Making Historiography and Source Analysis Accessible. Jo Leech & Allan Kerr Carey Baptist Grammar School j email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org. What is historiography?. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB3xb1_gp4Y . Types of Sources. Photographs Diary Entries Letters
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Making Historiography and Source Analysis Accessible Jo Leech & Allan Kerr Carey Baptist Grammar School email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
What is historiography? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB3xb1_gp4Y
Types of Sources • Photographs • Diary Entries • Letters • Newspaper Articles • Posters • Cartoons/Comics • Journal Articles • Statistics • Graphs • Maps • Paintings • Historians
Women missing in action Why has Anzac become a Boy's Own story? By Melanie Oppenheimer From: The AustralianNovember 07, 2007 Article cont : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/women-missing-in-action/story-e6frg8px-1111114734537 RECENTLY I came across an issue of The Soldier, the official journal of the RSL, published on April 20, 1917. On the cover of this threepenny magazine, sketched in black and white, was "Our dinkum Anzac and dinkumAnzacette". The grinning Anzac, slouch-hatted, cigarette in his mouth, and the Anzacette, a demure, sweet, young nurse with masses of dark curls and a huge red cross on her bosom, were each celebrated with four lines of woeful poetry: Here's an Anzac glorious,Of a band victorious:Sound his praise on fife and flute --Anzac! We your name salute.And for the Anzacette:So sweet, so neat, her smile's a treat,The Anzacs love her, you can bet;A girl complete, no vain conceitCan spoil this lovely Anzacette.
Japanese invasion a myth: historianBy Mark Forbes June 1 2002 Article continued : http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/31/1022569832145.html "He's coming south" screamed the poster, featuring a Japanese soldier poised to trample over a defenceless Australia. It was part of a Curtin government campaign that contributed to a state of panic across the nation in 1942 after the fall of Singapore and air raids on Darwin. Across the years, history books and high school lessons have repeated the stories of a Japanese invasion plan, foiled only by the diggers' desperate efforts on the Kokoda Trail and the United States' naval victory in the Coral Sea. An imaginary "Brisbane Line" was drawn to represent Australia's second line of defence against the approaching hordes. The trouble is, someone forgot to tell the Japanese. The only real invasion plan appears to have existed in the minds of prime minister John Curtin and the Australian public. Japan never seriously intended to invade Australia, a fact known to the Australian Government by mid-1942 and confirmed by intelligence reports, principal historian to the Australian War Memorial, Peter Stanley, said yesterday at a conference examining the events of 1942. "I'm sick of the myth; it's time to knock it on the head," he said. "A lie told for wartime propaganda stays with us.
Vietnam War conscription IssueAustralia 'The Sun', Thursday 29 April 1965.
Paul Ham on War The Australian – 4.10.2008 Vietnam, too, is in danger of being twisted beyond recognition by the civilian hankering for great Australian war victories in the absence of knowledge and context. Undoubtedly Long Tan was an extraordinary feat of arms, in which 108 men with armor and artillery defeated at least 1500 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. And the Australians in Vietnam clearly fought a more humane war than their American allies. But it is absurd to hail the Australian achievement in Vietnam without contemplating, in a spirit of quiet regret, the terrible tragedy of that event and the ghastly aftermath. Nor is it useful to see the Vietnam War as a mere setback in the Cold War. As one Australian academics stated: “It is easier now to think of Vietnam not as a war that was lost but as a losing battle within a bigger Cold War struggle that was won.” It may be easy; it is also simplistic and dangerous, as it portrays this unique human tragedy as the forgettable ephemera in an otherwise triumphant Western victory, and tends to absolve the grave political mistakes that led to it. In consequence, the soldiers’ self-sacrifice is diminished, and the Vietnam War ceases to be a singular human catastrophe from which we might learn. At least our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan appears to have taught us not to attack soldiers for politicians’ decisions. If we’re honest, only by knowing why Australian soldiers went to war, the context of their battle honors, and their failings as well as their triumphs, can we fully appreciate the true nature of sacrifice in war.Paul Ham is the author of Kokoda and Vietnam: The Australian War (HarperCollins). Read the full article on http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/paul-ham-on-war/story-e6frg8h6-1111117656925
