The Battle For History: Re-fighting World War II

by John Keegan

With the same erudition, discernment, and crisp prose that made his A History of Warfare an international bestseller, Keegan surveys the literature of World War II, identifying the works he finds most important and illuminating while examining the sometimes savage controversies raised by two generations of the war's historians.

Genres: History, Military History, World War II, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, War, American History

128 pages, Paperback

First published May 6, 1995

About the author

Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan, OBE, FRSL was a British military historian, lecturer and journalist. He published many works on the nature of combat between the 14th and 21st centuries concerning land, air, maritime and intelligence warfare as well as the psychology of battle.

Reviews

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A slight book of historiography, author Keegan thematically discusses the literature about WWII, recommending some books, criticizing others and pointing to areas of research yet to be adequately pursued.
Very readable!

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

Little more then an extended biographical essay which documents books which Keegan "has found an indispensable guide to the war's drama and tragedy." It is none the less an interesting collection. I'm sure everyone who reads it will find room for disagreement with the books listed. I disagree with Keegan's inclusion of Ambrose's Eisenhower biography, however that's based in recent revelations regarding Ambrose's plagiarism and the possibility that he did not conduct all the interviews with Ike that he claimed to have, things Keegan would not have known when this book was published in 1995. Two other more bizarre inclusions are David Irving's Hitler's War and Goring. Keegan describes Irving as as championing extreme right-wing politics and having offered a reward to anyone producing written evidence of Hitler authorizing the final solution, he also describes him as a historian of formidable powers. Perhaps in 1995 Irving's travels to the lunacy of holocaust denial was not yet complete and Keegan's description of him was accurate at the time and perhaps, at one time Irving was a good historian but I think his recent activities have discredited his previous work. [return][return]A short book and worth reading, however it assumes the reader has some familiarity with the Second World War.[return][return]This book contains what may be the single most depressing thing I've read recently: [return][return]"By now, fifty years after 1945, I have read very extensively indeed. There are few aspects of the war about which I do not know something, and several about which I know a great deal. Nevertheless, it is the limitation rather than the scope of my knowledge of which I am most aware."[return][return]What hope is there for the rest of us?

[Colonel Sir Cedric Wycliffe-Hawthorne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review for The Battle for History: Re-fighting World War II by John Keegan

John Keegan’s The Battle for History: Re-fighting World War II provides a unique and analytical perspective on the most thoroughly documented conflict in history. With the end of World War II more than 50 years in the past at the time of publication, Keegan examines the controversial debates and questions that continue to shape the understanding of the war. This book isn’t so much a re-telling of the events of WWII, but rather an exploration of the historiography and questions that have emerged in the decades since.

Key Themes and Insights:
• The Power of Historical Debate: One of Keegan’s major contributions is his ability to bring forward the unresolved debates that historians have over key moments of the war. For instance, he tackles questions like: Could the Allies have invaded France earlier? Was there foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor? How did the Holocaust impact the course of the war? Keegan doesn’t merely provide answers but sets the stage for further reflection and consideration.
• Literary Assessment of WWII Historiography: Keegan delves into how history books and narratives have been written about WWII, critically assessing the literature that has shaped popular and academic opinions. He highlights the often contradictory nature of the war’s portrayal, showing how different perspectives and interpretations have impacted the understanding of its causes, events, and aftermath.
• Re-examining WWII with Contemporary Insights: Keegan uses modern methods and theories to revisit the war, emphasizing how shifting political and social landscapes have colored interpretations. The book is as much about the politics of historical writing as it is about the conflict itself.
• The Nature of War: Keegan continues his exploration of the essence of war, which he has previously detailed in works like The Face of Battle. This book adds layers of complexity to the already intricate subject of WWII, exploring the ideological and moral questions that arise from the study of war and its representation.

