This from the BBC website: World War II devastated half the globe, killing an estimated 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. Instant histories of the war - not least Winston Churchill's own - depicted it as Britain isolated and alone against the might of Germany. This was true only for a period in 1941-1942, when little fighting was done. By the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, it was Roosevelt and Stalin who divided the world. Compared with the global total, British losses were comparatively modest. Some 375,000 service personnel were killed, just over half the number lost in World War I, and 60,000 civilians had died in air raids. Some 2% of the total war deaths were British, against 65% that were Soviet. The USSR and America won the war with Britain as something of an also-ran. A Short History of England by Simon Jenkins is published by Profile books. I'm sure no-one would argue that Britain won World War II alone, but I'm at a loss to understand why Mr Jenkins seems to dismiss Britain's contribution solely on the number of casualties sustained. Any observations?