Thread by @simonbchen

One reason why I think military history is important, when it comes to conflicts involving deep ideological splits that continue to this day, is that it offers a more objective look at social issues that is less at risk of bias. With Chinese Civil War, I actually find authors /1

such as Jung Chang and Frank Dikotter to be not entirely reliable and objective, because even though they rightfully point out the dangerous consequences of communism, they also gloss over the human rights abuses and excesses of the ostensibly democratic and constitutional /2

Republic of China regime, and of the middle-upper class society that was the basis of its power, that the communists were fighting against. This tendency to pick sides is perhaps rendered more tempting, because these authors’ primary focus was on the ideological conflict /3

itself. To support the theses of their works, it may be tempting to structure and color the whole narrative by selectively picking and interpreting evidence.
By contrast, with military history, the primary thesis is concerned not with the ideological social conflicts that /4

provide the backdrop for military operations. As such, military historians describe those ideological social conflicts in the context of how they affected military operations, and as such, authors are better situated in a more objective perspective with regards to ideological /5

conflicts, as it’s unlikely that any conclusions they come to regarding those ideological conflicts will conflict with the core military operational-focused theses around which they structure their work.
Use one field to get a more objective look at another field’s focus. /end