Martin Allen, a “historian”, is found to have based the claims in his three books on 29 amateurishly forged documents planted in the National Archives<\/a>.<\/p>\n I googled for the author and found a blameless historian from the Fitzwilliam Museum and a lot of football managers but no mention of him in the first 5 pages of results.<\/p>\n The investigation found an almost amateurish level of forgery: telegrams and memos contained factual inaccuracies; letterheads had been added using a laser printer; forged signatures were pencilled beneath the ink; and the text of the 29 documents – occasionally in conspicuously modern language – was typed on just four typewriters. (From the Guardian report)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A laser printer? \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n This cautionary tale against taking historical “evidence” on faith led me to the other Guardian pieces on the National Archives. This little gem from the 1970s<\/a> does have the ring of truth:<\/p>\n The US politician who was America’s youngest ever secretary of defence – Donald Rumsfeld – attempted to influence British military policy in the mid-1970s, newly released government archives showed today. I don’t know how successful he was then – when UK Labour governments were a little more resistant to US pressure – but can we see a career theme developing?<\/p>\n
\nNearly 30 years before the invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld wrote to his UK counterpart, Roy Mason, and the prime minister, James Callaghan, opposing plans for large-scale defence cuts.
\nThe message, marked “Secret” and dated July 19 1976, is a mixture of anxiety and flattery – mingled with the hint of a threat. (From the Guardian, 28 December 2007)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nShare this:<\/h3>