This seems like a junk article. World War 2, especially the European theater, is one of the best studied historical times in existence. Especially since the R

This seems like a junk article. World War 2, especially the European theater, is one of the best studied historical times in existence. Especially since the Russian archives have come to light. It is really not believable to claim that we have gotten the story that wrong -- with such weak evidence. I don't believe carping about the merits of specific machine guns is substantive, and I think what he said about tanks was incomplete and misleading, although I don't want to spend the time to demonstrate it. The article really went off the rails in dismissing the significance of the Battle of the Atlantic. TFA claims that U boats only sunk 127 ships during 1940, but Wiki claims that 270 ships were sunk during June-October alone. And it is well known that Churchill himself said that winning the battle of the Atlantic was critical to Great Britain's survival. In a later phase in early 1942, after America had entered the war but before it understood the threat, German subs sunk 609 ships at a loss of only 22 u-boats. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time) A recent examples of a book that has changed emphases and perceptions about WWII is Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands, on the unique savagery of the Eastern European conflict.