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 Some texts are simply out of date, but being out of date is no evidence of a sinister plan.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.
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.