Conflicts Australians have been involved in… the Sudan War, the Boer War and the Boxer Uprising, First World War, Second World War, Korean War, Vietnam War , Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Australia’s involvement in War Ideas for teaching Recruitment Uniforms Weapons Conscription Role of women Use of language Political views of the day/War and its issues Methods of persuasion Intended audience of source Validity of Australia’s involvement Compare War issues Use of posters / newspapers etc
Year 12 VCE Student Essay Sample writing using historians Topic - WWII Aborigines were given little opportunities to argue change in the early war years from 1939 – 1941. This was due to the strong legislation against Aborigines which gave them little rights. Historian, Broome terms the early years of the war as “the climax of legislative control over Aborigines.” With the passing of laws such as: the Aboriginal Affairs Act of 1939, and the Defence Act and Australian Military Regulations Act of 1939, which blocked the enlistment into the army of anyone who was “not substantially of European origin or descent” (Mirams, 2006). Historian, Beaumont, agrees with the Aborigine’s inability to argue for change stating that, “during the early years of World War 2 the government also discouraged Aborigines’ enlistment and involvement in the war effort.” Bibliography R.Broome, S.Mirams, Imagining Australia, 2006 J. Baumont, Australia's War, 1939-45, 1996
Historian’s debate Australia’s History Attwood, Bain (2005). Telling The Truth About Aboriginal History Macintyre, Stuart; Anna (2003). The History Wars. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Publishing Manne, Robert, ed (2003). Whitewash. On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History Reynolds, Henry (1999). Why Weren't We Told? Windschuttle, Keith (2002). The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847. Sydney: Macleay Press
Blainey outlasts the History WarsIPA REVIEW ARTICLE – Richard Allsop In his desire to restore the balance between white man and black man and to make up for our scandalous neglect of the Aboriginal heritage, he has at times swung too far the other way.' That is the Sydney Morning Herald criticisingGeoffrey Blaineyfor being too sympathetic to Australia's indigenous population. Yes-criticisingBlainey for being too sympathetic. These words were published in 1975 and were contained in a review of Blainey's landmark work Triumph of the Nomads. … There is much to be said for ending the history wars. While history should be debated strenuously and interpreted in a multitude of ways, these discussions should be able to be conducted without every issue being used in a contemporary political debate. And ending the wars may also provide an opportunity to evaluate Geoffrey Blainey's career in a more balanced and rational manner. … In each of the past six decades, Blainey has produced works of great interest and importance. Odds are that the twenty-tens will be no different. Let's hope they can be read on their merits and not through the prism of the history wars Read more : http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1785/blainey-outlasts-the-history-wars
WebsitesAustralian History Focus www.anzacday.org.au http://www.pictureaustralia.org/ http://www.nla.gov.au/oz/histsite.html http://www.awm.gov.au/ http://john.curtin.edu.au/education/tlf/ http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-political-cartooning http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/gallipoli-second-front-in-the-history-wars http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/preface.asp
Explorer and Aboriginal guide[ca. 1850] What does the title tell you? White man – Clothing Height Standing By 1850 – probably more cleared land – but white people probably using individual aboriginals as guides Land looks relatively undisturbed Aboriginal Seated Wearing possum skin Back to viewer
Settlers Hut – S.T. Gill White man – looks relaxed – offering a bushel of tobacco Fence – ownership – white ‘civilised’ view The cleared land – represents white ‘invasion’ of the land White woman – offering food Aboriginal man – working for white family Aboriginal child – carries a bucket of water Axe – symbolic of new technology – clearing the land
Painting, cartoon, poem and photo Swagman Swagman c.1901 'The Same Old Tune And a Bad One at That' cartoonist Phil May In The Bulletin, 21 January 1888 Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabongUnder the shade of a coolibah tree,And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boiled"You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me“ A.B. Paterson Down on his luck - 1889 Frederick McCubbin
Historiography Every situation can be looked at from so many different angles that it is very difficult for any two people to agree on what is going on. Ten people could look at the same situation and create ten different theories or assumptions as to what is occurring. This is because no two people have the same backgrounds, no two people have the same experiences, and no two people think exactly the same …
