In the book, The Best War Ever, Michael Adams states right away his main argument he intends to stress throughout the book. On the first page he states that we as Americans like to twist history so it makes ourselves look better. Adams says on page one, “Sometimes we conjure up the past in such a way that it appears better than it really was. We forget ugly things we did and magnify the good things. This is wishful thinking, the desire to retell our past not as it was but as we would like it to have been.”(1) Throughout the entire book Adams focuses on this topic more than any other and clearly wants this to be the subject of the book. His thesis statement in the Preface states, “The goal of this book is to subject the major aspects of the
…show more content…
He attacks the myth that World War Two arose in a vacuum and that “appeasement” and “deterrence” had failed, and only through those policies failing, did the modern democracies realize they needed to go to war. The author seemed to organize the book very well. It had interesting flow and all his chapters had a significant purpose in the book. The book didn’t seem to have a lot of names and dates like most history books do, and I think that had something to do with the movement of the book. Most readers have a tendency to get lost while reading a book with a bunch of statistics thrown at them, but the author did a good job of presenting them. The author seems to imagine his audience as having a working knowledge of World War II history so without previous knowledge of the war some parts of the book would not make sense to the average reader. He assumes that they know the basic background of the War but have acquired some misconceptions about it. He believes that everyone who “thinks” they know about World War II only has heard about the “good” and not the history of the war. He does throw little facts in there like the 1938 Munich conference to help explain to those who don’t have a lot of World War II knowledge.
I personally thought that the book was very well written. He took some of the myths, even some I thought to be true, and deflated them, proving his point with numerous citations and outside references. However, I did feel like he