The Necessity of Standardizing Oral History and Criticism of General Mohsen Rezaei
Compiled by: Mohammad Mehdi Behdarvand
Translated by: Fazel Shirzad
2025-07-05
Introduction
Oral History; The Living Language of Nations’ Memory and the Bonding of Generations
History can be considered the great narrative of humanity, of the path it has traveled, of the pains it has endured, and of the hopes it has nurtured. However, this narrative takes on various forms, depending on its narrators. Among all forms of recording history, “oral history” has a privileged position, because it revolves not only around the event, but also around the human being who experiences it. If written documents are the language of institutions and powers, oral history is the language of the people; a living, current, and human language. This language recounts parts of the truth that are lost in the midst of papers and official reports.
In countries with deep and turbulent experiences, such as Iran, which has spent decades of its political and cultural life with revolution, sacred defense, sanctions, and threats, oral history is not just a research tool, but a civilizational necessity. The eight-year imposed war, as one of the most fundamental chapters in Iran’s contemporary history, is full of personal experiences, spur-of-the-moment decisions, field initiatives, and events that have not been recorded in any official report or military document as they were. This history remains only in the memory of the men and women who lived on the scene; those who experienced the war not from behind a desk, but from the heart of the trenches, and in the warmth of their breaths and blood.
Oral history is the art of listening; listening to experiences that have remained silent amidst the hustle and bustle of analysis and grand interpretations. This listening is not only for recording the past, but also for building the future. Oral narratives can be a link between generations that are in different historical situations. In the age of forgetfulness, speed, and rootless information, oral recording of honest and direct memories is one of the few ways to preserve the cultural authenticity and identity of a nation.
Moreover, oral history has capacities that other types of historiography are deprived. Official history is usually monophonic, the result of selection and refinement from above. But oral history is polyphonic; it provides the opportunity to hear diverse and sometimes contradictory voices. This approach not only leads to balance in historical judgment, but also allows a clearer picture of the social, political, and human complexities of an event to be presented.
Oral history is both a platform for the voice of the silent and a platform for future-oriented analyses. Combat narratives from a battalion, a medic behind the front, or even a Basij teenager may shed light on the dark side of the great decisions of the war; and unravel a knot of historical mystery. Oral history, contrary to the common illusion, is not superficial and memory-based, but if organized in a scientific and principled way, it is one of the deepest layers of understanding history.
Ultimately, oral history seeks not only to recount “what happened,” but also to understand “how we lived,” “why we did it,” and “what we learned.” This human and interpretive aspect of it connects history to life and makes it a living and active memory. Undoubtedly, in a world where wars continue not only on the battlefield but also in narratives, any nation that documents its memory more accurately and honestly not only preserves its heritage but also makes its future safer.
Recording and writing the history of war, especially the Sacred Defense, is one of the most important tasks of researchers and documentarians of the country’s contemporary history. This sensitive and serious work requires precision and adherence to methodological principles so that the result is a work that can be relied upon and lasting. Every effort in this direction is valuable; but without adhering to the scientific “method,” even the best memories may turn into scattered and incoherent narratives.
Oral history, as a method for recording memories and living narratives of historical events, has specific rules and structures, the observance of which helps to preserve the authenticity and credibility of the works. In this regard, scientific and scholarly criticism does not only mean destruction, but also serves the history and collective memory of society.
The necessity of compiling the history of war: continuity of identity, recognition of experience, and civilizational exploitation
War, especially if it is a fateful and popular war, is not simply a historical event, but an identity-building event. The Sacred Defense in Iran was not only a military battle, but also a scene of the intersection of faith, politics, people, and global enmities. Therefore, recording and compiling its history is a national, cultural, and civilizational responsibility. This necessity can be analyzed in several fundamental axes:
Preserving national memory: Forgetting the bitter and sweet experiences of defense means making the nation vulnerable to repeating disasters and mistakes. Nations with weak historical memory will be defenseless against projects of distortion, purification of the enemy, and humiliation of resistance.
Understanding patterns of resistance and crisis management: War has been a field of manifestation of managerial capacities, popular creativity, and complex decision-making. Extracting these experiences for future generations can be a strategic asset for facing future crises.
