Final answer:
Historical perspectives on total war vary based on cultural contexts and the narratives highlighted by different nations. These perspectives affect the portrayal of historical figures and events and reflect underlying priorities and biases in historical recording and interpretation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Perspectives on total war are informed by the historical contexts and narratives presented by different cultures and nations. For instance, Asian historians marking the start of World War II with the 1937 Japanese invasion of China, while Western Europeans consider the 1939 German invasion of Poland as the commencement highlights differing historical narratives and priorities. Similarly, the ways the major Near Eastern empires employed war for expansion are comparable to, yet distinct from, modern strategies of power maintenance.
The depictions of Mehmed II differ in how each account personalizes his role in history, either as an individual of great influence or as a figurehead of collective actions. Carlyle's and Tolstoy's arguments on the 'great man' versus the 'everyone' kind of history represent two opposing views on historical agency and its impact on shaping events. These discussions reflect the complexities in the study of history, where narratives are shaped as much by the events themselves as by the historians who record them.
The contrasting accounts of experiences during wars, whether World War II or in the study of Near Eastern empires, invite us to consider not only the events but also the lenses through which they are viewed. Through this examination, we gain insight into broader questions such as the marginalization of certain aspects of history, the creation of multiethnic military forces, the intersection of military presence and social movements, and how historical periods and conflicts reflect the eras in which they occurred.