You're still a freshman so if I were you I'd focus more on taking a bunch of courses and figuring what areas you'd like to study more in depth, what methodologies and ontologies you identify with, etc.

The way thesis topics come about is often something like. Youre studying broadly, and you figure out what you want to study more closely. Then youre studying one particular area more and you realize you're interested in one area specifically, perhaps one that your favourite prof studies. Then you realize one side or point of view hasn't been explored that much, then you have your thesis.

For example, I just finished my Undergrad in Politics. I took broad based courses to start, and found myself gravitating to canadian constitutional issues and federalism and theories of rights. Then I took a course on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with my favourite prof. Then I realized there werent any studies comparing court's dispositions towards privacy rights pre and post 9/11. That then became what I wanted to write my thesis on. It's a fairly fluid process that arises, atleast in my case.

I asked my tutors this question when I was in my final year of undergrad. Their response was pretty much universal: pick a topic you enjoyed studying.

One in particular said, "Think back on the papers you've done, and which ones you got good marks in and enjoyed the most." For me, that was a paper on the Long Civil Rights Movement, which transformed into my Honours dissertation.

The reason for choosing something that you enjoy is that you're committing yourself to this topic for a period of time. At Honours and Masters level, it's usually a one year committment to researching a large project on one topic. You need to be interested so that you can maintain a will to work.

For a PhD, it's 3 or more years, and it's even more important that you maintain the passion. I'd say that for a PhD, you'll have an easier time choosing after you've completed up to MA level, but I could be wrong.

It's great that you have interest in history and you are already interested in grad research. That being said...keep an open mind because things can change as you go through your Bachelor's.

I double-majored in History and Political Science in my BA. Wanted to do my PhD in the same area. Currently doing my PhD in music, very different field! I eventually realised (over the course of about ten years) that the creative arts was what I gravitated towards, while History is just something I'm interested in.

I encourage you to think about topics that you're interested in, and if doing a PhD will help you expand your knowledge. Also look at the reasons why you want to do a PhD in the first place. Doing one is a hard slog - it's at least three years - and it can be an emotional rollercoaster.

I'm a Ph.D. student in chemistry so I don't have any authority in history but my advice to any aspiring graduate student is choose an advisor who you can work with. Do not choose someone just because they are famous. You need to work with them for years, choose someone that is not toxic. In the end, no one really cares where you get your PhD from, it is the papers you publish that matter.

Just a note, but PhD theses are also quite unique, so the question also calls on people to reveal their IRL identities, which some may not be comfortable with.

Be open to whatever directions your interests take you, and cultivate relationships with mentors and peers because those will last and can get you a very long way. I ended up in South Africa, shaped mostly by what I encountered here and the questions nobody seemed to be able to answer in detail about changes in the legal and physical landscapes, and how mapped knowledge came to be. So in a way, my actual topic didn't filter out until after I'd been in graduate school for nine years. The resulting product landed me an incredible position, though, so be aware that even when you get into a PhD program, you won't be locked into a topic--and don't feel that you must race through (but I wouldn't advise taking as long as I did). Our mentors, our colleagues, and our own changing interests and knowledge all dictate shifts. I had a great undergrad mentor who worked on British India, so I went to British Empire, and in graduate school I got sucked into the orbit of Africanists and SA in particular. Experience and exchange will shape your interests to a degree, and part of the fun (yes, it can be fun) is going through that process.

I will leave aside the standard "make sure you have a plan B, because unless you're starting out at an elite school, your chances are slim to none of making it to the professoriate" speech for some other day, but always be aware of that too. My advisees get that speech early and often, and you can find it in many archived threads about the profession. Good luck!

I'm only completing my MA, which technically isn't even in history (its an interdisciplinary program that includes history though), but I'll give my view. My topic is about Soviet nationality policy in Abkhazia and how it led to discontent with Georgia.

When I was applying for schools, I didn't fully have an idea of what to write about; I vaguely thought of something relating to interwar Poland and nationalism there, and with Euromaidan in Ukraine occurring at that time it was somewhat relevant, plus I have ancestry from the region.

Then I went and taught English in Georgia for a few months, and gained a real appreciation for the country. I also found that there is not a lot of material on the country, in English at least, and this piqued my interest. So when I got back to Canada and entered school, I decided to switch from Central Europe to Georgia.

