Once a fundamental aspect of American life, by 1920 the 18th Amendment to the constitution prohibited consumption of alcoholic beverages. Prohibition challenged traditional dogmas and called into question what constituted social progress. Throughout much of the debate over ratification of the 18th Amendment, themes of patriotism, progress, science and personal liberties were invoked by both those in favor of prohibition (Drys) and those opposed to the amendment (Wets). This paper will attempt to explain how dry forces crafted a successful wartime political campaign which ultimately led to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.

Once a fundamental aspect of American life, by 1920 the 18th Amendment to the constitution prohibited consumption of alcoholic beverages. Prohibition challenged traditional dogmas and called into question what constituted social progress. Throughout much of the debate over ratification of the 18th Amendment, themes of patriotism, progress, science and personal liberties were invoked by both those in favor of prohibition (Drys) and those opposed to the amendment (Wets). This paper will attempt to explain how dry forces crafted a successful wartime political campaign which ultimately led to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.

The First World War and the Australian Imperial Force have generated thousands of books and articles. Many studies adhere to the emphasis of C.E.W. Bean, and recount the history of the infantry or a particular infantry battalion. Others examine both the short term and long-lasting effects of the war on the Australian psyche. Some historians have acknowledged that a particular group of non-fighting combatants has been neglected, but generally, this group has been employed in dangerous and difficult pursuits. Very few historians have studied the roles of non-fighting combatants whose contribution is considered as lacklustre, such as the Australian Field Bakeries. When I began my research, I could not understand why the Australian Field Bakeries did not play any part in the historiography of World War One. An examination of the Anzac legend revealed an emphasis on the characteristics of the Anzac, especially masculinity and heroism. I argue that the bakers’ employment might be considered as being situated within the woman’s sphere and therefore unmasculine, whilst that same employment did not offer the chance for acts of heroism. Because of an emphasis on the exciting exploits of the infantry within Anzac historiography, the Australian Field Bakeries and their role as support troops have been ignored and omitted. Comparing demographic statistics and the war experiences, values and attitudes of the Australian Imperial Force and the bakers, I conclude that the bakers of the Australian Field Bakeries were extraordinarily similar to the men of the Australian Imperial Force. Only those experiences and statistics directly related to the two groups’ specific fields of employment are significantly different. I argue that specialised skills and a perceived lack of masculinity and heroism have seen the men of the Australian Field Bakeries excluded from all existing Anzac historiography.

No description available.

