In the book The Battle for History, John Keegan, talks of the many different views on World War II. He takes into account other historical works such as Robert M. Kennedy's The German Campaign in Poland, Christopher Duffy's Red Storm on the Reich, The Struggle for Europe by Chester Wilmot and many others. He has already analyzed these other works. He has summarized the authors" major points and used them to support his own theory, although Keegan's theory about the written history of the war is quite unclear. The only theory that I could derive, is that "[it] has not yet been written." (30) What does he mean by this? The works cited in the back of the book number over one hundred fifty. Numerous references are made to the works of other authors. Keegan does not seem to tell anything from his perspective, but state what he has read. All good and well considering this is history, but are the past events so clearly set in stone? Keegan seems to bring up questions throughout the book such as: did Roosevelt know of the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened? "There have also been explorations of the allegation that Roosevelt had foreknowledge but chose not to act on it, as a means of bringing the United States into the Second World War on the anti-Axis side." (17) Keegan does not do much to answer these questions, simply brings them into the picture. The book gives no feel of ending or resolution to most of the questions he brings about. Maybe this was his purpose. Topics in the book up from one place to another. In one paragraph Keegan may be discussing the use of the Enigma, a commercial cipher machine; in the next Keegan might begin discussing the use of U-boats. Although there is some logical flow through the book, for the most part the subjects are jumpy, causing the work to be choppy and cluttered babbling. It seems like the author is trying to squeeze as much as he can into as few pages as possible.
