Pub Date : 2021-06-23DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0205
World War II was unprecedented both in its magnitude and its horror. The massive conflict—which lasted six years, spread across thirty countries, and involved some seventy million combatants—left more dead, both civilian and military, than any other war in history. As if the brutality of the Blitz, Bastogne, Guadalcanal, the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of Dresden, the D-Day invasion, and countless other instances of death and carnage were not enough, there were Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and, of course, the unfathomable evil of the Holocaust. The nature of that evil, the stark polarization of the world between the Allies and Axis powers, the storytelling potential of men and women confronting the dangers of combat or the challenges of life on the home front, and the propagandistic capacities of the film medium all help to explain the powerful pull that World War II has exerted on filmmakers. Yet another factor is the sheer diversity of the contexts in which the war unfolded. There were the multiple theaters of war in Europe, the Pacific, and North Africa; the expansion of naval and aerial warfare in addition to land combat; new and frightening technologies of destruction culminating in the apocalyptic power of the atom bomb; widespread social changes resulting from the war; the exploits of antifascist Resistance movements; and the multiple dimensions of the Holocaust. These varied and numerous facets of the war seem almost to demand some form of cinematic representation—the result being an enormous, and still growing, number of films dealing with World War II. That the war’s beginning coincided with the maturation of the global film industry—and, ironically, with what has often been called Hollywood’s greatest year, 1939—only underscores the seemingly inevitable association of this war with its renderings on screen. Recent scholarship on World War II has shifted its emphasis from those in high command to the subaltern perspectives of the rank and file; a similar pattern has gradually emerged in film. To be sure, some earlier productions also emphasized the perspectives of common soldiers—two famous examples are The Story of GI Joe and Ballad of a Soldier. But this tendency has become more prevalent in recent years, so that once popular movies about generals (e.g., Patton and Tora, Tora, Tora) have given way to films that focus on enlistees and lower-ranking officers, such as Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Dunkirk, and The Pacific, among others. Moreover, films today increasingly depict the participation of women and racial minorities in the war (as in Pearl Harbor and Fury). Black fighting units especially have received more attention in such films as Red Tails, The Tuskegee Airmen, and Miracle at St. Anna. These and other patterns of historical continuity and change in films of World War II receive attention in the scholarly studies reviewed in this essay. And, not surprisingly, the scholarship about World War II films is immense. To kee
{"title":"World War II in Film","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0205","url":null,"abstract":"World War II was unprecedented both in its magnitude and its horror. The massive conflict—which lasted six years, spread across thirty countries, and involved some seventy million combatants—left more dead, both civilian and military, than any other war in history. As if the brutality of the Blitz, Bastogne, Guadalcanal, the siege of Leningrad, the bombing of Dresden, the D-Day invasion, and countless other instances of death and carnage were not enough, there were Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and, of course, the unfathomable evil of the Holocaust. The nature of that evil, the stark polarization of the world between the Allies and Axis powers, the storytelling potential of men and women confronting the dangers of combat or the challenges of life on the home front, and the propagandistic capacities of the film medium all help to explain the powerful pull that World War II has exerted on filmmakers. Yet another factor is the sheer diversity of the contexts in which the war unfolded. There were the multiple theaters of war in Europe, the Pacific, and North Africa; the expansion of naval and aerial warfare in addition to land combat; new and frightening technologies of destruction culminating in the apocalyptic power of the atom bomb; widespread social changes resulting from the war; the exploits of antifascist Resistance movements; and the multiple dimensions of the Holocaust. These varied and numerous facets of the war seem almost to demand some form of cinematic representation—the result being an enormous, and still growing, number of films dealing with World War II. That the war’s beginning coincided with the maturation of the global film industry—and, ironically, with what has often been called Hollywood’s greatest year, 1939—only underscores the seemingly inevitable association of this war with its renderings on screen. Recent scholarship on World War II has shifted its emphasis from those in high command to the subaltern perspectives of the rank and file; a similar pattern has gradually emerged in film. To be sure, some earlier productions also emphasized the perspectives of common soldiers—two famous examples are The Story of GI Joe and Ballad of a Soldier. But this tendency has become more prevalent in recent years, so that once popular movies about generals (e.g., Patton and Tora, Tora, Tora) have given way to films that focus on enlistees and lower-ranking officers, such as Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Dunkirk, and The Pacific, among others. Moreover, films today increasingly depict the participation of women and racial minorities in the war (as in Pearl Harbor and Fury). Black fighting units especially have received more attention in such films as Red Tails, The Tuskegee Airmen, and Miracle at St. Anna. These and other patterns of historical continuity and change in films of World War II receive attention in the scholarly studies reviewed in this essay. And, not surprisingly, the scholarship about World War II films is immense. To kee","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82693598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0202
