Originally Posted by brinktk

I'm not sure that is necessarily a new development.

I don't know while ignoring the facts hasn't changed I think in previous centuries it was more about self preservation and expansion of power than the ideologies we have today.

Brinktk: when you are at the Army War College, I have been thinking about what the American historian (military history) study most when it comes to the Second World War. Is it 50/50 between the European theater and the Pacific? I get a feeling most military historians are studying Europe, maybe much lesser about the campaign in Italy. Other parts of the war are also getting much lesser attention, the Japanese war in China, even when they were threatening India. Maybe historians in these countries studying these events.

Monty, would you say NZ historians are focusing their attention more on Italy than other historians. There was an NZ division active in Italy so I assume the NZ historians pay some attention to it

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Monty, would you say NZ historians are focusing their attention more on Italy than other historians. There was an NZ division active in Italy so I assume the NZ historians pay some attention to it

With regards to WW2 New Zealand obviously puts its focus on regions it was involved in (Greece, North Africa and Italy) as most countries do, perhaps the forgotten part of our history is in the actions of the short lived 3rd Division (a division raised to serve in the Pacific) and JForce participation.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The danger with having your own experience of the matter might be the objectivity of the conflict. In all fields of science, the bias problem is always presence. We can try to reduce it's impact on the science, but not remove it completely, especially in the field of humanities. (history belongs there and not within social science) As long as the academic adviser for a Master thesis and a dissertation knew about it, he or she might be able to avoid the issues.

If one puts it into the category of a science then I must vehemently disagree. I have published numerous engineering publications that were much more instructive and to the point than the typical publication written by academia which are usually dry and devoid of real down to earth content. These are often written for PHD's to gain accreditation rather than further the working knowledge of the engineering science or disciple in question.

Quoiting Clausewitz is certainty a popular cliquishly when one wishes to sound more profound ( intelligent ) then one really is .

Originally Posted by JOC

If one puts it into the category of a science then I must vehemently disagree. I have published numerous engineering publications that were much more instructive and to the point than the typical publication written by academia which are usually dry and devoid of real down to earth content. These are often written for PHD's to gain accreditation rather than further the working knowledge of the engineering science or disciple in question.

There is a difference between engineering and human activity. History is studied as a human activity and wars are the most extreme of activities. For a historian, the most important source is the primary source and finding new interpretation of the primary source with a combination of secondary sources. The objectivity can be a problem if the historian has personal opinions or experiences in what he or she is studying. This is not an issue if the historian is dealing with the Second World War or earlier armed conflicts

Originally Posted by tetvet

Quoiting Clausewitz is certainty a popular cliquishly when one wishes to sound more profound ( intelligent ) then one really is .

So you know who Clausewitz was, I am impressed.

A test, John Locke has a huge significance for the creation of the US constitution, as an American you must know what his contribution was

He was the first President .

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

There is a difference between engineering and human activity. History is studied as a human activity and wars are the most extreme of activities. For a historian, the most important source is the primary source and finding new interpretation of the primary source with a combination of secondary sources. The objectivity can be a problem if the historian has personal opinions or experiences in what he or she is studying. This is not an issue if the historian is dealing with the Second World War or earlier armed conflicts

My main point 13 was to point out that academia without experience can be limited. Personal prejudiced can enter at any point be it physical science or the science of human activity. It's one of our basic faults.
Point in case. Take the case of the 2nd world wars eastern front. Which is still coming to light after having received decades of the same prejudicial coverage that you referee to. The communist USSR wanted to cover their reduce their losses on paper for reasons of embarrassment and incompetence. The Germans preferred to reduce Soviet deaths (particularly Soviet civilian deaths and murders which weren't so well documented like the Jewish holocaust victims) to smooth over their guilt.
As a result the figure quoted for decades as for total deaths as a result of the German invasion of 20 million is actually > 27 million and could very well exceed 30 million. Note: This doesn't include several million killed by Stalin near wars end and in the period directly following the war.

WWII Was much like WWI a social upheaval that bordered on the bazaar , England and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland totally forgetting that Russia ALSO invaded Poland the whole exercise resulted in quantum deaths and 40 years of cold war but little else .