I think the review (and by proxy, Kershaw) is a somewhat unorthodox interpretation, understating the importance of the public works and infrastructure investment (and, as mentioned, deficit spending). It was essentially Keynesian in this regard. Of course, Kershaw is quite correct in pointing out that there was also (and also Keynesian) the substantial increase of expenditure in public rearmament and military expenditure. It is that latter half of the equation that obviously required their use in war (i.e., "military Keynesianism", an issue we have discussed in the past).