by Michael Kazin

David Bell's post about the low status of military history among academic historians is both learned and brilliant. I can't wait to read his book! But he neglects the personal element which abets the scholarly inattention. Since the Korean War, few professional historians have served in the military or had close relationships with those who have, and the continuation of the volunteer army (over three decades old and counting) all but guarantees the persistence of this fact. I suspect historians who teach at the most prestigious universities (in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and California) and train the most successful graduate students have the least contact with current members of the armed forces or veterans. Just as it took a long time for contemporary historians of the U.S., most of whom lean decidedly leftward, to take conservative traditions seriously, these blinkered experiences help explain the lag between the undeniable significance of the military and of war-fighting and the interest of historians in writing about it.

New arguments. New insights.Get TNR's latest every weekday.

New arguments. New insights.
Get TNR's latest every weekday.