Why reassessing British submarines can look like overcompensation

Does recent writing overcompensate for the Royal Navy's submarine force being overshadowed by other navies?

A corrective account can look excessive because it must devote so much space to dismantling the older claim that Britain was bad at submarine warfare.

An entrenched negative account of British submarines forces later writers to spend much of their argument challenging that position. Even a moderately favourable conclusion can then look like an attempt to claim the opposite extreme. Once the older account loses its dominance, books have more room to explain their preferred interpretation directly. Historical interpretation normally shifts through several works over time. The book remembered for changing a generation's understanding usually rests on earlier scholarship that prepared the ground.