All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.
Last month I attended the 2023 Meeting for the Society for Military History, in San Diego, California. I thought some folks might enjoy a "peak behind the curtain" at this conference.
The Society for Military History is the primary professional organization
for military historians. Unlike other academic societies, which are dominated
by civilian college and university professors, SMH members come from three
distinct communities in roughly equal numbers: civilian professors, military
college professors (i.e. Title 10 professors from war colleges and service
academies), and staff historians (GS employees from service history offices). This
unique membership makes the conference an excellent networking opportunity for
military history professionals, leading to intellectual cross-pollination within
the subcommunities and within the specialty as a whole.
The conference, by my count, comprised roughly 140 panels, out of those 11 panels had at least one panel dealing with an aspect of Marine Corps history.
Friday
8:30 a.m.
14 panels to choose from.
Friday was an
excellent example of how packed the schedule was. There were two different
panels I wanted to attend in the first session. One was From the Jaws of Defeat: Military
Leadership in Times of Crisis, Part 2, which included papers on the USS
Chesapeake (relevant to my Marines in the Frigate Navy book (MIFN) and another paper from
my colleague Henry Himes on his studies on USMC officer diversity efforts. I
choose to attend the other panel, since I know Henry’s work well, and I could
get info from him on the other paper. Henry came through for me, telling the
USS Chesapeake author about my work. We
later met during one of the coffee breaks and exchanged information and
business cards.
Instead I
attended "Tell it to the Marines":
Reassessing the History of the U.S. Marine Corps, I felt that professionally
this panel was one I needed to attend, especially since two of the papers
directly tied into my own paper that I would be presenting in the afternoon. The
panel was well attended, with over 20 people in the audience.
The
first paper was “Evaluating Doctrine:
Reconsidering the U.S. Marine Corps' Tentative Manual for Landing Operations” by Chris K.
Hemler, Independent Scholar. It was a well-presented paper that hit on a well-known
weakness in early U.S. amphibious warfare doctrine, naval gunfire support, and showed how it slipped through the
cracks in the ‘20s and ‘30s. A solid,
thoughtful, and professional presentation. My only criticism is that I thought
he was perhaps a touch too critical of the Caribbean exercises of the Interwar period
– given constraints of funding, safety, and the availability of equipment.
The second paper was “Duffer's Drift Comes to I Corps: The Tactical
Relevance of Khe Sanh's Hill Fights” by Mike Morris, School of Advanced
Warfighting, Marine Corps University. I wasn’t certain what to expect from this
paper. The author applied the principles behind the famous “Duffer’s Drift”
tactical study method to the battle of Khe Sanh. As a tactical study it was
superb, I thought, completely achieving its objective. He was particularly
convincing laying out the deficiencies of the Khe Sanh defensive position and
why the Marines could have done better. As history, however, he never explained
the key point – if the position was this weak, why did the NVA not over run Khe
Sanh? Did the defenders know something
he didn’t show us or did they just get lucky? SMH papers are about scholarly
possibilities, so this paper presented intriguing areas of study on a battle I
had thought studied to death. Well done.
The last
paper was “MCDP 1: Warfighting: Retrospect and Prospect” by Nate
Packard, U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College. I was heavily biased in
favor of this presentation. MCDP-1 is one of the “holy trinity” of Marine
doctrine manuals, alongside the Tentative Landing Manual and the Small Wars
Manual, but it has received far less scholarly attention then either of those
works. I know Nate, and his work was just as concise and professional as I would
have expected. He explained Warfighting purpose as a foundational doctrinal
document and its connection to maneuver warfare quite well. Then he argued
persuasively that manual needs revision, a “Warfighting 2030.”
10:30 a.m.
14 panels to choose from.
Again,
difficult to choose which panel to see in this time slot, panel topics included the
war in the Ukraine, nuclear strategy, third world conflict, atrocities, and
senior U.S. military leaders, including a paper on Cunningham, the father of
USMC aviation.
