Making
Historiography and
Source Analysis
Accessible
Jo Leech & Allan Kerr
Carey Baptist Grammar School
jo.leech@carey.com.au
allan.kerr@carey.com.au
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
3
Australian History
Recruitment Posters - Australia
5
WWI Conscription Posters
Australia
6
Women missing in action
Why has Anzac become a Boy's Own story? By Melanie Oppenheimer
From: The Australian November 07, 2007
 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 dinkum Anzacette". 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 conceit
Can spoil this lovely Anzacette.
Article cont : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/women-missing-inaction/story-e6frg8px-1111114734537
7
WWII Recruitment Posters
Australia
8
Australian Women Recruitment Posters
WWII - Australia
9
Japanese invasion a myth: historian
By Mark Forbes June 1 2002
 "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.
Article continued :
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/05/31/1022569832145.html
10
Vietnam War conscription Issue
Australia
'The Sun', Thursday 29
April 1965.
11
Vietnam War anti- conscription Issue
Australia
12

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-onwar/story-e6frg8h6-1111117656925
13
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.
14












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
15
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
16
 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
17
Blainey outlasts the History Wars
IPA 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 criticising Geoffrey Blainey for being too sympathetic to
Australia's indigenous population.
Yes-criticising Blainey 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
18
Websites
Australian 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/australianstory/austn-political-cartooning
 http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/gal
lipoli-second-front-in-the-history-wars
 http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/pref
ace.asp
19
White man –
Clothing
Height
Standing
Explorer and Aboriginal guide
[ca. 1850]
By 1850 – probably more
cleared land – but white
people probably using
individual aboriginals as
guides
What does the title
tell you?
Land looks relatively
undisturbed
Aboriginal
Seated
Wearing
possum skin
Back to
viewer
20
Settlers Hut – S.T. Gill
Fence – ownership –
white ‘civilised’ view
The cleared land
– represents
white ‘invasion’
of the land
Aboriginal
man –
working for
white family
Axe – symbolic of new technology –
clearing the land
White man –
looks relaxed –
offering a bushel
of tobacco
White woman
– offering food
Aboriginal child
– carries a
bucket of water
21
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
Down on his luck - 1889
Frederick Mc Cubbin
Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong
Under 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
22
Twentieth Century
World History
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 …
24
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, in which he claimed that German ambitions caused the conflict.
Taylor was supported by the German historian Fritz Fischer, in his books Griff nach
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.
25
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
Page
Historian’s Name
P24
Erich Brandenburg
German Historian
1927
Sidney Fay
American Historian
1930
G.P.Gooch
British Historian
1938
Gerhard Ritter
German Historian
1951
Fritz Fischer
German Historian
1961
P25
Date
Summary of main argument
Criticism of Fischer
P29
Supporter of Fischer
Immanuel Geiss
Hans-Ulrich Wehler
Jurgen Kocka
John Rohl
Egmont Zechlin
Karl Erdmann
P30
Anti-Fischer School
P31&
P37
Paul Kennedy
Diplomatic Historian
Ralf Dahrendorf
Richard Evans
Geoffrey Eley
David Blackbourn
P32
David Kaiser
P 33
Bernadette Schmitt
British Historians
A.J.P. Taylor
James Joll
Michael Howard
P34
Niall Ferguson
P35
Martel
Joachim Remak
John Leslie
P36
British Historian
John Lowe
Marxist writers & Historians
V.I. Lenin
Marxist – Lenin Theory
P37
Konne Zilliacus
38
Carl Stirkwerda
26
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.
27
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 time
The ‘Soviet’ view
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 time
Western Approaches
29
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 time
Revisionist Approaches
30
•
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…
31
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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…
32
• And just as you start thinking the spiritual father of
the Soviet people is now just a retro souvenir, you
meet people like historian Yaroslav Listov, 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. Yaroslav
Listov 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…
33
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,
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?
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'
L Hartley, the Russian Revolution (1980)
A British school textbook published at the
height of the Cold War
UK Cold War Sources on Lenin
34
On 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 Structuralist believe 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 Liberal thinks 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 Determinist believes 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 Intentionalists examines 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 Revisionst is 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, there35
are dos and don’ts in history.
Stalin - Historiography
E. H. Carr
Adam Ulam
