History, as common sense and any historiographer would tell you, is subject to or created by interpretation, as are all human experiences. Direct unmediated perception of "the truth" or "thing in itself" is, according to many schools of thought, an impossibility, though others would of course disagree So it's definitely questionable that someone who was an eyewitness to an event has a greater understanding of at least certain aspects of it than one who can carefully judge multiple sources of information about the event later.
As for using wargames to second-guess history, that's comical. Remember that CM and other wargames are themselves essentially interpretations of history, as all the arguments on this board about the game's accuracy show. Meaning no disrespect at all (as I have great admiration for CM's design), BTS reduced human behaviour (morale for instance) down to relatively basic mathematical or logical formulas (by practical necessity), which is obviously an extreme oversimplification of real life. For every other inclusion, exclusion, formula, and so forth in CM and any other simulation, there had to be latter-day interpretation both of which sources to treat as accurate and worthy of attention and then how to read them and apply them to the game design. So, trying to apply CM to history is somewhat like trying to talk intelligently about D-Day if you've only read one author's books on it.
------------------
War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman
[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 12-26-2000).]