abstract: In 1916, in the middle of the First World War, Britain developed and deployed the first military tanks on a battlefield, signifying a huge step forward in the combination of mechanization and the military. Tanks represented progress in technical and mechanical terms, but their introduction to military goals and military environments required the men involved to develop immaterial meanings for the tanks. Tactically, tanks required investment from tank commanders and non-tank commanders alike, and incorporating tanks into the everyday routine of the battlefront required men to accommodate these machines into their experiences and perspectives. Reporting the actions of the tanks impelled newspapers and reporters to find ways of presenting the tanks to a civilian audience, tying them to British perspectives on war and granting them positive associations. This thesis sought to identify major concepts and ideas as applied to the British tanks deployed on the Western Front in the First World War, and to better understand how British audiences, both military and civilian, understood and adopted the tank into their understanding of the war. Different audiences had different expectations of the tank, shaped by the environment in which they understood it, and the reaction of those audiences laid the foundation for further development of the tank. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis History 2018

In a cultural context, the First World War has come to occupy an unusual existential point half-way between history and art. Modris Eksteins has described it as being “more a matter of art than of history;” Samuel Hynes calls it “a gap in history;” Paul Fussell has exclaimed “Oh what a literary war!” and placed it outside of the bounds of conventional history. The primary artistic mode through which the war continues to be encountered and remembered is that of literature—and yet the war is also a fact of history, an event, a happening. Because of this complex and often confounding mixture of history and literature, the joint roles of historiography and literary scholarship in understanding both the war and the literature it occasioned demand to be acknowledged. Novels, poems, and memoirs may be understood as engagements with and accounts of history as much as they may be understood as literary artifacts; the war and its culture have in turn generated an idiosyncratic poetics. It has conventionally been argued that the dawn of the war's modern literary scholarship and historiography can be traced back to the late 1960s and early 1970s—a period which the cultural historian Jay Winter has described as the “Vietnam Generation” of scholarship. This period was marked by an emphatic turn away from the records of cultural elites and towards an oral history preserved and delivered by those who fought the war “on the ground,” so to speak. Adrian Gregory has affirmed this period's status as the originating point for the war's modern historiography, while James Campbell similarly has placed the origins of the war's literary scholarship around the same time. I argue instead that this “turn” to the oral and the subaltern is in fact somewhat overstated, and that the fully recognizable origins of what we would consider a “modern” approach to the war can be found being developed both during the war and in its aftermath. Authors writing on the home front developed an effective language of “war writing” that then inspired the reaction of the “War Books Boom” of 1922-1939, and this boom in turn provided the tropes and concerns that have so animated modern scholarship. Through it all, from 1914 to the current era, there has been a consistent recognition of both the literariness of the war's history and the historiographical quality of its literature; this has helped shape an unbroken line of scholarship—and of literary production—from the war's earliest days to the present day.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s pioneering work of fantasy fiction, The Lord of the Rings, was written in a period of twelve years, starting in 1937 during WWII and ending in 1949 a few years after the war ended. However, Tolkien’s experience with war began in 1915, when he entered combat in WWI as a young second lieutenant. Understandably, Tolkien’s war experiences have led many fans and scholars to question to what extent the World Wars influenced his works. In response to these queries Tolkien adamantly denied any connection, stating in the forward to the second edition of LOTR that “The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion.” Despite Tolkien’s flat denial of any connection between his personal war experiences and his fictional world, many critics have dedicated their studies to identifying concrete similarities that exist between LOTR and WWI. Yet, there exists a substantial and entirely ignored connection between Tolkien’s own wartime experience and his writings. More specifically, no significant study exists examining the connection between Tolkien’s depictions of medical treatments in LOTR and his own experiences with wartime medicine. These connections are particularly noteworthy because after the trauma of the Somme, Tolkien spent almost the entirety of the war as an invalid, in and out of war hospitals. Tolkien’s descriptions of medical remedies, which are richly detailed and significant to the plot, are therefore connected to his own experience. Examining each of these remedies within LOTR and linking them to medical practices used in WWI reveals previously unidentified points of correlation.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Ce travail analyse la diplomatie ouverte et secrète menée par la Sublime Porte ainsi que la conduite de guerre du Haut Commandement ottoman sur le front caucasien entre 1914 et 1918 à la lumière des sources primaires comme les archives diplomatiques et militaires et les témoignages des hommes d’Etat et militaires de l’ère de la Grande Guerre, et, refuse le mythe que l’idéologie de panturquisme a déterminé les buts de guerre de la Sublime Porte sur le front caucasien pendant la Grande Guerre. Il vise à montrer qu’au lieu de l’idéalisme d’un nationalisme expansionniste c’était le pragmatisme d’une realpolitik, formulé selon les « intérêts de sécurité » de l’Etat ottoman, qui caractérisait la politique caucasienne de la Sublime Porte pendant la Première Guerre mondiale. / This dissertation analyzes the Sublime Porte’s open and secret wartime diplomacy as well as the Ottoman High Command’s conduct of war on the Caucasian front during the period of 1914-18 in the light of primary sources such as the diplomatic and military archives and memoirs of statesmen and military commanders of the era. It refuses the myth which maintains that a Panturkist ideology determined the Ottoman war aims on the Caucasian front during WWI. It argues that it was the pragmatism of a Realpolitik formulated according to the “security interests” of the Ottoman state, rather than the idealism of an expansionist nationalism, which characterized the Ottoman policies toward the Caucasus during WWI.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the interplay between the technology, tactics and organisation of the First AIF. Warfare in the twentieth warfare is characterised by the presence of certain technologies that give it a distinctive nature and which first appeared in the Great War. It was in the Great War that the highly dispersed form of tactics that we know today emerged. Thus, it is a natural starting point not only for the examination of warfare in the era of technology but for considering the nature of technological change itself. My Australian perspective enabled issues to be looked at to a depth that would not be possible in a work of this length with a broader view. I have argued that the Great War was characterised by the problem of trench warfare, and I have traced the progress of tactical, technological and organisational developments that ultimately supplied the solutions. I have also shown how the Great War was not only a war of technology in which new technologies were introduced and developed, but also one which saw the spread of new ways of thinking about military technology. In preparing this thesis, I have inspected the actual battlefields in France, Belgium and Turkey. I have drawn on a broad range of published material, but the thesis is largely based upon the primary documents found in the Australian War Memorial and Australian National Archives.

Weird fiction criticism has been largely focused on either analyzing texts via the biographies of weird fiction authors, or concentrating on the words on the page to a degree that ignores all outside context. Although these approaches are valuable, more utility is to be found in analyzing weird fictions via their specific historical locations. This dissertation demonstrates the validity of this approach by surveying the works of five American weird fiction authors from the Twentieth Century (Lovecraft, Smith, Howard, Bloch, and Ligotti), and giving new interpretations that are based on an understanding of their placement within specific historical milieus (respectively, anti-WWI sentiment, surrealism and the problem of representation, Southern and Southwestern regionalism, pastiche and publishing culture, and metafiction and genre fiction). This survey supports the need for a new critical approach to weird fiction as described in this dissertation, and furthers our understanding of weird fiction by investigating hitherto unexplored perspectives on weird texts.

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.