There can be no clear answer to this question since it depends on the genre that you are writing.

The focus should be on the actions of people at the time, if you are writing History, to do otherwise is to return to the good ruler bad ruler methodology.

However, if you are writing a work to guide contemporary or future society then it is necessary to interpret with hindsight, although even here interpretation should be guided by what the people at the time can reasonably have been expected to know.

This division is similar to the division between biography and history acknowledged by Roman authors, or the mythos/logos division in Plato's Socratic dialogues.

There is, however, a major problem with this approach. Some topics, particularly those connected to Nazi rule, are so contentious that sticking to the strict historical approach may not be possible given the risk of attracting unwanted negative attention. This aspect regrettably also needs to be considered when deciding where to place the emphasis of interpretation of historical events.

I don't believe you can interpret history from nothing else than your own point of view. Our approach as historians is inevitably shaped by subjectivity: not only the time we live in and embedded cultural and sociological factors, but also our individuality and psychological background. I think that while we should keep "objectivity", or better "reduction of bias" as the higher goal to pursue, we need to acknowledge that historical work is for the most part a reflection of our attitudes, beliefs, and collective consciousness as people and historians living in a specific time and space. To put yourself in one's shoes is a good theoretical exercise, and it is important to evaluate and assess actions of people from the past also in that perspective, but it's impossible to erase the observer from the equation. Our own bias will always be present, both unconsciously and consciously, in our work.

It depends upon the question that you are asking. Why are you asking the question that you are asking? Are you looking at the participants motivations? Or something else?

Dear colleagues, thank you for your inspiring comments to my reflection. The claim of an empirically working historian should be: to find out the truth of the past, which shows for instance that leading responsible groups had an interest of self-justification, a similar problem has any biographical investigation. The past always is complex, manifold, full of differences of interest of acting people, full of surfaces with many quite other orientated backgrounds. And it is a double trap: Also our time, the leading actors of the "guild" of representative historians, determine the hidden normative standards, which I consider in my self-awareness - last not least there is my own personal opinion. I see that there is a big tendency to confirm other opinions (with some divergence presented as the own achievement), regarding important times of contemporary history, if there is agreement for instance that the Nazi dictatorship was inhuman to the greatest extend. But the question: Was the Stalin-dictatorship with so many dead people comparable as equal or similar? led in Germany to long debates, at last with the normative recognition: the genocide of the holocaust is unique and not relocatable by compariscons with any other inhuman era of the 20th century. Affirming this, and I do so, than I am within a medium of normative claims of societal morality , so that the principle of critical rationalism (in the sense of Karl R. Popper) is inapplicable: to try to contradict the prevailing opinion in order to refute it by reasonable arguments so that a successful refutation change the theory or - in the other case - a failing argumentation is a contribution to give the theory more sustainability.

The problem is the dilemma of a fact-orientated - at least the claim exists - and on the other hand he normative background which exists in all historic conflicts in the world. It is right, if we try to be as objective as possible, in particular when our historic project concerns the causes of an ethnic conflict, but to hold the balance seems to me very difficult, if you work about a current conflict with his historic background.

We can never really interpret history from the view of people of the past: As Carr so rightly said, the past is a foreign country, to which we do not have a passport. Still I think one has to do what you reject: look at history both from our present (standards) and from the viewpoints of those concerned. Their views and actions still influence us and our thinking (which is why we research history at all). The Nazi period is in my view and maybe surprisingly easy to evaluate in this respect: they violated not only our norms, but also those of the day, so the question does not really arise. If you look at other areas or periods, it becomes more difficult. But a disinterested view (or the attempt at it) may help to disentangle fact from claim (in many ethnic conflicts especially). But trying to do this does not mean that the historian then gives equal weight to all views (that would be the BBC method) or suspends judgement: on the contrary, from his or her knowledge he or she sometimes has to take a stand (or revise current opinions). Hope this helps.

Dear colleagues, thank you much for your detailed answers and advice. It has been said that it is impossible (1) to unlock the secrets of the past completely, and (2) to do this without the own experiences and views - no objections if this is meant as fact. There is no difference between past and presence if you want to clear up things completely without your own feelings. Therefore I think: Maybe, it is common experience of every historical researcher - not as an satisfactory idea but as a regretfully accepted insight. But this fact or experience never should be the leading claim or justification of historical research - in particular in the case of contemporary history, which is full of normative and moral judgments considering ethnic conflicts, abuse of power, the holocaust etc. I am not a historian in my professional way, (see my CV), unfortunately I have much to do with historical discussions, results and research. And I am sceptical: My question to you all could be: Why does nobody has the idea to say: Yes, there exist dilemmas in concepts of contemporary research and we have to discuss such dilemmas before we begin to work. I miss every discussion about the problem, that the normative framework of a historical question tends to limit the view on historic events and facts. The moral judgment has a dichotomous structure: acting and behavior of the protagonists are either good or bad nothing else: Our sense for facts says: No, life is complex, there are balances and contradictions to note and I must not see past events by the glasses of my preleading moral understanding, which inhibits the view of small differences on the surfice which could be a sign for big but undiscovered differences in the background.There is today also no general discussions on different concepts of philosophy of history, of theories of knowledge and epistemologies etc. It seems to me it is a burial ground on which historians use to work in current times. In the time of 68er (in Europe and Germany) this was unconceivable.