Documenting the realities of war and preventing distortion: The enemies of nations are active not only on the battlefield, but also in the field of narrative. If we ourselves do not write the history of war, others will write it as they wish.
A civilizational approach to war: The history of war, in its long horizon, is part of the history of Islamic-Iranian civilization. It is possible to explain the relationships between religion, humanity, culture, and war through its in-depth analysis.
The Necessity of Commanders' Narratives: Unraveling the Hidden Angles of Decision-Making
Among the various sources for understanding and compiling the history of war, commanders' narratives have a special place. They have played a key role in planning operations, analyzing the enemy, managing forces, and dealing with internal organizational crises. The necessity of recording their narratives can be explained based on the following reasons:
Access to decision-making layers: Only high-ranking commanders are aware of the whys and hows of many decisions; issues that are not reflected in official reports or operational documents.
The possibility of more accurate judgments about performance: Commanders' narratives can provide a suitable platform for comparing speech and behavior, goals and results, and calculations and realities.
Answers to historical and political questions of society: Many of today's questions, such as the reasons for continuing the war after the conquest of Khorramshahr or etc.
Criticism of the book's methodology: From oral history to individual narrative
Here we analyze the method of the aforementioned book; A book that is structured in the form of dialogue sessions with Mohsen Rezaei, but different commanders are present in each session and sometimes present independent and separate narratives.
Ambiguity on the border between historiography and memoir:
The book was published under the title “Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei,” but in practice, each commander sometimes speaks independently for several pages. This method is neither compatible with the structure of oral history, which relies on the centrality of a single narrator, linear reconstruction of events, and a focus on why, nor does it correspond to the format of an analytical group interview.
The combination of individual narrative with the role of documentarian:
If the goal is to record the oral history of Mohsen Rezaei, others should only have a reminder or complementary role. However, in the book, sometimes a narrative from the words of a certain commander continues for three pages, without Mohsen Rezaei giving an analytical response to it or recounting his personal experience.
Inconsistency of structure and confusion of the audience:
The audience does not know whether to read the book as an oral history of a commander or a collection of concurrent narratives of commanders? If the goal is to compile a history of the war, it is better to take a clearer path by designing a multilayered narrative structure and separating the narratives.
Scientific suggestion: Redefining the title and function of the book to enhance conceptual clarity, research coherence, and efficiency of the work.
When faced with the present three-volume book, which has been published under the title "Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei," it can be seen that the chosen title, conceptually and methodologically, has serious ambiguities and shortcomings that require fundamental revision and correction. What is presented in this collection, rather than being a coherent and systematic oral history, is a collection of scattered memories and polyphonic narratives that are mainly expressed in independent narratives by different commanders and are organized around the center of Mohsen Rezaei.
Therefore, it is suggested that before any action is taken, the title of the book should first be redefined to accurately reflect the actual content and the way it was written. The current title, “The Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei,” can mislead the audience and create the expectation that they are faced with a unified, analytical, and linear narrative of the history of the war and the life of a specific commander; while the reality is different and more complex.
A) Redefining the title; the key to opening ambiguities and guiding the audience correctly
The title of the book is the first and most important sign based on which the audience turns to study the work and expects its content. Choosing a precise, scientific title that is consistent with the content of the work, in addition to increasing its credibility and scientific acceptance, plays a decisive role in guiding the audience’s mind and preventing incorrect perceptions.
In this particular case, instead of “Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei,” titles such as “War History as Spoken by Mohsen Rezaei and Commanders,” “Collective Recitation of Sacred Defense Events Centered on Mohsen Rezaei,” or “Roundtable of War Commanders’ Memories” could be used.
While preserving the central role of Mohsen Rezaei, these titles clearly show that the work consists of a set of multiple and parallel narratives and does not end with just one centralized narrative. Such a redefinition makes the audience know from the beginning that the work is a combination of different perspectives of commanders and scattered memories, and not a coherent linear and analytical historical narrative. This recognition in advance creates more realistic expectations and provides a suitable platform for subsequent criticism and analysis.
