Timmy , you said that a collection of primary sources would be the most accurate in describing what has happened. I disagree with this since a primary source can be eg. a personal letter form a leader to another. This letter would only tell what the author wants it to tell and would so be even more colored than the same story told by a historian. A primary source can also be a picture, a propaganda poster, a speech, a diary etc. None of these are neutral, but are strongly colored by emotions and attempts to persuade the reader/viewer/listener.

Karin, you're only partially correct, same goes for Timi. Yes, primary sources, such as letters or posters are almost always extremely subjective and only represented from that one specific bias point of view. But as Timi said, primary sources are the most accurate in describing what happened. Yes they absolutely are, they are the indisputable most accurate sources in describing what happened from a specific perspective.