Just to point out, Clauswitz is heavily studied in the "new" world (at least in the military) along with Jomini. I don't think the old world has a monopoly on their teachings.
Brinktk: when you are at the Army War College, I have been thinking about what the American historian (military history) study most when it comes to the Second World War. Is it 50/50 between the European theater and the Pacific? I get a feeling most military historians are studying Europe, maybe much lesser about the campaign in Italy. Other parts of the war are also getting much lesser attention, the Japanese war in China, even when they were threatening India. Maybe historians in these countries studying these events.
Monty, would you say NZ historians are focusing their attention more on Italy than other historians. There was an NZ division active in Italy so I assume the NZ historians pay some attention to it
The war with Japan was accentually over after the Battle of Midway , Japan could not recover not even close meanwhile the U.S kept building and building they were putting out Liberty Ships every 10 days , the need for Island Campaigns were point less all the U.S. had to do was blockade the Japanese lifelines ,
To me one the most interesting wars of WWII was the winter war between Finland and Russia , Russia took a terrible beating , but the Finns granted the Russians much territory concessions .
I think it is mostly focused on what the individual wants to study if it is historians we are talking about. I started out with Western Europe, moved to the Med, and now I would say my strongest area is the Pacific as far as American military history is concerned. I have studied at least as much on the Eastern front and have a healthy knowledge of the war in China as well.
That is just me though, I flop all around and try to learn about all areas of the conflict.
My main point 13 was to point out that academia without experience can be limited. Personal prejudiced can enter at any point be it physical science or the science of human activity. It's one of our basic faults.
Point in case. Take the case of the 2nd world wars eastern front. Which is still coming to light after having received decades of the same prejudicial coverage that you referee to. The communist USSR wanted to cover their reduce their losses on paper for reasons of embarrassment and incompetence. The Germans preferred to reduce Soviet deaths (particularly Soviet civilian deaths and murders which weren't so well documented like the Jewish holocaust victims) to smooth over their guilt.
As a result the figure quoted for decades as for total deaths as a result of the German invasion of 20 million is actually > 27 million and could very well exceed 30 million. Note: This doesn't include several million killed by Stalin near wars end and in the period directly following the war.