Origins WWI - Historiography During the 1930s, 'revisionist' historians sought to revise the view of German responsibility for the war. Marxist (Communist) historians believed that the War was the result of the competition of capitalist businessmen, and emphasised the role played by Imperialism. Other historians blamed the politicians: declaring that diplomacy before the war was bankrupt of ideas and men of ability, they blamed the leaders. Many revisionist historians favoured an explanation of the war as being caused by powerful forces that were pushing Europe into war - nationalism, imperialism, militarism and the system of alliances. American historian Sydney Bradshaw Fay. 'Anti-revisionists' tended to return to the idea of German responsibility. In Britain, the historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote a book called The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1954, inwhich he claimed that German ambitions caused the conflict. Taylor was supported by the German historian Fritz Fischer, in his books Griffnach der Weltmacht ('Grasp for World Power', 1961) and War of Illusions (1969). the anti-revisionist period is sometimes called 'the Fischer revolution' In 1991, the British historian Samuel Williamson, in his book, Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War, argued that Austria-Hungary was equally to blame for the war, marrying a German expansionism with an Austrian desire to expand into the Balkans Most recently, some historians have been drawing attention also to the feeling in Austria-Hungary and Russia that, somehow, a war might be the solution for their own internal troubles. For example Ruth Henig , 1989.
The origins of the First and Second World Wars – F. McDonough Ch 2 – The historians and the origins of the First World War – student activity
Leaders write… In our attitude towards the war, which under the new government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is permissible. In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace. The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government. Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy. The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker. It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.
This viewpoint available in A Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union- the sections on Lenin have remained consistent stating that the founder of the Communist regime acted in the interests of Marxist ideology and the Russian working people • By the late nineteenth century the Russian people were being exploited by traditional Russian feudalism and the newly emergent entrepreneurial capitalist class • Lenin realised that Marxism would have to be adapted to Russian conditions • The failed 1905 revolution taught the Bolsheviks the need for more effective organisation • By 1914 industrial proletariat moving behind the Bolsheviks • The workers were convinced by Lenin’s interpretation of a Marxist revolution • Bolsheviks used WWI to achieve revolution and the civil war to eliminate ‘capitalist exploitation’ • Lenin returned from exile In April 1917 • Bolsheviks won the Civil War between 1918 and 1921 – liberating Russia to Communism • A new democratic system set up Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and a new federal constitution was introduced in 1918 • By 1924 the Bolsheviks has succeeded in their objectives Interpretations over timeThe ‘Soviet’ view
Western historians opinions vary from favourable to hostile • The favourable approach – Western observers who visited Russia can into contact with Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders • There were some pro-Marxist historians in Western Europe, who had positive views of Lenin were – eg: Christopher Hill (1947), John Rees • Hostile views from the West emerged out of the Cold War climate and historian’s negative views of Stalin for example Robert Conquest • Western historians sympathetic to Lenin emphasise the importance of his ideas and strategies adjusting Marxist ideology to suit Russian conditions • The Bolsheviks were disciplined and professional used propaganda and subversion to create the environment to seize power • Western historians do not agree on the motivation behind Lenin’s rise to power • Until recently however most agree that the coup of October 1917 became a real revolution between 1918 and 1924 as the Bolsheviks transformed Russia • Conflict and terror was reinforced by the Cheka • Revolution could not effectively be applied to the economy – New Economic Policy (NEP) Interpretations over timeWestern Approaches
This is a fundamental reassessment of earlier views • One took place before the collapse of the Soviet Union for almost 20 years after 1960 Stalin was written out of Soviet history • Lenin never demonised like Stalin although some methods were questioned • Rabinowitch (historian) Russian people were spontaneously revolutionary • It now seems that the Bolsheviks were the ones that were pushed • Lenin was responding to pressures from the people • WWI did not assist in the Bolsheviks revolution • Lenin was taken by surprise by the February revolution and rushed back from Switzerland • From April 1917 Bolsheviks moved in line with the popular demands and to the expense of earlier Marxist ideology • Bolsheviks were swept along with the tide in a revolution • This gives rise to new perspectives on the Bolshevik state from 1918 to 1924 • They created a repressive regime ruling by terror to guarantee their position Interpretations over timeRevisionist Approaches
