Re: Timeline 1950

[<SDonell73@aol.com>]

In a message dated 11/15/02 4:13:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, swan@haysco.net writes:


> Too often revisionists attribute motives not present when writing about events. If a person knows what actually happened, he or she can decide about motivations.


Bob,

I think I understand what you are saying. But this was a case of a prominent member of the military establishment, who would have been deeply involved in the use of such weapons stating that the intervention of Chinese troops would result in the use of nuc's. Perhaps your point is that later historians have to research more than the comments of one or two primary sources of history.

I started a course in historiography in grad school, but bailed out as there were too many books to read, with my working a full time job, and a family to tend. But I do remember one point that was mentioned, and that was that primary sources often present a distorted picture of events, as they are caught up in the spirit of the time, and don't have an appreciation of the entire picture presented.

Sandy