Delete comment from: Boston 1775
While I understand and appreciate the author's intentions, I must take exception to his statement that "moral compromises and outright betrayals are inseparable from every combat." That, to me, is a classic instance of an historian imposing his values and views and what he perceives to be the moral code of his own generation on history. And, I would argue that that is not the true purpose of an historian. He may be cognizant and even support contemporary values and beliefs, or what his perception is of the mainstream consensus, but he shouldn't filter the past through them.
A clasic example is the current consensus that WW2 was a "good war" and Vietnam was a "bad war." This is partially supported by the belief that WW2 was a great moral crusade and Vietnam was not. Yet the US only went to war against Hitler because Hitler, rather foolishly, declared war against the US. FDR could never have gotten a declaration of war had Hitler not acted foolishly. Where's the great moral crusade?
I don't mean to argue that we should not have fought Germany, I am merely trying to point out that I believe that Kirsch needs to rethink his statement.
Jun 9, 2011, 2:01:19 PM