He is a good word smith, having been a speech writer for Reagan. So he earned a point there, being a good word smith. But he was writing a serious history book in the genre of a chatty social historian, so it was hard to hold together. He also assumed Hitler walked into the war with limited aims, that he was an accidental fuhrer, despite all his speeches, writing, and military and intelligence efforts. He was more like Shakespeare's Richard III, this is what I am going to do, watch me, am I good?

But Buchanan would rather blame the war on the UK, as most Nazi supporters did as well. So he becomes an apologist and rather bias and, like his professional life, a mouthpiece. I am not saying he is a Nazi or the UK was unblemished, I am saying his views are limited even within his acknowledging many sources.

This was not so much an alternative history, but one of choosing personality over European Real Politik. More like a gee whiz book than something on the stature of Keegan or Wilmot, Chaney, Erikson, or Mosse.
I guess it depends what you are looking for in a war book, not my cup of tea. I stopped reading it.

They were already discussing their bloated Empire before and after WWI, so to say they lost it because of WW II as the title suggests is a misnomer.