At 10/2/07 11:23 PM, tony4moroney wrote:
you cannot observe everything objectively, history doesn't work that way (as you should know). what the debate is about is how significant america's role was in WWII vs. the other allied nations and the soviet union.
Fine. Then what's your measurement of comparison? If you're debating the significance between the two and comparing, what are you using to measure that significance?
The question still stands, otherwise, you're making cake by just eyeballing how much of an ingredient you need.....worse yet, you're randomly choosing what ingredients you're using.
If you're going to measure significance, put it in a context, bracket your variables. Ie,
Russia's role was more important globally due to X, Y, and Z factors, being the factors that most directly affected world affairs post WWII.
US's role was more important scientifically due to X, Y, and Z factors, being the factors that most directly affected innovation.
Otherwise we're looking at another pointless WWII endless, moronic, NG "debate". You might as well argue who's army looked prettier if you're not going to define any measures or variables.....
(this is how you objectify history, write multiple vantage-points, or write "omniscient God" views of history. Because without some MEASURE of objectivity, History loses significance)
how can you quantify the significance of killing 100 000 people in comparison to assassinating a general for e.g?
By defining what your objective outlook is, defining the variables you use to show that significance, and explaining why the significance is important (to whatever audience you are addressing).
If I wanted to show the significance as it relates to a campaign, I would show how the loss of 100,000 men would affect said campaign, as compared to the loss of a general. I'd use previous examples where campaigns have lost generals but had low casualties to show that the death of a field general in a campaign was less significant than the loss of 100,000 troops.
If I wanted to show the significance between the two as it related to the war at large, their respective societies, morale, war costs, etc, I'd do the same, albeit with different points of argument and comparison.
there is no scientific measurement but what we can do is observe the outcomes and the role played in these events and what was critical to the successful outcomes of those campaigns, then we can make a determination on how/ if the u.s was the key to the allied success.
There's no measurement because you haven't MADE any yet. It's clear what you want to do, but you haven't bothered showing how you're going to get there. Read history or anthropology articles. They're very "scientific" when it comes to defining things.
A lot of them start off with sentences like "My goal is to show the relationship betwen X and Y by using A, B, and C, which relate to X and Y in the following ways, etc etc etc".
If you want to say the US was more important, go right ahead. But explain WHY they were more important, and make sure you explain why the points that make them more important are relevant and accurate.