Why primary sources still require interpretation

Can a qualified historian read and repeat primary sources without interpreting them well?

Yes. Good history requires interpretation and critical engagement as well as evidence, and broad claims about consensus or cover-ups should be tested against what historians actually publish.

Academic credentials and access to primary sources do not automatically produce persuasive history. A researcher can repeat evidence without interpreting it or explaining why it matters. Broad claims about a national view of the past should be tested against the work of recent historians. Claims that a subject has been covered up also deserve scrutiny when historians are openly publishing and discussing it. This source criticism offers a practical way to evaluate popular naval-history narratives.