[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Professor Hanson's op ed is an example of what happens when an accomplished professional academic historian drifts too far out of his lane to make a political argument.

In many of his examples, Hanson repeats political interpretations of historical events that have been modified (if not discredited thoroughly) by subsequent research.

During the last thirty years (or so), international historians have returned to a multi-archival approach to diplomatic history that was pioneered in America by Samuel Flagg Bemis. Time and again, they have found that international conflict has been driven by domestic politics.*

For instance, Saddam Hussein's motivation for invading Iraq had less to do with what Ambassador Glaspie said (and didn't say) and more to do with the dictator's assessment of his political position domestically. (In a nutshell, he was worried about Iraqi soldiers returning from the Iran Iraq War with nothing to do.)**

Moreover, the so called "Munich Syndrome" has also received a great deal of scholarly attention. Most notably, historians (academic and otherwise) have gone to great lengths to point out that the prevailing interpretation of the Munich agreement was offered by Winston Churchill--Chamberlain's political rival. (Verily, the title of Churchill's The Second World War could well have been, See? I Told You So.)

__________________________________________________ ______
* John L. Offner, An Unwanted War: The Diplomacy of the United States and Spain Over Cuba, 1895-1898 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); David F. Trask, The War with Spain in 1898 (1981; reprint Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996).
**Lawrence Freedman and Efraim Karsh, The Gulf Conflict, 1990-1991: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).

Hansen has an ego , that is far from "sunny side up." Make no mistake, as he will jump a person big time.

Take care,

JCP