Alex, I appreciate the seriousness of your reply. Let me clarify my point. I am not dismissing criticism of Israel or of Western powers. I am drawing a distinction between serious historiography and what I call ‘hidden history.’

Real revisionism is a scholarly process. It introduces new sources of evidence or reinterprets existing ones, and it always weighs those findings against the accumulated record. It is Bayesian in the sense that new information shifts probabilities, but it must still meet the threshold of plausibility.

Consider Victor Suvorov’s Icebreaker thesis, which argued that Stalin intended to attack Germany and Western Europe before being preempted by Barbarossa. His work has received serious attention because it raises genuine questions. The consensus is that his evidence is circumstantial and there is no smoking gun, but scholars continue to examine it, and they may ultimately be vindicated if Soviet archives yield more. That is how serious historical debate proceeds.

By contrast, Roosevelt-at-Pearl-Harbor conspiracies or Cooper’s pseudo-historical narratives about WWII do not meet that threshold. They offer insinuation, not evidence. The fact that scholars still scrutinize Suvorov’s work but dismiss Roosevelt conspiracies outright proves the point: credible historiography demands evidence, not performance. That is why I resist ‘hidden history’ narratives. They are not history, they are inventions.