Thread by @garius

Okay. This gives me an excuse for a quick thread:

WW2 ended 75 years ago, but you still won't find service records online. Let's talk about why, when you're likely to see them (sooner than you think), and how I hope they'll change some public perceptions about conflict. /1

https://twitter.com/carolinehooton/status/1404749385704120324

So first off, service records are OBVIOUSLY personal data. But that doesn't explain why they're not easily searchable without specific individual or next of kin permission.

Because they're official government documents and subject to the Grigg system.

Now I'm not going to go into the Grigg system heavily, but short version:

In the 1950s, James Grigg was asked to come up with a system for classification and releasing public records. He did. It's still (mostly) unchanged today. More background here: nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/info…

You know those record drops we get every year under the "X year rule" (mostly 30)? Grigg at work.

Key thing: Grigg introduced a requirement for records of clear historical interest to be released earlier than, say... NEVER, as long as it was in the historical interest.

This is why researchers, and sites like Ancestry, have had access to WW1 records for quite some time. Obvious historical interest.

BUT, Grigg is common sense, so departments can argue their stuff should stay locked longer, AS LONG AS they can justify it to the Lord Chancellor.

Bluntly: whenever something HASN'T been released after 30 years (theoretically reviewed every 5), that means the department (e.g. MOD in this instance) have come to an agreement with the Lord Chancellor that there are valid reasons it shouldn't be.

Now that may sound sinister. But mostly, it isn't (or hasn't been). It's because of things like WW2 service records. There's a clear tension between the public's need to have access to these documents for a greater understanding of our history, and protecting personal info.

And so RIGHT NOW, the MOD has a BLANKET exemption from releasing ANY service records (without permission from that person or their next of kin if deceased) from the Lord Chancellor, which covers records of all members of the armed forces and Home Guard created before 1990.

"But what if I can't find their relatives?!" I hear you scream in researcher.

Well don't worry. The MOD have a standard rule for that: Can you prove the person was born more than 116 years ago? If so, then fine. We'll consider them dead.

You can see the problem coming, right?

Because that's NOT particularly good news for WW2 records. They're not (as) useful released individually, spread out over time, and if EVERY record requires a check on date of birth.

About 3 MILLION served in the British forces in WW2. That's a lot of individual checks.

Nor would it be useful to say "we'll release stuff 100 years after WW2 ended" because what do you define as the end? And that would STILL leave most people waiting until 2046 at the earliest.

So what is likely to happen?

Enter: the common sense agreement about WW1 records.

Because this isn't a new problem. Happened with WW1 records. And there, the National Archives and MOD came up a simple compromise:

At the point where the THEORETICAL MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO SERVED would have been older than 100, the service records were handed over to the Archive.

Assuming this is applied to WW2 records, and there has been no indication from MOD or National Archive that it wouldn't be (to my knowledge) it seems likely that we'll see WW2 service records some time in the middle of this decade.

As that's when a mid-war 18yo would turn 100.

Which, to finish, I'm looking forward to. As I HOPE it will change some of the public conversations about WW2 in the same way as the WW1 service record release has, gradually, helped change conversations about that conflict too.

By adding easily discoverable, personal nuance.

By that I mean that our public perception (in the UK) of WW2 is STILL largely formed by Dambusters repeats, blockbuster films, TV shows like Band of Brothers etc.

All of which, even when accurate, tend to cast EVERYONE in WW2 as an action hero of sorts.

That's not a criticism. You see it in the most popular (and again, almost always excellent) WW2 history best sellers as well.

We're all humans. We like BIG STORIES. And, to be blunt, many of our personal family stories about WW2 end up taking on that feel, over time, as well.

The service records will help dilute that. I hope they'll encourage more conversations about places people, places RELATIVES served that don't get the blockbuster attention.

And also the diverse roles that existed in the huge, military machine. E.g. the importance of pioneers.

Because it becomes harder to see WW2 as just a bunch of grizzled George Clooney types valiantly shooting Nazis when you can see, in black and white, your grandad serving for 5 years on military railways around the globe.

Or, for the first time, you can see where your grandmother served as a major in North Africa, and wonder why you don't see films about THAT.

The records will hint at personal stories that don't get told. Whether due to society or personal pain, and lead people to learn more.

Anyway. There you go. A short thread on archive policies and why common sense solutions to war records exist, and why I'm looking forward to the conversations that SHOULD happen when they are enacted soon for WW2.

I will 100% caveat this by saying that this is VERY MUCH intended to be a 'noobs guide'. There is stuff i've skipped over. Read up on Grigg and more if this shit fascinates you. You'll find the depth.

Also, it's TOTALLY possible an agreement on WW2 docs has slid out and I missed it so far.

I'm a small 'h' historian. Not a big 'H' one. I am not your expert guide to WW2 archive policy, merely a chap giving the 10min intro tour.

Big H's: if I've missed something: reply. I'll QT