B) The need for analytical rewriting and structuring of narratives to increase research and methodological coherence
One of the serious challenges of this book is the lack of a clear and coherent structure of the narratives. The narratives of each commander are often presented separately, at length, and without any intervention or analytical response from Mohsen Rezaei. This type of scattered narrative, in addition to confusing the reader, reduces research coherence and weakens the transmission of analytical and educational messages.
To improve the quality and scientific credibility of the book, it is necessary to carry out analytical rewritings in subsequent editions, in which, in addition to transmitting the main text of the memoirs, analytical, comparative, and explanatory points are also clearly presented. This action includes the following:
Certain separation of narratives: Each narrative must be identified separately, stating the full name of the narrator, his position and position in the war, and the time period of the narrative.
Thematic and temporal classification: Memoirs should be classified into specific chapters and sections that correspond to time periods or thematic axes so that the audience can better follow the historical course of events.
Analytical rewriting: Alongside each memoir, a short or detailed analysis should be provided about the importance of that narrative, its strengths and weaknesses, and its relationship to other narratives. Also, contradictions or differences in viewpoints should be identified and discussed so that the reader can face a more critical and comprehensive view.
Interaction between narrators: If possible, conversations between Mohsen Rezaei and other commanders during meetings should be organized and compiled in a discussion format so that the narrative atmosphere is more interactive, dynamic, and moves away from mere monologue.
These structural reforms, while increasing the coherence and methodicalization of the text, will make the book a reliable, research, and educational source that can be relied on scientifically and historically, rather than just a collection of memoirs.
C) The importance of including a methodological introduction and clarifying the process of compiling the book
One of the important parts of any historical or research work is the introduction, which clearly explains to the reader the position of the work, the methods used in compiling it, the sources used, the limitations and challenges of the research.
In this book, providing such an introduction can significantly help the audience understand better. The following points should be addressed in the introduction:
Introduction to the data collection method: how to select commanders and interviewees, the method of recording and recording memories, the number of sessions and the conditions for conducting interviews.
The nature of the data and sources: the difference between oral memories and written documents and methods of validating and dealing with inconsistencies.
Limitations and challenges: issues related to variable memories, personal biases, and the time and place constraints of interviews.
The method of compiling and organizing the book: how to edit, categorize, select narratives and the reason for adopting a specific method in this work.
These explanations allow the audience to place the work in an appropriate scientific and methodological framework and prevent misconceptions and unfair judgments. Also, from a scientific perspective, this introduction will increase the credibility of the book among researchers and students.
D) The scientific and cultural importance of reviewing the title and compilation method to preserve the historical memory of the Sacred Defense
The Sacred Defense and its related events are an important part of the country's contemporary history, which, due to their sensitivity and special place in national identity, require accurate and documented recording and transmission of experiences and events.
Oral historiography methods, if not carried out correctly and scientifically, may lead to incomplete, scattered, or even distorted transmission of memories, which can damage the historical memory and collective identity of society.
Therefore, redefining the book's title and amending the compilation method is not just a matter of appearance or form, but plays a fundamental role in ensuring the accuracy, validity, and durability of the country's historical and cultural memory.
Given this importance, these revisions help to enhance the work's status among research sources, maintain historical coherence, and promote scientific methods in the oral history of the Sacred Defense, and ultimately contribute to the correct and effective transmission of the values of the Sacred Defense era to future generations.
Final Conclusion:
Recording and writing the history of war, as a fundamental and vital part of a nation's historical memory, has always been of particular importance. Any effort in this field, regardless of its scope and depth, is considered a step towards preserving and transmitting experiences, remembering bravery, and promoting national and revolutionary values, and should not be easily ignored or its value ignored. However, it should be emphasized that recording history, especially oral history, is a highly specialized, scientific, and precise process that requires following documented principles, rules, and methods.
Oral history, as a branch of historiography, goes beyond simply collecting individual memories and narratives. This field is formed based on specific methods that aim to accurately, coherently, and reliably reconstruct events and experiences. These methods include careful selection of narrators, development of targeted questionnaires, careful documentation of interview sessions, comparative analysis of memories, validation of information, and ultimately the development of historical narratives with a coherent and understandable structure.
Failure to observe these principles can lead to distortion of reality, dispersion of information, and confusion of the reader, and ultimately reduce the historical value of the work. Therefore, any work claiming to be oral history must adhere to these rules in order to be cited as a scientific and reliable source.