D. E. Delaney
In September 1939, a committee of the British War Cabinet estimated that the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa could raise fourteen divisions of the fifty-five-division field force it hoped the British Commonwealth would assemble for the war against Germany and the other Axis powers. The British got what they were looking for, and then some. The Canadians raised three infantry divisions, two armored divisions, and two independent armored brigades. They also raised another three divisions for home defense, one of which was designated for the invasion of Japan when the war in the Far East ended in August 1945. The Australians generated four infantry divisions and one armored division for the 2nd Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF), plus another two armored cavalry divisions and eight infantry divisions (not all of which were fully manned) for the militia and home defense. Two of those militia infantry divisions fought in the New Guinea campaign. The 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2 NZEF) comprised one infantry division (later converted to an armored division), which fought in the Mediterranean, and a two-brigade infantry division that deployed to the Pacific theater, where it worked under American command until its disbandment in October 1944. The South Africans raised two expeditionary infantry divisions, one of which fought in East Africa and the Western Desert until converted to an armored division and deployed to Italy in 1943. The other division fought in the Western Desert from mid-1941 until its capture at Tobruk in June 1942. The first serious studies of the dominion armies in World War II were the official histories, commissioned by the respective governments to record what their soldiers had done and accomplished. The works remain solid records of what happened, and, cost and profit being less of a concern for government publication projects than they are for independent presses, the official histories are almost invariably better illustrated with clear maps and well-chosen photographs than the histories that followed. A generation of dominion historians since the 1970s has continued to explore their nations’ wartime histories, challenge long-held assumptions, and fill in historical gaps left by the official histories, most along purely national lines. Combined with the official histories, these new national histories have formed a solid foundation for a growing number of transnational examinations of the British Commonwealth armies since the mid-2000s.
{"title":"Dominion Armies in World War II","authors":"D. E. Delaney","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0202","url":null,"abstract":"In September 1939, a committee of the British War Cabinet estimated that the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa could raise fourteen divisions of the fifty-five-division field force it hoped the British Commonwealth would assemble for the war against Germany and the other Axis powers. The British got what they were looking for, and then some. The Canadians raised three infantry divisions, two armored divisions, and two independent armored brigades. They also raised another three divisions for home defense, one of which was designated for the invasion of Japan when the war in the Far East ended in August 1945. The Australians generated four infantry divisions and one armored division for the 2nd Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF), plus another two armored cavalry divisions and eight infantry divisions (not all of which were fully manned) for the militia and home defense. Two of those militia infantry divisions fought in the New Guinea campaign. The 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2 NZEF) comprised one infantry division (later converted to an armored division), which fought in the Mediterranean, and a two-brigade infantry division that deployed to the Pacific theater, where it worked under American command until its disbandment in October 1944. The South Africans raised two expeditionary infantry divisions, one of which fought in East Africa and the Western Desert until converted to an armored division and deployed to Italy in 1943. The other division fought in the Western Desert from mid-1941 until its capture at Tobruk in June 1942. The first serious studies of the dominion armies in World War II were the official histories, commissioned by the respective governments to record what their soldiers had done and accomplished. The works remain solid records of what happened, and, cost and profit being less of a concern for government publication projects than they are for independent presses, the official histories are almost invariably better illustrated with clear maps and well-chosen photographs than the histories that followed. A generation of dominion historians since the 1970s has continued to explore their nations’ wartime histories, challenge long-held assumptions, and fill in historical gaps left by the official histories, most along purely national lines. Combined with the official histories, these new national histories have formed a solid foundation for a growing number of transnational examinations of the British Commonwealth armies since the mid-2000s.","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75522730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0200