Finding a specific topic on the country proved even harder. All my first year I had no real idea aside from wanting to examine something related to the 2008 war. I felt looking at it from a national viewpoint was logical, as the Abkhaz and Ossetians are distinct from the Georgians, and it slowly led me to considering the Soviet era. It was further parsed down into a specific region, Abkhazia, and era, 1917-1953, due to factors relating to the topic, and the choice to look at it from that angle was established.

This was also a pragmatic choice on my end. There are quite a few scholars who deal with that era and region of Europe, and thus it was hard to fit in and/or gain notability. On the contrary, there are perhaps 5 names that are worth looking at when dealing with Georgia, so its a lot easier to become a recognised authority on the country.

So really, I found something I was interested in, and worked from there until a viable topic emerged; if I were to tell myself back when I started nearly two years ago that I'd be writing about this specific topic, I'd honestly be totally surprised at it, as it was not at all what I had in mind at the time. Something will jump out that you find worth looking into, and then the rest will sort itself out.

I'm still completing my PhD dissertation, but it's on, I suppose, the inter-dynamics between (amongst? amidst?) Eisenhower, Dulles (JFD), and Nixon, and the administration's Third World policies.

I don't want to spoil it because obviously this puppy is going to be published, reviewed marvellously, make me ludicrous amounts of money, and establish my place among the greats in the field (end sarcasm now)....

But I'm "using" Nixon to show that Eisenhower's bungling of Third World issues was not so much due to misunderstandings, misaligned priorities, or most of the other more common explanations, but because Eisenhower simply did not think the added expense, risk, and effort were worth it. In a connected vein, I'm also showing how Nixon, Dulles, and Eisenhower all viewed the Third World in often drastically different fashions, and how the dynamics amongst the three influenced their arguments and advice. One example - Nixon became increasingly frustrated with his position under Eisenhower and Dulles viz foreign policy, and in the later years ('57, '58) started both openly and privately criticising the administration while making impractical but bold arguments and suggestions for policy changes.

As for advice, a thesis/dissertation is an astounding investment of work, time, and money/potential money. I'll only offer two short bits of advice.

First, unless you are madly deeply and wholly devoted to History, do not pursue a doctorate in History. I say this with the utmost respect and loyalty to the skills, attributes, and lessons involved historical studies impart on a hard working individual. There are simply too many very tangible downsides and sacrifices you will need to make in order to succeed for it to be worth your time unless it truly is your "calling."

My second bit of advice, coming from someone who thought they were going to write an MA thesis on one topic, then shifted gears radically and wrote on a wholly different topic, now writing a doctoral dissertation on a related topic, is rather simple. Choose something you're incredibly passionate about. Not something you're interested in, interests come and go. Choose something you're willing to be told you are wrong about and willing to argue with someone more experienced and "smarter" than yourself on. I originally planned to write an MA on the historical distortions which led to the extremely exaggerated caricature of Caligula both in ancient and more modern texts. However, I soon learned that my ancient Greek and my Latin were simply not strong enough to dance with let alone contend with my elders. Added to that, I found it really interesting, but I simply was not passionate enough to put in the effort needed to get my languages to a strong point and risk the ridicule.

Basically, only try for a PhD if you absolutely love History and can't imagine doing anything else, not are afraid of doing anything else. A PhD is not something most people can achieve, I've seen smart people, hard working people, all kinds of good people fail trying. There is a great deal of life between entering university and leaving with a PhD.

Finally, don't write about Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, and the Eisenhower administration's Third World/Global South policies, that's mine, I called it, you can't have it.

Good luck!

Did you have to write an undergraduate thesis? I'm not getting a doctorate but when I finished my degree I had to do an undergraduate thesis.

I did my MA a few years ago and decided not to go on to a PhD, but did write both an undergrad and MA thesis.

In undergrad I focused largely on East and Southeast Asian history, took Mandarin for my foreign language, etc. I ended up writing a brief history of the rise and fall of the Khmer Rouge for that thesis. I'd done a shorter research paper on Tiger Force for a Vietnam War course and kind of branched out from there into the "really nasty stuff" field, as my advisor called it.

