Nearly every Historian I’ve ever known has a political agenda.  While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it is much more common than it is with, say, Mathematicians.  The problem isn’t that these professionals have an opinion; everyone is entitled to theirs.  The problem is that most people assume that Historians are experts on politics.  This only makes sense;  their High School history teacher taught them about presidents, and elections, and all of that, so why wouldn’t most Historians be experts on politics?

This creates a number of difficulties.  Why?  Several reasons:

• Most Historians are not professionally trained in Political Science;
• Most Historians have only a passing knowledge of or interest in political history;
• Much of the historiography of the last century has been written from a decidedly Marxist and/or liberal perspective (I would say the same if it were weighted to the other side of the scale, by the way);
• Historians, like all people, are unable to escape their basic presuppositions and their own environment when it comes to politics;
• Most people don’t know the above facts, and so the myth of the History Professor goes on and on.

So, are Historians as unreliable as, let’s say, celebrities when it comes to politics?  Not necessarily, but the Ph.D in History doesn’t guarantee that they are reliable either.  On average are they more reliable that celebrities?  I hope so.  Are they more reliable than those Mathematics professors?  I’m not so sure.

Here’s another problem with Historians and politics.  Many historians pretend to be neutral and objective when it comes to discussing politics in the context of History.  So, they celebrate FDR and run down Nixon, all the while claiming to do so from an objective viewpoint.  Hogwash.

The right thing for Historians to do is to have a policy of disclosure.  Tell your students or listeners or readers where you’re coming from before you ever start answering the historical questions.  You and your hearers are both better of in the long run for your doing so, and if nothing else you will gain their respect.

For more on the topic of political history, check out Morton Keller’s America’s Three Regimes: A New Political History. In this book, Keller divides American political history into three distinct eras, including the Deferential and Republican regime from the colonial period to the 1820s; the Party and Democratic regime from the 1830s to the 1930s; and the Populist and Bureaucratic regime from the 1930s to the present.

Now, as I’ve said before, 20th Century history is not my thing, and that historians, in my view, are best served studying time periods prior to their own age.  Historians, like everyone else, can find it rather difficult to escape the confines of their own experiences and be objective.  I believe that, in so many cases, history written within 80 years of a given period is so subjective that the historiography often falls into the category of political science or social commentary.

Having said that, we are nearing the point where we can begin to think about World War II with something of the detachment necessary to the historical profession.

At any rate, back to Hitler, Stalin, and the Teachout article.  It amazes me, when discussing World War II with people, just the degree of ignorance there still is regarding Stalin.  The bare historical facts are these:

• Hitler was responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews, and other horrific acts;
• Stalin was responsible for the murder of no less than 30 million (some estimates double that number) in the Soviet Union, including at least 3 million Jews in the Ukraine.
• Hitler attempted to conquer all of Europe;
• Stalin did conquer most of Eastern Europe, in part because of the actions of the Allies after World War II.

Does this mean that Hitler should not have been stopped?  Of course not.  But you don’t ally with Satan himself in order to do away with a mere demon.

Why is it that we missed it?  Why didn’t the United States get what was going on?  I think there are several reasons:

• We are more interested, generally, in what is happening in Europe proper, rather than other areas of the world.  Take Bosnia vs. Darfur as a modern example if you need one.
• The American left in the 1930s was sympathetic to communism.  This is not to say that they were all communists (many were), but rather that, as socialists, they felt a kinship with communism.  This forced them to turn a blind eye.
• FDR, in particular, believed in a state-run economy, and wanted to see it work.
• Stalin controlled the flow of information masterfully.  There wasn’t that much information getting out.  Today, in the Information Age, it would be harder to do.
• Even Churchill, who knew the dangers Stalin posed, conceded to work with him to defeat Hitler.  (Churchill, it must be said in his defense, didn’t likely know the extent of Stalin’s Reign of Terror.)

Were there other factors?  You could make a case that Germanophobia was a contributor, as a remnant from World War I.  You could also make the case that there was an image issue, in which the Soviet Union posited itself to be the greatest and most powerful nation on the planet.  There are other issues, too, but I think the four above make up the bulk of the reasoning.

So, how did the United States, including the American Left, ever get to the point where we were worried about the Soviets?  There were several factors here, as well:

• Nuclear capability.  Once the Soviets had nukes, it changed the setup of the board.  The Cuban missile crisis has to play into this at some point, as well.
• Aggressiveness after World War II.  We saw Soviet expansion firsthand, and didn’t especially care for it.
• The Berlin Wall.  Once you put up a gate to keep people in (as opposed to keeping them out), you raise attention to the fact that everything inside might not be copacetic.
• The miracle of Solzhenitsyn.  I don’t think we can, truly, underestimate the impact of The Gulag Archipelago or the Harvard Address in their roles of awakening the American mind.

So, there you have it.  America’s biggest blunder, apart from how it handled slavery, had to have been letting Stalin go.

Further reading:

Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

Hitler: A Biography

Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him

Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe (Vintage)

American providential history focuses on the unique elements in American history in which human beings have interacted with the divine. As such, it begins with a study of the early American settlers. These settlers, in many cases, came to America from Europe for religious reasons. In some instances, they were persecuted for their religious beliefs, such as was the case with the Pilgrims. In other instances, people came to America for missionary purposes - they hoped to spread Christianity to the native people of America.

From there, people interested in American providential history focus on the amazing events that occurred during the nation’s founding. They look at movements like the Great Awakening, which had a significant impact on the religious views of the colonists. In many ways, it was this Great Awakening that was responsible for the political spirit of independence that ultimately led to the creation of the United States.

The interaction of the Divine with America doesn’t stop there, however. American providential history looks at the subsequent events that have occurred, as well. For example, the struggle over slavery is viewed as God’s working in society to make sure that the God-given rights of life and liberty are protected for all people, not just the privileged few. A providential view of American history also sees America as a unique country in the eyes of God. It views America as a “city on a hill” that serves as a model for the rest of the world when it com
es to liberty and freedom.

Finally, American providential history doesn’t try to gloss over the bad events in the American story. Mistakes that have been made along the way are seen, however, not as God’s plan for America, but rather the result of human weakness and human frailty. These mistakes don’t mean that Providence hasn’t been involved in American history, rather that the story of American history is the story of God’s purposes and humanity’s responses.