This is a remarkably objective example of historiography. The book was written for a U.K. audience and gives a bit more attention to the British Empire than to the U. S., but the authors' exhibit a brilliant and dispassionate capacity for concise narration and penetrating analysis of underlying issues. Rather than "socialist," the book is generally moderately conservative. The New Deal is "semi-socialist" and American capitalism unfettered won the war, in their view. Socialists do not write thus.
(As an example of how things change, the hostile reviewer calls MacArthur "mediocre." M. was for two decades a Republican icon; at the time of his dismissal it appeared that he had the country in his grasp--at least to those in Ohio, where one then lived. John Birchers listened to recordings of his speeches. No fan of M's pre-old age politics, i agree that he was the most brilliant of Allied generals, winning economical victories against often superior forces. M. did make major errors. Inchon and North Korea are two poles of his career.)
C & W go straight to the essentials; those seeking detailed analyses of campaigns will need to go elsewhere, but few have done a better job of explaining the why and not just the how of WWII, as well as its consequences. They also illuminate their pages with apposite quotes from Sophocles to Shakespeare to Tolstoy and beyond. (Perhaps only socialists could be so effete as to cite Thucydides, etc.) This is a reminder of how good unbiased history can be.