Who Is the Enemy? The Nationalist Dilemma of Inclusion and Exclusion in Britain During the First World War

The First World War polarised British society. The British 'nation' needed a definition of the external enemy to generate internal cohesion as much as the production of modern hostility presupposed the existence of nationalism. Apparently, hostility which is nationalistically motivated is of functional importance for the cohesion of a society in war. But the construction of the nation along the lines of the dialectic structure of exclusion and inclusion implies that even its founding act encourages national splits. The manner in which nationalism generates social cohesion by excluding non-members at the same time always turns it into the expression of and the reason for internal conflicts. First and foremost, however, it was the co-existence of a whole host of concepts of the nation competing with each other for supremacy which turned nationalism into a disintegrative power in society. The co-existing national concepts by and large reflected the political factions and camps in the belligerent society. This article tries to outline the various ways in which the borderlines between the internal and the external enemy, between the hostile part of one's own society and a hostile foreign society converged under the circumstances of the exceptional burden of the First World War. At the end the hostility which was motivated and legitimised nationalistically both split and integrated British society.     

What Can Be Learned from Shell Fragments? Examples from World War II Battlefields in the Maritime Alps

Shells were the most deadly weapon used during the conflicts of the twentieth century involving industrialized nations. Astronomical numbers of them were produced and fired, making shell fragments the most common artefact to be found on modern battlefields. An understanding of shell fragments can therefore be useful to the battlefield archaeologist. This paper discusses the three main components of artillery shells and mortar shells: the body, the fuse and the rotating band for artillery shells or the tail-fin assembly for mortars. Analysing the fragments of these components can provide important information, including nationalities, types, and calibres of shells used in an area. Body fragments are the least useful, but can prove helpful if they are large, or contain markings, threads, or fragments of band seat. Rotating band fragments are extremely characteristic as well as easy to find, and a single fragment is usually sufficient to determine the exact type of shell it came from. Tail-fin assemblies are also specific of the mortar shell they were used on. Fuses are typically covered with highly informative markings such as dates of manufacture, lot numbers, or factory codes. Because the information derived from the analysis of various shell fragments is a cheap and relatively easy way to help maximize the understanding of a battlefield that is being investigated, any archaeologist working on a modern battlefield should familiarize themselves with this topic.     

The ‘Pacific-First’ Alternative in American World War II Strategy

R.J. OVERY. The Air War, 1939–1945. London, Europa Publications, 1980. Pp. xn, 263. £12.50; H. PENROSE. British Aviation; Widening Horizons, 1930–1934. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Royal Air Force Museum, 1979. Pp.viii, 340. £7.95; British Aviation; Ominous Skies, 1935–1939. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Royal Air Force Museum, 1980. Pp. vm, 318. £7.95.     

From World War to Cold War: Scandinavian media attitudes to the Soviet Union 1945–1948

At the end of the war in Europe in 1945, an alliance-loyalty attitude was predominant among the Scandinavian public voices on the Soviet Union. This attitude incorporated a favourable image of the Soviet war effort and implied that the Soviet system had undergone changes during the war. Another significant group supported the Soviet system more unequivocally. These attitudes were dominant in the Scandinavian media and public debate until late 1945 or early 1946, when opposition to and fear of the Soviet Union began to be openly expressed in conservative and social-democratic newspapers. A bipartisan attitude to the Soviet Union had not developed at this stage, as the alliance-loyalty attitude was transformed into a clearer third-voice attitude that saw the Soviet Union on the one hand as a power which was not worthy of imitation, but which on the other hand accepted that the Soviet Union was seeking international peace and cooperation. Third-voice supporters in the Scandinavian media sought investigative reports on conditions in the Soviet Union, as they claimed that the growing anti-Soviet attitudes were based on a lack of accurate knowledge. Considering that Denmark, Norway and Sweden had experienced different conditions during the war, the differences in public attitudes to the Soviet Union were comparatively small. The public third voice on the Soviet Union was clearly weakened in 1948 by the reception of more critical information on the Soviet system and the perception of news on international developments.     

The End of the Cold War on the Cold War?

Melvyn P. Leffler. A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War .     

Frankenstein's problem: Who controls the controls?

Langdon Winner. Autonomous Technology, Technics‐out‐of‐control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977. x + 384 pp. Notes and index. $17.50.