What's the future of WW2 historical writing?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Jim Oxley

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.

Surely 'hindsight' is not the concern. Writing history by definition is to benefit from hindsight.

The concern, surely, is the increasing prevalence of anachronism.

For example in films; the GIs in 'Saving Private Ryan' behave like the potsmoking generation in Vietnam. In the film 'Atonement', a Lancaster flies overhead in 1935, while an infantry soldier kicks off his army boots and arrives in Dunkirk without his rifle. None of these could happen.

Anachronism occurs when historians fail to appreciate the values, knowledge and thinking of WWII participants. Reading their history is like watching Bing Crosby and Rhonda Fleming in a 'Connecticut Yankee in the Court of King Arthur.'

Tony