Monthly Archives: July 2012

3 Comments

Daily Mirror, 1 June 1942, 1

Operation Millennium was the RAF's first 'thousand bomber raid', on Cologne on the night of 30 May 1942. By making a maximum effort and by using aircraft and aircrews from training units (since the Admiralty did not consent to the diversion of Coastal Command aircraft), Air Vice-Marshal Harris was able to scrounge a total of 1047 bombers, more than twice the usual number Bomber Command alone was able to field on any given night. While the intention was certainly to hurt Germany and to try out new tactics, Millennium was mostly a propaganda operation -- hence the otherwise arbitrary choice of the magic thousand. Since the heavy April raids on Lübeck and Rostock had gained very favourable press coverage, Harris wanted to follow up with a very big show indeed. So while I wasn't able to do the full post-blog of Millennium (or rather the second round of Baedeker raids which it provoked), here I will at least scan the British press reaction to see how successful Harris was in achieving his domestic objectives.
...continue reading

5 Comments

On 17 July 1917, the London Gazette published a proclamation by George V:

We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor.1

Now, this was only ten days after the second Gotha raid on London, and just over a month after the first Gotha raid.2 These air raids took place in broad daylight with little interference from British air defences, and between them killed more than two hundred people, including eighteen children at the Poplar Infants School. One result, eventually, was the Royal Air Force; a more immediate one was anti-German rioting in several London suburbs. What I've often wondered is whether the House of Windsor was another result, because before the proclamation of 17 July it used to be known as the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.3 Did the Gothas kill the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas?

The Wikipedia article on the House of Windsor does seem to imply that this was the case, but we can do better than Wikipedia. Ian Castle says:

The [7 July] raid brought a wide variety of reactions. Sections of the bombed population turned against immigrants in their midst, considering many with foreign names to be 'Germans'. Riots broke out in Hackney and Tottenham where mobs wrecked immigrant houses and shops. Moreover, such was the anti-German feeling that four days later King George V (of the Royal House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) issued a proclamation announcing that the Royal family name had changed to Windsor.4

Similarly, A. D. Harvey writes:

Ten days after the air raid King George V changed the family name of the royal dynasty from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor -- the fact that German heavy bombers were also called Gotha was an unfortunate coincidence which obviously could not be allowed to persist [...]5

And likewise Ian Beckett:

[After the Gotha raids] There were riotous assaults on allegedly German-owned property in the East End and the affair not only played decisive role [sic] in the establishment of the Smuts Committee -- and, therefore, the ultimate creation of the Royal Air Force in April 1918 -- but also persuaded King George V to change his dynastic name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.6

So there are histories which claim that the Gotha raids played a significant and perhaps decisive role in convincing the monarchy to drop the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha name. But all of these discussions are quite general, and none quote any primary sources on this point. Moreover, they are all by military historians, for whom (like me) it might be obvious to look for such a connection. Unfortunately, more detailed accounts, written by historians of the monarchy, do not seem to back them up. In particular, it looks like the search for a new name for the Royal Family began before the Gotha raids took place.
...continue reading

  1. London Gazette, 17 July 1917, 7119. []
  2. There were also two heavy Gotha raids on Folkestone and Sheerness in late May and early June. []
  3. The question of the King's surname is a slightly different one: nobody was sure if he even had one. If he did it could have been Brunswick, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Wettin, or even, for some strange reason, Guelph. []
  4. Ian Castle, London 1917-18: The Bomber Blitz (Oxford and Long Island City: Osprey Publishing, 2010), 33. []
  5. A. D. Harvey, Collision of Empires: Britain in Three World Wars, 1793-1945 (London: Hambledon, 1992), 397. []
  6. Ian F. W. Beckett, 'Introduction', in Ian F. W. Beckett, ed., 1917: Beyond the Western Front (Leiden: Brill, 2009), xiv-xv. []

Michael Molkentin. Flying the Southern Cross: Aviators Charles Ulm and Charles Kingsford Smith. Canberra: National Library of Australia, 2012. Molkentin's first book, Fire in the Sky, was an excellent history of the Australian Flying Corps; and this one looks promising too (not to mention the two he's got planned, and he's still got a PhD to finish!) He seems to have the knack for writing accessible history informed by solid research. This one is profusely illustrated too, and focuses on the epic 1928 trans-Pacific flight by Ulm (whose logbook features heavily) and Kingsford Smith.

David Stevenson. With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918. London: Penguin, 2012. I've had 1918 on the brain recently, so buying this was a, um, no-brainer. There are at least two things to like here: that by looking at the whole year it will become apparent that the 'Year of Victory' didn't look that way for most of it; and that it's not only or even mostly a battle narrative, but also looks at 1918 in its other aspects such as the naval war and the home fronts.

