What's the future of WW2 historical writing?

[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.