know that they researched more than what was written in Finney's book. Since most of Finney's commentary consisted of interpretations and explanations of the readings that would follow, there was not a great deal of facts to be misrepresented by Finney himself. The commentaries were an excellent was to start off the readings. Finney provided an understanding of what the writer was going to say, not only in support of what they were going to say, but also provided some comments on opposing opinions. He also kept them completely unbiased, which helped you to form a decision that was devised on your own. Although the commentaries that Finney provided were unbiased and contained great content, they could be confusing to a reader inexperienced in World War II politics and language. For example, on page 117 he said "Knox does not find the notion of equidistance persuasive." There is no context that allows the reader to determine what that means, and the definition of "equidistant" does not make sense when applied. There are a number of situations where a reader can be easily confused by Finney's use of words and unexplained backgrounds. The book as a whole explained a minimal amount of information regarding actual actions and facts, and focused on controversial topics. This method keeps the interest of someone that has a solid understanding of what happened in the years preceding World War II. The writings Finney chose for his book was largely concentrated on evaluating countries and people. This could easily provide a reader that is new to World War II with being convinced that the opinion of the essay is the only opinion. By writing a book that has a large number of different writings from different authors, there is enough written by an author to give you a complete picture, but not enough to drag out a topic. This is by far much better than history books and essays that provide so much detail about a single issue. One example of where thi...