A History of
the Soviet
Union
(14 volumes
1950-1978)
Stalin: The Man
and his Era
(1987)
•Economical & political forces shaped Stalin,
but Stalin still a strong figure.
•Stalin as an ‘agent of history’: produced by
•Stalin impeded Soviet victory in WWII,
as the purges had liquidated Russian
manpower and expertise
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.”
36
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.”
37
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.
Historian
Perspective/Date
Robert Service
Revisionist
Alec Nove
Economic Historian
Comment
Orlando Figes
R.W.Davies
Economic Historian
S.G. Wheatcroft
Economic Historian
Geoffrey Hosking
Robert Conquest
E. H . Carr
Bolshevik historian
38
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
39
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’s
Adolf Hitler: The Age of Irresponsibility (1936) is described by
Lukacs as ‘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'.)
40
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.’
41
Hitler - Historiography
 1960s
 Lukacs dismisses William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich (1960), as ‘superficial’.
 Shirer was 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 Eberhard Jäckel
(1969) showed that Hitler’s Weltanschauung (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.
42
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.
43
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
44
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)
45
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
46
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]
47
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)
48
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’s best-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.
49
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.
Historian
Jack Gray
Perspective/Date
Comment
Revisionist
Mike Sewell
Jung Chang (Wild Swans)
Scar Literature
Jonathan Fenly
Jonathan Spence
50
Cold War Historiography
Orthodox View
Revisionists or New Left Historians
Post-Revisionists
Historians argued that it was clearly Soviet
aggression in Eastern Europe and then
other parts of the world that had caused the
Cold War. The United States had no choice
but to meet the challenges posed by Soviet
actions – whether those actions were seen
as the result of traditional Russian
imperialism or of an ideologically-driven
expansionism that arose, ultimately, from
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917.
Revisionists place the blame on the United States
rather than the Soviet Union for the start of the Cold
War as the end of the wartime alliance need not in
itself have led to cold war. They argued that the
Soviets did nothing more in Eastern Europe than any
great power would have done in terms of looking after
their national interests, especially after two German
invasions in less than thirty years. In any event, the
Russians were often merely reacting to what the
revisionists portrayed as aggressive American
demands for business markets and political access into
this region.
They tried to show that both sides had their faults and
that over time both superpowers pushed their own
interests and misunderstood the other side even to the
point, on occasions, of leading to the possibility of
nuclear war. (In fact the views that are often regarded
as post-revisionist have a long pedigree. Realists like
Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan and William H.
McNeill’s were interpreting the origins of the cold war
in a ‘post-revisionist’ way even before the revisionists
came along). The post-revisionists have tended to
accept the revisionists’ view that Stalin was more
concerned with Soviet security, and to that end the
creation of a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern and
Central Europe, than with world domination or
aggressive ambitions towards Western Europe; but at
the same time they have argued that that Western
leaders at the time could not be certain of what Stalin
was up to, that even a Soviet Union preoccupied with
what Stalin perceived to be ‘security’ could still
threaten Western interests, and that the Western powers
therefore had legitimate and understandable concerns
about Russia.
Herbert Feis, Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin:
The War They Waged and the Peace They
Sought (New York, 1957);
Feis, From Trust to Terror: The Onset of
the Cold War (New York, 1970);
Arthur Schlesinger Jr, “Origins of the Cold
War” Foreign Affairs, 46, October, 1967,
pp. 22-52.
William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of
American Diplomacy (New York, 1959);
Williams, The Roots of the Modern American Empire
(New York, 1969);
Gabriel Kolko and Joyce Kolko, The Limits of Power:
The World and United States Foreign Policy 19451954 (New York, 1972);
Thomas G. Paterson, Soviet-American Confrontation:
Postwar Reconstruction and the Origins of the Cold
John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold
War History (New York, 1997).
51
Soviet Archives
Cold War Historiography
 The freeing up of Soviet academic life in the late 1980s and
then western access to increasing amounts of Soviet archival
material since 1991 means it is now possible to re-examine the
origins of the Cold War using former Soviet sources. It should
be noted that there are at present real limitations on these
sources. Only a very small amount of the archival material has
been released.
 Peter Bastian, “Interpreting the Cold War from Soviet
Sources”, Teaching History, Vol. 35, No 4. December, 2001,
pp.5-10.
52
Who was to blame for the Cold
War? - historiography

