This is an entertaining account of the mutual attitudes of the British and German people from 1864 to the outbreak of the first World War, with a focus on how mass opinion shaped politics, and politics and press shaped mass opinion.
The format is chronological but anecdotal, with leaps through history to discuss selected events, and public opinion documented through cartoons and newspaper clippings. This leaves a lot unsaid, and evidently it is also far too narrow to reduce the causes of the Great War to the relationship between the British and German Empires. But it is also a very illustrative and entertaining way of telling a focused story. Clearly James Hawes did not aim to create a complete historical framework, he just refers to other events that touch upon his account, and leaves them there, as if saying, if you want to know more about the Boer War, go read another book. I can imagine this being confusing to some readers.
The essential thesis of Hawes is that the Great War was not some unfortunate accident of history, but the logical consequence of ideological and nationalistic antagonism. He does not absolve the politicians and generals from blame, but does see the war as something created out of popular opinion too.
There are other books that cover the same period and roughly the same topic, of course. The use by Hawes of unusual sources, from travel guides to political cartoons, as source material gives this one a unique flavour. It is well worth reading. Maybe it needs to be complemented with half a dozen or so other books, if you want to try to understand this period, but "Englanders and Huns" deserves its place on the bookshelf.
The author ends with a warning that does not ring entirely true, but still true enough to be uncomfortable: May be the mutual prejudices and streotypes of the British and Germans did not change that much since the 1860s, and they are still coloring European politics today. It is a point that merits some reflection.
Technical note: For some reason the page numbers of references are off by 2 in this edition, i.e. a reference to page 371 should be one to page 369.