Ask Questions
2010-12-21 08:11:55 UTC
He informed me that when the US set up the POW camps in the region was when the real distrust of the Americans started. It was apparent that they were starving to death or allowing the POW's to freeze to death after the war ended.
Which is the truth? That is still hard to ascertain.
The true casualty figure of Dresden still appears to be an unresolved matter but historical accuracy and the truth should always be the objective of any scholarly inquiry.
It does not matter if the subject is the true death-toll at Dresden, or the German POW's that died due to sheer and willful neglect by Americans, or the true death toll at the concentration camps that many Jews do not want investigated at all. The objective should always be the Truth, even when there are some that have reason to fear the Truth.
No one should object to scholarly inquiry into the facts regarding the "6 million Jews" or the number of dead at Dresden if the truth is the end objective of the inquiry. However, many do object to such inquiry and many have an agenda that they do not want to have revealed.
I have never been a fan of "made up history" and have always preferred to know the bottom line truth, even when it is quite ugly and horrible.
I have never doubted that wrongs were committed during World War II by all sides, but getting the truth on the record seems to be an aversion that many people have. For example, the official plaque at Auschwitz was revised from 4 million to 1.5 million and even the official Auschwitz website currently states: "more than 1,100,000 men, women, and children lost their lives here."
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/
Irrespective of how many died at Dresden, or how many died at the concentration camps, the entire war should have never happened. Additionally, some 49 to 56 million people perished in World War II, so the event was not all about the Jews, or the Germans, or Brits or Americans.
There were atrocities levied against the Chinese by the Japanese that no one wants to talk about or apologize for even to this day.
WHY?
Victors often write the history as they see fit, but as is always the case there are two sides to every story. One often steeped in desires, or hysterical emotions, or an agenda, and the other on hard truthful facts. I prefer the hard truthful facts.
The Truth matters; it always has and it always will. Historical Revisionism should always adhere to and focus on the Truth.
But that's only my opinion.
What's yours?