Re: Historical Accuracy
All this just re-enforces the fact that as researchers, we can't take as gospel anything we read whether it be eyewitness accounts, post-war or modern chronicles. I have been reviewing a number of war-date newspapers and find them to be some of the most unreliable sources. We all have heard that eye-witness accounts are often unreliable. All this said, it is incumbent on us as researchers and writers of history to verify all facts from several independent sources. If this was easy, everybody would be doing it. I am somewhat surprised at the Rampp book. As strong as the bibliography is and the fact that it is sourced and footnoted, one wouldn't expect the level of inaccuracies that appear to exist. It just goes back to my original sentence.