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.

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.

When I was younger I would have made a scene and showed myself listening to that garbage.  I did so quite often whenever my professor/instructor tried to pull such a stunt.  Now that I'm older, I can let it roll off my back.  I understand that people have their petty agendas and they aren't fooling anyone.  Just grin and move on because what they say and believe is inconsequential.

Donnie, that is where you are wrong.  This kind of post-modernist agenda has infected the academy and is destructive quality study.  W have had this argument again and again.  So long as academics are not objective or at least attempt objectivity (and this is particularly important in history), then the academy is doing a disservice.  What point is served by not saying anything?  We have to say something or the post-modernists win and they will eventually drag us into a society totally different from what exists now, much less what was before.  One I fear we will not like at all.Before you ask what have I done I will throw an example out there of the kind of garbage I am talking about.  This is minor but as the saying goes, the longest journey begins with a single step.  You all know that I had my first peer reviewed paper accepted for publication not long ago.  Well, I had a copy sent back to me for revision with the comments of the 2 anonymous reviewers attached.  I could accept the edits/suggestions or not and if I did not I needed to comment on why I did not.  The paper itself is an annotated bibliography about Frederick the Great and one of the reviewers (reviewer #1) stuck to making substantive comments and suggestions most of which I took because I felt they really made the paper better.  They were such things as discussing a particular episode in more detail or pointing out facts I had missed or resources I was not aware of.  I was pleasantly surprised at the constructive nature of reviewer #1's comments.  His final comment was that it was a good paper but it needed just a little polish, I felt his edits and suggestions were fair and cogent to the paper.Reviewer #2 on the other hand was someone who I would love to meet in a dark alley.  He/she (I suspect she but can't prove it) had nothing really substantive to add but boy did he take umbrage at some of my positions, word usage, and choice of convention.  I did not like the snide tone of some of their comments either, I felt it was unprofessional but chose not to say anything about that.  The first thing and what got under my craw the most was this comment, "Does he really deserve the epithet of “the great”? Sounds a bit old-fashioned and inappropriate."  Next was a complaint about a section heading, I had "The Rennaisance" they wanted 18^th Century Culture instead.  This reviewer also was bothered by my choice of several source books and wanted me to replace them with newer material.  Several of the books they recommended I had avoided because of their post-modern bias and I reluctantly included them but noted that the more recent work tends to be more biased than the works from the mid 20^th Century.  The final complaint was my use of AD instead of CE when noting dates.  I refused to change either referring to Frederick as Great or dating conventions and said so and why in my reply.  I did however include the newer post-modern material with caveatsMy question to Donnie then is what was the proper course of action, to refuse some things on principle and compromise on others as I did, or to accept biased edits and changes that I think are BS on their face?.  You know what I did, what would you do in the same position?  I think you are advocating rolling with it and not trying to rock the boat but am not sure If I am reading you right.Phid, I would have said something.  I probably would not have called him out in public.  Well, yeah I would have, but I would have tried to couch my questions such that they were not antagonistic but rather trying to get him to explain the logic behind his judgement calls.  The guy sounds like one of those militant atheists that have been popping up like weeds everywhere.