I am writing genuine history – not political propaganda. A popular history, yes – but still a history. In this project, I am a historian (an amateur one, yes, but still a historian), not a propagandist.
And the most important difference between the two is that the latter pronounces moral judgements while the former does not. History is an objective, dispassionate, morally neutral science which does not and can not use loaded terms such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘evil’, ‘righteous’ and the like (let alone ‘thug’, ‘butcher’, ‘crook’, ‘monster’ or similar derogatory labels).
The job of a genuine historian is not to manipulate the individual or public opinion (this what propagandist does). But only to inform the public and let every reader of the history book in question make his or her own moral judgement.
Consequently, I will structure just about every section of this book as answers to the following uniform fundamental questions:
- What did really happen and how?
- Whodunit? Who made it happen? Whose decisions and actions made it happen? In other words, who was the actor(s) of the event in question?
- What motivated the actor(s) to make and implement the decision in question?
- What were the objectives of the actors (intended results of the decision and action in question)?
- What were the actual results of the decisions and actions and questions? Were they different from the intended results and if yes, why?
This approach will make the book uniformly well-structured. Which for such a comprehensive guide is the absolute must.