The story of any war, and the story of defiance to Fascistic Germany in particular, is complex and mixed. A lot of true facts are hidden, suppressed and misrepresented. As all myths are growing in the telling, the history of WWII might also be greatly overwritten. Maybe due to that, the events that happened during the Second World War are told differently by different historians.
John Keegan is a Churchillian who lived under the leadership of Winston Churchill (John Keegan 91). So, he may tend to exaggerate the importance of the British Prime Minister during the WWII. He believes that the war was the four-act drama written by Churchill (John Keegan 82). He is sure that Britain was in the epicenter of every important event during the war and that is why the significance of Churchill should not be reduced (John Keegan 84).
The Churchill was really an outstanding figure and even the contemporaries understood that. Though history always is a field of conflict, Churchill had no opponents and was supported by everyone. He took right decisions and that proved that he had an outstanding mind. Being a brilliant historiographer, Churchill understood that the aggressor would be defeated only if to cooperate with friendly countries. He said that ‘every enemy of Hitler was an ally of his’ (John Keegan 84). That is why he had to become a friend of Stalin though he did not support Stalin’s ideas in general. Moreover, Churchill and the Soviet Union’s leader were enemies during the Winter War.
John Keegan suggested seeing Churchill as the central figure during the Second World War. He said that such point of view would widen the stage and introduce minor characters. That would help people understand the war and see its immediate aftermath. Moreover, it would help to find the accurate place of the WWII in the world history. And what is more important, it would help people understand the current world affairs better (John Keegan 84).
One of the problems is that nowadays some important historical facts are suppressed. The events that were vital during the wartime are not discussed today because they are uncomfortable for modern society.
Keegan pays much attention to the countries that played secondary roles in the history of the WWII. He highlights the significance of minor wars that were intertwined with the war with Nazis, for instance, the Italian war with the north and east Africa (John Keegan 85), a cluster of wars in the East (John Keegan 87) and the Winter War between the Soviet Union and Finland. He notes that in 1939 Finns were heroes in the eyes of Allies, and Britain and France spent a lot of efforts to create the plan that would help Finland overpower the Russians. They wanted to send military supplies to Finland and organize a demarche in the Scandinavian countries in order to make them be more active and prevent further invasion of the Russians into Scandinavia (Martii Haikio 71). But in 1941 Finland suddenly started supporting Hitler and fought against the Allies (John Keegan 86).
Also he notes that almost every European country that was occupied by the Fascists started supporting Hitler in the war, for instance, Danes went to fight for the Fascists in 1943 and Slovaks together with Nazis fought in the Eastern Front (John Keegan 88). He mentions puppet regimes that supported Hitler were organized in every occupied country, except for Poland (John Keegan 89). He wants to say that Churchill was right when he wrote that the war was not just the conflict between the good and the evil.
So, it is clear that Dr. Keegan has the point of view on the Churchill’s significance that is not supported by many historians, but moreover he sees Hitler in an unusual way too. He supposes that there was no tyranny in Hitler’s policy and everything that happened during the wartime was just creation of an empire by the Germans, with complexities and subtleties that are common for any imperial system (John Keegan 91).
All these proves that Dr. Keegan has a broader view on the history of the Second World War than other historians, as such facts are usually not mentioned when the World War II is described. The thing is that nowadays only comfortable truth is mentioned in history because the European vision lacks democracy and is too strong on centralism. Theses wrong values would hardly help people to build the golden future (John Keegan 92). And that is the main reason to rewrite the history of WWII and make it deeper and more complex.
Works Cited List
Haikio, Martti. “The Race for Northern Europe, September 1939 – June”. 1940. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Print.
Keegan, John. “Do We Need a New History of the Second World War?”. 1997. In: Stig Ekman and Nils Edling (ed.). War Experience, Self-Image and National Identity: The Second World War as Myth and History. The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Fondation es Gidlunds Forlag. Print.
