philipjd

Just been reading the 'schoolboy fantasies' part of the could germany win WW2 thread. Thought I'd open up this debate.

Churchill and memoirs - whilst his history of WW2 is a good source of most data, Churchill was a superb writer (his use of language can be almost poetic) but his interpretations and 'inclusivity' should be taken with a touch of salt. Whilst WW2 is much more accurate than his WW1 books (where he was kicked out of office thus a bit more self-justification needed), it should not be used as a source for the entire picture.

Caesar - his books are also most informative, but again he was a serious politician, so how much can be taken as 'straight' fact?

Both the above authors are much more accurate than say, Homer, and who can argue against Caesers books (as a contemporary)?

cheers
Phil