Final Verdict:

The Battle for History is not just a WWII history book—it’s an intellectual investigation into how history is written and understood. Keegan brings to light the complexities of the war’s representation, allowing readers to confront historical narratives in a way they might not have considered before. While the book is short (128 pages) and not as detailed as some of his earlier works, it offers valuable insight into the world of historical analysis and the debates that continue to shape how we view World War II.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5) — A thought-provoking and insightful examination of WWII historiography, perfect for readers with an interest in military history or the methodology of historical research.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unusual book, but had to read it due to the author's excellence in writing and thought. Ultimately this book focused on what are the key books of interest in a study of WWII in terms of biographies, campaigns, occupation, etc. Next time I need a WWII book to read, I'll read to Keegan's notes. While primarily a review of the written literature, Keegan provided numerous great insights into the conflict.

- Churchill sent troops to Greece because the Greeks, with the Yugoslavs, were the only unconquered peoples on the European Continent who were prepared to make common cause with the British in standing up to Hitler.... Churchill seemed to have taken the view that, however dubious the prospect of success, British credibility as an enemy of Nazism depended on supporting friends whenever they could be reached. PJK: Few politicians would take this risk. Deploy troops to a tough mission only to strategically gain long term good will
- The United States, traditionally committed to direct rather than indirect strategy as a means of winning wars,..... PJK: So true.
- Germany may well have been less ready to withstand an Allied cross-Channel invasion of 1943 than it proved to be in 1944; but Britain and America were less ready to mount it.
- ... why did the Allies not destroy the Nazi means of human destruction?
- Bombing Auschwitz would simply have assisted the Nazi work of massacre. Why then, the more sophisticated argument runs, did the Allies not bomb the railways that fed Auschwitz?
- The first World War was, in some sense, a leaderless war..... In the Second World War, exactly the opposite analysis holds true. Among Hitler's enemies, it was the will of the leaders which inspired...
- War, though ultimately about fighting, is also about planning where and when to fight, and disguising one's intentions from the enemy while seeking to penetrate his.
- The war made the United States rich again.
- Germany, once the most populous and powerful state in Central Europe, was divided, occupied, bankrupt, and inert. It was to be rescued from hunger and desolation only by the generosity of its enemies. PJK: Interesting display of sympathy for one's enemy. Maybe because of the German immigration pattern to America in the mid to late 1800's? Probably wouldn't happen in the Middle East today.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't be misled by the title. This is more a work of historiography than history. While Keegan does delve into some of the controversies of WWII - did we have advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, could we have bombed the rail lines leading to Auschwitz, could we have invaded France sooner - he doesn't dive deeply into these topics. Keegan's main purpose in this book is to point out good histories that have been written. The interesting thing is that Keegan wrote this in the 1980s, and while many good histories have no doubt been written since then, he points out books that were written with fresh eyes shortly after the war that still provide valuable insight, but may be forgotten. I've added a number of older books to my to-be-read list as a result.

[Maisa Lopes Gomes · Rating 4 out of 5]

“A magnificent analysis with reliable sources”
Keegan's piece offers an holistic and broad view of WWII and it's consequences. The author seems to strive for impartiality, however it does not mention the cruelty of US and British soldiers during the war - differently than how the Russian and Axis armies were depicted.
Great writing, although the non-linear approach can be challenging to readers that don't have an intermediate understanding of the WWII.
This book is also a fantastic reference for literature about the WWII.

[Darin Campbell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting if slight review of some of the best scholarship on various aspects of the war, which has produced thousands of books of varying quality. Seems to lose its sense of purpose in the last few chapters and devolves in an exceedingly brief summary of events with little discussion of the existing literature though notes are provided to point the way.

[SR Westvik]

DNF lmaooo, this wasn’t what I thought/hoped it’d be. Even a sentence of methodology (something about scope! About intention! Anything) before diving into each thematic area would’ve made a world of difference. Without it, everything about this feels incomplete and a bit scattered.

[Hayley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not quite what I was expecting.
I still have a problem with his praise for David Irving.
Just ok in my opinion.

[Randal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent historiography by an eminent historian, but a little dated, considering how much literature has been produced since its publication.

[Rafael Sales · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente guia para outras obras sobre o conflito, embora possa estar um pouco desatualizado.

[Dominic Righini-Brand · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting overview into literature about World War Two. This book provides many interesting and valuable insights into John Keegan’s opinion regarding various books and the events they cover.

[Rachel]

Hard to rate because it's now wildly out of date (especially the inclusion of David Irving), but it's an interesting historiography/lit review.

