Churchill's History of the Second World War

[Simon_Jester]

I've read through this series two or three times. I know quite well that Churchill took the opportunity to insert self-justifications into the text- "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

What I would like to hear people's views on is: where, exactly, are the significant inaccuracies? Where does he misrepresent his own policies, or those of others? Where his account disagrees with other people who were primary sources on the high levels of Allied decision-making, are Churchill's claims usually more or less accurate, insofar as we can be certain?

I would dearly love to get my hands on a decent commentary to The Second World War, such as might be compiled by a group of impartial historians who had researched the text and checked it against the facts as best they could. Does such a work exist?

[thejester]

Simon you might be interested in In Command of History by David Reynolds. I haven't read it but it got glowing reviews for doing exactly what you ask - critically examining both the work itself and the writing of it.