| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
149468
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses an episode in the development of intelligence official history in Britain. While an official history of intelligence in the Second World War was not approved until the 1970s, the idea had been pursued seriously in 1945 by Brigadier Dudley Clarke. Clarke had been the chief of deception operations in the Mediterranean theatre, and wanted to develop an official history and film recounting some of the exploits of his unit. This article argues that Clarke’s proposals, which were ultimately rejected by the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Chiefs of Staff, showed a prescient understanding of the power of official history, recognized that complete secrecy would be counter-productive, and are thus an important early milestone in the evolution of intelligence official history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
188338
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At the end of 2021, the US Army published Modern War in an Ancient Land: The United States Army in Afghanistan, 2001–2014. It is a major two-volume history of the US Army in the war in Afghanistan. The primary authors are E.J. Degen, Director of the Army's Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Study Group, and Mark Reardon, a senior civilian historian at US Army Center of Military History. The work has 836 total pages of text and covers most intense period of US combat operations of the war. It is the closest thing that we have yet to an official history of the war and is likely to remain the closest thing for some time. The work contains valuable insights into counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. The authors see the concept as an effective tactical approach if properly aligned with strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
074807
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
184786
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article attempts a pre-history of the publication of The Transfer of Power documents through the 1960s. In doing so, it: (1) throws light on the external reasons and internal motivations at play for this pivotal production; (2) presents the other options considered and the formula eventually followed; and (3) illustrates the method by which the officials, librarians and historians involved went about including, excluding and editing the documents concerned. Through it all, the article seeks to trace the timeline, tease out the creative tensions and tackle the political imperatives of this attempt to influence historiography on the original transfer of power. Drawing upon official archives behind the emergence of this archival corpus, it concludes its analyses of this exercise of the late 1960s by drawing parallels with the emotions of the late 1940s and finds that the pride and prejudice displayed then fed the principles and pragmatism exhibited now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|