[Bethany · Rating 4 out of 5]

Keegan offers a good overview into historical opinion regarding the second world war

[Jamie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent literature review of WWII history. I will definitely be referring to this over and over again while choosing a topic, researching and writing my MA thesis.

[jj Grilliette · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 90s, so more information has come out since. However, I found this book to be a good summing up and gave me ideas on other books to read

[Frederick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good resource for those studying World War II. Keegan reviews what are to him the most important books on virtually every aspect of the conflict. This is a good place to start in your study of the war that killed 60 million people.

[Robert Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

A slim volume. The premise that the history of WW2 is related differently from different perspectives is probably not particularly controversial, and the attempt to explicate and clarify these various contested understandings of this cataclysmic event is a definitely a worthwhile undertaking. I have enjoyed all the my previous readings of John Keegan's, particularly "The Face fo Battle", however, I was disappointed by this work as being relatively insubstantial on such a vast and complex subject. Having just read Antony Beevor's "The Second World War", this was probably a tough act to follow and no doubt influenced my perception of Keegan's much slimmer volume. Despite this objection, "The Battle for History" is worth reading, especially as it is relatively short and therefore not a huge commitment of one's time.

[Michael Romo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best thing that I found in this book, other than the profound questions it raises, was the extensive bibliography. Keegan shares with us his crown jewels and understandably some of these books are dated. This is not the authors fault since the book was written quite some time ago.

[yasmin · Rating 3 out of 5]

not quite what i was expecting

[Kris McCracken · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Battle for History: Re-fighting World War II, essentially an extended literature review on the subject by British military historian John Keegan. Give that well over half a century has passed since the end of World War II; it strikes many as surprising that historians are still struggling to define it. I’m not sure why people are all that surprised, given the infinite angles and interpretations that can be applied to the events of the period (especially when one considers the ways in which the world was irrevocably altered).

In assessing the general histories, Keegan manages to illustrate the extent to which our past – including how we think about it, interpret it and define it – dictates our present. Each chapter covers separate approaches to the topic, including overall histories of the war, biographies, distinct campaigns, the intelligence war, logistics, and resistance. The book opens with an overview and discussion of how some of the war's main controversies have influenced the histories (i.e. strategic bombing; the use of nuclear weapons on Japan; the Allies’ failure to act on knowledge of German death camps; the withholding of intelligence for broader strategic aims; and the realpolitik that occurs during wartime).

This isn’t the perfect text. It limits itself to English-language books, and (not unrelated) favours the European war at the expense of the Asian and African theatres. However, one can’t expect extensive analysis in a work of such brevity. Keegan has done an admirable job in summing up key issues and describing the merits of a wide range of standard works on the war. If you are in any way interested in the area, this is a great resource, even if you might disagree on some of the individual points.

[Bibliomantic · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting survey of a few controversial issues surrounding WWII scholarship, plus a list of recommendations for further reading. Keegan's insight is always invaluable, and that is why this book is far too short. I do wish that he had made it at least ten times longer anc covered many more topics and controversied with more extensive commentary. In other words, a quick read that I wish weren't so quick.

[Eric Pecile · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well put together historiography of the Second World War. Covers the history of scholarship very well outlining the different perspectives and revisions that have occurred in the field since the 1950s. It also highlights some of the unanswered historical questions that the field has yet to address making Keegan's scholarly overview the perfect companion for anyone looking to delve into the history of WWII.

[Alex Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A curious book about the history of books about WWII, not the war itself.

[Tom Kurtz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful bibliographic essay. Great way to build a reading list. Now somewhat outdated.

[Bill Forgeard · Rating 3 out of 5]

What a fantastically obscure book! A 125 page survey of the historical literature on World War Two, according to John Keegan. Loved it :)

[Jeff]

Some interesting information here on other books to read about World War Two. The controversially natures were mostly finished after chapter one.

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent but short book. Keegan's work here is more appropriate to be broken down into articles for a periodical publication. Nonetheless, I found it contributed to the historiography of WWII.

[Vivian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Misleading title. This book is a large, though useful looking, bibliography of WWII books.