When I started my MA I switched from Chinese to US history (tbh I decided I was way too lazy to have to do my research in Mandarin). I focused mostly on 19th and 20th century American cultural history, with a focus on Chinese immigrant culture. Ended up writing my thesis on the films of Bruce Lee, and the impact the whole Kung fu craze had on Chinese American identity.

Like others have said, if you do end up going on to grad school, you'll find your focus. Probably by the time you're a senior, you'll have an idea of what broad field of history you're most interested in. As you go on in school, you'll focus down sharper and sharper till there's something you've just gotta write about.

One piece of advice - don't go into debt for a PhD in history. Work hard, write that thesis even if it's optional for your undergrad program, and be open minded about what grad schools you apply to. Go somewhere that will offer you an assistantship or other aid. The job market isn't great for academics right now. It could pick up in the 10 or so years before you'd be looking for a job, but I have so many friends from grad school who're adjuncting now.

I have mentioned my PhD topic several times in this sub but do not want to go into more detail than it being about the Nazi occupation of Serbia in WWII for a variety of reasons.

Anyways, the way I arrived at this subject was two fold: One was that I learned the language at uni. During undergrad we were required to take language classes. I was set on an Eastern European language since in the study of the Holocaust no more than ever Eastern European languages become more and more important. Since Russian classes were over full, I decided on Serbo-Croatian since South Eastern Europe has a close connection to my homeland and I suspected that there was little research done into the subject of the Holocaust in the Balkans.

The second reason was that it turned out I was right on my hunch concerning research. There indeed is little research out there. Having picked up a passion for the area from learning the language and having come to the conclusion that an impact can be made by researching the Holocaust and German occupation in the Balkans, I decided to pursue this over the next couple of years. My intial focus was forced labor policy but I decided to expand after a. I realized the volume of sources and b. somebody else snatched that topic away from me.

If you're asking this question...you're not ready yet. You don't decide on the subject in particular. It decides on you.

I think someone who knew me could figure out who I am based on my post history, but I'm still not comfortable just posting my dissertation subject, as it's pretty unique. It's about transnationalism in nineteenth century American art, which is a pretty hot topic right now.

I applied to grad school wanting to work on something pretty different - namely, American popular prints. Your tastes can change even in the course of grad school, much less undergrad. Just follow what you like for now. You'll have plenty of time to (over) specialize later.

I'll answer directly as you're asking: I'm nearly finished with my dissertation on how memory of WWII changed over time and why. Specifically, I look at the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia after WWII and efforts toward reconciliation between Germans and Czechs in the 1970s and 1980s.

I sort of stumbled into it when looking for a MA thesis topic. I have a sociology background and had previously studied collective memory, identity and history-writing as a reflection of current identities and values onto the past. The expulsion of ethnic Germans offers an alternative interpretation of morality, guilt and victimhood in WWII and piqued my interest when I found an article on how this history complicated bilateral relations after the Cold War. My MA focused on cooperation and conflict in the post-1989 period, and my PhD traces the origins of cooperation before 1989 and looks at the decline of nationalism and rise of Europeanism and cosmopolitan identities as the impetus toward reconciliation.

I have to say I enjoy it. My research has morphed into studying the underground academic seminars in Czechoslovakia, illegal writing, and smuggling networks with West Germany where the discussions were taking place - all very interesting and little-known histories with some very exciting stories!

My thesis is getting published this week. It's already on Amazon. Yay!

I wrote about leaks of secret documents. I started in the summer of 2012, a year before Snowden, which then obviously totally blindsided me. Had to reevaluate some things and made a few changes to the structure of the thesis, but all in all, it wasn't too bad. Still, there was so much interest in this topic at that point that many interesting papers were written and I had a hard time keeping up with all the new stuff that was published almost daily. Most of my bibliography on the definition of leaks and methodologies of understanding them dates from the last few years.

So, unless you really wanna be at the center of such a big controversy, pick something like Charlemagne or Thomas Hamiliton. They aren't moving as much...

And the most important thing: Find a good advisor. Really can't stress that enough. I'd rather write about a boring topic with a good advisor than work on the most interesting thing in the world with a shitty prof. Look into all the horror-stories about getting a PhD and you'll almost always find a bad advisor at the center.