What's the future of WW2 historical writing?

[NickM]

I seek the opinions of the many historians who prowl this forum; quite literally, what IS the future of WW2 histories or biographies? It's been over 60 years & if memories aren't fading then the generation is passing on; however, lots of info has been declassified & is now researchable. Does one outweigh the other? I mean, Shores wrote "Fighters over the Desert' in the 1960s--many of the surviving participants were still alive to be interviewed and tell their stories but "Official" records were not always accessible to double check what was remembered vs what happened; Now Shores will be rewriting FOTD & sources like ULTRA, decrypts & other once classified intelligence sources & newly found Axis records & individual personal papers will be available but nothing new & 'first hand' from the now departed vets of the conflict...I'm just curious if WW2 historical writing will one day become like a form of 'archeological research', delving thru records & other people's writings...
Well...what do you say?

NickM

PS: Sad really as the WW2 generation passes; I get the feeling not everyone had a chance to tell their story, if only to the local library or even to their families;

[Dan O'Connell]

Historical writing IS archaeology, just in paper rather than dirt. And I've done both.............

[Ruy Horta]

It is perhaps sad that the individual man will be lost in time, but as time passes we gain the abibility of true objective analysis. You may loose some detail, but you'll see the wider picture more clearly.

Most of us are actually obsessed with insignificant detail.

[Laurent Rizzotti]

I think the future of WWII history writing is to compare the sources and testimonies of the various sides and to try to combine them to have the whole picture.

It has been done in a great part for naval losses and actions. In the air it is more and more the case, so triggering the debate about overclaiming. There is still much to do about this point for the land side of WWII. Overclaiming of enemy KIA is much higher than in the air...

[Tony Williams]

I am always fascinated to read first-hand accounts, and they provide many valuable nuggets of information which you will never find in official documentation. However, they also have to treated cautiously; partly because memories mutate over time, partly because they may still contain misinformation which was widespread during the war.

If you read personal accounts by RAF and USAAF fighter-bomber pilots of their attacks on armour in NW Europe you would believe that the battlefields were littered with blown-up Tiger tanks hit by Typhoons and P-47s. We know from objective evidence, however, that that simply didn't happen.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Nick Beale]

It's bound to be different as the veterans pass on (four of those I'd interviewed died in 2004 for example). History based on personal accounts became "fashionable" in time for authors to use WW2 memories - Martin Middlebrook's books of the 1970/80s were among the first that I read - but don't overlook the number of such histories of the English Civil War, Napoleonic Wars etc. that still appear as letters and diaries are unearthed.

I'm sure that aviation archaeology will also play an increasing role and there are still some records that won't be declassified for many years (e.g. personal files on German Pows and the Luftwaffe personnel loss records in berlin which are protected by privacy laws until - I think - 100 years after the person's birth date).

THere's lots of work to be done but the approach will have to evolve.

[Smith]

edit ... on re-reading this ... YIKES! 1000 apologies for resurrecting an old thread ... I hadn't appreciated it wasn't current ... was searching for something else and got interested in this topic LOL

What a great topic. And no, I'm not a historian, well not a professional one anyway, but may I comment? As noted in various posts above, the early post-war publications, the likes of Brickhill on Bader and any number of other reminiscences, were coloured by the vagaries of memory and the needs of various parties to maintain certain fronts or positions. A worthwhile discussion on this took place on the Key Publishing (FlyPast) forum few months ago addressing the question of revisionism in history. It was a remarkably cogent and balanced discussion.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=52333

IMHO for what it's worth, there is validity in later historians revisiting the source data of past events and endeavouring to present them in a neutral context. Of course we always present our findings or opinions with some bias or other (consider the massive debates of feminism and "political correctness") but that said I believe there is much to be gained from stripping away wartime and immediate post-war propaganda.

As to whether there's a market, I believe that there will be, but the medium may shift from the book and the written word to more interactive and visual forms. Look at the changing face of museums (embracing inter-active media) as a guide.

One then has to wonder how long the interest (in a given past event) remains. I assume it's a balance between connectedness (eg. family involvement) and the sheer importance or impact of the event. WWII still has both in spades. Today. And is there still interest in WWI? Yes. But how long is the tail?

Don

[drgondog]

Speaking for myself - I don't care about the financial aspects.

I will re-do Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons simply because a.) I made errors 20 years ago and b.) I have a lot more material and I know a lot more about sources and verification, and c.) forums like this one exist to enable detailed cross reference checking between Luftwaffe and 355th FG encounters.

At the end of the day all I care about is some future historian having confidence that I got it right (at least 99%) and that the memories of the guys that fought and died are remembered.

Regards,

Bill Marshall

[Gunther]

I remember while writing a book in 1994 that "the word" in the publishing business was that after the 50th anniversary in '95, WW II topics would drop off. Of course, that has not happened, and I don't recall many authors who believed it. Consider the enormous number of Civil War books still published every year, many with original research.

We're not even close to the end of WW II history, and if the quantity is declining, the quality at least is being maintained.

[Jim Oxley]

There is still much to explore and resolve. The surface has been well scratched, but hardly penetrated.

My only concern is that as more emphasis in time is placed on primary documents (due both to ease of availability and new archival finds), and less on first hand accounts, there is the increased risk of historians writing about the War, and drawing conclusions, from the point of view of hindsight. It happens to a small degree now, and is likely to grow with time.

Battles, whether they be land, sea or air, are as oft confusing and bewildering to generals as much as the frontline man. Faulty or incomplete intelligence, poorly trained or equipped troops, inferior aircraft or tactics, weather, logistics, the list is limitless; all cloud and confuse the issue.

First hand accounts are by their very nature incomplete, incorrect and almost always misleading. But they capture the flavour of the airfight, land battle. They provide an immediacy and intimacy that primary documents can't have.

The best studies are those that combine the first-hand recollections with the reports that describe what actually happened. It's the best, most suitable, marriage of fact and percieved fact.

Sadly with the passing of the 'greatest' generation those first hand accounts are now reaching a finite level.