Our Journal: First World War Studies

This article examines the important role William Shakespeare played in Britain’s experience of total war during the First World War. In the first two years of the war, individual scholars, cultural critics and a rich array of associations in Britain helped rally British public opinion in support of the war. As a cultural symbol of Englishness, William Shakespeare was a perfect vehicle for this self-mobilization process. The coincidence of the three hundredth anniversary of Shakespeare’s death in 1916 and the demands of total war led to differing uses of Shakespeare as a vehicle for cultural self-mobilization in Britain. What makes Shakespeare an especially fascinating example of the role of culture in wartime is that his universality as a cultural symbol also made him a key figure for cultural transfer between Britain and other nations. Using insights from scholars such as Christiane Eisenberg and David Blackbourn, this article will also show how the British reaction to the cultural transfer of a figure like William Shakespeare re-inforced Britain’s cultural self-mobilization.

 This article is of historical significance for three reasons. First, it analyses how Shakespeare played a vital role in British cultural self-mobilization in total war as a symbol of Englishness. The 1916 Tercentenary and the British government’s relatively limited role in organizing it meant that individual scholars, cultural critics and Shakespeare enthusiasts (and the associations they were linked to) freely articulated their vision of Shakespeare and his link to Englishness. Though not directed to do so by the British government, the narrowest and most nationalistic definition of Englishness would prevail amongst Tercentenary celebrants. Second, it shows how the cultural transfer of Shakespeare to the United States was warmly received by the British public. This aided Britain’s cultural self-mobilization by helping inspire confidence in the apparent cultural ties between Britain and the United States which it was hoped would blossom into military alliance. Third, it shows how the cultural transfer of Shakespeare to Germany was harshly criticized. This cultural transfer was seen as illegitimate and critics argued that British culture had become corrupted after being received by the Germans. In addition, this reaction to cultural transfer also aided cultural self-mobilization by increasing enmity against Britain’s leading enemy. This reaction also helped provide a cultural justification for the war by pointing to the cultural flaws and limited cultural understandings of Germany. The article will also show that such a negative reaction to a cultural transfer, belied the notion occasionally expressed by more liberally minded cultural critics that Shakespeare could be claimed by any nation without reservation as part of a universal culture. In these ways, the memory of a poet and playwright who had died 300 years before the battle of the Somme began was a vital force for Britain’s self-mobilization in a total war, especially before the rise of the Lloyd George coalition in December 1916 and the more systematic approach to government propaganda taken by Lloyd George’s government from 1917 onwards.

Key Words: William Shakespeare, Great Britain, Germany, United States of America, Shakespeare Tercentenary of 1916, cultural transfer, cultural mobilization

The Gallipoli Campaign holds pride of place in Australian history as the purported birthplace of the Australian national identity and of the ‘Anzac Legend’. Australian historians – amateur, professional and academic alike – dedicate more time to researching and writing themes surrounding the Gallipoli Campaign than they do to any other topic in Australian history; it is a remarkable trend given the ultimate failure of the campaign and the loss of some 8000 Australian lives, in addition to the lives of over 120,000 combatants from other nations. Yet for all this attention, and for all that we claim to know about the conduct of the campaign, there are still some clear gaps in the historical literature. One vast gap, and the one that this paper seeks to address in part, surrounds an understanding of the labour undertaken by combatants of both sides throughout the campaign. By focusing primarily upon the personal accounts of the rank-and-file of the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in combination with the detailed Official History, this article will draw out the key features of the labour undertaken by Australian soldiers during the campaign and present a model for further historical inquiries of working cultures in the environment of work. It provides an intentionally limited scope in recognition of both the diversity of work undertaken by soldiers and of the need for further studies to draw this work out in greater detail. As a case study, this article focuses primarily upon the labour undertaken by the men of the AIF in digging the trenches (and associated activities such as tunnels, dugouts, saps and so forth) in the area surrounding Anzac Cove during the Gallipoli Campaign. Among other benefits, this approach demonstrates the primacy of manual labour in the daily lives of the rank-and-file soldier throughout the Gallipoli Campaign and emphasizes the importance of understanding this labour as part of our understanding of military service in general during the First World War.

Key Words: Gallipoli, labour, Australia, trenches, Australian Imperial Force, tunnels, First World War

Water and Empire uses canal construction and river regulation on the Danube to study the development of German imperial ambitions in South East Europe. Pre-war Bavarian plans to link the Danube with the Main were refashioned after the conquest of Serbia, becoming a plan to link the Black Sea and the Rhine and making the whole course accessible to large river shipping. The substantial costs associated with this plan and the regional advantages it would engender for Bavaria created resistance in the Reich and in Austria-Hungary, demonstrating some of the limits of the Mitteleuropa project.

Key Words: World War I, Danube, Waterways, Mittleleuropa, Bavaria, Balkans

This article examines the history of the Great War in New York City and the means by which it has been remembered and forgotten through the presence and absence of war memorials. New York City played a unique role in the history of the Great War, contributing to the war effort even before the declaration of war by the United States in 1917. The wartime experiences in the city were accompanied by political and racial tensions as fears of foreign influences undermining the city and the wider nation were ever-present. In a city which had witnessed large-scale immigration over the preceding century, fears of unrest or unpatriotic and un-American behaviour preoccupied both the city and the federal government. Nevertheless, the wartime contribution of the city’s foreign-born residents was substantial as large numbers registered for military service. As a means of reaffirming the principles of patriotism and an ‘American’ identity for the city, after the Armistice the official bodies and veterans groups worked to develop a singular expression or ‘spirit’ for the local war memorials. As the schemes for a central war memorial for the city floundered, the local memorials served as a means for residents to adopt and adapt this hegemonic expression of ‘American’ identity and form specific memories of the war for each community.

Key Words: New York City, Great War, memory, memorials, identity