Unfortunately, those are two completely different things because the history of the development of QM is a story of people stumbling around in the dark and making tons of mistakes, some of which still weigh down QM pedagogy to this day. So you can have historically accurate, or you can have technically clear, but you cannot have both at the same time. (It is, ironically, a sort of wave-particle duality with respect to quantum theory itself.)
The biggest disconnect between the history and the technical reality is that, historically, entanglement was treated as not much more than a side show, an intellectual curiosity, but not really worthy of a central role in an exposition of QM. Today we know that entanglement is absolutely central to QM. It is in fact what QM is really all about, the thing that really distinguishes it from classical mechanics. And the reason for the long-standing intellectual disconnect is that entanglement doesn't manifest itself until you have two particles (obviously) but the vast majority of the heavy lifting in the early days was analyzing systems consisting of a single particle. Starting out that way incredibly misleading because it hides the distinction between physical space (where particles live) and configuration space (where the wave function lives). When you have only one particle, physical space and configuration space are the same. But that is just a very special case, one which leads you badly astray when you try to understand what is really going on under the QM hood. That's the reason it took so long to figure it out.
I strongly recommend understanding the technical side first, which is really not all that hard if presented properly (which, unfortunately, it very rarely is). But once you understand the technical side in a modern light, the history becomes much easier to grok.