denigrated the role of Lend Lease because of the perceived need to reinforce the
reputation of the Red Army during the Cold War.

The motivation of British and American historians is more difficult to
assess. American historians have tended to follow both the German and British
lead concerning the battle of Kursk, blaming the German defeat on a combina-
tion of Hitler's personal interference and the Allied invasion of Sicily that
diverted German divisions from Kursk.

The focus of the book is the presentation of a factual account of the battle
of Kursk and related events and the placement of the battle in a historical
perspective. The objective is to examine the facts in detail to see if they reveal
something that approaches a rational explanation of what occurred and the
consequences. Rather than assuming that an event occurred based on one or two
quotations from contemporary sources, a determined effort has been made to
compare quantitative data from numerous sources, and on that basis to present
rational interpretations of events. In some instances, the individuals involved
were not aware of all of the facts at the time.

While historians should be concerned with, in the words of Sergeant Joe
Friday, "just the facts ma'am," they should also provide some interpretation of
those facts, over and above placement in either chronological or subject order,
leaving it to the reader to make his or her own interpretation. To some the
writing of history is the meticulous, carefully documented organization of details
based on archival evidence, usually the contemporary written statements of the
individuals directly involved in the events.

In Britain the ultimate test was caricatured in a vaudeville routine that began
with one comedian describing an event in vivid detail to another comedian. The
second comedian invariably interrupted at some point and asked, "But vas you
dere Charlie?" The first comedian replied, "Nooo, but a fella told me about it."
Many believed that personal participation in World War II was a prerequisite to
writing about the war. With the passage of time and the death of most
participants, this school of thought was faced with the alternative of either
ending the study of World War II or admitting nonparticipants into the field.

The emphasis on documents produced by participants, however, continues
the "participants only" school of thought. The only admissible facts are those
found in public speeches, diplomatic correspondences, official reports, memoirs,
and similar material even though in some instances the contemporary documents
are incorrect or distorted for one reason or another. In other instances, untrue
statements were made for purposes of deception. Some of the deceptions that
were employed were embodied in the most respected documents and continue
to be accepted as facts presented by contemporary witnesses.

In brief, it may not be sufficient proof to quote a document produced at the
time of an event or a memoir by a participant. One must question the
qualifications of the creator of the document, the presence of any bias or
objective that would lead to the distortion of the facts, and the reason why the
document was created. A diary entry is usually intended to place the author in

-viii-