OPINIONSnVisions and Revisionsnby Alan J. Levinen”A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.”n— Thomas JeffersonnThe Duel, 10 May-31 July 1940:nThe Eighty-Day Struggle BetweennChurchill and Hitlernhy John LukacsnNew York: Ticknor and Fields;n224 pp., $19.95nI n his latest book, John Lukacs returnsnto some of the same territory that hencovered in one of his finest works. ThenLast European War. Here he has concentratednon the critical period innwhich the Nazis conquered WesternnEurope and in which the fortunes ofnthe Allies reached their nadir, but innwhich Britain’s opposition to Hitlerncrystallized. In a way, this is a prehistorynof the Battle of Britain. Lukacs,nwith his usual stress on the role ofnpersonality, interprets this period as anAlan }. Levine, a historian and writer,nlives in New York City.n26/CHRONICLESnconflict between Winston Churchillnand Adolf Hitler: “On that duel innMay, June, July depended the SecondnWodd War and the fate of the worldnthereafter.” Even those most stronglynopposed to writing history as the storynof the deeds of great men will benunable to deny that there is plenty ofnjustification for such an approach innthis case. The result is one of Lukacs’nbetter books; although not free of thenerratic and even bizarre judgments thatnhave too often marred his work. ThenDuel is instructive and enjoyable.nThe interpretative framework ofnThe Duel will be familiar to those whonhave read Lukacs’ earlier books.nLukacs insists upon the primacy ofnideas, of individual leaders, and ofnnational characteristics and conflict.nThe Worid Wars — not the Russiannand Chinese revolutions, decolonization,nthe division of Europe, or thendevelopment of nuclear energy — are.nnnhe insists, the crucial events of ourncentury; while nationalism and nationalnconflict, not class conflict, is thencrucial motor of modern history. As anbroad generalization, Lukacs’ view isnundoubtedly correct, although thenshades of Nicholas II and Jiang Jieshi,namong others, might be inclined tonsuggest that there have been importantnexceptions. Hitler, who concocted thendeadliest synthesis of nationalism andnsocialism, was the greatest revolutionarynof the century, and a genericn”national socialism,” even if not in itsnmost obnoxious form, survived thenSecond World War and remains anmajor force.nWhile Hitler was a nationalist and anradical, Churchill was a patriot and antraditionalist — even, Lukacs says, an”reactionary.” This last description is anbit hard to swallow, for, as Lukacsnadmits, he was also a democrat; and,neady in his career, something of an