To what extent should a historian strive for neutrality?

Personally I find that "objectivity" is much more an important factor critically than is "neutrality". I recognize however that this may be what you meant in the good question you posed here in this forum. The people above me have good answers based on their personal knowledge and perceptions that exist. The points expressed above cannot be ignored; however, I find that if you are able to find a macro topic and then read several books on the same subject by various authors you are soon able to discern and separate the "wheat from the chaffe" so to speak.

For example I enjoy reading about war, the battles and the intelligence gathering is always a favorite of mine. I have found within my area of interest several authors that provide a balanced and objective perspective to the macro (or big picture view) of my interest. I then find certain topics or specific battles on the specific war(s) I become interested in and dive in a little further on my own. It is not uncommon to find authors then that do in fact provide that critical balance within the context of the micro level some of the time - it doesn't normally take me long to critically discover if that person has some form of an agenda at play. For me it becomes a matter of striking the balance. The guys who "won" did not always do so with highest grade of honor and the guys who "lost" did not always do things in such a manner that there could not be some "good" mixed in with it.

Striking a balance of "neutrality" or objectivity can be done and is accomplished. To some extent it also depends upon the particular topic.

Hope this helps in allowing you to further think critically on the matter of interest for you specifically.

Have a good day!

Gerry D. :)

Always, and to the best of his ability.

While we all have preconceptions, and therefore a totally unbiased history is probably quite impossible, there is absolutely no point in writing history if you're not going at least to try for neutrality.

The core business of history is facts. Interpretation comes a long way second; if the facts are flaky, the interpretation is worthless.

If the historian does not, as far as he can, select and present all the relevant facts with an unbiased mind, he is writing not history, but propaganda. We all know the eminent Tudor historian whose cult of Q. Elizabeth I borders on the amorous - with the result that his work is deeply flawed. Macaulay wrote a compelling but mendacious narrative from his own political standpoint. Many Marxist historians do the same. This is a shame, since many of these propagandists are talented, and given a more honest approach might have produced work of lasting value.

That all depends on who you want your audience to be. Just don't let your neutral sentiment on a topic prevent you from engaging in the truth. A lot of people today think they are being "neutral" by defending the actions of certain nations and finding fault in every action of other nations (the west). This is not neutrality its a twisted version of the truth that I have dubbed affirmative revision. If you want to be 100% neutral then simply state the facts and nothing more, but your not going to have many readers and your work is going to be rather dry.

Neutrality in modern history is, in fact a joke. What is relevant is decided by what the writer wants to show. It is no longer the reality, but the version of reality of the historian, or, to put it more accurately, those funding the historians. The history is edited by whoever is the biggest bully of the day. Don't believe me? look around you & try to connect the dots, & make sense of the facts covered by the cacophony of academicians, politicians,economists & the religious fanatics & so on & so forth, a long list of those making claims on one basis or another on lands, resources & even peoples of countries who have no cultural connection to them except that of the brutality & avarice.