Specialized criticism of the book "Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei"
The aforementioned book, which has been published under the title "Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei", has significant challenges from this perspective. Although it was held in the form of dialogue sessions with the presence of Mohsen Rezaei and various commanders, due to the lack of a coherent structure, precise separation of narratives, and analytical rewriting, it cannot be accepted as an accurate and complete oral history.
If the main purpose of this book was to record a series of collective conversations about the war, without a strong focus and analysis-oriented structure, a title such as “Collective Conversations about the War with Mohsen Rezaei” or “Collective Rereading of the Events of the War” could have been less criticized and aroused less scientific expectation. However, when the title of the book is explicitly chosen as “The Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei,” it means that the reader expects to encounter a coherent, scientific, and documented historical narrative, not simply a collection of scattered and disjointed memories. This contradiction between the title and the content of the book has led to serious criticism and ambiguities.
The necessity of separating scientific criticism from respect for narrators
One of the important points in dealing with oral historical works is to respect the narrators and their memories. The memories of the commanders, warriors, and activists of the Holy War are valuable treasures that must be recorded and published with full respect. However, respect for these people does not in any way mean ignoring scientific and structural criticism.
On the contrary, accurate, reasoned, and fair criticism is a kind of service to this historical project itself. Scholarly criticism makes the final work go beyond the level of a simple collection of memoirs and become a research, analytical, and referable work that can be applied in academic, educational, and cultural studies. Such a view not only leads to greater credibility of the work, but also maintains respect for the narrators in the form of presenting a credible and lasting narrative.
The Key Role of Scholarly Criticism in Improving the Quality of Documenting the Sacred Defense
The Sacred Defense, as one of the most important and sensitive periods in the country's contemporary history, always requires accurate, scientific, and comprehensive recording and documentation. This documentation is the basis for preserving national identity, promoting the values of the Islamic Revolution, and transmitting precious experiences to future generations.
However, this lofty goal cannot be achieved by publishing works that simply convey memories, but also requires systematic research, scholarly criticism, and continuous revision of the methods of compiling these works. Scholarly criticism of works of sacred defense is not just a criticism of a specific work, but also a criticism aimed at preserving and promoting the country's historical memory, strengthening future research, and supporting the path of correct and scientific documentation.
The way forward for better recording of the oral history of the Sacred Defense
Finally, it can be concluded that the path of recording the history of the war, although challenging and complex, is not without value, and every narrative, every memory, and every document can contribute to preserving historical memory. However, for these efforts to have the greatest impact and value, they must be accompanied by strict adherence to the principles and methods of oral history.
The present work, due to its lack of full compliance with these principles, requires revision, redefinition of the title, analytical rewriting, and more structured compilation so that it becomes a scientific, documented, and citation-worthy source instead of a scattered collection of memories.
It should also be always remembered that respecting narrators, that is, preserving the sanctity of their memories, does not contradict accepting scientific criticism, and conversely, scholarly criticism can be the best solution for improving the quality of documentation and giving credibility to war memories.
Thus, scientific criticism and reform are not a threat to historical values, but rather a necessary and vital support for strengthening collective memory and sustainable documentation of the Sacred Defense, paving the way for future research and writing.
Analytical and critical report on the conclusion of the methodological critique of the book "Mohsen Rezaei's Oral History" and the necessity of reform
Recording and writing the history of war, especially the history of the Sacred Defense, is one of the most important tasks of researchers and documentarians of the country's contemporary history. This sensitive and serious task requires precision, adherence to methodological principles, and respect for memories and narrators so that the final work has both research value and is lasting and referable. Any effort in this field, even if incomplete or incomplete, is in itself a step towards preserving historical memory; but at the same time, it must be acknowledged that this specialized path has methodological importance and without it, even the best memories may turn into scattered narratives lacking coherence and credibility.
The book “Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei,” which is organized in the form of dialogue sessions and collective presence of commanders, is an example that, while having valuable content, requires criticism and revision in terms of structure and methodology. In this work, it is observed that the individual narratives of each commander are sometimes presented independently and at length, without Mohsen Rezaei’s analysis and feedback being presented as the main focus of the narratives. This type of presentation both confuses the reader in accurately understanding the narratives and is incompatible with the known structure and standard of oral history.
