This week, ending in March 26 2015:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
How do you scrutinize and adopt memoirs and personal reflections on historical events in your studies?
Tameichi Hara published an account of his time as a captain in the Imperial Japanese Navy's destroyer forces (aptly named Japanese Destroyer Captain) that is widely praised as one of the few surviving accounts we have of Japanese naval officers. However, Hara is quick to distance himself from the tactical mistakes of his superiors (he launches a criticism of Yamamoto in his discussion of the Midway operation) and the later ideological fanaticism that the Japanese military became known for. Not to suggest that Captain Hara is being dishonest, but at moments it feels more like a post-hoc criticism that feeds the popular depiction of Japanese naval leadership as ignorant, unaware of reality, and later stupidly suicidal. Therefore, in the study of the development of navalist doctrine in Japan, I'm much less inclined to include Hara's account on issues of bias. Is this too critical? Maybe.
The one day I couldn't come on reddit. I had a few questions lined up. I will have to make a new thread I suppose?