Thank you. I try to approach things from perspective that "everybody is lying". Some lies crumble, some stand regardless of their lack of credibility, but the question that always needs to be asked is "why?", as in what is to be gained by the action or inaction. I had never really given much thought about the official narrative of WWII d…
Thank you. I try to approach things from perspective that "everybody is lying". Some lies crumble, some stand regardless of their lack of credibility, but the question that always needs to be asked is "why?", as in what is to be gained by the action or inaction. I had never really given much thought about the official narrative of WWII despite my father and 3 uncles, who served, saying "so they say" when the official narratives were spouted. My interest really started with the first Zundel trial in Canada. I was horrified that someone expressing an opinion would be charged with spreading false news, when the news was continually false on virtually every "story", including some of which I had personal knowledge. The news of the trial was skewed, but even that skewing could not cover up the facts coming out that countered the official narrative. It astonished me - a lifelong cynic. If that was false, then what else is false about the "so they say" narrative? I suppose that makes me a "revisionist" but only in the Barnes sense- aligning the facts with history, which includes context. Sometimes what you find is not pleasant, but it is what it is.
Thank you. I try to approach things from perspective that "everybody is lying". Some lies crumble, some stand regardless of their lack of credibility, but the question that always needs to be asked is "why?", as in what is to be gained by the action or inaction. I had never really given much thought about the official narrative of WWII despite my father and 3 uncles, who served, saying "so they say" when the official narratives were spouted. My interest really started with the first Zundel trial in Canada. I was horrified that someone expressing an opinion would be charged with spreading false news, when the news was continually false on virtually every "story", including some of which I had personal knowledge. The news of the trial was skewed, but even that skewing could not cover up the facts coming out that countered the official narrative. It astonished me - a lifelong cynic. If that was false, then what else is false about the "so they say" narrative? I suppose that makes me a "revisionist" but only in the Barnes sense- aligning the facts with history, which includes context. Sometimes what you find is not pleasant, but it is what it is.
Thank you for that kind reply to my comment.
I completely agree with you on your approach to “history”.
The study of history is always revisionistic- if that’s a word - or „zurückblickend“.
But in our narrow minded western academia the term stands for something like a criminal offense. Sad state of affairs…
The final question after what where when and how is always why!