On the other hand, choosing the title “Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei” for such a work leads the reader to expect a documented, linear, and analysis-oriented narrative, but the content is more like a “collective retelling of war events” or a “roundtable discussion about the war with the presence of several commanders.” Therefore, a redefinition of the title and the editing method could be an important step in correcting this situation.
It is recommended that the title of the book be changed to "War History in the Words of Mohsen Rezaei and the Commanders" and that in subsequent editions, the narratives be rewritten analytically and republished in accordance with the principles of scientific oral history. Also, providing a methodological introduction about the collection method, type of data, and structure of the work will greatly help the audience understand better.
Scientific criticism does not mean reducing the value of memories or disrespecting the narrators, but rather improving the quality of documentation and ensuring the true permanence of these memories in the official history of the country. These critiques are actually considered a service to the sacred defense and historical memory of the nation that can help strengthen future research.
In summary, although the path of recording the history of the war is complex, each narrative is valuable and must be transformed into a reliable and lasting work by observing scientific methods and structures. This is not only a matter of respect for the memories of the commanders, but also of respect for the history and future of research in this field.
At the end of this speech, it is fitting to remember with all humility and respect the late Dr. Hossein Ardestan, that faithful, meticulous, and compassionate man who, in the years after the war, as the director of the Sacred Defense Documents and Research Center, took on the heavy burden of documenting and recording the memories of commanders and warriors, and with his strategic vision and unparalleled commitment, provided the grounds for collecting and compiling a large part of the historical memory of the revolution and the sacred defense. His name will remain immortal not only in the lines of oral history, but also in the minds of those who are concerned with preserving the truth of the war. It is also appropriate to sincerely thank all the commanders and companions of the Sacred Defense era who, by attending these meetings, carefully and diligently provided the precious memories of those days. Undoubtedly, what is included in this book is part of the precious capital of our war history; A capital that, although its method and structure may require revisions, in content is a memorial to the men who wrote the red lines of this land's history with their lives.
The following critique is not written out of opposition or undermining, but rather out of a scientific, epistemological, and civilizational concern. We believe that the history of war is not just an individual memoir, but a foundation for building the future of nations. Today, when narratives have become strategic documents, it is necessary for each of us, in our own place, to make a double effort to validate, refine, and give accuracy to narratives. Scientific critique, if it is based on respect and truth-seeking, is itself part of the process of documenting evolution.
Therefore, it is hoped that the writers, researchers, and trustees of this valuable project will view this critique not as a mockery, but as a help; an effort to strengthen the lofty edifice of the historiography of the Islamic Revolution and the Sacred Defense. We believe that every step towards getting closer to the truth of the narratives is loyalty to the truth and trustworthiness towards those who are no longer with us, but who have entrusted history to us to narrate it; accurately, honestly, and methodically.
It is emphasized that changing the title of the book to a more precise and descriptive title, analytical and coherent rewriting of the narratives, and providing a methodological introduction are among the vital and necessary measures to enhance the quality and scientific credibility of the work. These amendments, while removing ambiguities and confusions among the audience, will transform the work from a scattered collection into a coherent, scientific, and research source that can play an effective role in preserving and transmitting the historical memory of the Sacred Defense. Such revisions within the framework of the professional principles of oral history will help to better preserve the memories of commanders and transmit war experiences in a documented, scientific, and reliable manner. While respecting personal memories, they will also help shape the collective historical memory and develop the country's historical knowledge. Because in the path of recording and writing the history of the war, no effort is worthless. But the scholarly recording of history itself requires a "method." The claim of oral history requires us to observe certain rules that have not been uniformly observed in the aforementioned book. If the book were published as a document of collective conversations about the war with the presence of Mohsen Rezaei, there would be less room for criticism. But now that its title is "The Oral History of Mohsen Rezaei," it must be approached from a scientific perspective. Maintaining respect for the narrators does not mean ignoring structural criticism. In fact, scholarly and accurate criticism is a service to the project of documenting the Sacred Defense.
Number of Visits: 29
http://oral-history.ir/?page=post&id=12652