If indeed it does? It appears to me that sometimes what is written in a book is regarded as gospel. Especially if it is written in several books-when it seems quite clear one book has just used the first as a source and written the same extract almost word for word? Is this like the saying 'Tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth'? Now I'm not saying that some authors are lying but I do wonder if some people choose to accept rather than reseach? I only ask because I now have well over a 100 books on the Dunkirk/ France Flanders campaign and many of the older ones (whilst interesting in their own right) are quite inaccurate in places when facts are crossed checked with other documents and accounts. I do find some of the more recent books, especially the ones with list after list of sources (the current one I'm reading has around 160 pages of sources!). Surely new evidence comes to light all the time that changes history? I know there are many things in the 1940 part of the forum that are being discovered all the time-Just look at the photograph threads as an example with units being identified for the first time in over 70 years and details being placed against the picture. Another thread of note is the death of Two Guardsman in Dirk's home town and IMO identifying the battalions CQMS shortly before he died of wounds - all recorded on film and the details never known. So why do people take the written word in one or two books as gospel and thats the end of it? Surely keeping an open mind with history is far better? Your thoughts?