With the the latest thread about Britain trying to punish people just for staring at women, it got me to wonder. Looking at the current state of Britain, if BBC in George Orwell era believed in free speech and freedom in general. They had George Orwell record his passage in the book that are all about censorship and whatnot, in the end was it just for the show and they just believed all that nonsense about good guys vs bad guys in WW2? I thought they actually believed in a sophisticated morality, not everything is evil, it's grey morality but I can't help but think were they were just as simple-minded as current era journos. Now I look back at history how much the truth has been distorted, makes me believe almost everything was a sham.
The fact that there was no internet, they had to rely on journos to inform people what was happening, they would have just swallowed the false narrative and probably not question it. Even worse, we came to understand more and more, most journos were presstitutes and a very few have integrity. Ever since I saw how the world was run, I found this revelation to be depressing. Even worse, George Orwell said something about this, too.
David Irving has a nasty habit of straight up lying in his work. Now, this doesn't mean that every mainstream historical accounting is accurate, but it does mean that you will unfortunately need to read multiple conflicting secondary sources to get a better idea of the truth. If you want to read Irving, you'll end up needing to read Evans. This doesn't mean that Evan's assertion of history is right, because although he isn't explicitly lying like Irving is, he's just accepting some premises that aren't true, because even he may not know some of the things he's read aren't true, or may be operating off of a Leftist meta-narrative.
A good example of the problem with historians bickering and trying to actually decipher what any of them are talking about is Tik's video on Hitler's Table Talk