There are plenty books by historians now which cite documents from that era. You can read the books and follow references if you don't believe or don't agree with writers' conclusions.
It's impossible to speak of current events as it's necessarily propaganda from all sides, but once time passes and originals are available there's much less doubt as to what transpired.
I'm afraid that subject is way too complex for the normal type of investigation you describe, since most book writers on 20th century history are myopic to the problem of disinformation/misinformation in mainstream Narratives. Diana West's book on WW2 comes close to sorting out this problem, but she also reflexively assumes the Hitler Narrative is true -- which is ironic, given that she intelligently questions everything else about the broader WW2 Narrative.
What could be more normal than looking at original documents? Not believing them? Then believing what, nothing, just speculating? How would that be better and not biased?
I think you're making it more complex than it is, maybe trying to hide your sympathy for Hitler. Just come out and say so. You're not alone in that regard and it's not against the law.
I took a class in college as part of my History B.A. about historiography, which is the practice of researching & writing history. The class had only 5 students and the professor was an expert in modern French history (focusing on the French Revolution). The most important lesson he taught us was how difficult and complex it is to piece together a narrative from primary sources. Of course, if the question you're researching is fairly simple -- example, "Did George Washington tell his father he "cannot tell a lie" and that he chopped down the cherry tree?" -- one can pinpoint the fact of the matter, even if it never gets beyond "It was an unsubstantiated tale, so it's probably not factual". More complex historical questions quickly get one entangled in ambiguities, original bias, lacunae in the records, difficulty finding an actual primary source as opposed to a secondary source talking about the event -- which even if contemporary, is not immune from problems of poor quality including bias. The Hitler Narrative one can readily see is a topic of extraordinary complexity, with many complicated subsets (Hitler's rise to power, his views on the Jews, the actual problem of the Jews in Europe, Hitler's expansion triggering reactions against him, the Holocuast itself -- each one of these being individually of extraordinary complexity).
However, when there are original documents one looks at and there is no doubt as far as their authenticity then there's nothing to interpret in what they say. Speculation arises as to _why_ it's written that way or _what_ led to it being written/adopted, or, given many documents, how the conclusions were reached by a certain researcher - these are to be scrutinized, absolutely. But, there's no doubt as to _what_ is in the documents and _who_ produced them. That's all I'm saying.
As to Hitler - there are many books describing him. Taking just those that cite archives while possibly differing in interpretations the conclusions can be reached that would converge on main points.
That professor I mentioned told us a story of one of his students -- a very promising intelligent student who became so depressed by the realization that there is no real certainty about anything important in history, he gave up his graduate career in history.
There are plenty books by historians now which cite documents from that era. You can read the books and follow references if you don't believe or don't agree with writers' conclusions.
It's impossible to speak of current events as it's necessarily propaganda from all sides, but once time passes and originals are available there's much less doubt as to what transpired.
I'm afraid that subject is way too complex for the normal type of investigation you describe, since most book writers on 20th century history are myopic to the problem of disinformation/misinformation in mainstream Narratives. Diana West's book on WW2 comes close to sorting out this problem, but she also reflexively assumes the Hitler Narrative is true -- which is ironic, given that she intelligently questions everything else about the broader WW2 Narrative.
What could be more normal than looking at original documents? Not believing them? Then believing what, nothing, just speculating? How would that be better and not biased?
I think you're making it more complex than it is, maybe trying to hide your sympathy for Hitler. Just come out and say so. You're not alone in that regard and it's not against the law.
I took a class in college as part of my History B.A. about historiography, which is the practice of researching & writing history. The class had only 5 students and the professor was an expert in modern French history (focusing on the French Revolution). The most important lesson he taught us was how difficult and complex it is to piece together a narrative from primary sources. Of course, if the question you're researching is fairly simple -- example, "Did George Washington tell his father he "cannot tell a lie" and that he chopped down the cherry tree?" -- one can pinpoint the fact of the matter, even if it never gets beyond "It was an unsubstantiated tale, so it's probably not factual". More complex historical questions quickly get one entangled in ambiguities, original bias, lacunae in the records, difficulty finding an actual primary source as opposed to a secondary source talking about the event -- which even if contemporary, is not immune from problems of poor quality including bias. The Hitler Narrative one can readily see is a topic of extraordinary complexity, with many complicated subsets (Hitler's rise to power, his views on the Jews, the actual problem of the Jews in Europe, Hitler's expansion triggering reactions against him, the Holocuast itself -- each one of these being individually of extraordinary complexity).
Not disputing anything you just said.
However, when there are original documents one looks at and there is no doubt as far as their authenticity then there's nothing to interpret in what they say. Speculation arises as to _why_ it's written that way or _what_ led to it being written/adopted, or, given many documents, how the conclusions were reached by a certain researcher - these are to be scrutinized, absolutely. But, there's no doubt as to _what_ is in the documents and _who_ produced them. That's all I'm saying.
As to Hitler - there are many books describing him. Taking just those that cite archives while possibly differing in interpretations the conclusions can be reached that would converge on main points.
Complex historical events/processes aren't resolved by one or even a handful of primary source documents.
That professor I mentioned told us a story of one of his students -- a very promising intelligent student who became so depressed by the realization that there is no real certainty about anything important in history, he gave up his graduate career in history.