Historians are likely to find themselves disputing when studying a topic because their writings are expected to be based on different sources. For example, in the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, history was repeatedly rewritten. If one were to study and write about the part played by Leon Trotsky in the October Revolution in 1917, it would be a very debatable subject due to the sources altered by Stalin eliminating Trotsky’s part. Although it has been proved that Trotsky was an important figure, many historians may agree with the sources changed by Stalin and base their writings on them – causing a huge amount of disagreement among historians.
An example of a controversial topic that many historians would disagree upon is Stalinism. Common debates include whether Stalinism was inevitable after Lenin’s death or if NEP and other certain policies under Lenin could have continued and have been just as productive and efficient as Stalin’s collectivisation or Five year plans. Stalinism is a typical example of a topic that many historians would disagree about because it is so controversial. For example, when studying the Great Terror and purges, some would say that Stalin didn’t really contribute to the terror or not at all in the case of a writer such as Rittersporn. On the other hand, a historian such as Robert Conquest (The Great Terror) would disagree stating that Stalin was directly responsible. Why do they disagree? Apart from it being such a controversial topic, there will be other factors involved such as background or the sources where they attained the information.
“For the historian, as for everyone else, it is bound to involve one's own past; one's professional preoccupations; and one's predilections, be they loves or hatreds, likes or dislikes, opinions or prejudices….” Written by John Clive who has investigated a little as to why historians argue. It is true, that whenever a historian writes their views about an event of topic, they are likely to be different to others due to their background etc. (as stated above); thus causing disputes. For example, if a man or woman was to write about Irish history, what they write would very much be influenced as to whether they were Catholic or Protestant. This is a very good black and white example as to why a historian would disagree due to their religious background if they were to study a topic such as Wolfe Tone or the Irish divide.
Many historians have disagreed in the past a great deal even against will. Many historians have lived under a dictatorship; therefore there writings have had to complement the dictators’ of that particular country. For example, a Russian historian writing about Russian History under the dictatorship and totalitarian society of Stalin would very much be under the influence of Stalin. If the history written were not to agree with the history of the regime he would most likely find himself killed. Therefore, out of terror historical writings are likely to be different to those of western historians thus in disagreement. This would have also been the case under Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany and the lengthy rule of Francisco Franco in Spain.
The topic of Stalinism is a good example as to why historians disagree, and can be used as to why a historian may disagree with another due to background or past experiences. Many will argue that Stalin betrayed the revolution and destroyed Leninism and the foundations for the new society that would be found. Leon Trotsky was a firm believer of this. However why may Trotsky disagree with other historians who may believe that Stalin was the heir of the revolution and a great Communist? It could be and most likely is because Trotsky had a substantial bitterness against Stalin. Trotsky was probably the most likely to succeed Lenin after his death in 1924 but in the end he was exiled because of Stalin – this would have had some bearing on his writings and is another example of a historian in disagreement due to their past and background, apart from it being a highly controversial topic.
A similar controversial topic includes Napoleon Bonaparte and his empire. Many historians will disagree as to whether he was the heir or the betrayer of the French Revolution – that what Napoleon did, was only carried out to serve him and not the revolution or nation. Napoleon is another example, similar to Stalinism, of a controversial subject – thus a great deal of disagreement among historians. For example, was the coronation of Napoleon in 1804 significant? This is comparable with the question of whether the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 was significant. These are both topics where there are so many views that few historians can agree with each other. It is inevitable that different historians are going to disagree on the significance because it is difficult to identify how the Frankish empire or Napoleonic Empire altered after these coronations – hence there is a great deal of dispute.
Still under the subject of Napoleon, many historians have done and will continue to quarrel when writing about the man or his regime due to the fact that he was a master of propaganda and wrote his own legend. Therefore, it can be difficult when writing biographies for example – hence why many have been unique and different by such historians as Robert Alexander and J. M. Thompson. A good example of this would be the Battle of Marengo in which Napoleon altered the course of the battle in writings to glorify himself.
Historians will often disagree as to when they write their findings. For example, writings on Richard III by men such as Thomas Moore or Polydore Vergil would be in disagreement with ones today or recently because they were written in the 16th century. Also, over the centuries the views on Richard III have transformed a great deal due to new findings, therefore writings are likely to be in dissimilarity. Also, the topic of historical controversies on Richard III can be used as another example of historians in disagreement due to background. Any writings during this time by a historian would largely be orientated as to whether you were in support of the House of York or Lancashire.
Historians can disagree for a number of reasons, one of which maybe because they enjoy it. Many disagree to cause controversy and to gain publicity – many believe this is the reason why A.J.P. Taylor wrote the way he did in the 20th century. One example that can be studied came recently in The Daily Telegraph on the 3rd November 2003. “Rob Roy, one of Scotland's most celebrated folk heroes, was really a confidence trickster who spied for the English army, according to the first academic investigation into his life.” An article written by Tom Peterkin writes about how Prof David Stevenson, of St Andrews University has written about a book challenging the belief that Rob Roy MacGregor was a Robin Hood figure who stole from the rich to give to the poor. Perhaps the most controversial claim concerns Roy's behaviour during the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715 when he betrayed his clan by acting as a paid agent to help the English army. Many Scottish historians would violently disagree with this as up until now he has been thought of a national hero. Stevenson’s motives to his findings and writings can be debated, but it is another example of a historian disagreeing. And in this case, due to little tangible evidence apparently revealed – it could be believed it is because many historians like publicity and enjoy controversy.
Therefore, whether studying any of the topics from Richard III, Napoleon, Stalinism and even A.J.P. Taylor there are a number of reasons as to why historians disagree. These can range from the background of the person it is written by (e.g. religion), when it was written, whether it is a controversial subject or even if the historian just enjoys controversy and disagreement for his/hers own publicity. Most importantly though, it is because this is history and there is no right or wrong view on a period or topic, there are opinions – thus many may even disagree with what has been written here.
