That is exactly what history isn't so. History, as written by historians, is applying source criticism to primary sources. that understanding changes over time. What you describe is meme-based pop history at best.
WW2 history based on WW2 Generals' memoir's, as opposed to unit diaries, is a prime example of that trap.
> History, as written by historians, is applying source criticism to primary sources.
Unfortunately, most "source criticism" is absolutely atrocious and developed primarily as part of the publish-or-perish paradigm, of such low quality that "X was motivated to believe Y, therefore Y was probably not true" without additional evidence is a common theme. Perhaps worse, much of our modern "source criticism" simply consists of applying whatever moralizing ideological lens is currently in vogue. Even historiography is largely fad-driven. You can absolutely learn more about historical events by reading the primary sources yourself. Historians are not blessed with some rare critical talent that can only be developed via a history degree.
It's obviously true that reading only WW2 general memoirs is going to get you a very specific and limited view, but they aren't the only people who were writing at the time, and either way, within the limited parameters of military history, it's better to read what someone actually thought rather than reading what someone else thought they thought. Of course you will sometimes be misled, but at least you'll be misled in similar ways to people of the time, rather than being misled by 21st-century ideas. That's not to say there are no good modern histories, but the best are ones that quote very, very liberally and give you lists of the best primary sources, which you should still read.
You want to read what, to stick with the example, WW2 Generals thought? Read their diaries, unit diaries, orders and other war diaries. The memoirs were all written after WW2, and show exactly that: what those Generals wanted others to think of them. Aggravated by the perceptive of being Cold War propaganda, the former Wehrmacht generals portrayed themselves as anti-communist fighters (as opposed to Nazi-enablers, sympathizers or outright Nazis), the Western allied Generals wanted to outplay each other (especially the US and UK ones, as vividly shown between Patton and Montgomery) but they all agreed to down play the Soviets war effort (Cold War, communists and all that, hence WW2 was won on D-Day and, maybe, Stalingrad).
And yes, historians aren't above criticism, but by virtue of education they are better qualified then the average layman and / or history buff. Education matters, something we tend to forget way to often in fields outside of our own expertise.
Sure, clearly diaries would be even better being closer to the time in question, no argument there.
Better educated than the average layman? Certainly. Than the average history buff? Maybe. Depends on the historian and the history buff. Going through a degreed program doesn’t guarantee that you get some esoteric knowledge unavailable to the general public - it just usually gives you a really good survey of existing knowledge. It’s very easy for amateurs to get to the same approximate level of knowledge in many times and places. If they focus on primary sources rather than secondary sources, they’re often better off.
It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? In any case, anybody doing historical research can be termed historian. Doing your own research is great as long as you have the necessary qualifications, but for most laymen the language barriers alone will prevent them from reading first hand sources.
Considering one of the best-known and well-regarded classicists of the 21st century admits she has enormous difficulty reading Latin texts she hasn't read before, I don't think reading mostly translations sets you any worse off than the average academic, especially if you take the time to acquire at least some rudimentary knowledge about the language in question, and particularly if you can locate an edition with side-by-side texts, like the Loeb editions for ancient Rome and Greece.
> It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians?
Somewhat, in that the average[1] modern academic output in the humanities is not worth writing home about (often absolute garbage) and the expertise relative to a sufficiently dedicated amateur (not a layman) is highly overrated. While many (but not all!) scientific fields have evolved to a level of complexity and depth requiring education and equipment not accessible to random amateurs, history is generally speaking in the same position it was a hundred years ago: anyone can read enough on their own to acquire expertise in some particular niche and possibly even make new connections, if the ground hasn't already been over-tilled.
[1] Average is an important word here. Obviously at the high end this becomes less and less likely to be true.
Given philology is also part of the humanities, who do you think produce these perfect unbiased translation which are just as good as reading the actual primary sources?
You're right. But what was described isn't pop history, that trivializes the magnitude of its impact. For most the world most of the time for all of history, that _was_ how the past was understood.
And today, we still understand the present this way, and it takes time to gather critical sources and discover truth, and hopefully record it.
Herman Wouk's The Winds of War / War and Remembrance books, published long ago, are a corrective to the "We took Omaha Beach, and then we won the war" American narrative. They were quite popular and made into a TV series, and they made every effort to show what people thought then, from different perspectives.
They also made it clear that it was the Soviet Union that ground down the Nazi war machine.
WW2 history based on WW2 Generals' memoir's, as opposed to unit diaries, is a prime example of that trap.