But some, like historian Dmitry Tocheny, say it is a shame, and the city should be given its old name. Tocheny believes that “The civil war, that he was responsible for, killed up to 13 million people. Let’s not forget over 2 million, the cream of the crop, left Russia, escaping from his policies. He was a bloody dictator, just like Stalin and Hitler.”Hero, or villain, to some just a souvenir while to others, despite all the controversy about his legacy, polls show the most common feeling towards Lenin in Russia now is indifference. • Historian Sergey Kudryashov, an editor from “Rodina” magazine in Moscow, believes that public discussion of Lenin and his impact on Russian history may bring the opponents to a common point. “For the past two decades his image changed drastically, because in the ’90s, when the entire system changed, Lenin was a sort of symbol of the old regime,”Kudryashov told RT. “And we heard a lot of criticism about that figure and a lot of new documents appeared in Russian archives, so a new image of Lenin appeared in Russian history.” • “Historians still argue about his impact on history, unfortunately there are still some documents classified in Russian archives, but the more we see and the more we discuss the problem, I think, we reach more or less a joint position on that particular figure,” he added. “Only some historians, extreme left or extreme right, disagree about the role of this politician.” he was a bloody dictator, just like Stalin and Hitler…
Vitaly Semenov, historian, considers that the role Lenin played in history cannot be underestimated. • “He absolutely changed the country, changed the society”, says Vitaly Semenov about Lenin. “He created absolutely new laws, new conditions of human lives.” • When assessing whether the changes Lenin introduced were for the better, Semenov says there cannot be an unambiguous answer. • “From the question of belief and human morals, it was catastrophic for Russia, but from the question of new experiences for world society, it was something really interesting. Other states looked at Russia and learned a lot of lessons about what they should change. Russia was like a field of experiments”,says Semenov. • According to Dr Leonid Dobrokhotov, historian and advisor to Russian Communist Party’s leaders, Lenin’s ideas are of great topicality. • “I believe that Lenin’s and Marx’s teaching is much more actual again today than it was 10 or 20 years ago” , Dobrokhotov told RT. • On the whole, the historian says that the West and Russia are now witnessing a re-emergence of interest in Lenin’s ideas, with young people making up 95 per cent of the new followers in Russia. he was a bloody dictator, just like Stalin and Hitler…
And just as you start thinking the spiritual father of the Soviet people is now just a retro souvenir, you meet people like historian YaroslavListov, who still praises Lenin’s ideas. The 27 year-old started admiring Vladimir Ilich Lenin when he was at school, at the time he watched Lenin’s portraits and statues being discarded like rubbish. YaroslavListov states “For me, he is the person who changed the world. I share his values. Those are values of justice, when everyone is born equal and can achieve something regardless of their social status.” those are values of justice, when everyone is born equal…
On November 7 (October 25 according to the Old Calendar), 1917 a new page was opened in the book of world history. It was written by the revolutionary workers, peasants and soldiers of Russia who proclaimed the country a Republic of Soviets. It marked the beginning of a new era ... In 1917 the peoples of our country began the building of a new society, the first of its kind. Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, What is the Soviet Union (1980) A propaganda booklet sent free to British teachers at the height of the Cold War. It claimed: '"Information for Peace and International Friendship" is the motto of the Novosti Press Agency' In November 1917 a group of people called Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, overthrew the government. They said that they were doing it for the proletariat (or working class) ... However, in spite of all the seemingly good things that Lenin introduced there is much for which he and the Bolsheviks have been criticised... He had been in power only for a few days when he decided to ban all newspapers apart from those that supported the new government... Most decisions were taken by a small group of men called the Politburo. Lenin refused to negotiate with the soviets, who were the elected representatives of the workers and in whose name the Bolsheviks had come to power. Remember the slogan he used - All power to the soviets? L Hartley, the Russian Revolution (1980) A British school textbook published at the height of the Cold War UK Cold War Sources on LeninOn Lenin
