Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article compares the Historians’ Group’s national-radical tradition with Party perspectives, shedding light on historical identity transformation.
The Communist Party Historians’ Group produced many of the most influential historians of the twentieth century shaping the development of social history and wider British historiography into the present day. Given their historical impact, it is unsurprising that they have been the focus of significant interest. However, there has been little examination of their understanding of the so-called ‘national-radical tradition’. This article will compare the Historians’ Group expression of the ‘national-radical tradition’ with that of the Party centre between 1946 and 1956. The paper argues that the output of the historians was shaped by a need to mediate the worst excesses of the Cold War, and a concrete desire to ‘correct’ the inaccuracies of mainstream history. Second, it argues that the Historians’ Group’s understanding of the national-radical tradition was filtered through their interpretation of Britishness, which was expressed through the boundaries of Great Britain, rather than a broader global narrative. For the historians, the national-radical tradition reflected a wider ambition to reclaim and transform British identity as the nation wrestled with the Cold War and imperial decline. Therefore, this article will shed light on the Historians’ Group early development of a ‘history from below’ and wider social history.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gregory Billam (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: