>>42195
But all these also mean that a relatively free discussion could only exist outside of science, only on the fringes of society. But they didn't really have access to original documents, but at first there were those who participated in the events, then they become dads, then grandpas, and they told their stories, and their sons and grandkids listened. And then gradually people got access to literature published in the west, historical works, but also such sources like Horthy's memoirs.
One would think in the Free World the scientists were free to do their job, but actually they were also fought in the trenches of Cold War and had to apply some cosmetics of the official propaganda onto their works. Besides they didn't necessarily had access to primary sources - like how our friend, Tooze, had access to and processed official Reich documents -, maybe not to Germans, but to Soviet, they definitely didn't. So even if they wrote on a sure honest basis, their works still could came out lopsided.
Those who actually cared about history for whatever reason on one side they got the hated communist state's propaganda which they thought it's all lies (partially true, but Eastern Block historians occasionally criticized sharply such deeds of Western Allies like the bombing of Dresden, they kept tally on the other side; and beneath all the layer of misplaced superlatives did lay some factual data too) on the other they tried to put together their own truth from similarly biased sources.
They looked more for building grudges and scapegoats to blame than the actual history of the events, but they still had more opportunity to put together the puzzle better.
Then came the regime change.