- Author
- Goldrick, James, Commodore, RAN
- Subjects
- History - general
- Tags
-
- RAN Ships
- None noted.
- Publication
- March 2010 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)
In all of this, it seems to me that historians are the ones best equipped to assist in training the military in the art of selecting and maintaining an aim, the leading principle of war and both the most fundamental and the most difficult lesson to learn and apply in military operations – at all levels of war. History can show just what matters most.
But explaining ambiguity and conveying complexity, if I may call it that, needs continual attention because the military want certainty just as much as anybody else and if they are going to read and study history as part of their busy professional schedules, it must be accessible. Here it seems to me that the historical profession faces a great challenge in maintaining that accessibility without falling prey to the ‘smash and grab’ school of historical writers whose command of their narrative is greater than their understanding of the story. I recently read Congressman Ike Skelton’s ‘National Security Book List’ in the Naval War College Review – it is a very good list indeed – but may I suggest that there are some arguments in favour of a list of books that historians do not think the military should read?
I don’t propose to continue too much further with what is increasingly looking like a check sheet of admonitions. One of the risks of senior rank in the military, particularly when commanding the best part of a thousand young officers, is that exhortation can rapidly descend into pomposity. So I’ll conclude by saying that military historians can best assist the military and military education by doing their basic job as historians as well as they can. Some of us – more than you think – will be paying attention.