From the perspective of two Australian academics, who have encountered ignorance, apathy, bemusement, or resistance from colleagues to the concept of peace history, this article takes a critical look at the reasons for engaging in such research. After defining the term and briefly outlining the development of peace history overseas (especially in the United States, where it even exists as an officially recognized subfield of inquiry), a review is conducted of how leading peace historians have hitherto justified their endeavors. Some of these justifications are found tenable, others somewhat dubious. In the second half of the article additional arguments, those not usually made explicit, are advanced to support the claim for a special study area dealing exclusively with peace movements and peace cultures. Commentaries by Charles Chatfield, Harriet Hyman Alonso, Lawrence S. Wittner, Sandi E. Cooper, Roger Chickering, Peter van den Dungen, David S. Patterson, and Paul Wehrfollow the main article.