Is official history bona fide history?

[John Gilinsky]

This question has been asked by several if not many people around the world. Clearly can we imagine ww1 studies WITHOUT all the official histories? At the same time the official histories due to the sheer scale were written within economic restraining times (demobilization, immediate post war recessions, 1930s Great Depression, and typical political and official disdain for anything cultural including critical history) and consequently bare bones narrative approaches were adopted. This in turn has in my opinion an advantage in that it encourages others who follow to fill in the controversial parts of the stories that were left half-told or simply left out (executions, poor decision making at hqs, less than ideal behaviour of officers, social unrest undermining military efforts locally, poor civil-military relations at times, etc....).

Any thoughts?

John

[auchonvillerssomme]

Like all publications i think we need to see the OH as a skeleton to build on. All publications, except personal diaries, accounts will owe something to the OH, but how do we check the facts in the diaries or other accounts if we don't have a baseline? Even the newspapers at the time will usually be towing the government line.

Mick

[armourersergeant]

I think that Mick sums it up well. the OH is a base upon which we/you can construct the war upon. It generally lays down what happened , though may in places slightly mislead. Investigations around the history will perhaps lead to a more balanced view. thta said I think from the limited amount I have read, that it is a fine attempt to tell the war.

regards

Arm

[Alan Tucker]

The Official History cannot be regarded as true history because its judgements must be seen in the context of the time in which it was written. We know a lot more about Edmonds these days and where he was coming from based on correspondance at the time.

It is still much better to have it rather than not have it. It is a benchmark.

Alan Tucker

[shinglma]

Alan

"The Official History cannot be regarded as true history because its judgements must be seen in the context of the time in which it was written."

Surely that's true of any work and even those written much after the event. We tend to think that with hindsight we right better history but we are equally influenced by the contemporary mindset.

Sometimes the historiography is as interesting as the history itself.

Regards

Mike Shingleton

[Matt Dixon]

I believe all history should be taken with a pinch of salt, as all reports have a certain slant put on them, be it by the writer or by contemporary standards. OH would seem to be a good place to start, but as with all history, we weren't there and so have to rely on the reports of others.

[Ozzie]

Is Pride and Prejudice any worse that it was written in its time? No, it is a look for us, back at that time.

Bean took many, many years and constantly revised, as new documents, letters, and diaries, that came to his attention. A guide to what happened and why, who and where, his Official AIF volumes are unbeatable. If a person collects and examines all possible material to create the history, then surely that is a true history, written by someone who was there, not by someone looking back with hindsight and possible prejudices because of happenings since.

It happened in their time, so they are qualified to write about it, more so than us. We can only presume to know what they thought, it was not us that wrote the letters, the war diaries. It was not us, that knew of the social restraints, political consequences etc, of that time.

Kim

[John Gilinsky]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. Reading all of them now it is clear that there is clear divergence of opinion. LOVELY! I tell my students that history is a never ending argument. I am also glad to see in other topic threads that official histories bibliographically have been covered fairly if not very well along with some critical comments on them.

Some more food for thought (or the cannons!):

What does official history do or what has it done to foster pernicious or harmful myths about the First World War?

For example:

Cold hearted red tabs tucked neatly far behind the front lines enjoying the luxuries of French estates while the common soldiers slugged it out suffered and died sometimes quite painful and horrible deaths.

Most people in England supported the war at least during 1914-1916.

The CEF gradually became predominantly Canadianized.(totally untrue)

The victory of Vimy Ridge in April 1917 was due mainly to Currie's organizational genius or at least excellence and the Canadians didn't really need outside (read British help).

The war essentially spelt the death knell of the British Empire.

The only true front was the Western Front in the World War.

Haig was a butcher pure and simple - typical of the mean aloft upper classes who were mainly swept away by the tides of mass revolt at the rising casualty lists and inflation at home.

General staffs were generally (!) incompetent inexeperienced fools trying to fight colonial wars or at least wars of 30 or more years ago without taking into account the impact of technology.