I
choose to attend New Sources and
Interpretations in Early Modern British Military History hoping to get
insights to help with my MIFN work, as the British are involved, even when they are not
actively our enemies, in nearly all of the events in the first half of the 19th
century. This panel was also well attended with over 20 in the audience.
“Medical Practitioners during the
English Civil Wars: The Evidence from Civil War Petitions” from Ismini Pells,
Oxford University, was a gory but enjoyable talk on typical wounds of the pre-modern
era. It reminded me of some of my own research in U.S. pension records for the
Barbary War.
The next paper was “General Sir Henry
Clinton's First Notebook: The Junior Officers Reading List” by Huw J. Davies,
King's College London. This was a fascinating look at a newly discovered
source, recently discovered by the author in the holdings of the “Society of
Cincinnati” in D.C. It showed the professional military history reading that
prepared one British officer for the American Revolution. NOT merely classical events studied but “recent” campaigns in Europe. An eye-opening presentation.
The last paper was “Major General Sir George Murray's Papers: Discovery, Controversy and Importance” by William Fletcher, King's College London. Insightful presentation into the papers of Wellington’s Quartermaster General (i.e. Chief of Staff).
1:30 p.m. 13
panels to choose from.
Panels
on military medicine, the OSS, the Tet offensive, and draft resistance were
highlights of this time slot.
I attended a roundtable:
Military University Presses and You:
Navigating the World of Open Access Academic Publishing, including MCUP,
Army War College Press, and Air University Press. I write official history, so
I’m not looking for a publisher, but it was good to see how the different
services handled this.
3:30 p.m.
14 panels to choose from.
This
period again had too many good panels to choose from. Highlights included 3!
panels on aspects of Marine Corps history, including one on the Vietnam War and
another on interwar innovation. Fascinating panels on music, espionage,
occupations, and women in war were also included. I was upset that I missed the
following paper, “A Failed Insurrection: The Burr Conspiracy and its Military
Connections, 1805-1807” by Timothy C. Hemmis, Texas A&M University Central
Texas. Marines were involved in the Burr conspiracy on the fringes, and I need
to find a way to contact the author so we can exchange information.
The
panel I organized, Controlling the
Littoral: Aspects of Naval Operations in the Second World War, was during
this time slot. I was very pleased with attendance, we had over 50 people in
the audience.
My own paper
was “Land, Air, and Sea: The United States Marine Corps' as a Combined Arms
Naval Force in the Second World War,” mostly a historical look at aviation and
defense battalions as a historical precursor to FD 2030. I was happy with how
it went.
The second
paper was “The Blunted Harpoon: Luftwaffe Anti-shipping Operations in Normandy,
Summer 1944” by Russell A. Hart, Hawai'i Pacific University. Russel is a fellow
Ohio State military history alum, and one of the world’s experts on D-Day. He
gave an excellent peak into a little-known aspect of the German defense, and
how it failed. The technological innovations appeared to have been bleeding
edge, but based on his presentation I think a large, better supplied, and
better trained air force would have served Germany better than the wunderwaffe.
The final paper
was “Writing the Book: Lessons Learned in the Combined Operations of the
Central Pacific Force, November 1943 to February 1944” by Andrew Blackley,
Independent Scholar. An excellent presentation on seizing advanced naval bases,
just as my paper had focused on defending them. Our papers were inadvertently
well connected - we had nearly identical slides on Ellis.
Our chair, Sarandis Papadopoulos, U.S.
Navy, and commentator: Lisa Budreau, History
Division, Marine Corps University, both did an excellent job guiding discussion
which was lively and full of excellent questions. I met a Marine colonel after
who wondered how well FD2030 was linked to Navy doctrine and future plans. I
had assumed they were tightly connected, but certainly a question worth asking.
All in all, a great way to end the first day of the conference.
For the Saturday/Sunday at the conference, look here.
All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.
No comments:
Post a Comment