Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,796
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: − You wrote: "The claim that recruits in the UK, Germany, and US joined mainly for "three hots and a cot" is a real historiographical debate (economic vs. ideological motivations for WWII enlistment), but the essay treats a contested claim as settled, supported only by a single 2016 opinion piece (Task & Purpose) and, again, a Google search link." How strong is the claim on a 100 point scale and why do you give it that ranking?+ − −
→Criticism of this essay
The demographic framing is fine, but the essay leans on a contested revisionist claim (that WWII enlistment was mainly material rather than ideological) without adequately supporting it, and several footnotes are just search-engine links rather than sources — which undercuts the essay's credibility more than anything else. Worth noting this is a "valid" question in the sourcing/rigor sense rather than an ideological one — the same critique would apply regardless of which political direction the essay leaned.
The demographic framing is fine, but the essay leans on a contested revisionist claim (that WWII enlistment was mainly material rather than ideological) without adequately supporting it, and several footnotes are just search-engine links rather than sources — which undercuts the essay's credibility more than anything else. Worth noting this is a "valid" question in the sourcing/rigor sense rather than an ideological one — the same critique would apply regardless of which political direction the essay leaned.
'''A major flaw of the essay: Claims ranked out of 100'''
'''A major flaw of the essay'''
By context:
By context: