Abstract
The accusation frequently levelled at official history is that it is beholden to government and this relationship limits its honesty and impartiality. One example of this is the depiction of the introduction of the convoy system in the official British history of the First World War. According to one popular narrative, this came about only because determined, far-seeing politicians overrode reactionary senior admirals. The official history offered an account more favorable to the navy and, therefore, it has been characterized as a whitewash. This article shows that while individual naval officers and the Admiralty had a voice in the production of the text, their input led to a better, more balanced product, with fewer errors and a greater sense of the complexity of the issues. This furthers the argument that official history that incorporates such voices is generally better for it.
Read the full article
Members: read on EBSCO
Use the access code from this quarter's member email. Every issue since 1937 is online, with no embargo.
Lost your code? Email jmhsmh@vmi.edu or sign in at the EBSCOhost member login.
Not a member? Buy this article
A PDF sent by email from the Journal office during business hours, $10.
Through a library: sign in with your institution
Full text is in EBSCO's America: History and Life with Full Text and Historical Abstracts with Full Text, and through EBSCO Discovery.
Join: read everything, every year
Membership includes the printed journal and full online access to the archive.
Cite this article
Matthew S. Seligmann, “Sir Henry Newbolt, the Naval Staff, and the Writing of the Official History of the Origins and Inauguration of Convoy in 1917,” The Journal of Military History 87, no. 1 (January 2023): 125–144.
