[foldr]

I don't understand why you think that the article is supposed to be a piece of factual journalism or historical investigation. It's a personal narrative. It's not trying to settle the question of whether the wolves exist or not.

[throwaway_pdp09]

I've not had time to dig into Nasrudith helpful reply, so I'm replying to you possibly out of that context, therefore possibly wrongly.

That given the question about factual journalism appears answered in the article's 2nd sentence:

> And what if, in spite of your efforts to find out whether the event took place or not

So it's historical investigation. It may be personal narrative too, but that's an addition, not a displacement, of historical investigation.

> It's not trying to settle the question of whether the wolves exist or not.

From the bloody article, which you haven't read "In the weeks and months that followed, I did what I could to investigate the [that 'wolves had ruled the city'] matter more thoroughly" - so he did try to settle the question - if he was not then why was he investigating it?

Reality matters. It describes in the article about the jews' situation - in your view should the jews have simply risen above the reality of the situation? Stayed put and simply made it irrelevant with aloof, fluffy thinking?

Fuck this. This morning I received a text message from a woman who's parents (one still alive, though not long if covid gets to her) were directly affected by the nazis. I don't know the story, I think they escaped europe to come to the UK when things got nasty.

Time passes, people forget, the ground is laid yet again for all the bad shit to happen once more. This literary "can't be arsed" bollocks is part of that paving, and I'm not having it.

[foldr]

It's an article about the author's personal investigation of the story of the wolves and, more generally, the history of his family and the Holocaust. That doesn't mean that the aim of the article is to to settle the question of whether the wolves exist or not. You're confusing the purpose of the author in his journey to Ukraine with the purpose of the article itself.

Think about a detective story. It's the story of a detective who's trying to solve a case. That doesn't necessarily mean that the story ends with every loose end tied up and certainty as to who committed the crime. (Of course, that is what typically happens in a classic detective story, but it's not necessary.)

In the particular case of the wolves, it's obviously difficult to draw any firm conclusions about whether they were there or not, as the article explains. ("Which brings me back to the place where I began and the question that has no answer: What to believe when you can’t be sure whether a supposed fact is true or not true?")

[throwaway_pdp09]

I think we're just so far apart that we can't agree, or even meet on common ground.

I think you just like the article and are trying to defend it on that personal front. That's ok. I dislike it and attack it for ...various reasons. That's OK too. If we can't meet we can just accept that too, and depart on good terms. Thanks for trying to explain it, and good luck.

[foldr]

I don't like the article that much, actually.