L'« expérience originelle » de l'État de droit moderne avec un état d'exception prolongé fut la Première Guerre mondiale. L'étude ici proposée porte sur cette « expérience originelle » et sa gestion en France et en Allemagne pendant l'état d'exception de 1914/18, ainsi que sur son règlement envisagé en 1918/19. Le but de l'étude est d'identifier, dans un premier temps, les origines des différents projets d'ordre international pour l'après-guerre conçus en 1918 (traités de paix à l'Est) et 1919/20 (traités issus de la conférence de paix de Paris). Ces origines sont recherchées non pas dans le droit international d'avant-guerre, mais dans le droit interne des belligérants pendant la guerre ; la partie majeure de l'étude y est consacrée. Dans un deuxième temps, seront à discerner les catégories du juste et de l’injuste, du comportement étatique légitime ou illégitime, qui sont à la base du règlement de la responsabilité de l'État dans les traités de paix. L'« expérience originelle » de nos sociétés contemporaines lié à ce problème fut la Première Guerre mondiale. L'étude ici proposée porte sur cette « expérience originelle » et sa gestion en France et en Allemagne pendant l'état d'exception de 1914/18, ainsi que sur son règlement envisagé en 1918/19. Le but de l'étude est d'identifier, dans un premier temps, les origines des différents projets d'ordre international pour l'après-guerre conçus en 1918 (traités de paix à l'Est) et 1919/20 (traités issus de la conférence de paix de Paris). Ces origines sont recherchées non pas dans le droit international d'avant-guerre, mais dans le droit interne des belligérants pendant la guerre ; la partie majeure de l'étude y est consacrée. Dans un deuxième temps, seront à discerner les catégories du juste et de l’injuste, du comportement étatique légitime ou illégitime, qui sont à la base du règlement de la responsabilité de l'État dans les traités de paix. En dépit des deux autres ruptures du 20ème siècle (1945 et 1989), un grand nombre d'éléments-clés sur lesquels notre ordre international actuel est fondé date de 1919 – notamment celles concernant la responsabilité de l'État envers les individus et vice versa (responsabilisation du citoyen pour le comportement de son gouvernement). Cela constitue l'intérêt historico-politique de cette étude qui porte sur un objet relevant de l'histoire du droit : dans le corpus de règles établi pour mettre fin à l'état d'exception généralisé après quatre ans, peuvent être identifiés des conceptions de l'État et de l'ordre international qui ont eu un impact perceptible sur la longue durée, en partie jusqu'à nos jours. / This work explores the state's legal responsibility for the expropriation or destruction of property in wartime. This responsibility is analysed in a two-fold manner: First, regarding its evolution at the national level (government liability, "Staatshaftung"), and second regarding its evolution within internaional law (state responsibility, "Staatenverantwortlichkeit"). With respect to the first aspect, wartime laws and judgements are taken into account (1914-1918), while with respect to the second, the elaboration of the treaties of Bucarest, Berlin and Brest-Litovsk (1918) and Versailles (1919) is analysed. By considering these aspects, the work aims to establish whether there was a provable link between the evolution of national and international law, and to what extent there has been a “spill-over” from the national into the international legal sphere. The primary research question is thus: To what extent did German and French government liability before 1918 shape these states' concept of state responsibility after 1918? This dissertation aims to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between state and the individual in modern society, as it was conceived in domestic and international law. Legal norms in these two realms existed before, throughout and after the war; however, there is a “before” and an “after” in the sense that the war brought about some major shifts in the legal convictions held by the authorities. The war has led to both securitisation and juridification, depending on the issue, and certain decisions – especially in juridification – from the years of 1914-1919 still shape our (international) legal order today. This is particularly true regarding sanctions directed against non-state entities. / Die „Urerfahrung“ des modernen Rechtsstaats mit dem Ausnahmezustand war der Erste Weltkrieg. Geleitet von der Frage nach der rechtlichen Verantwortung des Staates während des Ausnahmezustandes (1914-1918) und bei der Abwicklung desselben (1918/19) soll dieser „Urerfahrung“ und ihrer Handhabung in Deutschland und Frankreich nachgegangen werden. Ziel der Untersuchung ist zunächst die Identifikation der Wurzeln der verschiedenen internationalen Rechtsordnungsentwürfe von 1918 (Ostfriedensverträge) und 1919/20 (Pariser Vorortverträge). Diese Wurzeln werden weniger im Völkerrecht der Vorkriegszeit als vielmehr in der Entwicklung des Staatsrechts während des Krieges vermutet, welcher der Hauptteil der Arbeit gewidmet ist. Darauf aufbauend soll dargelegt werden, welche Kategorien von Recht und Unrecht, von legitimem und illegitimem Staatshandeln den einzelnen Leitsätzen zur rechtlichen Verantwortung des Staates zugrunde lagen, die in den Friedensverträgen festgehalten worden sind. Trotz der zwei weiteren großen Zensuren des 20. Jahrhunderts – 1945 und 1989 – lassen sich mehrere Grundelemente unserer gegenwärtigen internationalen Ordnung gerade auf diejenigen Entscheidungen zurückführen, die schon um 1919 gefällt worden sind – und hier besonders auf die Entscheidungen zur Verantwortung des Staates vor dem Individuum. Darin liegt die politikhistorische Relevanz des hier bearbeiteten rechtshistorischen Gegenstands: In den Regelwerken, die dem vierjährigen Ausnahmezustand ein Ende setzen sollten, kamen Staats- und Ordnungsvorstellungen zum Tragen, die eine langfristige Wirkung entfaltet haben, zum Teil bis in unsere Gegenwart.

