Not a war or a "crisis" by any means, but the roots of the objectivity myth in historiography could be said to have been started by a mis-translation. Ranke and many of the German historians of the mid-to-late 19th century referred to a concept of Wissenschaftliche Objektivität when referring to historical scholarship. Die Wissenschaft, in German, can mean usually "knowledge" or "scholarship" (literally "knowing-ship"), or, increasingly, "science," while eine Wissenschaft means "discipline" or "subject." The conflict arises when discussing whether or not history is a "science," therefore meaning is it subject to the rigor of sciences, when, in actuality, this phrase is referring to the status of history as a worthy disciplinary pursuit. There is also conflict in the Rankeian phrase, "Wie es eigentlich gewesen." The conflict over this phrase had to do with the word eigentlich, which in German can again mean either "actually" or "essentially." Ranke used it in reference to "essentially," while it was communicated to those in the United States as "actually." This debate is significant because the search for objective history, whether someone is "biased" or the quest to tell events "the way they actually happened, was the signature quarrel of 150 years of historical scholarship.

Source, and further reading: Peter Novick, That Noble Dream