It seems that throughout time humans found the need to have leaders who would lead their lives to greater prosperity, and when the chosen leaders cannot meet their promised themes, through outrage and revolt are removed and replaced at all cost.
Let us first try to understand how history is recorded and presented to the general public, winning the public sentiment for a just cause, including assassination of our elected representatives.
Due to selective use of the secondary literature and sources, quite different picture of history arise, this is particularly true for the prehistory of 1st world war, the common history of the disputing parties before the dispute, and when there are disputing parties, it seems natural to consider them together.
Perhaps the best way to learn history is to experience it first hand, then again that would limit one’s knowledge to a limited timetable of true history of his or her mortal life.
Unlike scientific research, recorded history was written on here-say, and one needs not to look further then Jesus, who’s beginnings were written on here-say, some 30 to 150 years after his death, or the fairytales of Noah and his Arc, or Moses and his migration to the promise land ( Palestine ), crossing the waters of Red Sea on foot, or the ancient wars, where the victors triumphantly glorified their battles, see the “battle of Troy” and the “Trojan Horse”
So what is true history? fairytale stories? undocumented stories of various timetables passed down by biased biographers for millennium of years? Or perhaps the information gatherers who rewrite the here-say writings and place it upon the future generations as true documented historical events, then labeling themselves historians.
To account of history from the victor’s perspectives? and recognize it as in all respects contents of the school history books, or the federal and regional offices and institutes which are devoted to contemporary history?
So it should come as no surprise that most school history books and a remarkable number of the publications of the past and still present, adhere strictly to the victors, much in our history cannot be understood without knowledge of the contemporaneous events in other countries, actions and reactions mesh too closely together, and it is not only the simultaneous history of our neighboring nations, which has influenced the start of war.
I do not claim to have chosen a scientific book in which all the previously published opinions about pre-1900 century history are valid documented history, however, I found no reason to dismiss the author’s views and in any case, one can hold no wrong views on certain subjects while providing valuable insights on others.
It is for these hidden gems that I have read this book, therefor, whether Miles Hudson should be labeled a historian, a researcher, who’s collections of mostly pre-written here-say fairytales, is irrelevant to his book title “Assassination” or whether he intentionally paired 18 assassination victims to arouse their cases as compatible scenarios.
There is one clear element that should not be avoided, did Mr. Hudson answer his own assassination phenomenology and the assassinated victims named in his book were justifiably murdered and did it truly achieve the goals of their villains?
I do not believe the author’s attempt was to rewrite history, rather allow his readers to decide whether or not such actions change the course of history and to what magnitude?
for the better or worse.
It should also be considered that, It wasn’t until the early 1900’s that through modern technology history was recorded more accurately with less here-say, though still altered for the subjective views of the victorious powers.
It seemed obvious that Mr. Hudson’s writing style may have triggered personal emotions, thus toppling greater discussion, silencing our panel to jury-cate the book’s intent theme, the phenomenology of assassination.
Furthermore, the author’s simplistic ( less sugared ) writing style may not disqualify him
as a skilled writer, nor should it dismiss the quality of the book’s subject matter.
“Noteworthy Intrinsic point of view”
) Does the elimination of one man necessarily change the course of history?
) Does the killing of kings and religious leaders do anyone good?
) Does the timing of an assassination matter?
) Did the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand cause world war 1 or did it merely speed up an inevitable explosion?
) Did the decision to not assassinate Hitler in fear of creating a martyr, prolonged the 2nd world war?
) The difference between foreign support revolution ( Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt ) versus internal revolution ( Russia).
) Hired professional assassins, killing without knowing your subjects, spy agencies, CIA, MOSSAD, KGB, M16, etc.
) If an assassination take place before one’s prime (before the individual can achieve his or her goals, would the assassination have no real effect?).