This thesis concerns the study of ethnic minority groups and their national identity formation process as a result of their collective experience during, and understanding of, World War One. The groups observed are Black Americans and German Americans from the United States, as well as the Irish from Great Britain. Each groups’ identity progression and understanding of the war differed from their counterparts, while having still exhibited similarities of which highlight how different forms of nationalism played a role in the lives of ethnic minorities. A Marxist theoretical framework of nationalism and tradition is applied through the works of Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm and Terrance Ranger. The results convey how American nationalism served to further solidify a greater sense of American national identity for the respective ethnic groups, though through a process of apathy and coercion. British nationalism revealed how its version of the phenomena lacked sufficient proximity to the respective group, thus resulting in the Irish rejection of the British nation and its form of identity. These results further illustrate how both nations were in many ways sovereign and limited in their ability to form a political and social community with these groups. Lastly, it is revealed that the internal differences in each group followed a universal trend wherein those group members who served in combat roles during the war, inhibited a greater sense of national identity than those who did not see combat. This result serves as the foundation for my new theory, known as the Fog of War Complex.

Between 1915 and 1918, the Swedish Red Cross organised transportation and exchanges of prisoners of war between Russia, Germany, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During 1917, some particularly sick prisoners were sent to Norway and Denmark to be hospitalised. This paper studies the aid effort to prisoners of war by the Swedish Red Cross during World War One by studying their work with these prisoner exchanges. By doing this, the study aims to answer the question of how the Swedish Red Cross cooperated with states to conduct exchanges of prisoners of war. This is done through a qualitative method of analysis of the material, during which Nye’s theory of interdependence is employed as a tool for the analysis. The four dimensions of interdependence (sources, benefits, relative costs, and symmetries) are used to generate operationalized research questions and to analyse the results. These transportations were a massive administrative undertaking for the Swedish Red Cross and required cooperation from all involved states to run smoothly. The Russian revolution and subsequent civil war, lack of coal and oil, and animosity between the belligerent nations created problems repeatedly threatening the cooperations. The study concludes that the cooperation was based on administrational work by the Swedish Red Cross together with material, financial and medical contributions from the states. The study also concludes that the main sources of interdependence were the mutual need to exchange prisoners between the belligerent states. For them the main benefit was getting their compatriots back; for the Red Cross and neutral states, it was recognized as a humanitarian actor. The Swedish Red Cross and the neutral states were the more sensitive actors, while the belligerent states were the more vulnerable actors. The cooperation was relatively symmetrical but slightly skewed in the favour of the belligerent states

Writers from both world wars, concerned with the representation of war, wrestled with the predicament of partial sight. Their work reveals the problematic dichotomy that exists between the individual’s selective range of vision and the immense scale of conflict. Central to this authorial dilemma is the question of the visual frame: how do you contain – within the written word – sight that resists containment and expression? The scale of the two world wars accentuated the representative problem of warfare. This thesis, by examining a wide range of World War One and World War Two literature, explores the varied literary responses to the topical relationship between sight and reality in wartime. It examines the war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Ford Madox Ford’s tetralogy Parade’s End, The Return of the Soldier by Rebecca West, Elizabeth Bowen’s The Heat of the Day, and Virginia Woolf’s novels Mrs Dalloway and Between the Acts alongside less well-known works such as David Jones’s prose-poem In Parenthesis, the two short stories ‘The Soldier Looks for His Family’ by John Prebble and ‘The Blind Man’ by D.H. Lawrence, as well as William Sansom’s collection of short stories Fireman Flower, and Louis Simpson’s war poetry. This thesis, by focussing on the inherent difficulties of reconciling perception and representation in war, interrogates the boundaries of sight and the limits of representation. The changing place of sight in writing from the two world wars is examined and the extent to which discourses of vision were shaped and developed, in the early decades of the twentieth century, by war experience is explored. The critical containment and categorisation of sight that often dominates readings of sight in texts from both world wars is questioned suggesting the need for a more flexible understanding of, and approach towards, sight.

