Paul Craig Roberts writes a good piece here. He points out that Irving had to put in some good words about Churchill in order to be published and taken seriously. The American, Mike King, does not feel so constrained in his 2016 book about the British mad dog, Churchill, and does not write anything positive about the man because he could not find anything positive.
Alas, so few people know the full, true and tragic story of the world changing event back in the 1940s we know as World War II.
Who benefits by the official narrative?
The Lies About World War II
Paul Craig Roberts
In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians
on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that
demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People
want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their
side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided
except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also
constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes,
corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It
is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those
on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any
View original post 3,517 more words