I reckon the latter describe mostly battle strategies, flawed or successful.

Reading Churchill, one needs to keep in mind, he didn't write for Germans.

Yet, in many of his accounts he makes remarks in form of concessions, way beyond the British/German confrontation.

Personally, I find this to be the more agreeable tone of his writings, since I never understood why those issues between Brits and Germans where present in the first place.

Looking at it from this angle I can also understand Chamberlain’s often laughed about attempts. He was a good man, it wasn’t his fault that the outcome of the Munich agreement backfired.

One needs to clearly understand, that Hitler was not German, by no means.

It may sound harsh and supremecist, but he descended from across the border in Austria, a completely different ancestral stock.

If you check Churchill's particular references regarding the Jewish situation across Europe, you will find indications that may well be understood in consensus with the statement made in post #10.

Of course, he and nobody else, was able to spell it out any clearer. After all they were enemies at war. You’d have to read between the lines.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/11/news/winston.php

__________________