Two historians are most likely to reach different interpretations about a historical event because: a. their theses about the event are smilar b. they refuse to share sources with one another c. their personal biases toward the event differ d. one of them fails to recognize the correct interpretation.

C.their personal biases toward the event differ

There is a modern view of history that recognizes actually that there is no single history but "stories" to be told. Each begins from a specific thesis or context close and then departs in the development of construction or perception of major historical events. A great example is WWII, where there are complex interrelations of causes, and therefore the small countries who lost the conflict will have their own ways of explaining the conflict (Japan, Germany especially). While others such as Britain, the US, France while sharing a common approach to the issue. Still, for Russia (that time the URSS) while have a particular notion of "being invaded" and the name given to the conflict is then called "the Great Patriotic War". This happens to China, with Manchuria being attacked by Japan. Further interpretations could be found in Balkans and other regions.

google it

explanation:

yes te ottoma empire did fall in the   end but something emerged the answer to this question is turkey turkey ermeged   after the ottoma empires falll