What's the future of WW2 historical writing?

[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