On Nov 3, 12:46?pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:12:36 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Quite the opposite.

Well of course you're right. Rush Limbaugh obviously has a better
handle on what happened in WWII than the generals who commanded the
armed forces at the time. :-)

History is written by the winners. Once the official "interpretation"
of events is in place, it takes on a life of its own.

Far be it from me to say what did or did not happen at the end of
WWII.
I wasn't even born yet.

But I think that dismissing out of hand comments by the top ranking
military commanders of the day, (comments that were made during or
immediately after the events in question), in favor of analysis made
10, 20, or 30 years later for a variety of purposes and agendas may be
somewhat careless.

On Nov 4, 12:57 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

But I think that dismissing out of hand comments by the top ranking
military commanders of the day, (comments that were made during or
immediately after the events in question), in favor of analysis made
10, 20, or 30 years later for a variety of purposes and agendas may be
somewhat careless.

Not necessarily. Some of the military leaders had an axe to grind
when they made their comments.

Of course, so do some present day historians. But the mainstream
seems to have formed a reasonable consensus on the matter.