Technology specifically, chemical weapons, tanks and planes really won the the war for the Allies due to their eventual superior organization, mobilization and delivery of their industrial strengths.

The Americans were absoolutely vital in ensuring that the war ended in 1918 succesfuly for the Allies.

The Armenian "genocide" was not really a genocide (interesting to know what if anything the official Turkish histories say on this!) but an unfortunate tragic byproduct of modern war where civilians became natural victims.

The German military treated their deserters in the cruellest fashion (- look at the French Army or the British for that matter! ).

German occupation policies were terribly cruel on both western and eastern fronts (look at the French occupation in peace time of the Ruhr/Rhine, the Russians treatment of their OWN inhabitants near the front lines, and generally execution of spies by the Austro-Hungarian army...) much more so than any other belligerent.

The Germans violated international law repeatedly in the war (look at some British actions in the naval war generally - violation of neutral waters, continuing to attack a helpless enemy,....).

Hope this is enough food.

John

[MartH]

Hello

Some thoughts that might help

First of all, what is Official History?

Secondly, what was the purpose of writing it?

Thirdly, what was it not allowed to be said?

Fourthly, over the writing of a long Official History, the approach changes.

It did not start with the Great War, the Romans wrote Official history, for example Julius Caesar's: Gallic Wars, but it's not what we would now regard as Official History.

Official Histories can have several definitions, but the most usual starts and relates to the "opt out" in the front of many modern Official Histories, which runs along the lines "The authors have access to official documents in the writing of these books, but the views expressed here are theirs only" . In addition, Official Histories had access to the key people, they often had financial support and were often published under Official Offices. It is worth remembering that in this modern age that in the old days, they did not have textual search across a scanned-in document, they had to read and index many documents before writing commenced, many indexes now used are those started by the Official Historians. Furthermore until recently due to the 30 or 50 year rule these documents where not accessible to the general public.

Modern Official Histories started with the German model which was the General Staff trying to record the lessons learnt, and avoid any mistakes in the future. They also formed the basis for many training manuals. They were not written as a narrative for historians or enthusiasts but for serving officers.

Bean significantly changed this because he wrote to a different purpose, which is now more widely adopted, for example by most other countries for the Second World war. People have said that his series should have been called "Australia in the Great War". Since it cover both the Home front and the Fighting, Bean also had a joint team of civilians and (ex) military officers. One distinction from modern Official Histories is that Bean had separate Naval and Air volumes.

With reference to the Great War and the UK. Fortescue was originally tasked to write the narrative of the war (he completed one volume of a planned five), and Edmond's the confidential Staff Histories. This did not happen, but did with the Naval side, Corbett's Naval Operations and the numerous Confidential Staff Monographs.

Fortescue resigned and Edmond's embarked upon a path writing an Official History that was more narrative, but still could be used as text book for serving officers, in addition the Kirk Report written in the early 1930's tried to draw out the operational lessons learnt, the often quoted example being more training on night fighting. But the lessons learnt had to be deduced by the reader from Military Operations. Interestingly the US who thought operations on the Western front not typical of what to come, did not write an Official History for that reason, at that time.

The brief to Edmonds and his team was to provide "within reasonable compass an authoritative account , suitable for general readers and for students at military schools", as stated in some volumes.

Much debate internally was held about the Official Histories, still preserved are Edmond's and Bean's correspondence in Australia and in the Liddell Hart Collection. Some volumes were issued in thier thousands for comments, and Edmond's revised or issued addendum's, much was left out. There are two volumes in the Military series that were held back or restricted, Operations in Persia, and Occupation of the Rhineland. Persia due to the disagreements with the Indian Government, and Rhineland which was written for the re-occupation in 1945.

The Naval Operations is interesting, it is often said that there was no interference in the writing of these, I have in my collection correspondence from Jellicoe to other admirals campaigning to get Naval Operations changed, specifically Volume III. It was not changed substantially, but resulted in the opt out in the front. Both Volume I, II and III where revised to include secrets, such as the capture of German code books and the implications of Room 40 in the Battle of Jutland.