Russian historians blamed Churchill (the British Prime Minister) and Truman (the American
president, 1945–1953). They said Truman and Churchill wanted to destroy the USSR,
which was just defending itself.


The Traditional View
At first, western writers blamed Russia. They said Stalin was trying to build up a Soviet
empire.


The Revisionist View
Later, however, some western historians blamed America. They said Truman had not
understood how much Russia had suffered in the Second World War.


The Post-Revisionists
Later still, historians think BOTH sides were to blame – that there were hatreds on both
sides.

Most recently, historians agree that the Cold War was primarily a clash of beliefs Communism versus Capitalism.
53
Who was to blame for the Cold
War? - historiography
 The Traditionalists
 Until the 1960s, most historians followed the official government line –
that the Cold War was the direct result of Stalin's aggressive Soviet
expansionism.
 Allocation of blame was simple – the Soviets were to blame!
 The Revisionists
 In 1959, however, William Appleman Williams published his The
Tragedy of American Diplomacy. Williams blamed the US for the Cold
War. Williams, and the historians who followed him were called the
‘revisionists’. This ‘revisionist’ approach reached its height during the
Vietnam War when many people suggested that America was as bad as
Russia.
 Gar Alperovitz, in his book: Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam
(1965), placed the blame for the Cold War on the Americans for their use
of the atomic bomb
 One of the most extreme revisionists was Gabriel Kolko, who wrote The
Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy in 1972
 He suggested that Truman should have given Stalin the atomic bomb in
1945, claimed that Russia treated Poland well in 1945, and blamed South
Korea for the Korean War of 1950-3.
54
Who was to blame for the Cold
War? - historiography
 The Post-Revisionists
 As time went on, however, a group of historians called the ‘post-revisionists’
tried to present the foundations of the Cold War as neither the fault of the
Americans or the USSR.
 The first was John Lewis Gaddis, The United States and the Origins of the
Cold War (1972), who believed that both America and Russia wanted to
keep the peace after the war but that conflict was caused by mutual
misunderstanding, reactivity, and above all the American inability to
understand Stalin's fears and need to defend himself after the war.
 Martin P. Leffler, in his book: A Preponderance of Power: National
Security, the Truman Administration and the Cold War (1992) saw the Cold
War as a clash of two military establishments both seeking world domination
 Marc Trachtenberg, A Contested Peace: The Making of the European
Settlement, 1945-1963 (1999) claimed that the Cold War was really about
settling the German question in the aftermath of World War II.
55
Who was to blame for the Cold
War? - historiography
 Post – 1991
 In 1991, Communism in the Soviet Union
collapsed. This has allowed historians to get to see the
Russian archives, and to investigate what Russia was
REALLY about in this period. In Inside the Kremlin's
Cold War: from Stalin to Khrushchev (1997), the
Russian historians Vladislav Zubok and Constantine
Pleshakov, use de-classified Soviet documents to
analyse Stalin’s part in causing the Cold War. They
reveal a fanatic belief in Communism, lots of personal
faults and mistakes, but – above all – a genuine desire
to avoid confrontation with the USA .
56
IB – Historiography
Cold War – 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.
Historian
Perspective/Date
Comment
S.E. Ambrose
Walter La Feber
Post - Revisionist
J. L Gaddis
A Schlesinger
Andre Fontaine
Louis Halle
William Appleman Williams
Gor Alperovitz
57
Websites
 http://www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/ahas/cworigins_histor
iography.html
 http://www.johndclare.net
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/krupskaya/works/rol/rol
26.htm
 http://rt.com/news/lenin-anniversary-attitude-opinions/
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/quotes.htm
 http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=72&catid=2
&subcatid=6#100
58
Year 12 IB Student Essay
Sample writing using historians









