Unwritten books

[Cross-posted at Revise and Dissent.]

I’m often surprised by the books that historians haven’t written. The years I am researching are between two and three generations distant, yet it’s not hard to find (what seem to me to be) big, important topics which deserve to have academic monographs devoted to them, but have somehow been neglected. Sometimes this might be a matter of historiographical fashion: the cultural turn in military history is still relatively young, for example, and not all areas have been touched by it yet. In others there already exists a detailed account, which was written decades ago and seems to have obviated the need for further research. Sometimes the gap in the literature seems inexplicable. And, OK, sometimes the topic isn’t all that big and important, it’s just obscure …

Here are some of the unwritten books I think I know of in my field:

  • The Sudeten crisis. Of course, there are multiple accounts of this from the diplomatic, political and (to a lesser extent) military perspectives. Though, surprisingly, this is generally only at the chapter level — there aren’t many books on the Sudeten crisis proper (as opposed to the ‘lessons of Munich’) more recent than Keith Robbins’ Munich 1938 (1968). But what I’m thinking of is the crisis in Britain: a synoptical account of, yes, diplomatic, political, and military responses, but more importantly, the crisis as it impacted on and was perceived by the public. Public opinion, the press, private diaries and correspondence. How did the crisis alter Britain’s preparedness for war, both materially and psychologically? Maybe even the counterfactual question, too.
  • Air raid precautions. I know of nothing more recent than the relevant volume of the official history of the Second World War, Terence H. O’Brien’s Civil Defence (1955). There have been books on aspects of ARP, evacuation seems fairly popular, for example, and some on civilian morale which are relevant. But the political, bureaucratic and financial issues involved in ARP after 1935 (or maybe early 1938) had far-reaching implications, and led to debates about conscription, democracy and deep shelters which reveal ideologies at work. O’Brien is very thorough on the legal and organisational aspects, but he was writing more than half a century ago: surely there’s something new to say? And he was not much interested in popular assent to or dissent from the government’s ARP regulations, for example.
  • Transnational airmindedness.
  • The Scareship Age.
  • Britain and the Bomb. A bit outside of my field, so maybe I’ve missed something. What I’m thinking of is a cultural history of British responses to the possibility of nuclear warfare, from Lord Vansittart through CND, The War Game, Where the Wind Blows, Threads and “Two Tribes”. There are many books on American atomic culture, and rightly so, but there must be enough material for at least one British equivalent. Something like Paul Boyer’s By the Bomb’s Early Light (1985), perhaps.
  • The Blitz. As a correspondent pointed out to me, rather incredibly there have been no academic monographs written about the Blitz. Again, there’s the official histories, but it’s spread out across a number volumes: O’Brien again, Richard Titmuss’s Problems of Social Policy (1950) and Basil Collier’s The Defence of the United Kingdom (1957). And of course it’s central to histories of the home front, and there’s Angus Calder’s The Myth of the Blitz (1991), which is more about the memory of the Blitz than than the Blitz itself. And any number of popular works. But nothing by academic historians trying to pull all these threads together.
  • Zeppelin and Gotha raids. Ditto, pretty much, though in this case there’s much less to draw together because not a lot has been written about the British experience of bombing in the First World War since Barry D. Powers’ Strategy With-out Slide Rule (1976), not by academics at least.

Somebody needs to write these books! And if they could get them published in the next six months or so, I’d really appreciate it :)

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • Reddit
  • Sphinn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • email
Creative Commons License
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at airminded.org.

Possibly-related posts:

  1. Dan’s avatar

    On both Civil Defence and the Bomb, former QM PhD student Dr Matt Grant is your best bet: http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/staff/matthew_grant.html

  2. George Shaner’s avatar

    I think you just laid out your academic writing career.

    I myself am still waiting for a good institutional history of the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force.

  3. Brett Holman’s avatar

    Dan:

    Thanks, I look forward to reading his book when it comes out! Though, the literature on Cold War civil defence almost seems burgeoning compared with the WWI/WWII period — maybe due to the lack of the deadening presence of an official history? Or maybe because of the inspiration from studies of American civil defence in the same period?

    George:

    Well, some of those I might consider taking on one day, however in general the best plan is to 1. hatch chickens; 2. count chickens …

  4. Jakob’s avatar

    Dr Jeff Hughes at Manchester has done stuff on Cold War Culture and the bomb – I don’t know whether it’s the kind of stuff you’re looking for.

  5. Dan’s avatar

    Didn’t the Official History of Civil Defence go through several different authors? I don’t know whether that implies that it’s a tough subject to write about, or whether it tells us more about the inter-personal relations of the official historians. I agree that something that talked more about voluntarism versus compulsion in ARP and CD would be very useful: I also think that the post-41 culture of home defence, both civil and military, is worthy of an integrating study. Penny Summerfield and Corinna Peniston-Bird’s book on the Home Guard shows something of what’s out there, but there’s loads more to be done, particularly on the direct transition into the Cold War.

  6. Ian Brown’s avatar

    Have you read “BENEATH THE CITY STREETS” by PETER LAURIE ?.
    It was first published in the early 1970s,based on an interesting SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE article on British Civil Defence.
    The book was republished in 1979 in an updated edition.
    It covers how Britain planned and built to face the threat of the Zepplin,Bombers and ICBM.

  7. Brett Holman’s avatar

    Jakob:

    Thanks! Cold War stuff is just idle curiosity for me at the moment, so it’s all good.

    Dan:

    You’re right! O’Brien was the 5th author to try it: one died, one had to go back to the British Museum (Wormald), two didn’t even manage to produce a chapter draft. O’Brien himself wasn’t able to work at it full-time. It’s a big subject, true enough, but whether any more so than the other subjects of official histories, I couldn’t say.

    I talk about voluntarism vs. compulsion in my current thesis draft but very superficially — like a page at most — there is much more that could be said!

    Ian:

    Thank you, I didn’t know of that.

  8. Don Smith’s avatar

    This thought re-triggered by Brett’s post-blogging the Sudeten Crisis.

    Will someone please write a “contemporary” account of the Western Front air-war in the ETO in WWII.

    Rather than the now familiar hindsight-filled semi-objective analyses, I’d like to read a day-by-day (OK maybe month-by-month) book about that airwar from the POV of the protagonists. Nearest I’ve ever read is “The Other Battle” by Peter Hinchcliffe (recently deceased BTW) which is IMHO a fascinating objective presentation of the two battling sides in the Western Front night air war (Bomber Command vs Nachtjagd). But again that’s a post-war objective analysis.

    I’d be fascinated to read a two-sided history containing the prejudices, opinions and “known facts” of the two opposing forces (at that time). For example, Rotterdam would be on the one hand a terrible example of odious terror bombing, and on the other hand an obvious and regrettable snafu (whatever the German is for that) that anyone in his right mind would acknowledge as such.

  9. Brett Holman’s avatar

    Rotterdam’s an interesting one. It wasn’t reported much in the British press at the time (14 May 1940), but about week later reports appeared that thousands of people had been killed in the raid. It wasn’t until July that the claims of 30,000 dead were being circulated, coming via the Dutch government-in-exile. The true figure was something under a thousand, so whether the 30,000 number was propaganda from one side or the other (most likely the Germans I suppose, but could have been the Dutch themselves) or just a rumour, I don’t know.