I kind of think I know what you are getting at. I mean I know of studies of, "split brained" patients who have had the two hemispheres of their brain surgically separated who when asked some questions will have each hand write down a different answer. And that could be a sign of opposing beliefs being played with within what normally would be the same brain could these two halves still communicate with each other.
But when this communication actually can happen as the case for virtually all of us, I think the result is less us holding opposing beliefs and more along the lines of us playing with both possibilities. I think we let these opposing possibilities interact and play out in our minds and what ends up being what we would consider our beliefs in the result of that. It could also be more that I have a definitional issue with the idea of having a belief contrary to what you believe, but I really think beliefs are the end product of a lot of things that go on in our minds rather than simple things we can remain unaware of even after thinking about them alot.
What I just said sounded like word salad... The gist of what I am thinking is that we tend to weigh the merits of opposing positions. And what we end up settling on as our belief is a product of that. It isn't that we simultaneously hold each position to a certain extent so much as we have an overall judgement of which one makes more sense.
We might not always be certain in it and it can change with time, but that judgement is the thing I would label as a belief. Not the interplay of opposing ideas that goes on in our minds to form it.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.