Topic – Spanish Civil War
Carr’s view is that if Russia had not come to the Republic’s aid in the 1936 autumn
Franco might have won the war in months not years. George Orwell wrote that the
“outcome of the Spanish war was settled in London, Paris, Berlin- at any rate not in
Spain.” Salvado agrees: “the reply given by the European chancelleries determined the
course and outcome of the conflict” and thus, a failed uprising was transformed into a
long civil war and international intervention ultimately assisted the rebels to victory.
Thomas puts beyond dispute the key influence of Nazi intervention in July to September
1936 by acknowledging they “rescued the geographically dispersed military insurgents
against the Republic from isolation and piecemeal defeat.” Jackson and others argue that
the successful Republic defense of Madrid turned Franco’s military strategy from a fast
finish to a war of attrition as no side had the strength for a knock-out blow.
Bibliography
Carr, Raymond. Spain (1808-1939), Part One of Two, Oxford University Press, London,
1966 , p 682
Orwell, G. Homage to Catalonia, p 240
Ibid, p. 95
Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, 3rd Edn, Harmonds-Worth, 1977, p370
G. Jackson, p. 109. In making his argument, he also cites Jose Manuel Martinez Bande,
Claude Bowers and Louis Fischer
Jackson, Gabriel. A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War, Thames and Hudson,
London, 1974,
59
Year 12 IB Student Essay
Sample writing using historians
 Topic – Women in Mao’s China
 In her novel Wild Swans, Jung Chang depicts the traditional role of
women in Chinese society. “I had been brought up to be courteous and
respectful to anyone older than me”. This view however is juxtaposed by
historian Laurel Bossen who states that “the stereotype of women as
domestic subordinates, politically powerless and economically
burdensome is increasingly modified by evidence that Chinese women
were not easily restrained; they were productive and expressive and they
found ways to pursue their own interests” … Despite conflicting views on
the subjugation of women in Chinese society, historians Zang Xiaoei and
Bossen agree that child bearing in large numbers was an expectation in
imperialist China…
 Bibliography
 Rosemarie Tong, Anne Donchin, Susan Dodds, Linking visions: Feminist
bioethics, human rights and the developing world, Rowman and
Littlefield, 2004
 Laurel Bossen- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/ch.html
60
Year 12 IB Student Essay
Sample writing using historians


Topic – Cult of Stalin
Liberal historians, such as Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest, place great importance
on the role of Stalin’s cult of personality and tend to focus on Stalin’s purges and his use
terror tactics in the control and manipulation of the masses. These liberal historians had
few resources available to them and relied on publicized information, the accounts of
Soviet exiles, and documents such as the census. Robert Conquest’s perspective in his
book titled The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties is criticized by revisionist
historian Lewis Siegelbaum as being a “classical interpretation of a paranoid ruler who
ruthlessly exterminated former colleagues and millions of others in his unquenchable
thirst of power.” (Skolov and Siegelbaum, 2000, p.22) Historians from the liberal school
of thought accredit the many millions of deaths during the Stalinist period to Stalin’s
megalomania and despotism, whilst rejecting the argument that Stalin had a base of
social support. “The totalitarian model… emphasized the omnipotence of the totalitarian
state and its ‘levers of control’, paid considerable attention to ideology and propaganda,
and largely neglected the social realm (which was seen as passive, fragmented by the
totalitarian state).” (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p.6)


Bibliography
Siegelbaum, L. and Sokolov, A. (2000) Stalinism as a Way of Life: A Narrative in
Documents (Annals of Communism Series), Yale University Press, USA
Fitzpatrick, S. (2007) The Russian Revolution, 3rd revised ed, Oxford University Press,
London p.147

61