Monthly Archives: January 2009

8 Comments

The Next War in the Air: Civilian Fears of Strategic Bombardment in Britain, 1908-1941

Introduction
The knock-out blow; Imagining the next war in the air; Historiography of the knock-out blow; The structure of this thesis

I. Threats

1. Origins of the knock-out blow theory, 1893-1931
The doom of the great city, 1893-1916; Will civilisation crash? 1916-1931; Conclusion

2. Evolution of the knock-out blow theory, 1932-1941
Menace, 1932-1935; Towards Armageddon, 1935-1937; The air defence of Britain, 1937-1939; Victory in the air, 1939-1941; Conclusion

II. Responses

3. Adaptation
Psychology; Politics; Dispersal and evacuation; Protection; Conclusion

4. Resistance
Air defence; Anti-aircraft weapons; The counter-offensive; Conclusion

5. Internationalism
Limitation; Disarmament; Collective security; Internationalisation; Conclusion

III. Crises

6. Defence panics
The problem of public opinion; The press in early twentieth century Britain; Moral panics and defence panics; Defence panics, 1847-1914; Air panics, 1908-1941; Conclusion

7. The German air menace, 1913, 1922 and 1935
Emergence; Reactions; Resolution; Conclusion

8. Barcelona, Canton and London, 1938
Emergence; Reactions; Resolution; Conclusion

9. The battles of London, 1917 and 1940
Emergence; Reactions; Resolution; Conclusion

Conclusion

9 Comments

I watched Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb the other night for the umpteenth time, and I found myself wondering what the ending means. Vera Lynn singing her Second World War hit 'We'll meet again' over a montage of hydrogen bomb explosions (see above). I think the key has to be that -- at least according to popular mythology -- 'We'll meet again' was a favourite song for loved ones separated by war. Here are some thoughts I came up with (or across):

  • Contrast between WWII and WWIII. No one will be meeting again after this one is over.
  • Contrast between the Good War and the Cold War. Back then we fought to save the world from the Nazis, this time we'll be using Nazis to destroy it.
  • Yeah baby! The film has sexual metaphors and allusions all the way through it; the ending then depicts the orgasmic final embrace of the USA and USSR (i.e. what happens when couples 'meet again').

It's probably none of those, of course. Any ideas?

5 Comments


View Larger Map

It's Australia Day today, so here's a map of the land down under, appropriately enough upside down. But the map itself is on a hillside in a land up over -- near Compton Chamberlayne in Wiltshire to be precise. It was carved from the chalk downs in 1916 or 1917 by Australian troops who were billeted nearby. A reminder of home, or a great big (60 metres across) 'we were here'? More the latter, I'd say, since it's not the only chalk figure carved in the area during the war, and the other ones (at nearby Fovant) are all regimental or other military badges. One of them is the Australian Army Badge, the 'Rising Sun' (zoom out to see the rest):
...continue reading

2 Comments

Last year, one of my posts was chosen for On Line Opinion/Clup Troppo's list of the best Australian blog posts of 2007. Well, the 2008 list is being compiled and another of my posts has again been so honoured! It's a better pick than last year's, I feel, though it's not that well written (it doesn't even have a proper ending). But at least Pericles hasn't popped up again to tell me that history is a waste of time or something.

6 Comments

A question about the phantom airship scares which has bothered me for a while is, how accurate are the press reports of people seeing something strange in the sky? That is, did people actually see something strange in the sky, or were the press reports made up or otherwise distorted? There is some evidence from other countries that this happened. One case in New Zealand in July 1909 involved a teacher and 23 schoolchildren, who gave their accounts to a journalist and even drew pictures of what they saw. In the late 1960s, three of the now-elderly witnesses were re-interviewed. But although they could remember the fuss at the time, they could not remember having seen anything out of the ordinary. Then there are the American mystery airships of 1896 and 1897, which were sometimes just completely fabricated. For example, the supposed crash of an airship at Aurora, Texas, in April 1897, which was almost certainly a hoax by a town-boosting journalist.