In addition, there were two restricted Volumes: The Blockade of the Central Empires and 1914-1918 and the History of the Blockade. The last one not being acknowledge as an Official History by the IWM till the late 1980's, its copy having been moved about and mis catalogued. It is by far the scarcest of any Great War UK Official History. These were recording sensitive material just like the 12 Volume History of Munitions.

Do not forget the 12 Volume Medical Official History which was writing for the first time ever about certain medical conditions, such as those that related to the war in the air. In the Falklands war there was a mad dash to get the volumes covering trench foot, which had been "mislaid".

The writing of these where of course, after the celebrated works on the Russ-Japanese War which did include a tri-partite version of the war, so it could be done in those days, and popular volumes of the Second World War were out before the Final Volume, which ever you say was the last one.

Furthermore there were two narratives covering the Evacuation of Northern Russia, and Eastern Siberia.

Interestingly the series from the Great War which are done the modern way is the Finnish Six Volume series.

If you are interested in the Great War you should not ignore the 11 Volumes of Documents on the Origins of the War 1898-1914 and the Second World War Officials which often have a chapter in the start covering the lessons learnt from the Great War.

By far the most valuable of these is the War Office 34 volume set called "The Army at War" bound in red and issued as Confidential or Secret. Examples of titles are Mobilisation, Personnel Selection, Training in the Army, etc.

All in all, if you refer to "Official Histories" that refer to the Great War there are over 200 volumes in the English language alone to consider.

With the specific debate about the value of Edmond's Military Operations, if they had been a staff narrative and we use the model of the staff narratives produced in the Second World War, where only a few had been republished in the public domain, such as Othaways' Airborne Forces and original ones are very scarce . I doubt, (but hope) that they would have been re-published, but the undertaking would have been massive.

Therefore many people would not have access to them, and the body of writing on the Great War what but much smaller and poorer.

The Official Histories are the benchmark against which all else is judged.

In responding to this thread I have draw heavily on my own research, extensive collection and volumes produced by Professor Higham.

I think the last quote should be left to that stern critic Liddell Hart who dedicated "Through the Fog of War, 1938" to Edmonds saying "Who knows more of the history of the war than he will ever write, but to those whose guidence all others who write of it will be indebted" . It still holds true.

Hope this helps, regards

Mart

[edwin astill]

I am in the process of buying the complete Official History (thanks to Tom's postal service - hope the last cheque arrived OK).

It was only on reading 1914 Vol 1 that I felt I had a reasonable grasp of events. When researching a new topic the OH is my first port of call.

Now, where did I put Lloyd George's War Memoirs?

Edwin

ps The system isn't counting my posting properly: I must be due a promotion now

[Pete1052]

Although I can't recall the title and author, about 15 years ago a book was written about the history of the history of the American Civil War--that is, how views and interpretations of the war have evolved over time.

[peter__m]

As they say...'History is written by the winners.'

[MartH]

As they say...'History is written by the winners.'

And the Losers if its Official History: Der Weltkrieg, Schlachten des Weltkreiges, Der Grosse Kreig in Einzeldaratellungen, Kriegsberichte aus dem Grossen Hauptquartier, Osterreich-Ungarns Letzter Krieg 1914-1918, etc

This is something that is different about Official Histories. The German Second World War Series, currently being published, is a work of great scholarship. It has perspective, which many before it lack.

Regards

Mart

[Paul Hederer]

And the Losers if its Official History: Der Weltkrieg, Schlachten des Weltkreiges, Der Grosse Kreig in Einzeldaratellungen, Kriegsberichte aus dem Grossen Hauptquartier, Osterreich-Ungarns Letzter Krieg 1914-1918, etc

This is something that is different about Official Histories. The German Second World War Series, currently being published, is a work of great scholarship. It has perspective, which many before it lack.

Regards

Mart

For the German history it must be regarded as a work meant to pass on the lessons of the war, as seen through the eyes of the officers who wrote it, to the next generation of officers.

It is history, but selective history and with a slant.

The French official history also has me wonering at times, "now why would someone include that?"

Paul

[auchonvillerssomme]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. Reading all of them now it is clear that there is clear divergence of opinion.

