[MW Giles]

Do some of you really think that a proper historian only presents facts and does not seek to interpret them. Really?

On a whim I would like to try to answer the question - "Was the zerstörer programme a good use of resources by the Lw in WW2?"

I might gather evidence about how much it cost in time, trouble, effort, life etc. to set up and run the programme

I would then try to work out what it achieved? Where did it fail?

Now it gets difficult, what were the opportunity costs of following the course they did. If they had invested the same resources elsewhere or used the a/c differently, would they have got a better result.

I weigh up the different factors and present to you my findings.

I think it would be possible on the balance of probabilities to come to a rational answer. I am sure that I could not show it beyond reasonable doubt.

Another historian comes along, looks at my hypothesis and conclusions and weighs the different factors differently or adds things I have not thought of. They draw their conclusions and present them.

The world judges which version they like more, or creates their own synthesis.

There is not just one truth out there for God's sake

Martin