But there are also reasons to think that in the British case, at least, most press reports were accurate enough. Unlike the United States or New Zealand at this time, Britain had many competing national (or at least London) newspapers. I don't think it was usually in a newspaper's interests to just make up a story, because a rival could easily enough check it out (through its own reporters or a local stringer -- both were done) and cry foul. It might then be argued that all the newspapers were in on the lark, that they were all selling too many newspapers to spoil the fun. But newspapers were divided politically too. Liberal-supporting newspapers were generally much more sceptical than Conservative-supporting ones, and were quick to accuse the latter of credulous scaremongering -- but not lying. And the sceptics often reported the same stories bought into the phantom airships, albeit only briefly. This doesn't seem to fit with widespread fabrication (though of course, it could have happened sometimes).

There are other arguments I could make, but won't because I want to finish this post sometime. But they basically are enough that I feel I can trust that the phantom airship scares did actually have a reality outside of the press. Now comes the verify bit. Recently, the National Archives released the 1911 census data two years early. Unfortunately, you have to pay to see the full returns (I guess there aren't too many taxpayers left from 1911 to complain about having to pay again for something they had already paid for a century ago!) That's a pity, but you can still get some useful information for free: name, age, sex, location. As it happens, 1911 is right between the two phantom airships scares in 1909 and 1913. So there must be a good chance that any witnesses were living in the same place in 1911 as they were when they saw the phantom airship. Hopefully, then, I can take names from the press accounts, feed them into the census search engine and find somebody in the right location. This would at least verify that somebody of that name did exist in that place, and presumably did see something strange in the sky (or else they'd complain when their names were used in vain).
...continue reading

9 Comments


View Larger Map

Via Northwest History, Londonist has started plotting London's V2 strikes in Google Maps. Where available, the pop-up has the date, casualties, photos and links. It's incomplete, but updates are promised. See also the Flickr set of LCC bomb damage maps on which it is based, and a tool to find the five closest impact sites to a given address. All very cool. I see that a V2 hit a St Pancras church on 9 February 1945, killing 34 -- a spot I walked past often when I was staying in Bloomsbury (yet another thing I missed). Though I suppose I'm not particularly enlightened by knowing that the closest a V2 came to hitting Melbourne was Romford ...

10 Comments

This is something I've been wondering about for ages. In The Impact of Air Power on the British People and their Government, Alfred Gollin notes, but does not explain, a recurring theme: the idea that after a damaging air raid, angry mobs would string up government ministers (or other servants of the public) from lamp-posts for failing to protect them. And I mean literally string them up. It's not something I've come across much in my own sources, but it does seem that Gollin was onto something. Clearly it fits into the idea that bombing would cause civilians to panic, but the lamp-post references seem oddly specific. Presumably there was some inspiration for all this talk.

The first is from Flight, 1 February 1913 (link; the emphasis in each case is mine):

And if war should come suddenly, we most certainly shall not have command of the air -- but the lamp-posts of Whitehall may have unfamiliar ornaments. And well it might be under the circumstances.

The second is Alfred Stead in Review of Reviews, also published in February 1913 (very knock-out blow, I must say):

In the past the mistakes of Ministers have been retrieved and this country has muddled through; but with regard to a possible attack from the air there will be no possibility of muddling through, and the disorganised and panic-stricken survivors of the population of London will have the sole, although sorry, satisfaction, before passing under German domination, of hanging the guilty Ministers.

The next one refers to 1917, but was published in 1929. It's Major-General E. B. Ashmore's reflection (or lack thereof) upon learning that he was to take charge of the London Air Defence Area:

The fact that I was exchanging the comparative safety of the Front for the probability of being hanged in the streets of London did not worry me.

Finally, jumping forward a bit, these remarks were made by Lord Beaverbrook in 1964. He was talking about 1940, when he became Minister of Aircraft Production:

I was TERRIFIED. If I failed I knew it meant a lamp-post for me. I took a sleeping-draught every night.

What I can't understand is where this idea that Londoners were prone to summarily executing ministers came from. I can't claim an encyclopedic knowledge of British history, but I don't think there was any precedent for that: it just wasn't done. Maybe the idea was a foreign import? After all, the Parisian mob was the trendsetter for riotous urban behaviour after 1789 -- but they went after the nobility, not so much the politicians, didn't they? Anyway, the guillotine was the symbol of Jacobin terror, not the lamp-post. Perhaps American lynchings were the inspiration? That might fit the mode of execution better, but not the subject, unless I'm missing the extrajudicial dismissal (with extreme prejudice) of a few cabinet secretaries.

So what's going on here?

Source: Alfred Gollin, The Impact of Air Power on the British People and their Government, 1909-14 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989), 227-9, 242-3.