Stalin - Historiography • In dealing with different historical interpretations of Stalin there are a few things to keep in mind: • Which factors does the historian focus on and what keys does the historian use? In looking at different historical periods the answer to your question will be different. • The historian can choose to believe parts of or all of the following ideas about history: • The Structuralistbelieve that it is structures in society that will determine the actions of history. The French revolution is caused by society, not by persons storming the Bastille. • The Liberalthinks that persons play a major part in history. Stalin as a person is interesting in understanding the events, he took advantage of other persons weaknesses etc to build his personal power. • The Deterministbelieves that there are actual “laws” determining the historical way that events will take. If there are a number of factors present, then these factors will lead to that certain event. Their approach is similar to a natural scientist’s, if you heat water it will boil, if you have population starving in the cities you will have a revolution etc. • The Intentionalistsexamines the willing and desires of different persons or factors in society had. Did Stalin intend for the Purges to take place or not? Are there any evidences for this. If you are an intentionalist you are most likely to have an liberal perspective too. • The Revisionstis an historian who has revised the history out of any reason, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they belong to a whole new school, it only means that they have a different opinion than most other active historians coming from having revised the facts. • The Normative approach, means that we should use history as a warning example, there are dos and don’ts in history.
Stalin - Historiography Adam Ulam Stalin: The Man and his Era (1987) E. H. Carr A History of the Soviet Union (14 volumes 1950-1978) • Stalin impeded Soviet victory in WWII, as the purges had liquidated Russian manpower and expertise • Economical & political forces shaped Stalin, but Stalin still a strong figure. • Stalin as an ‘agent of history’: produced by the circumstances after the Bolshevik Revolution • If Stalin had not industrialised Russia, then someone else would have done so. • Stalin combined immense achievements with utter brutality: “an emancipator and a tyrant.” • Stalin was “the great executor of revolutionary policy.”
Stalin - Historiography Martin McCauley Stalin & Stalinism (2003) Ian Grey Stalin: Man of History (1979) • Stalin – brutal, appalling methods but achievement considerable • Industrialization in particular meant victory over the Nazis & that USSR became one of the two superpowers after 1945. • “The Stalin revolution revitalized the country.” • “[Stalin] launched a violent, phenomenally ambitious modernization of the country.” • “[Stalinism] was phenomenally successful and eventually a crashing failure.” • Most staunch Western defender of Stalin • Believed historians have been overly influenced by Trotsky • “Soviet Russia became stronger as a result of Stalin’s campaigns of industrialization, collectivization and social transformation.”
IB – Historiography Stalin – Papers 2 & 3 Task – go through your texts, handouts and Internet (where relevant) – find the name of various key historians, include their perspective and then a comment they make regarding the knowledge area. Try and create a table for each of the topics studied over the two years, below are some examples started for you.
Leaders write … The book was originally entitled Four Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice. Hitler's publisher reduced it to My Struggle (Mein Kampf). The book is a mixture of autobiography, political ideas and an explanation of the techniques of propaganda. The autobiographical details in Mein Kampf are often inaccurate, and the main purpose of this part of the book appears to be to provide a positive image of Hitler. For example, when Hitler was living a life of leisure in Vienna he claims he was working hard as a labourer. In Mein Kampf Hitler outlined his political philosophy. He argued that the German (he wrongly described them as the Aryan race) was superior to all others. "Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes today, is almost exclusively the product of Aryan creative power.“ Hitler wrote his own account of his life and thought, of course. Mein Kampf presents a Hitler who had a relatively happy childhood (despite conflict with his father about his ultimate profession) during which his history teacher, Dr Poetsch, filled him with a love of Germany
Hitler - Historiography John Lukacs, The Hitler of History (Vintage Books, 1998) Chapter One he gives the reader an historical survey of how historians have written about Hitler. Journalists at the time Heiden was the first person to change the diminutive for National Socialist (‘Naso’) to the word ‘Nazi’ – a Bavarian slang word meaning ‘simpleton’ (like ‘Christian’, the term stuck). Heiden’sAdolf Hitler: The Age of Irresponsibility (1936) is described by Lukacsas ‘dense with details [and] insightful personal commentaries’. 1950s After the war, many historians (particularly French writers) believed that it was too soon to write an objective account of Hitler (Lukacs, interestingly, rejects the very terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ – he believes that, since an historian’s instruments are words, which have to be chosen, ‘his selection of every word is not merely a scientific or stylistic problem but also a moral one': i.e. ALL writing is ‘subjective'.)