I thought we all seemed to be agreeing.

Mick

[Clive Maier]

Bona fide is a rather fuzzy term. It can mean ‘in good faith’ or ‘true’, and almost anything between. Clearly a history could be written largely in good faith without being entirely true. And of course, there is no such thing as a true history. Take a very simple incident like a traffic accident. Minutes after the event, eye witnesses will give significantly different accounts of what happened. Now consider a vast and infinitely complex matter like the Great War. Write the official account years later, grappling with considerations such as censorship, security, protection of reputations and interests, patriotism, politics, the expectations of victors, the sensitivities of allies and much more. A completely impartial, definitive and accurate account is beyond human scope.

In a book on the British official histories - Writing the Great War: Sir James Edmonds and the Official Histories 1915-1948, Andrew Green, Cass, London, 2003 – the author argues that Edmonds and his team did a good job, and one that was perhaps better than might have been expected. I hope I do not do the author a disservice. I have not read his book but I glean this impression from fragments that can be read on Questia.

If you want to read the whole thing, you have to subscribe to Questia or get the book.

[Ali Hollington]

The work mentioned above, by Andrew Green, is excellent. He examines the aim and progress of publication, Edmonds as an editor/writer and then focuses on a number of volumes. From memory they include 1916 vol 1 Somme, Gallipoli, 1917 vol 2 Third Ypres and 1918 vol 1 March Offensive.

Whilst the work overall looks kindly on Edmonds, it does show faults and lapses.

Regards

Ali

[MartH]

Hello

Over the last 90 years there have been many articles and books, of which Andrew Green's book is the latest, discussing the writing of the Official History of the Great War, most are complementary.

The real problem I have with the Great War British Official History is that the works preceding them covering the Russo Japanese, are often regarded as the finest British Official's ever written and maybe the best Officials ever written. They were at least 19 volumes in all, including maps. Why couldn't those high standards be reproduced for the Great War.

But, with people like Swinton, Wavell and Dawny involved in the production of them - maybe its a bit of a hard act to follow.

Regards

Mart

[John Gilinsky]

Again thanks everyone and no I don't think (in response to an earlier response) that everyone does agree (see my earlier post above about what I tell my students about history generally). The audiences for official history depending on the government(s) that 1) authorizes and 2) that is power at any given time have naturally tremendous impact on what is research, what is published, what is normally available and above all what is NOT researched, what is NOT published and what is NOT normally availalbe. Hidden history tellus frequently much more of what may have actually happened than the "official line."

Thanks again for your responses and please keep them coming with your thoughts and feelings along with specific citations to recommended articles etc. in this subject.

John

[AndyHollinger]

I think much of the problem is our intellectual desire for History to be final. "Yes ... this is it ... this is how and why it happened." ... We want that as little boys listen to our Dads, as students in grammar school at Social Studies time ... as kids in Movies wanting Richard Courd'lion looking like Robert Taylor ... to College profs telling us the "truth" ... we want History to be final and "clean."

It's not. It's the product of researchers and academics who have to sell their work ... who have to say something and have to entertain. History to me is like the Albert Memorial. Every time you look at it, there is another image that seems to say something new to your eyes and mind.

The OH are, in my mind an impressive monument by a society that far out weighs the value of marble slabs. It is a monument to the men, the effort and the time. It is impressive in how scholarly it is and how objective it tries to attain.

[bob lembke]

Any OH will reflect some sort and degree of spin. However, this, of course, can vary widely.

The French OH, at least as far as I have worked with it (My wife's library has a wall of 100-150 enormous volumes; I don't know if that is the entire output), is a great mass of orders, telegrams, transcripts of phone calls, etc., etc. This can be invaluable, but when I used it it seemed to be not very useful, possibly because of an effort, concious or unconcious, to simply selectively not include non-flattering info. I was researching a French fiasco, an action at Verdun where a German Flammenwerfer attack simply collapsed a French infantry brigade, which was captured in almost minutes almost intact, including every man of the three staffs. One can read thru the messages, etc. of this day and sector and it seems that nothing actually happened.

