having recently read a book about the same subject (http://www.anobii.com/books/How_the_War_Was_Won:_span_classsubtitleAir-Sea_Power_and_Allied_Victory_in_World_War_IIspan/9781107014756/018cb1cacf10013718/) it is natural to make a comparison.
first of all, this book has a nice introduction about the causes of the war. secondly, the author of this book is an ex-soldier (british army).
in this book all the land battles and campaigns are fully described and analyzed. it is not so about air and sea battles (there is less than a chapter about the battle of the atlantic).
the view about the war is traditional: the war was lost and won on the fields more than anywhere else, especially on the eastern front. the air power doesn't seem to have mattered much, and there's a lot of 'general gossiping' going on along the book (who was friend with whom, and so on). churchill is much criticized (rightly, i think). the last part, about the end of the war and the post-war trials, is so boring i could not take it. it took me a long time to finish this book.
like i said before, the focus in this book is land warfare. if you like that, this is for you. if you want a more articulate description, i think you'll like the other book better.