Hitler - Historiography AJP Taylor. Although Taylor is not regarded as an authoritative source nowadays, his collected essays in Europe, Grandeur and Decline (1967) are still worth reading, if only as a source of strong opinions which could fuel a class discussion! Taylor found Hitler ‘loathsome’, with ‘a depth and elaboration of evil all his own, as though something primitive had emerged from the bowels of the earth’. But Hitler ‘though evil, was great in action’. Taylor was one of the first historians to recognise the statesman in Hitler, who out-manoeuvred his political opponents (‘a man bent on success on the one side, and a group of politicians without ideas or principles on the other’). Taylor was also open in his hatred of Germans (‘It is all very well to like Italians better than Germans. Who doesn’t?’). For him, both world wars were part of a wider German ‘struggle for mastery’ over Europe. Thus, for Taylor, it was the Germans who were responsible for Hitler. He was their fault: ‘If there had been a strong democratic sentiment in Germany, Hitler would never have come to power . . . No doubt men deserved what they got, when they went round crying for a hero.’
Hitler - Historiography 1960s Lukacsdismisses William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960),as ‘superficial’. Shirerwas an American correspondent who worked in Hitler’s Germany, and experienced events at first hand During the ‘60s, two German historians produced books which largely endorsed this view of Hitler. Frederick Heer (1967) demonstrated how Hitler’s ideology could only be understood in the context of Austrian anti-Semitism. And EberhardJäckel(1969) showed that Hitler’sWeltanschauung(world view) was an early-formed ideology, to which he remained consistent throughout his life, and which led inevitably to the invasion of Russia and the final solution.
Hitler - Historiography 1970s Joachim Fest, the German historian of a highly-regarded 1973 biography, - asserted that, if Hitler had died in 1938, ‘few would hesitate to name him as one of the greatest statesmen of Germany’ John Toland, an American journalist - he called Hitler ‘probably the greatest mover and shaker of the twentieth century David Irving (Hitler’s War, 1977) - Irving, who doubts that Hitler ever gave the order for the final solution – which he asserts was small-scale and localised, if it ever happened at all – ended up as an apologist for Hitler, and regular lecturer to neo-Nazi audiences. Lukacs dismisses him as an ‘amateur’, and criticises his technique The 1970s also saw the work of the psycho-historians; scholars who tried to apply psychology to our knowledge of Hitler to try to find ‘the roots of his evil’. - Walter Langer, Robert GL Waite and Rudolph Binion.
