{Peer Review:
I really enjoyed your informational writing. It seems balanced and well sourced as a wikipedia article should be. The only think I can think of that could be changed for the benefit of the article is the breaking up of your second paragraph. It seems like there are three separate ideas within it. I think the piece would be stronger if it was split with each idea and transitions were added to smooth between ideas. However, I think the remainder of the article is very well done and will be a great addition to the overall article!
~~~~}
Response:
I think I will separate the information into different paragraphs to make my argument more clear.
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/American_University/Understanding_Media_(Fall). Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article. |
Original Introduction: The Historiography of World War II is the study of how historians portray the causes, conduct, and outcomes of World War II.
New:
The Historiography of World War II is the study of how historians portray the causes, conduct, and outcomes of World War II. There are many different perspectives of the war, however the three main are the Orthodox from the 1950s, Revisionist from the 1970s and Post-Revisionism which offers the most contemporary perspective.
The Orthodox perspective came about during the aftermath of the war. The main historian who argues this point of view is Hugh Trevor-Roper. Orthodox Historians argue that Hitler was a master planner who intentionally started World War Two due to his strong beliefs on fascism, expansionism, and the supremacy of the German State. [1] The Revisionist perspective became popular during the 70s. This viewpoint is very liberal and the main historians from this period are Howard Zinn and AJP Taylor. Revisionist Historians argue that Hitler was an opportunist and took advantage of the opportunities given to him. Throughout the course of the war, Orthodox Historians argue as if the Axis powers were a sort of evil consuming the world with their powerful message and malignant ideology, while the Allied Powers were trying to protect democracy and freedom. While Revisionist Historians argue that the Allied Powers continued their involvement in the war due to the clear economic, political and military advantages. Post Revisionist historian, such as Alan Bullock argue that the cause of the War was a matter of both factors. Essentially Hitler was a strategist with clear aims and objectives, that would not have been achievable without taking advantage of the opportunities given to him. [2] Each perspective of World War Two offers an insightful analysis and allows us to expand our curiosity on the blame, conduct and causes of the war.