Hoskins, A. and Ford, M. (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.
|
Text
137214.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. 7MB |
Publisher's URL: http://www.bjmh.org.uk/index.php/bjmh/article/view/155
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: | Articles |
|---|---|
| Status: | Published |
| Refereed: | Yes |
| Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: | Hoskins, Professor Andrew |
| Authors: | Hoskins, A., and Ford, M. |
| College/School: | College of Social Sciences |
| Journal Name: | British Journal for Military History |
| Publisher: | British Journal for Military History |
| ISSN: | 2057-0422 |
| Copyright Holders: | Copyright © 2017 The Authors |
| First Published: | First published in British Journal for Military History 3(2):119-132 |
| Publisher Policy: | Reproduced under a Creative Commons License |
University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record
Funder and Project Information
Funder and Project Information