War in History

The purpose of this article is to describe and explain one important component of mid-nineteenth century British opinion on war and peace. The main avenues of inquiry are provided by the principles of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham and, in particular, the ways in which these were employed, modified and in some respects abandoned by one of Bentham’s followers, Thomas Perronet Thompson. The activities of Thompson during the 1840s and 1850s can be usefully explored alongside those of another Benthamite, John Bowring. Thompson and Bowring worked closely together on many issues. Their contribution to various organizations, debates and campaigns is analysed, and their outlook compared with that of other figures, notably Richard Cobden. Britain’s suspicion of France and wars against Russia and China provides useful case studies, illustrating the clash of ideas and the priorities that shaped policy and discussion. Thompson stayed closer to the Benthamite foundation than did Bowring, and the activities of both men offer valuable insights into the internal divisions and external pressures that plagued movements for peace and reform.

The Balkan wars (1912-13) represent, together, the first total war of the Ottoman state. During this conflict, the Ottomans endeavoured to enlist all its citizens into the war effort. The aim of this study is twofold. First, to explore Ottoman propaganda and the set of symbols it employed to promote patriotism and cohesion among soldiers and civilians. Second, by using memoirs written by army officers, contemporary press articles, literature produced by and for non-Muslims, theatre plays, etc., it will dwell upon the responses from below to this propaganda, and the reactions of the different groups inside Ottoman society to the mobilization, to the war and to the military disaster.

C.R.W. Nevinson’s place in the history of art is assured as one of the key British artists of the First World War. This article analyses the nature of Nevinson’s success and the controversy which surrounded his painting, within a context of taste and acceptability in wartime Britain. It also examines public perception and official guidance in an often dichotomous socio-artistic context, where censorship and the struggle for freedom often sat very uncomfortably side by side. The initial conclusions demonstrate, perhaps surprisingly, that Nevinson’s brand of early war modernism was actually preferable to the lies and armchair patriotism of the ultra-conservative right, and preferable also to the impenetrable abstractions of the uncompromising and now discredited left. Equally surprising are the conclusions drawn from a study of his technically conservative late pictures which were deemed unacceptable, not through any breach in academic orthodoxy, but because of their potent subject matter which, it was felt, demanded censorship. The article also questions whether or not Nevinson knowingly manipulated the censorship issue to continue his quest for publicity after the armistice.

While the process of transforming West Germany from an occupied, demilitarized enemy to semi-sovereign, remilitarized ally has been scrutinized from an international and Bonn-centred perspective, a bottom-up approach as to how reconciliation was made real sheds new light on this transformation. Peifer uses the prism of the naval community to investigate the stages of reconciliation, contrasting the policies of the Royal Navy and the US Navy toward the German naval veteran community. He analyses the very different approaches of the two navies toward their former enemies, arguing that the Royal Navy was grudging and reactive while the US Navy assembled personnel, equipment and material for a new West German navy well before the diplomatic framework for German remilitarization had been clarified.