Revising paper for publication

[kotov]

Hey y'all. During my first semester as a grad student, I wrote a seminar paper that I was considering submitting for publication. The paper was focused around a particular aspect of the source material I had (labor practices at the Ford plant in Romanian-occupied Odessa during WWII), but I was never able to find the so-called "smoking gun" that explicitly demonstrated the use of forced labor. When I had it preliminarily reviewed by an editor, he told me to revise it to place it more within the historiography of occupation, rather than of forced labor; I see his point, though this would involve a major rewrite of the paper. Now, this semester, I have to do a historiographical paper on a subject related to Europe during this time period. I could choose to do it on occupation, which would potentially help me publish this paper in a decently-important journal; or I could do it on forced labor, which would be more productive for me down the road, as this is the area in which I'll probably end up writing my dissertation. So, what I want to know is, is it better for me to focus on re-writing my paper from last semester, or to focus myself on stuff that's going to benefit me down the road? I see possible benefits to both, but I guess you guys may have a better perspective on the big picture than I do, so which one is going to help me more in the long term; publishing that paper or preparing secondary resources for my dissertation work?

[eco_env]

Don't make an argument when you have insufficient supporting evidence.

[kotov]

It's not that I didn't have sufficient evidence for my argument, and my adviser even told me it was well-argued...it's just that I don't have an explicit "forced laborers go here" report among my documents. I built a good case, it just isn't bulletproof.

[Sigaba]

Were I in your situation, I would take the editor's guidance and use the class in question to write on the historiography of occupation.

IMO, it isn't an either/or choice that you face. Instead, you have an opportunity to increase your understanding of how a potential dissertation topic fits into multiple trajectories of historiography.

As an Americanist who focuses on naval, military, and diplomatic history, I am dismayed by the ongoing perpetuation of the myth of World War II as "the Good War." IMO, a major reason why this myth persists--despite the corrective works of Europeanists--is that we still have not reached a critical mass of scholarly works that prevent Americans from focusing on operations in Western Europe and the Pacific.

My hope for any work that focuses on Eastern Europe--where, IMO, the Second World War was decided--is that no matter how refined its argument, it will fit into the building tidal wave that will, one day, wash away many of the myths that persist in the United States.

My (somewhat self-interested) two cents.

[kotov]

I'm taking a blended approach. I'm going to refocus the paper in terms of the more general Romanian occupational economic policy, while still doing some research on German and Romanian occupation and forced labor for my historiographical paper. I'm trying to get as much overlap as possible.

As far as the Eastern Front goes, I definitely agree. I'm hoping that the myth of a Western victory will eventually fall apart, but I wouldn't count on it. I focus more on the Holocaust and matters related to genocide than I do on the war itself, honestly, so I don't know how much I can contribute to that myself, but I'd love to see it happen regardless.