F.W. Harvey’s poetry was more popular during the First World War than many – if not most – of those whom we celebrate as ‘the war poets’ today. He is unique among the poets of that war for his insight into the life of the British POW in Germany, and for the influence of his work in the first of the British trench journals, the 5th Gloucester Gazette. Yet, he has received little national attention since his death in 1957, and scholarly work on his life is lacking, largely owing to a deficit of publicly-available primary sources and original material regarding his life and works. This has resulted in a failure to place him properly within the literary canon of the First World War. The recent discovery of Harvey’s papers allows us to examine his life and his contemporary cultural impact, and more fully to evaluate the value of his work and what it tells us about the First World War experience. Using Harvey’s papers, this biographical study will reconstruct the historical details of his life as they relate to the First World War. Concurrently, it will develop our understanding of his war-related work. This will demonstrate Harvey’s influence during the war, first as a trench poet, then as the poetic voice of the British POW. It will also examine how Harvey’s work continued to be affected by the war in the years after the armistice. The result will be a greater appreciation of the life and importance of a First World War poet whose voice was in danger of being lost to time.

Gegenstand der vorliegenden Dissertationsschrift ist das zumeist als Revolution of Military Affairs wahrgenommene Auftreten der ersten Panzer. Diese „Tanks“ der Jahre 1916-1918 mit den ihnen innewohnenden Möglichkeiten, das blutige Patt des Stellungskrieges an der Westfront aufzuheben, beeinflußten der Legende nach das Kriegsende 1918 erheblich. Die Alliierten erkannten das Potential der neuen Waffe, ließen sich von frühen Rückschlägen nicht entmutigen und besaßen gegen Ende des Krieges eine gepanzerte Speerspitze ihrer nun modern auf Feuer und Bewegung ausgelegten Offensiven, denen man deutscherseits angeblich nichts entgegenzusetzen hatte. Die deutsche Führung, anscheinend geprägt durch technikfeindliche und geradezu blauäugig agierende Köpfe, verpaßte bis zuletzt ignorant jede Chance, ihrerseits auf diese die Landkriegführung bis heute prägende Waffe zu setzen und selbst Tanks in Massen zu produzieren. Im Sommer 1918 kollabierten die deutschen Linien, als britische, französische und amerikanische Tankgeschwader unaufhaltsam auf sie und ihre technisch und taktisch plötzlich hoffnungslos unterlegenen Verteidiger einstürmten. Inwieweit diese plausibel erscheinende Darstellung den Realitäten in höchsten Führungskreisen beider Seiten und auf den Gefechtsfeldern entsprach, ist eine grundsätzliche Frage innerhalb der vorliegenden Dissertation. Anhand der operationsgeschichtlichen Untersuchung der namhaftesten Tankeinsätze zwischen dem ersten Auftreten der neuen Waffe im September 1916 und ihrem Siegeslauf im Sommer 1918 wird geklärt, welcher Anteil am alliierten Sieg den frühen Panzern zuzubilligen ist und inwiefern sich die deutsche Führung tatsächlich eines letztlich katastrophalen „Versagens“ schuldig machte. / The central theme of this thesis is the appearance on the battlefield of the first armoured vehicles, an event generally held to have been a revolution in military affairs. The exploits of these so-called ‘tanks’ of 1916 -1918, which had the inherent capability of breaking the bloody deadlock of trench warfare, contributed greatly during the interwar period to the promotion of a myth, which went roughly as follows: The Allies had recognised the potential of this new weapon; did not allow themselves to be deflected by early setbacks and so, towards the end of the war, their modern offensives, founded on the joint principles of fire and manoeuvre, possessed an armoured spearhead, against which the Germans had no answer. The German High Command, seemingly technophobic and blundering, ignored right to the bitter end, the chance to throw their weight behind the development and mass production of weapons, which to this day play a key role in land warfare. In the summer of 1918 the German lines simply folded in the face of British, French and American tank squadrons which rolled forward unstoppably to assault a defence which was suddenly and hopelessly tactically and technically inferior. The fundamental question of this thesis is to what extent this apparently plausible representation of the facts actually corresponds to the reality, both in the High Commands of both sides and on the battlefield. On the basis of historical-operational analysis of the most notable tank actions between the first appearance of the new weapon in September 1916 and its advance to victory during the summer of 1918, the thesis explores how much credit for the Allied victory is due to these early armoured vehicles and to what extent the German High Command itself was actually responsible for this final, catastrophic failure.