A postscript or two

I have been gratified to see many of my fellow bloggers linking to the Moshe Rusnak interview I posted yesterday.  Obviously I wanted that version shared around since it was a lesser-known version of the events.  But I want to make clear that I do not think his version is necessarily the correct one (if there is such a thing).

Here's a comment I posted on Carl's excellent blog (with typos corrected):

Hi Carl,

Thanks for the link and for your excellent (as usual) commentary.

One thing worth pointing out though:  There is no one true version of the events of that battle (or any battle).  There are certainly false versions... but all versions are essentially flawed by virtue of the fact that they tell the story from only one side.

For instance, here is a link (courtesy of Lynn B) to the same events as told by the brother of the Arab Legion commander that accepted Moshe Rusnak's surrender.  Many points agree but many are new and strange to our ears. 

My point is that I shared the story because it was worth sharing... not because I felt it was the only correct version of the events.

David (treppenwitz)

In an email to my friend Imshin, I wrote the following (along the same lines):

I just noticed your post script to the post linking to my 'Moshe Rusnak' story.  Actually, it wasn't my story... just one I thought was worth sharing.

I should point out that his is only one perspective... one of many.  I felt it was worth sharing, not because it was the correct one... but because it was one that seemed to be overshadowed (and thus largely unknown) by more mainstream/accepted narratives of the events. 

I have also read some excellent articles in the past couple of days about the battle for the old city from the Arab perspective and ironically, they seem to connect quite seamlessly with Mr. Rusnak's accounting of the events.  Go figure.

In any event, I just wanted to make clear that I didn't mean to suggest that his story somehow trumped any other versions of that tumultuous time.  In fact, as I was reading it I kept reminding myself that soldiers in the field seldom know (or are meant to know) what is behind the decisions made in the command bunker.  They are meant to follow orders.  Moshe's resentment at not being 'in the know' and not fully understanding what was behind the thinking of the Haggannah commanders and political leaders is tangible in his narrative.  To his credit he kept his opinions mostly to himself until the day before he died... and then broke his silence only because someone took the time to ask him what he thought. 

I can't fault him for answering honestly about what he had spent his entire adult life pondering.

Warm Regards,

David

Long story short.  History is rarely about knowing anything, least of all the truth.  Rather, it is about arriving at a version of events that isn't too much at odds with the evidence at our disposal. 

Yesterday's post was mostly about putting more evidence at my reader's disposal than they might previously have had.