[maple_leaf_eh]

The official sources are always to best when trying to understand history. However, the war diaries are cold and lifeless or lively and detailed, depending on the author. I know this for a fact because in the late 1990's I wrote the annual history report for my then-unit 2 Canadian Forces Flying Training School in Moose Jaw, SK. As a section clerk given the job by the Adjutant, I piled all sorts of information into the folder, from colour prints of the course and squadron patches, to nominal rolls and newspaper stories. Evidently the history office in Ottawa was impressed because they complemented the CO on his (!) thoroughness.

It would be good if sixty-five year old archives were easily accessed, however the strategic nature of SOE and other special forces operations blurs into nations meddling in the sovereign affairs of other nations, even if done in wartime for grand principles.

There is another complication that some researchers face are very reluctanct veterans. They are old men now, and have reasons all their own to talk or not. A few veterans I know look upon outspoken veterans as braggarts, loudmouths and BS artists. Speaking up draws attention to their role in the war, not the whole effort by all the others. On the other hand, some men did not have good wars. Either they did not adapt well to life in uniform or behave magnificently under fire. How does a researcher determine the difference between the men who actually did well and those who only say they did?