11 Comments

Last week, the Australian Historical Association held its 31st annual conference, hosted by the University of Adelaide. The last time I was at an AHA was in 2008 (I didn't have to go far, since it was in Melbourne); it seems to have got bigger since then. Around four hundred delegates, if memory serves; up to nine concurrent sessions as well as three smaller, parallel conferences -- that's as big as history conferences get in Australia. If anything it was too big. There was an embarrassment of riches and it wasn't possible to see everything of interest; but that's to be expected (though it would have helped if the sessions were properly streamed by subject). The real problem with big conferences, I find, is that it makes the whole thing a bit fragmented. When you chat to someone in the coffee break, you probably haven't gone to many of the same sessions, let alone each other's. It's harder to get an overall sense of what's going on (though Twitter does help now). So I think I prefer the smaller, more specialist conferences and workshops. That said, it was still an absorbing week of history and well worth attending. Here are some of the highlights (for another attendee's perspective, see here, here, here and here).

There wasn't much aviation history going on, except for Erin Ihde's (New England) paper on Biggles in Australia -- which sadly I couldn't attend! But there was quite a lot of military history. Ashleigh Gilbertson (Adelaide) looked at the dedication the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier in Canberra in 1993, and asked why then and not, say, in the early 1920s when the idea was first proposed. The usual answer, and one which I probably would have given myself, is that it had to do with Paul Keating's republican push, but Gilbertson argued that he played no part in the process. Instead it was a confluence of factors which made it possible by the early 1990s (for example, the principle in the world wars, that Australian soldiers would be buried near where they fell, was abandoned from Vietnam on). Christina Twomey (Monash) rather provocatively suggested that feminism 'saved' Anzac Day, which by the early 1980s appeared to be dying along with the diggers. But, she argued, feminist antiwar protests at Anzac Day ceremonies gave great copy to the press, which portrayed the women as extremists and fuelled the determination of veterans and their families to carry on. Caroline Adams (South Australia) looked at Australian nursing in the Boer War. It took some time for them to even be allowed into the rear area hospitals, and they also had a hard time enforcing modern aseptic discipline on the orderlies; but eventually they helped to increase survival rates in the wards. As these selections might suggest, the military history sessions were dominated by women (Yvonne Perkins noted that more than two thirds of the audience in one were female). Why this might be is an interesting question. Maybe it's the result of the turn towards war and society, but then the only paper on operational military history was given by a woman: Meleah Hampton (Adelaide) spoke about Australian infantry-artillery cooperation at Pozieres in 1916. She took as her title J. F. C. Fuller's dictum, 'artillery conquers and infantry occupies', but she showed what a difference discipline made to the infantry's success in following up the artillery's.
...continue reading

15 Comments

After six years, I've decided to try out a new look for Airminded by switching to the Elemin theme. There's still a bit more tweaking to be done before I decide whether it will stay or not, but I think it's a pretty clean and minimalist style. It's also 'responsive', which means it reformats gracefully to suit the screen size, which is especially important for smartphones and tablets. Feedback welcome!

2 Comments

I've updated my list of online sources for early twentieth century British newspapers. There are forty new titles, bringing the total up over one hundred, and more years are available for another couple of dozen newspapers.

Most of the new titles are from the British Newspaper Archive (BNA), which now has a very helpful list of all newspapers they have along with the range of years available. But I've noticed that those ranges are misleading because the years in between the start and end dates have not necessarily all been digitised. So the BNA describes Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser, one of the new titles, as being available for the years 1833 to 1949. But the only years actually available after 1900 are 1947, 1948, and 1949 (the rest will be added in due course). It's probably difficult to display information about gaps in the coverage without cluttering up the page and making it harder to use (and I do exactly the same on my list), but perhaps they could take another leaf out of Trove's book and put a little histogram on every newspaper's page to show what's available.
...continue reading

Dan Stone. Responses to Nazism in Britain, 1933-1939: Before War and Holocaust. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012 [2003]. As in cultural and intellectual responses, more than diplomatic and military ones; and not just positive responses (e.g. from fellow travellers of the right) but negative ones too. The chapter on 'the place of war in interpretations of Nazism' looks particularly interesting.

8 Comments

1,000 Bomber Raid!

This image and the one below are selections from the The National Archives' collaboration with Wikimedia Commons, so far comprising 350 examples of war art from the Second World War. These particular ones are propaganda posters (or draft versions of same) but there are also more informational ones as well as portraits and caricatures of Allied leaders.
...continue reading

So the Australian Historical Association conference is next week. My slot is on the Thursday, the session before lunch. I've written the article and as I predicted it was a tight squeeze. In fact I'm not sure if it's trying to be too much and consequently is not enough. But the good thing about this AHA/CAL bursary is that I'll have a writing mentor and two writing workshops during the conference to help me figure that out.

Now it's time to put the talk itself together. In fact I'm going to be boring and use the same plan for the talk:

  1. The scare
  2. The threat
  3. The other scares

That is, first explain about mystery aeroplanes, when they were seen, where they were seen, who saw them. Then explain them with reference to the context of 1918: the idea that a German seaplane had flown over Sydney in 1917, and the fear of an Allied collapse on the Western Front. And finally to show that what happened in Australia in 1918 was not unique to that time or that place, but was part of a Scareship Age.

Or maybe I'll swap 1 and 2 around. I don't know.

Incidentally, I've just put up a page listing my posts about mystery aircraft scares. I had intended this to accompany a post comparing the Australian 1918 scare to others, but was too busy writing the article. Numerous entries actually have no links; I'll try to fill some of those blanks in in future.