I knew Mosier's book was unpopular among the traditionalist interpretations of WW 2 history. I myself disagreed with many of his conclusions, some of which were stretched. On the other hand, I found that Mosier's method of research to be a breath of fresh air compared with the more well known military/war historians of our time. His bibliograhphies and references reflect a great deal of comparative research, a method I think other historians of warfare would do well to emulate. While Mosier's conclusions may have raised questions, his use of comparative research should not. On many occassions he's explained how doing so helped debunk some common post-war assesments. To disregard that, is to accept that traditional interpretations of the war are not only to be taken as the final word, but also are not to be challenged. In other words, if one is comfortable with a one-track, linear interpretation of a historical military operation, then one is more accepting that cherry-picking research and personal bias will, and should, always trump accuracy.

But then, that is my opinion of Mosier's work. Just like your review is your opinion, nothing more. I do not use his work as the sole reference, but as one of many. On a personal level, I'm much more knowledged on the immediate pre-war events, up to 1940, than later war. Given my almost 15 years of reading up on the subject matter, I found that certain question raised by Mosier in his assesments warranted further attention.

I certainly find his work more interesting than some of the old stale and repetitious banter offered by the likes of Keegan and Deighton, the Dr. Drivel and Mr. Tripe of the WW 2 history club establishment. But then again, that's my opinion as well.