We should interpret contemporary history in both ways:

1. From our own view -- we must interpret the history by using our rationale, present context and perspective

2. From the view of the acting people of the past -- history written and intrepreted by the people in past is important to bring the historical thought to the present.

Hein, I have to disagree with your contention that ' There is today also no general discussions on different concepts of philosophy of history, of theories of knowledge and epistemologies etc.' This is a staple of at least some Classics departments, appropriately so given the precedent set by Plato's Socratic Dialogues. However, one problem with expanding this more generally is that, just as was Socrates himself, any academic who tries runs the risk of being attacked by special interest groups within society to their detriment. Here in the UK the government is promising to set up a group to look at censorship by mob rule in Universities. Until academics have the freedom to offend certain groups, if that is where the data leads, without being hounded out of their career by groups chanting 'no platform' then such a general consideration of theories of knowledge is likely to remain the province of ancient historians, assuming even there it is not stifled.

Yes, Interesting question.

Thank you, Timothy and Nishad, for your friendly reaction. I didn't mean that there is suppression or disturbing of free discussion by any institutions. My impression that - if we stress the picture of diversity and plurality of theories in modern science - today we have too little theoretical framework for our daily doing as interpreting researches, concerning current societal reality or the past. We have much communication, we know hermeneutic theories, but about metatheories is seldom discussed. The last great theorist in historical basic concepts is in my eyes Quentin Skinner. But the differences between interpretations which are in the one case more societal-critical (Frankfort School), more in the sense of Critical Rationalism (K.R. Popper),more phenomenological or more narrative in the sense of descriptive social-anthropolocal science, please tell my some authors, books or essays. I am always a thankful learner.

I am still very impressed by Mary Fulbrook's work on Historical Theory. She well realises that absolute and objective truth is not achievable in history, but still finds a theoretical basis to proceed from, by looking at how theories and interpretations are formed through the net of academic discussion and exchange with which we are attempting to approach a bit closer to our goals. On foundational history and its questioning I recommend to read the controversy between Washbrook/O'Hanlon and Gyan Prakash in CSSH (a bit old already, from 1990, but still useful).

thank you very much for this comment, dear colleague, I would like to study the bibliographical references at the next opportunity.

Defiitively on the past view: that is not a discussion. The interpretacion from the actual view is a tipical error of amateurs. The interpretation form the actual view is a step in the last of the process named application: is not history.

But you have to realize that history intepretation is not so simple. Because you cannot do the interpretation like the pasted people as simple as you said: the past pasted and is not. It has gone: for ever. You cannot raise from the dead by a history ooperation. (This is a very big debate inside the historians: which arre the conditions to work with these imposible task.) But you can bring near and near if you are properly trained.

Dear Jaime Antonio Peire, thanks for your reaction, Of course you are right in general - so my own view -, because the task is to find the truth on that field in the past which is concerned. You mentioned dilemmas of historic working which I see similar. But if we only try to describe, than another aspect of our attempts - namely to gain valid historical judgements - are in danger to be neglected: To ask wether we can learn something from history - if we assume that historical learning even is possible. See the situation in many conflict-ridden countries in the Near East or the well-known conflict between Turkey and Armenia, or other sources of conflicts in the world. Nearly all ethnical and political conflicts with past origins are roots for current tensions, which we can't ignore in our historical research work, none at all at the end of our report. Then mostly we tend to state a moral judgement about the past situation. For instance in German general history of 20th century, there is it seldom possible to ignore the topic "Holocaust", and in this field not to argue with a moral attitude is all but possible. I think self-awareness of this und to take such reflections as part of our doing, documented understandably for the readers of our writings, could be a way to alleviate such borderline problems.

I think you are wrigth, my Dear Hein. But as well as you approach to the present the task of the "History" is more difficult. The top of that is the Shoah. Authors like Hayden White or Dominque LaCapra studied how could we study and writte about such thinks: historic narrative (that is describe for an historian) have to change in order to assume such an accomplishment: study the trauma. But for doing that is crucial to the observer to take distance of the sources. (Wach out: memory is the opposite than history). Like a therapist the observer of such an object receive a terrible transference from the sources. So you have to be prepared to make a countertransference to keep (as posible as this is possible) yor distance and (impossible, but go for it) neutrality.

Hi Jaime, thank for your comment. I have similar ideas, in historical work we go always to and fro between our own view and the question if this view appropriate for the acting people in the past. Were they able to grasp in that time with their writings and actions with all consequences what is clear for us? We have to consider that only the further course of history unveiled the positive and negative consequences.

Yes and no. This is a paradojic question as long as 1) Nothing is totally clear for nobody ( and for ever!). 2) The historics processes spread, open, deploy in time. So the events (included in prcesses) better that "grasp" one time for ever is being grasping in order to realized an open process. Is crucial undestand this fact. So you might think: well that shut down or closed our relationship whit the past. Not totally or in a sense that close the possibility of learn of the things that have passed. We go over and over in order to go deeper in the past facts. We can do it: and if you mean it you will gain -I think- in the knowledge that you are searching.

thanks for question and answers.