War

Andrew Roberts has written a history of the second world war and from the reviews it's getting it looks like it's a good read. It doesn't break new ground - so many books about WW2 have been written that it must be difficult for a historian to find something new to say; but Roberts writes so well that whatever he sets his sights on becomes an exciting read. Not only that but he writes from a certain perspective which I think is "from the right" so that he is not only thorough but positive in his judgements; you may not agree with some of them but you can't help but take notice of them and admire the way he presents them.
Paul Johnson wrote a review of this book, "The Storm of War: a New History of The Second World War", and praised it highly. But at the end of the review he wrote: "Roberts's book is a powerful, well-documented sermon on these inhumanities. Engrossing to read. But will it do any good?"
I don't believe it will. I am not thinking of what Henry Ford said of history - "history is bunk" -I'm thinking that so much has already been written about war in general, so many plays and films and novels have been written about war, especially WW2, and many of them positively against it, yet nothing much has happened to cause people to take heed before embarking on yet another war. Alastair Cook, I recall, in his Letters from America, some time back said something to the effect that after WW2 the United Nations was set up with its purpose to prevent other wars occurring, but he went on to say that (then, 10 or 20 years ago) there had been over 200 conflicts in the world since then, some minor conflicts but most full-scale wars.
I recall a war play on TV some years back being discussed by a panel of critics on radio, and I remember one of the panel saying "they keep writing these plays damning war but no one seems to take any notice of them, they carry on fighting."
Will it do any good? I'm afraid not. But don't ask me what will.