History and Bias
Here is something I posted on my History 318 blog: The thing that I found most interesting while reading the Herwig book was the amount of bias in each selection. It appears to me that each historian has his own pet theory and is intent on proving it at any cost. I found it very disappointing that no one seemed to want to actually get at the truth of the matter. Consequently, after reading the book, I think it's more clear than ever that a multitude of factors were responsible for the outbreak of the war, and that all of the belligerent nations had their own interests in mind when they made the decisions that ended in war.
More generally, it made me think about the nature of the study of history as a whole, and how things are very often much more complicated than they seem and than we'd like them to be. In my mind, the fact of the matter is that people like Fritz Fischer may utilize their evidence and draw valid points, but that kind of history is ultimately flawed as it decides to ignore the multitude of other factors that were, in fact, responsible for the war. It is true enough that Germany aggressively caused World War II, but other nations could have taken measures to stop it. I think these historians try too hard to see the outbreak of World War I, one of the grayest situations in history, in simple black and white.
Then, I got to repeat the argument in class and look like a moron. I freely acknowledge that when studying history, you're almost always going to have a definitive thesis that will, of course, color the research you do. I think it's very important to have varying opinions regarding what causes an event or what effects that event had. After all, I'm probably the biggest free speech person any of you know. My quarrel isn't so much that the authors have opinions as it is that they present those opinions regardless of the others. That is to say, everyone in the book has a very narrow opinion of what caused World War I. Even the wide, "everyone did it" arguments focus on certain aspects: domestic politics, nationalism, the short-war illusion, or what have you. Others, such as Fischer, just seek to blame one nation. This is irresponsible.
There is a difference between having a thesis and proving it and having a thesis and proving it at all costs, even when those include absolutely ignoring other possible theses. This is irresponsible. Even World War II wasn't only caused by the German aggression on Poland; the reactions to it and the lack of reactions to Hitler's earlier moves also contributed to why the war actually happened in the manner that it did precisely when it did. World War I is much murkier. The question of the origination of this conflict is probably one of the most debated subjects in all of history, and I'm here to tell you, friends, there's a lot of it.
I want to write about how we need to look at these and, instead of treating them as credible sources in and of themselves, see them for what they are: biased accounts concentrating on single aspects of the quagmire. What we need to do is become tertiary historians, if you will. We need to look at what these guys did with the evidence, look at the evidence to see how these conclusions mesh with the ones we have, and (most importantly), acknowledge that no single cause/nation/ideology/thesis regarding the Great War is entirely correct. I think that many of these authors have good parts of the picture, but to insist that Germany was pulling everyone along is just ridiculous and ignores everything else that was going on. Mind you, this was a lot.
History is about more than biased political arguing. We need to cut through it to get to the truth.
More generally, it made me think about the nature of the study of history as a whole, and how things are very often much more complicated than they seem and than we'd like them to be. In my mind, the fact of the matter is that people like Fritz Fischer may utilize their evidence and draw valid points, but that kind of history is ultimately flawed as it decides to ignore the multitude of other factors that were, in fact, responsible for the war. It is true enough that Germany aggressively caused World War II, but other nations could have taken measures to stop it. I think these historians try too hard to see the outbreak of World War I, one of the grayest situations in history, in simple black and white.
Then, I got to repeat the argument in class and look like a moron. I freely acknowledge that when studying history, you're almost always going to have a definitive thesis that will, of course, color the research you do. I think it's very important to have varying opinions regarding what causes an event or what effects that event had. After all, I'm probably the biggest free speech person any of you know. My quarrel isn't so much that the authors have opinions as it is that they present those opinions regardless of the others. That is to say, everyone in the book has a very narrow opinion of what caused World War I. Even the wide, "everyone did it" arguments focus on certain aspects: domestic politics, nationalism, the short-war illusion, or what have you. Others, such as Fischer, just seek to blame one nation. This is irresponsible.
There is a difference between having a thesis and proving it and having a thesis and proving it at all costs, even when those include absolutely ignoring other possible theses. This is irresponsible. Even World War II wasn't only caused by the German aggression on Poland; the reactions to it and the lack of reactions to Hitler's earlier moves also contributed to why the war actually happened in the manner that it did precisely when it did. World War I is much murkier. The question of the origination of this conflict is probably one of the most debated subjects in all of history, and I'm here to tell you, friends, there's a lot of it.
I want to write about how we need to look at these and, instead of treating them as credible sources in and of themselves, see them for what they are: biased accounts concentrating on single aspects of the quagmire. What we need to do is become tertiary historians, if you will. We need to look at what these guys did with the evidence, look at the evidence to see how these conclusions mesh with the ones we have, and (most importantly), acknowledge that no single cause/nation/ideology/thesis regarding the Great War is entirely correct. I think that many of these authors have good parts of the picture, but to insist that Germany was pulling everyone along is just ridiculous and ignores everything else that was going on. Mind you, this was a lot.
History is about more than biased political arguing. We need to cut through it to get to the truth.