Here's an example - I found a document in a German archive that I thought was
good info for my topic.

A good example of a primary source that is not reliable--but nonetheless is
useful and interesting; the story you relate is worth reading and maybe you can
include it in an appendix to your book. It humanizes the subject and helps the
reader grasp that people involved in prosecuting a world war still had their
own personal agendas, that they all weren't cartoon heroes.
Your story also illustrates why all historians are not fungible. Among many
reasons is that some are more skilled at assessing the value of the research
materials they examine. Some are too credulous, some too ignorant, some too
sympathetic, some too biased. Often, one author can be all four.
Thus, authors gain reputations: Which books should I read about the Pacific
air war in WW2? Anything by Lundstrom or Sakaida, be careful with Bergerud and
Hoyt, stay away from Caidin and Edmonds.
Unfortunately, it seems that the authors who are the least reliable factually,
seem to have the most engaging writing style and become most widely read. The
best researchers often write boring books that have little impact on the
popular imagination.
The person who is an excellent researcher and also can tell a gripping story is
rare; unfortunately for US WW2 aviation buffs, most of these write about the
ACW or the opening of the West--your McPhersons, Footes, de Votos, van Everys.


Chris Mark