Contrary to popular belief history is not the study of the past. History is much more dynamic: in the words of 20th century Dutch historian Pieter Geyl history is "argument without end".
Historians select issues to study, typically frame historical questions, select and interpret a range of sources.
These processes are strongly influenced by the political and ideological beliefs and priorities of the historian. Similarly a variety of cultural, social, and economic factors can also influence the way a historian selects issues to study, formulates questions and makes meaning from sources.
Events in the historian's present or experience can have enormous influence on their work.
None of this means that historical works are necessarily unreliable. It does mean though that a person should approach historical material, indeed almost any cultural, scientific, and political material with a questioning scepticism.
Written in the interactive medium of hypertext, this web site does not include any explicit interpretation of the source it uses and contextualising. I have also attempted to present material in as open a fashion to help facilitate readers in forging novel connections between components of the material which the medium at least potentially allows for.
Nevertheless the material on this site has been chosen and moulded by informed judgements I have made based on a study of relevant events. But my judgement, like any historians is merely informed, not infallible; and it is influenced by all the factors I've mentioned above.
Looking at this site as a whole, individual pages, and the report of Randolf Paul, readers must consider why the authors have included what has been included. Are these inclusions valid and accurate?
What have we left out and why? Has important material been neglected ? Why might this have occurred?
How may the narratives have been shaped by the author's priorities and the narrative conventions of the genre in which they wrote?
Are the connections drawn or implied valid? Are they the only plausible connections ?
How was Randolf Paul's report moulded by vested interests, administrative procedures and the culture in which it was produced.?
Might this report contain erroneous logic or information ?
Why has such a significant aspect of the Holocaust, perhaps the most remembered event of the last millennium, been forgotten? What interests have been served through such silence?
Further Reading:
Appleby, J., Hunt, L., & Jacob, M., Telling the Truth About History, Norton, New York, 1994.
Brundage, A., Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, Harlan Davidson, Wheeling, Ill, 1997.
Jenkins, K., Rethinking History, Routledge, New York, 1991.