I was at a speech recently given by a professor I respect greatly about the UK's commemoration of the First World War. He brought up some good points, chief among which is that the overemphasis on the old and staid methods of "remembrance for the dead" rather than trying new approaches.
One thing that was discussed was a gap between academic discussion and public knowledge. The subject at hand was WW1, so what was brought up was the Alan Clarke view of the British army- "lions led by dinosaurs". That view has pretty much been long exploded with the opening of archives in the 1960s onward. This revealed, among other things, a more nuanced story. Commanders genuinely put in their due diligence in finding innovative military methods, but were limited by factors such as poor communications and plain bad luck. Unfortunately, the Blackadder view of silly subalterns and indifferent generals has proved surprisingly hardy.
This brings me to the next point that I found interesting - that enthusiasts of military history consistently underestimate the level of interest that the public has in the endeavour. Not for nothing did the poppy display at the Tower of London attracted an amazing amount of visitors, despite it being another tried and tested meaning of canonizing the troops.
It's true that warfare is a uniquely emotional issue (and thus also tends to attract its fair share of oddballs), and will have a place in the human imagination higher than most. Perhaps a TV documentary countering the Blackadder story, if successfully funded and promoted, could easily lay this misconception to rest, rather than the million "TANK BATTLE!" series.
Of course, this also depends on the society you are living in and its values/zeitgeist - the view from Stockholm will not be the same as that of St. Petersburg or Singapore.
Nonetheless, the real implication to me is: if practitioners of military history produce good analysis and offerings, their audience may be larger than they expect.
Frankly, it is the profession's fault that there has been an overemphasis on the easily commoditized, glamorous aspects of warfare. See the endless equipment discussions of the merits of jet fighters or rifles, or the hundreds of expensive Osprey tomes, or the hoary old soldier's memoir - real Boys' Own stuff.
The market for this is well-established, and there's nothing wrong with that: Osprey books are great. However, enthusiasts ought not to sell themselves short by focusing on niche elements of war, and instead endeavour to start a conversation on other aspects.
More on this to come.
I can assure you, there's hardly any "market" for military history in Germany or Austria.
ReplyDeleteOnly the politically correct view on events is acceptable. There's even a society for military history that's pretending there's nothing to learn, just things to remember, in military history. The mere use of anecdotes from WW2 in an official army training pamphlet was a national-level scandal - twice (including the revised and renamed version).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete