Ford, Matthew and Hoskins, Andrew (2017) Flawed, yet authoritative? Organisational memory and the future of official military history after Chilcot. British Journal for Military History, 3 (2). pp. 119-132. ISSN 2057-0422

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial No Derivatives. Download (142kB)

Abstract

Official Military History (OH) is a thorny subject. Despite a century of deploying British service personnel to conflicts all over the world, over the past 100 years the British government has commissioned very few OHs.3 Offering an interpretation of military events that is typically based on early access to otherwise classified data, OH presents an opportunity for the political and military establishment to set out a perspective that aims at legitimacy but is typically criticised as being flawed. In this discussion paper we present the conflicting pressures and expectations that frame the writing of OH and ask whether such an activity will be possible in a world after the controversies associated with the Iraq War Inquiry of 2009-11.

Item Type:	Article
Keywords:	military history
Schools and Departments:	School of Global Studies > International Relations
Research Centres and Groups:	Sussex Centre for Conflict and Security Research
Subjects:	D History General and Old World > D History (General) > D025 Military and naval history D History General and Old World > D History (General) > D839 Post-war History, 1945 on
Depositing User:	Matthew Ford
Date Deposited:	21 Feb 2017 11:31
Last Modified:	03 Jul 2019 02:16
URI:	http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/66824

View download statistics for this item

📧 Request an update