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.

[edwest]

World War II historical writing will continue as long as there are competent people willing to do the work. Based on what I've read, there seems to be no great financial incentive. Russian archives may help. And there are still classified documents that will not be released for a while.

The passing of the veterans will mean relying on official records, pilot log books, which are still turning up, photos and other contemporary bits of evidence. It is like detective work or solving a puzzle. All that is needed is a willingness to do so.



Ed

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

When I have read edwest post it had surprised me for a while. In the past there were some guys interested in Roman or Napoleon age wars and also now and it has no matter that one history happend 2000 or 200 years ago. How much did they get back for their searches/hobby (invested time&money) not much I think.
Now we have on the world also so many " heavy idiots" who did almost the same digging out stories of WW II period. Invested time, enery, money for many could not be returned and they do not make it for pure money profits. Of coures some of them do it for money.

The fun of hitorical resarch it is sometimes like hunting, discovering new thing, looking for the true. Second when we are far from the history (events of war, the next generations) we can have better view/prespective to make much more balanced comments about the past events.

This specialy concern the WW II history when some subject (areas) could not be obiecivly presented for many, many years.
From about 20 years ago many historians can make much more obiektive searches, works then before 1989 or 1980.
Shortly after the end of WW II history was mostly a political matter. One could write exactly what he/she had a licence to do. History was a political tools. This was very obvious in occupited by Russian countries or in Soviet Union. Such a things were aslo on the othe side.

Second cruelty done by German, Russian (Gulags, invasion on Poland, Katyn) during WW II period was also so great that still many can not belive that one man (nation) could do so many eveil to other nation according national or class principles. Only after many years this true has surfeaced and it is a common knowledge. Now we can much more openly, with no fear and without strong prediduties talk and discuss wuthe the past enemy (for example Poles with German and Russians).

I only see such danger for the future - digitalisation. This means that in the computer you can create almost all and presents the new "pictures, documnets" of war "Tigers tanks on Moscow streets in 1945" or "B.29 pulveraising Berlin" or "Me 262 versus B.29". But such a thing can happen

Second is a lack of knowledge about WW II and not full presentation of the past. Some historians want to presnets only own vision aditionaly having not even rudimentary background/ "know how" to do it. Now we also can find such a thing. It was a case for example of my claims (war) agains Ch. Bergstrom who had made exacte Auchwitz liees by false presenting fact about this death camp in his book (in fact falsification the past and the true). Such a thing makes only futher falsification the past and they creating wrong opinion and meaning about WW II history.

Regards
Mirek Wawrzyński
PS
Without the true about the past (specialy about own) and reespect to the obiective history (not political vison about the past) any nation can makes no progress and achived respect among others.
90 years have passed after Ormian pruges (in 1915) made by Turkey. Surviviors all over the world still rememer this crime of killing about 1.000.000-1.500.000 civils. Probably if people had talked in the Europe in 20-30 ties and sentenced the killers, we did have so many criemes in WW II or later.
Adolf Hitler before invasion on Polad had said, when he was asked by the offciers about cruelty/killing towards civils, "Who just know still remeber and talk about Ormians pruges?"

[Franek Grabowski]

I think rather poor as people are not reading as much as they did and other media do not care about quality at all.

[Boandlgramer]

because you mention the napoleonic wars .
even 190 years áfter the battle of waterloo( one of my all time favorite battles)
many historians are still in twist with each other about this battle.
was it a british victory, a german victory , a dutch or simple a allied victory, there is enough controversy between the historians.

but maybe in few 100 years, when "we" are all citizen of the world and there is no national proud left , maybe then it is possible to talk about history in a reasonable wise. ( but of course ,in 100 years without us )