Ah yes this six-volume piece of non-fiction is a detailed account (from Churchill's point of view) on what caused World War II and the effects of World War II.

Of course what could grace the cover of this work then heaping praise upon praise on "the Great Man."

I have the six-volume work amongst my collection of books and as usual the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New Republic, etc. try to outdo eachother on slobbering praise all over Churchill.

"Not one writer today is fit to hold Churchill's pens!" New Republic

Of course if one looks at this piece of work from a critical point of view instead of the saint-like figure Churchill has become in the modern world there are quite a few criticisms. The books are full of errors and Churchill is not a very great writer. In the books themselves Churchill uses dishonesty and downright lying to make himself appear to be better than he actually was.

He criticizes Chamberlain for sitting down and negotiating with Hitler and yet he does the same with Stalin. He criticizes Chamberlain for handing out the war guarentee with Poland and yet he was the main one begging Chamberlain to do it. He says that he didn't know Stalin would break the pact of "freedom and democracy" and take over Poland when he himself acted as Stalin's enforcer and bullied the Poles to accept the border changes or face the wrath of the Red Army. He criticizes the British for kow-towing to the Americans and cutting off the Anglo-Japenese alliance when he was the main one in Britain for that. He of course threatens that Hitler was going to take over Europe and the world when it has been proven in recent times that neither was the case.

So as you can see the work itself is overly praised and not given enough criticism. If one should want to see a more accurate mindset of Churchill before the Second World War one needs to read his Step-by Step.

His books from your description sound like the same sort of false take modern politicians give, writing their 'legacy' books.