Hi AskHistorians -- I love this sub and I'm sorry in advance if this is a poor question. I'm reading Churchill's "The Second World War," I've finished volumes 1 and 2, about to start 3, and previously read volume 4. I'm wondering to what extent I should be taking Churchill's insights and accounts with a grain of salt. I love Churchill's writing, I revere the man historically, and I find the whole thing fascinating. But I have this nagging sense of "am I getting the whole story?" just because I know I'm reading history written by the victor. Those of you who know the area well, does it stand up well on its own as accurate and reliable?
(Suggestions about where to go after I'm finished for more WW2 history are appreciated as well.)
It depends on what you're reading it for, if you're reading it for fact (in the manner of "this is an impartial historian writing about a time period"), read with a salt shaker in hand. While for the most part he is fair, he does exercise personal vendettas on a few occasions. In addition to that, if you Take into account when he wrote this, several key aspects of history are intentionally left out in order to ensure secrecy. However, If you're reading it as a memoir of Churchill and his participation in the war and accept that it's going to have that bias and tinge it's a great read.
Either way it is still a valuable historical resource simply because it's unique, it's biased towards the British, but no other major leader on either side wrote a memoir.
Also if you don't mind my asking, which edition are you reading?
Since /u/Almostatimelord said it well regarding how to take Churchill's work, I thought I'd recommend some other historical works regarding WW2.
The Third Reich Trilogy (The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power, The Third Reich at War) by Richard J. Evans
To Lose a Battle: France 1940 by Alistair Horne
The Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson
Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk by Len Deighton