It is a defense of studying each historical period on its own terms, and not imposing one's own moral and social standards on figures and situations that existed with, perhaps, a different set of ethical and cultural concerns. Butterfield’s text described historians who project modern attitudes on to the past, pass moral judgments on historical figures, and regard history as significant only to the extent that it labored to create the modern world. Such judgments are viewed as problematic because they tempt historians not to understand the past on its own terms. Butterfield argues that historians should write aesthetically rather than polemically, exercising "imaginative sympathy" in appreciating the lost worlds of the dead rather than seeking, or expecting, the vindication of their own current positions (92). The "Whig interpretation," as Butterfield calls it, sees history as a struggle between a progression of good libertarian parties and evil reactionary forces, failing to do justice to history's true complexity.
In Why Nations Go to War, Dr.John G Stoessinger talks about the role of individuals in starting wars. He is of the view that factors like economics, nationalism, alliance networks and even fate are often put forward as the primary reasons for the outbreak of a war, but the human element, the personalities, the hopes and fears and the particular worldview of the individual leaders of the country are not given nearly as much importance. The writer points out that wars are after all, started by people and to a large extent, the book deals with the lead up to the moment when people finally decide to go to war. The author holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and has taught at Harvard, M.I.T, Columbia and Princeton. He won the Bancroft Prize for his book, The Might of Nations and he has served as acting director for the political affairs division at the United Nations.
He sees the Vietnam War on the whole as not only a waste of time, men, and resources for the Americans, but also a cause of “huge fissures …in US society” (Harman 572). In contrast, Bentley and Ziegler view the topic from a much more broad-based point of view. They do not point out America’s earlier winnings, but rather focus on
However, very little literature addresses the predicament of solders who had to endure the dangers of the battle field with most of them scantily understanding the reason for the bloodshed. The war was particularly fuelled by a battle of supremacy in ideologies and the ambition of certain political leaders to impose their ideologies on certain nations. The situation that had emanated to a full blown world war had begun much earlier characterized by mutual suspicion, regional alliances, conspiracy and espionage. Heller attempts to bring out the sufferings that the soldiers who were forced to shoot each other just because politicians had passed legislations requiring them to do so. In Chapter One of the novel Yossarian outlines how he was forced to love the hospital because it gave him momentary peace away from the harsh conditions of the battle field.
Be Specific! Henry Kissinger defines history as, “History is the memory of states.” This means that the history was told through the powerful, the ones who won wars in history. Kissinger’s meaning of history is compromised of inconsistent accounts from many different people with different intentions. Howard Zinn’s approach differs from Kissinger’s because Zinn would rather history to be told through more of a peoples view. The memory of the people.
The country, just like in the 1950’s – nearly 60 years prior was, and is sold on fear. However in this decade there isn’t a new “McCarthy” – one man is not needed to stimulate accusations and distrust as this fear is not against just anyone, but rather focused on specific ethnic groups. The terrorist scare of present times shares the same qualities and traits as the communist scare of the 50’s and the resulting effects on historian thought. Both are an overblown paranoia against a specific group of individuals causing much havoc and fear. Out of this fear comes the resulting philosophy or thought process of historians – a new pro-American, less critical view of the
Conflict often repeats itself right throughout the ages. It seems to be human nature that society would replay what happened to their forefathers. In The Rugmaker of Mazar-e-Sharif Najaf talks about the constant havoc of wars and terrorism that has rocked of Afghanistan and the predator might be different the cruelty they face plays out in similar ways. Conflicts can also arise in a new time period with the easy use of technology today a war of opinion or racism, for example, can start by just typing a few words. Inner conflicts can repeat itself over and over also and becomes incredibly complicated as one’s thoughts become more twisted.
Differently from Bartov, Glass uses mostly primary sources with some secondary sources. While both articles could be of great value to any historian studying the development and cause of anti-Semitism in Europe and the motives behind the Holocaust, Glass' article is more useful and less open to criticism than Bartov's article for three main reasons. Firstly, Glass' use of primary and secondary sources legitimizes the claims he made, while Bartov neglects to use any primary sources. Secondly, Glass argues against the well-known theory of "indifference", explaining the role of the common German citizen in the Holocaust. Bartov's argument is less-evident and less-clear.
and why? components.] The reader-response thesis (as an unhelpful way of dealing with the “so what?”): Bell Irvin Wiley, in The Life of Johnny Reb, shows how the common soldier dealt with the war to get the reader to understand that the war was about more than politics and politicians. [All texts are addressed somehow to readers. This is not an analytical point.]
A true war story such as this aimed at a meaning much deeper then what was presented. Sometimes, the meaning is not said up front, and you must read between the lines to find the significance of a situation. “In war you lose your sense of definite, hence your sense of truth itself, and therefore it’s safe to say that in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely