"Standards of proof" standards here means something like the criteria used to judge whether evidence is sufficient to support a claim. Possible standards of proof: one public speech, multiple speeches, private letters, cabinet discussions, corroboration from contemporaries. The methodological question is: What quality and quantity of evidence should be required before historians accept that claim? standards concern the adequacy and reliability of evidence.
Posts
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Motives are often difficult to document I repeatedly raise an important point. Yes, motives are often harder to document than actions. Historians know this. That is exactly why historians distinguish: documented motives, inferred motives. Difficulty of proof does not automatically make a motive false. But it does reduce certainty.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Immediate versus obvious contradiction In the example: All citizens are equal before the law. Some citizens are legally unequal before the law. The contradiction appears immediately. You see it at once. "Obvious" would also be acceptable. Less obvious contradiction Page 10: Economic factors were decisive. Page 150: Economic factors played little role. The contradiction is not visible from one sentence alone. You discover it only after comparing parts of the work. Hence: less obvious.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
The Haavara Agreement is called "Haavara" because ha'avara is the Hebrew word for "transfer". It was named after the Trust and Transfer Office (Haavara Ltd.) set up in Tel Aviv and Berlin to move money and people. Agreement Details Signed: August 25, 1933. Groups involved: Zionist organizations, the Jewish Agency, and Nazi Germany’s economic ministry. Main goal: Allow German Jews moving to British Mandatory Palestine to save part of their wealth by buying German export goods to be sold after arrival. Impact: Helped about 50,000 to 60,000 Jews emigrate, but caused sharp debates because it bypassed the global anti-Nazi economic boycott.