Likewise, the US Army collection of about 16,000 pages of mostly documents and orders from WW I (sold on three CDs for $22 including postage, a tremendous value), when inspected for material on an American fiasco, holding a tiny bridgehead north of the tiny River Vesle for three weeks in August 1918 at a cost of 5000 or more casualties, and there seemed to be little on this in this mass of material. The "official histories" written by the units involved were even worse. The official history of a regiment mentioned the regiment taking over the bridgehead (200 yards of a single street in a tiny river-side village) for two days in one sentence, without mentioning casualties; it seems that them moved in with 2000 effectives and moved out two days later with 1000 effectives. The next thing mentioned in the history was the little tent city that the regiment moved into for four days after these losses; a paragraph was used to describe cute rows of tents, etc. The "official histories" of the units were written and edited by the unit commanders; the unit was a National Guard division, the officers mostly current or future politicians, and clearly this and a lot of other evidence indicates that a lot of effort was expended in obscuring fiasco and casualties. I spent several months with 15-20 "official histories" and really could not create a coherent picture of what happened on that street. The only things I found that seemed to be honest were a letter written by a private and two books written after the war by a sergeant and a lieutenant. Anything over those pay grades were badly "spun", IMHO.

Bob Lembke

[Paul Hederer]

Andy wrote:

"The OH are, in my mind an impressive monument by a society that far out weighs the value of marble slabs. It is a monument to the men, the effort and the time. It is impressive in how scholarly it is and how objective it tries to attain."

Andy, I wouldn't call the German OH objective by any means.

Paul

[Pete1052]

After the American Civil War the U.S. Army Adjutant General Department published what reseachers call the ORs, short for the Official Records. They are a gold mine for researchers. The full title, citation, and a link follow.

Author: United States. War Dept.

Title: The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies

Other Title: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies

Publisher: Govt. Print. Off.

Place of Publication: Washington

Click on the URL, then scroll down, and click on the link to view the Official Records:

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html

[MartH]

The "official histories" written by the units involved were even worse. The official history of a regiment mentioned the regiment taking over the bridgehead (200 yards of a single street in a tiny river-side village) for two days in one sentence, without mentioning casualties;Bob Lembke

Hello,

I think Bob is alluding to this, but we must be very clear, a book with Official History in the title does not mean its an Official History , (see my earlier description in the thread of what constituents one). Often regimental histories were sponsored by the regiment, and called Official but that does not mean they had access to the official papers and records, nor wrote to a brief. Examples of ones that are, is the Royal Regiment of Artillery at Le Cateau by Major a. F. Becke, all the NZ regimentals with Official History in the title are not. I believe that there were only 7 NZ Official's for the Great War.

Likewise the secret narrative "Notes on the German Spy System in Europe", is an Official History, but not in the title. Its authors had access to the original documents, it is a narrative history, there is a foreword effectively saying it is to preserve the knowledge learnt about the spying methods of the Central Powers, the authors where paid by M.I.3 and the General Staff published it (secretly).

Regards

Mart

PS What are people's favorite Official History?

[Paul Hederer]

Hello,

I think Bob is alluding to this, but we must be very clear, a book with Official History in the title does not mean its an Official History , (see my earlier description in the thread of what constituents one). Often regimental histories were sponsored by the regiment, and called Official but that does not mean they had access to the official papers and records, nor wrote to a brief. Examples of ones that are, is the Royal Regiment of Artillery at Le Cateau by Major a. F. Becke, all the NZ regimentals with Official History in the title are not. I believe that there were only 7 NZ Official's for the Great War.

Likewise the secret narrative "Notes on the German Spy System in Europe", is an Official History, but not in the title. Its authors had access to the original documents, it is a narrative history, there is a foreword effectively saying it is to preserve the knowledge learnt about the spying methods of the Central Powers, the authors where paid by M.I.3 and the General Staff published it (secretly).

Regards

Mart

PS What are people's favorite Official History?

British Official History of the Russo-Japanese War--absolutely outstanding.

Paul