Hitler - Historiography 1980s The 1980s were characterised by (occasionally violent) debates about Hitler. One debate is known as the Historikerstreit – the ‘historian’s quarrel’ The historian Ernst Nolte, saw Nazism as a reaction against the tyranny and dangers of Soviet Bolshevism Andreas Hillgruber, who asserted that, until 1941 Hitler was fighting a ‘Dual War’ A second, much more important – and continuing – debate is that between the ‘intentionalists’ and the ‘functionalists’. Functionalist historians, essentially, revolted against the intentionalist idea, explicit or implicit in many biographies, that Hitler had, in some way, created the Third Reich. Lukacs tends towards the intentionalists: ‘Zeitgeist [the spirit of the times] may have assisted Hitler’s coming to power; but in the end he created his own Zeitgeist’. The modern German historian Rainer Zitelmann(who, interestingly, asserts that we need to use the primary sources much more critically) argues that Hitler intentionally modernised Germany The British historian Tim Mason, who argues that by 1939 Hitler had got the German economy into such a mess that he was propelled into war as the only way to prevent economic melt-down
Hitler -Historiography . ‘Functionalism’ is seen as being true both generally (great men do not make history) and of Nazi-Germany and the Holocaust specifically (where the impetus is seen as coming from lower-ranking officials rather than simply Hitler). This is the viewpoint that is generally accepted in its moderate form by most academic historians. Saul Freidländer is a ‘functionalist’ historian - Nazi Germany and the Jews (Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1997) Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners (1996) Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris (Penguin, 1998)
Leaders write … The book's official name should be "the Quotes of Chairman Mao," however, people always call it "Little Red Book." As in its name, this book is the collection of Mao's quotes. This book was edited by Lin Bao, who was once considered as Mao's successor. Lin edited the "little red" book to earn Mao's confidence, he wanted to stabilise his status in the Chinese Communist Party. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, this red book was popularly used by the Little Red Guard, which created the cult of Mao. Famous sayings from the Little Red Book include, 1) "Modesty helps one go forward, whereas conceit makes one lag behind;" 2) "Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve." And, 3) "People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all the running dogs...Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed
Mao - Historiography Historians in the Mao era Yang Jisheng, author an authoritative account of the Great Famine, told the New York Review of Books, “Traditional historians face restrictions. First of all, they censor themselves. Their thoughts limit them. They don’t even dare to write the facts, don’t dare to speak up about it, don’t dare to touch it. And even if they wrote it, they can’t publish it. And if they publish, they will face censure. So mainstream scholars face those restrictions...But there are many unofficial historians like me. Many people are writing their own memoirs about being labeled ‘Rightists’ or ‘counter-revolutionaries.’ There is an author in Anhui province who has described how his family starved to death. There are many authors who have written about how their families starved.[Source: Ian Johnson New York Times Review of Books, December 20, 2010] On why officials didn’t destroy the files, Yang said, “ Destroying files isn’t up to one person. As long as a file or document has made it into the archives you can’t so easily destroy it. Before it is in the archives, it can be destroyed, but afterwards, only a directive from a high-ranking official can cause it to be destroyed. I found that on the Great Famine the documentation is basically is intact—how many people died of hunger, cannibalism, the grain situation; all of this was recorded and still exists.” [Ibid]
Mao - Historiography Western Perceptions of Mao and the Communists in the Early Days of Their Struggle American journalist Edgar Snow toured the communist bases around Yan'an, in northern China. The resulting book Red Star Over China (1937) portrayed Mao in a positive light and was widely credited with introducing the communists and their leadership to the rest of the world… … Theodore White, then a reporter for Time, who visited Yan’an in 1944, concluded that the Communists were “masters of brutality” but had won peasants over to their side,” … Henry Luce, who saw the Christian convert Chiang Kai-shek as a vital facilitator of the ‘American Century,’ fired White from Time.” Source -Passport to Peking by Patrick Wright (Oxford, 2010)
Mao - Historiography Sympathetic Western Perceptions of Mao and the Communists “Many Western intellectuals, recoiling from the excesses of McCarthyism, and hampered by lack of firsthand information, gave the benefit of the doubt to Mao in the decade that followed,” Pankaj Mishra wrote in The New Yorker, Dec 20 , 2010. Western Perceptions of Mao and the Communists Turn Sour Pankaj Mishra wrote in The New Yorker, “In the seventies and eighties, American scholars and journalists could finally experience the realities they had only guessed at, and they began compiling a grim record of China under Mao—a task that was speeded up by Deng Xiaoping’s repudiation of the Cultural Revolution after Mao’s death, in 1976. More Chinese also began to travel outside their country… Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’sbest-selling biography Mao: The Unknown Story (2005) - Mao killed more than seventy million people in peacetime, and was in some ways a more diabolical villain than even Hitler or Stalin.
IB – Historiography Mao – Papers 2 & 3 Task – go through your texts, handouts and Internet (where relevant) – find the name of various key historians, include their perspective and then a comment they make regarding the knowledge area. Try and create a table for each of the topics studied over the two years, below are some examples started for you.