"Oh!" she said. "Usually people say: 'you wouldn't understand.'"
This surprised me.
To put it bluntly, Military History is not Rocket Science. And Logistics is mostly common sense. True, common sense isn't all that common these days. And the military do have a jargon all their own that not everybody is familiar with. But my intention is that the New Thesis, like the Old, shall be simple enough for anyone with an eighth grade education to read. Jargon shall be weeded out and abbreviations, except for the most simple, will be avoided. There'll also be a list of abbreviations, a glossary and an explanatory appendix on weights and measures. Obviously, not everyone will want to read about logistics. But should be able to.
If historians cannot be widely read, then the utility of history disappears and we're just another bunch of ivory tower dwellers.
On the weekend, there was some debate in the paper between Dr Peter Stanley, Principal Historian at the War Memorial, and Dr Michael McKernan, who used to be the Deputy Director at the War Memorial before er let's not go into that. They were arguing about whether history books should be written by historians or journalists. Let's leave aside the fact that "journalist" has become a slur in this country, like "communist" used to be.
Peter Stanley, recently railed in print about publishers "choosing journalists who know nothing over historians who know their subjects". Both men felt that journalists tend to write history that is popular, shallow, uncritical and lacking in analysis but McKernan felt that this is necessary to instruct the popular reader if historians are dry, turgid and noncommittal.
Well, I intend to be both analytical and readable.
You may quote me.