hostility to Hitler and his defence of the Jews", that Operation Barbarossa "was to be a campaign of conquest and annihilation, for reasons more to do with Anglo-America than the Soviet Union itself" and that The Holocaust was "primarily driven … by his fear of Britain and the United States".[11] Evans comments "All this is nonsense, and indeed, Simms is forced to contradict himself by the sheer weight of the evidence against his thesis."[11] As an example of where Simms is forced to contradict himself Evans points to Operation Barbarossa, which Simms concedes to have been "part of a much broader ideological war against Bolshevism".[11] Evans also points out that Hitler's genocidal antisemitism was based on a paranoid view that Jews were inherently disposed to subversion and conspiracy.[11]

Evans sums up the book with "In the end, Simms hasn’t written a biography in any meaningful sense of the word, he’s written a tract that instrumentalises the past for present-day political purposes. As such, his book can be safely ignored by serious students of the Nazi era".[11]