Let's go there and transform this post in fact, I will split this thread.  I read almost 200 books, websites, and peer-reviewed articles for this paper, not once did I read or hear mention of a significant anti-war party or movement in 18th century Prussia.  I would love it if you pointed me to a source, I would even update the paper I submitted.  That it seems logical there was an anti-war party does not mean there was.There was resistance to conscription and desertion was a chronic problem in all European armies of the day.  However, that does not mean anti-war, only anti-going into the army.  As stated above I have never hear of such a movement and I not only prepped for this article I have been studying Prussian History for almost 15 years.  I like to think I would be aware of such a moment because you are right, if one had existed it would be noteworthy.

OK, and I did not mean to seem to come on so strong.  As a matter of fact, this is actually a good topic to discuss as it is not something I ever really thought about until your brought it up.In general, anti-war sentiment of the type I suspect you are referring to (Vietnam era and Iraq war) is a modern phenomenon not really occurring until the mid-19th century.  I suspect there is a direct correlation between humanist thought of the Voltaire variety, popular politics, and anti-war thought.  As a matter of fact, that is probably a pretty good paper topic for somebody.  The first, what I would consider real, popular, anti-war movement occurred in the Spanish-American War of perhaps the first Boer War.  There was an anti-war movement during the Civil War but the sense I have always gotten of that is that it was not against the war so much as pro-secession.  I am certain some of the civil war buffs we have on here can correct me on that.  In fact, prior to 1898 most popular movements I can think of surrounding wars had more to do with beat the enemy or securing better conditions for troops than being anti-war.  The great outcry in Britain during the Crimean War was the pathetic treatment of wounded soldiers, not the war itself, which was rather popular as were the Napoleonic Wars and 19th century colonial wars.

I try to represent all sides but I am not going to include works which I feel have no academic value solely for the sake of balance.  That is idiocy and taking the notion of fairness too far in my opinion.  The point of the paper was to provide students a bibliography of the most significant works about Frederick the Great.  A book that spends two chapters discussing his supposed sexuality and psycho-analyzing his achievements based on sexual repression has no academic value for me.  Also another book that condemns him throughout for being a violent war monger serves no purpose, Frederick was a creature of his time and aggressive war was an accepted thing in 18th Century Europe to condemn him because the author finds war immoral is also a false position.There is fair and then there is stupid, I strive for the former and try to avoid the latter.

In my previous comment I did not mean to say that flaky books should be included in a bibliography just for the sake of variety.  If a book is bad, it should be kept out.  A bibliography should be concerned with good scholarship and legitimate topics.  With that said, I can understand a desire to include sources which may cover aspects of a topic which have not been traditionally covered.  I agree that Freudian analyses of historical figures is rather suspect to begin with, and in my experience I sometimes look at that kind of research as "wishful thinking".  On the other hand, topics dealing with social history can be pretty interesting in a field which is traditionally dominated by political history. As far as the reviewers of your bibliography, I think that the person who suggested the inclusion of sources you didn't want to add may have been a grad student for all we know.  I think that sometimes reviewers only feel their worth if they can add criticism to a topic, even if this criticism is unwarranted or need not be heeded. 

“Queer theory as applied to Middle Colonial life, 1730-1760”.  Would you want to include that as an example of scholarship?  It may have been a “serious effort”.  I think the bottom line is that not all scholarly approaches are equal.

"Queer theory as applied to Middle Colonial life, 1730-1760".  Would you want to include that as an example of scholarship?  It may have been a "serious effort".  I think the bottom line is that not all scholarly approaches are equal.

That is a good one.  How do you even stretch available sources to cover that one?  On top of that, what is "Queer Theory" anyway?

Donnie, my take is that any historical scholarship which has one hand in historical analysis and another in contemporary socio-political issues is an approach which is inferior to more traditional, objective approaches.  Unfortunately, the former is a type of approach which is growing in popularity and is given more weight by contemporary academics.  This does not make sense to me.  If a person wants to “change the world” by advocating a particular social/political concern, that person cannot be considered reliable.  Even if the person's scholarship is sound, there are lingering questions about balance and proper context.  There is also the question about quid pro quo – in other words, the historian is getting something based on his findings, rather than letting his findings go where they may.This leads me back to the original post and that lecture I went to.  What did the lecturer gain by demeaning early Christians?  I think the answer is obvious; by attacking the historical origins of the Christian Church, the contemporary Christian Church can be de-legitimized.  I am not claiming that this is exactly what the lecturer's motive was, but by showing his biases he raises such questions in my mind.