World War II

Once upon a time there was a German historian named von Ranke who counseled his students that history must be written, “wie es eigentlich gewesen.” Rough translation - how it actually happened. There’s just one problem with that bit of 19th century advice. It can’t be done.

With all the discussion about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of what Ken Burns has put together in his documentary, “The War,” I feel that a little commentary on historiography is warranted. Short definition is that historiography is the study of the study of history. Trust me. Double-barreled snore and I have the graduate credits to prove it.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a necessary part of becoming a so-called professional historian. You need to come to terms with the idea that history has been interpreted in different ways for different purposes — twisted for political agendas (think Nazi Germany), cleaned up to bolster a new nation (think Parson Weems, George Washington, and silly stories about cherry trees), or filtered to justify personal actions (see any political autobiography written in the past 50 years.)

I’ve always held that some sense of the Heisenberg principle — albeit somewhat garbled by the social sciences — is a better place for an historian to start. You know the old saw: the very act of observing a phenomenon changes that phenomenon. If it makes you feel better, go with Immaneul Kant. Everything we can know is based on our experiences. (Also a gross over-simplification, but good enough for government work.)

There is absolutely no way the historian can separate his individual identity, understanding, emotions, prejudices, or limitations from the history he writes, films, or records. Period. There is no way to write history as it was. Even if we were to develop a time machine and send the historian backwards to observe the events, his 21st century eyes would not be able to keep him from judging the tight morals of the Victorian world. And just for the record, Ken Burns isn’t an historian. He’s a director.

Invariably when the subject of film or documentary as history comes up, someone gets around to citing Oliver Stone’s 1991 film “JFK.” Do I want a generation of Americans to think that’s the real story of the Kennedy assassination? Lord no! But can I see that the film itself is an historical document and the willingness of many to accept it as fact is a reflection of the society into which it was introduced? Yes. Do I think the film is “dangerous.” No. There’s too much other material pro and anti-conspiracy theory available on the subject, just as there is more than enough material available on the Second World War to make for a lifetime of study.

My mother reads “historical” novels. Any book with half-naked people in a clinch on the cover and text that includes phrases like “velvet throbbing” isn’t history. It is, however, to those who enjoy such, entertaining. Burns’ work is several notches about that kind of fiction and a notch or two below the elusive definitive history. In the long run it will be judged as an historical document of its time, a look at World War II produced against the backdrop of a hotly debated war in the Middle East and a sharp clash of neo-conservatives and liberals in American society. In the short-term, it’s also entertaining and much better done than the “throw the baby out with the bath water” critics are willing to admit.

WWII, Ken Burns, The War, historiography