The ghost of Butterfield and the writing of UK official nuclear history

In a major critical article about UK official history written in 1949, Herbert Butterfield, highlighted what he viewed as the inherent weaknesses of government-sponsored history and argued that all such histories should be subjected to ‘unremitting scrutiny’. Despite the resurgence of interest in analysing the wide range of UK official histories in recent years one important subject has been neglected: UK policy on nuclear weapons. This article seeks to remedy this gap in the historiography of UK official history by focusing attention on the work of the three main official nuclear historians. A number of key questions are considered: are the official nuclear histories simply attempts by governments to ‘control the past’?; are they ‘honest’ histories, reflecting the highest professional standards?; did the historians have unimpeded access to all the documents?; were the historians ‘institutionalized’?; and are there significant gaps in their coverage of important areas of nuclear policy? The article argues that while they provide significant and important contributions to knowledge, not available to those without privileged access, these histories do require cautious, constant scrutiny and challenge. Even with such scrutiny, however, it is argued that they should be regarded as ‘foundational’ studies.