Hmm. So you have read all the history books (not just about this topic) and they are all inaccurate? But all the "unrelated" history books are MORE accurate---so long as you knit them together and fill in the blanks with your own imagination? Likewise, it is a bad idea to study the history of science and engineering in order to find out how to do anything?
Not trying to make a sale. What I'm trying to do is get people to dig more deeply to find out what the reality was/is. History books, since I was a child around 70 years ago have been changing, the same way engineering books change: yes, they do, constantly, and contain many errors. You see, I did engineering for decades, with a 5 year sojourn in teaching college; I knew many 'authors' of engineering books, with errors that remained uncorrected.
History has been modified to fit one specific group's intent, such that finding the truth isn't easy. You MUST resort to other sources, such as the declassified materials from the old USSR, the records from Germany and so forth. You MUST find actual pictures from the times, and compare them to what you read/see in the books. You must find statements from people who were there, on occasion some of the officers of the various armies of WWII. No history books used in 'schools', including universities, include any of that.
You will find differences between books of the 1950s, 60s, 70s on up to the "revisionist (or "modern") history that completely misrepresent happenings.
Until you have direct experience with the 'powers that be' revising history, you WILL have doubts. Personally, my military time and doings were revised, different dates, different occurrences, different places. If a person reads the "history" of 1867-68, for instance, and compares that to what I did during that time, you'd find me in 3 places at the same time, then 2 places at the same time, and what I did during Tet almost completely erased, including records of the helos I crewed.
But... you will believe what you want to believe, or what you were taught to believe.
What makes you think I haven't been reading history from direct sources? The fact that I don't agree with the "theory" narrative? What I've seen is Hitler's actual background glossed over and ignored, replaced with a convenient myth. I've seen the Paperclip program similarly mythologized, not by history writers but by the popular press. I've read war history as related by MacArthur and Patton.
I don't dispute that contemporary history has been shaded by, shall we say, authors who are interested parties. (I am currently reading "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans, concerning the career of Senator Joe McCarthy.) I am aware of the Venona transcripts and what they imply.
My background is in aeronautical engineering, and I have not had the problems you cite with errant sources. Most commonly-referenced texts are subject to revision of continuing editions, to update material and make corrections. Some texts are simply out of date, but being out of date is no evidence of a sinister plan. Authors die. Books do not sell well and do not have revised editions.
It is more the case, as I see it, that "believe what you want to believe" is the hallmark of many participants on this page, who accept speculation as fact, and ignorance as enlightenment.
"believe what you want to believe" refers to your set of beliefs. Long ago I gave up 'trying to convince people' of anything. Same reference is to you. All I do, or can do, is point at things.
As to 'sinister plans', you might want to doublethink that. The evidence of said is everywhere, and goes back centuries. You can easily form a teleology, for instance, of the progress towards and means used to eliminate the US as a power.
Among many other things. You can palm stuff off as coincidence or chance, but that isn't intelligent. The fact is that there are items that have been introduced years or decades after WWII, for instance, that did NOT exist then. That sort of thing began in the US prior to 1812, and continues.
Hmm. So you have read all the history books (not just about this topic) and they are all inaccurate? But all the "unrelated" history books are MORE accurate---so long as you knit them together and fill in the blanks with your own imagination? Likewise, it is a bad idea to study the history of science and engineering in order to find out how to do anything?
I'm sorry. You don't know how to make a sale.
Not trying to make a sale. What I'm trying to do is get people to dig more deeply to find out what the reality was/is. History books, since I was a child around 70 years ago have been changing, the same way engineering books change: yes, they do, constantly, and contain many errors. You see, I did engineering for decades, with a 5 year sojourn in teaching college; I knew many 'authors' of engineering books, with errors that remained uncorrected.
History has been modified to fit one specific group's intent, such that finding the truth isn't easy. You MUST resort to other sources, such as the declassified materials from the old USSR, the records from Germany and so forth. You MUST find actual pictures from the times, and compare them to what you read/see in the books. You must find statements from people who were there, on occasion some of the officers of the various armies of WWII. No history books used in 'schools', including universities, include any of that. You will find differences between books of the 1950s, 60s, 70s on up to the "revisionist (or "modern") history that completely misrepresent happenings.
Until you have direct experience with the 'powers that be' revising history, you WILL have doubts. Personally, my military time and doings were revised, different dates, different occurrences, different places. If a person reads the "history" of 1867-68, for instance, and compares that to what I did during that time, you'd find me in 3 places at the same time, then 2 places at the same time, and what I did during Tet almost completely erased, including records of the helos I crewed.
But... you will believe what you want to believe, or what you were taught to believe.
What makes you think I haven't been reading history from direct sources? The fact that I don't agree with the "theory" narrative? What I've seen is Hitler's actual background glossed over and ignored, replaced with a convenient myth. I've seen the Paperclip program similarly mythologized, not by history writers but by the popular press. I've read war history as related by MacArthur and Patton.
I don't dispute that contemporary history has been shaded by, shall we say, authors who are interested parties. (I am currently reading "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans, concerning the career of Senator Joe McCarthy.) I am aware of the Venona transcripts and what they imply.
My background is in aeronautical engineering, and I have not had the problems you cite with errant sources. Most commonly-referenced texts are subject to revision of continuing editions, to update material and make corrections. Some texts are simply out of date, but being out of date is no evidence of a sinister plan. Authors die. Books do not sell well and do not have revised editions.
It is more the case, as I see it, that "believe what you want to believe" is the hallmark of many participants on this page, who accept speculation as fact, and ignorance as enlightenment.
"believe what you want to believe" refers to your set of beliefs. Long ago I gave up 'trying to convince people' of anything. Same reference is to you. All I do, or can do, is point at things. As to 'sinister plans', you might want to doublethink that. The evidence of said is everywhere, and goes back centuries. You can easily form a teleology, for instance, of the progress towards and means used to eliminate the US as a power. Among many other things. You can palm stuff off as coincidence or chance, but that isn't intelligent. The fact is that there are items that have been introduced years or decades after WWII, for instance, that did NOT exist then. That sort of thing began in the US prior to 1812, and continues.