David Luhrssen
Vietnam was the focal point of a larger set of conflicts that broke out in Indo-China in 1945 and resulted by 1975 with Cambodia and Laos as well as Vietnam falling under the rule of various Communist parties. The first Vietnam War (1945–1954) pitted French colonists and their local allies against Vietnamese Communist rebels. It ended with the French withdrawal from Indo-China and the partition of Vietnam into two states, Communist North Vietnam and pro-Western South Vietnam. In the second Vietnam War (1955–1975), North Vietnam and Communist rebels in the south fought against the US-backed South Vietnamese regime. No conflict in American history since the Civil War was as divisive as Vietnam, yet the war was widely supported until US ground forces entered the fray (1965). Mounting casualties and the threat of conscription fueled a growing antiwar movement that forced Washington to find a way out of the war. After the United States withdrew in 1973, Communist forces overran South Vietnam and reunited the country under their rule in 1975. Films about the Vietnam War were produced in both North and South Vietnam, the Soviet Union (which armed the North) and South Korea and Australia (both dispatched troops to support the South). With few exceptions, many were seldom seen outside their lands of origin. With Hollywood’s dominance of movie markets in much of the world, American stories about the war dominated the imagination of moviegoers in the United States and most other countries. Hollywood took only slight interest in Vietnam during the war’s early years. The first major motion picture about American combat in Vietnam, John’s Wayne’s pro-war The Green Berets (1968), was a box-office hit but universally derided by critics. With the war’s increasing unpopularity and unsuccessful conclusion, the subject was deemed “box-office poison” by the studios for several years. By the late 1970s a rising generation of filmmakers embraced Vietnam as material for displaying American heroism, explaining the US defeat or exploring the ethical basis for war. The commercial breakthrough for Vietnam War movies was achieved by director Sidney Furie’s The Boys in Company C (1978), Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter (1978), and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979). Each reflected in different ways America’s disillusionment and the physical and psychological toll charged to the men who served in the conflict. The theme continued with Platoon (1986), directed by a Vietnam combat veteran, Oliver Stone. A counter-trend appeared with Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo series (1982–2019), which amplified the resurgent nationalism that began under the Reagan administration. Providing a third perspective, Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) presented the war unemotionally as a fact of history. In the 21st century, movies on the Vietnam War continue to be made, if in diminished number. Characteristic of recent films, We Were Soldiers (2002) validates the experience of US ser
第一次越南战争(1945-1954)是法国殖民者及其当地盟友对抗越南共产党叛军的战争。在第二次越南战争(1955-1975)中，北越和南方的共产主义叛军与美国支持的南越政权作战。自南北战争以来，美国历史上没有任何一场冲突像越南战争那样引起如此大的分歧，然而在美国地面部队参战(1965年)之前，这场战争得到了广泛的支持。不断增加的伤亡和征兵的威胁推动了反战运动的发展，迫使华盛顿找到了摆脱战争的方法。1973年美国撤军后，共产党军队占领了南越，并于1975年统一了越南。关于越南战争的电影在北越和南越、苏联(为北越提供武装)、韩国和澳大利亚(都派遣军队支持南越)都有制作。除了少数例外，许多人很少离开他们的原籍地。随着好莱坞在世界大部分地区的电影市场占据主导地位，美国关于战争的故事主导了美国和大多数其他国家电影观众的想象。在战争初期，好莱坞对越南的兴趣不大。第一部关于美国在越南作战的主要电影是约翰·韦恩(John 's Wayne)的亲战电影《绿色贝雷帽》(The Green Berets, 1968)，票房大卖，但普遍受到评论家的嘲笑。随着战争越来越不受欢迎和不成功的结局，电影公司几年来一直认为这个主题是“票房毒药”。到20世纪70年代末，新一代电影人将越南视为展示美国英雄主义、解释美国战败或探索战争道德基础的素材。越战电影的商业突破是由导演西德尼·富里的《C公司的男孩》(1978)、迈克尔·西米诺的《猎鹿人》(1978)和弗朗西斯·福特·科波拉的《现代启示录》(1979)实现的。每一个都以不同的方式反映了美国的幻灭，以及在冲突中服役的人在身体和心理上付出的代价。越战老兵奥利弗·斯通(Oliver Stone)执导的《野战排》(Platoon, 1986)延续了这一主题。西尔维斯特·史泰龙(Sylvester Stallone)的《兰博》系列(1982-2019)出现了相反的趋势，放大了里根政府时期开始的民族主义复兴。斯坦利·库布里克(Stanley Kubrick) 1987年的《全金属夹克》(Full Metal Jacket)提供了第三种视角，将战争作为一个历史事实无情地呈现出来。在21世纪，关于越南战争的电影仍在继续制作，尽管数量有所减少。作为最近几部电影的特点，《我们曾是战士》(2002)在赞扬敌人的英雄主义的同时，也证实了美国军人的经历。
{"title":"Vietnam War in Hollywood Feature Films","authors":"David Luhrssen","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0200","url":null,"abstract":"Vietnam was the focal point of a larger set of conflicts that broke out in Indo-China in 1945 and resulted by 1975 with Cambodia and Laos as well as Vietnam falling under the rule of various Communist parties. The first Vietnam War (1945–1954) pitted French colonists and their local allies against Vietnamese Communist rebels. It ended with the French withdrawal from Indo-China and the partition of Vietnam into two states, Communist North Vietnam and pro-Western South Vietnam. In the second Vietnam War (1955–1975), North Vietnam and Communist rebels in the south fought against the US-backed South Vietnamese regime. No conflict in American history since the Civil War was as divisive as Vietnam, yet the war was widely supported until US ground forces entered the fray (1965). Mounting casualties and the threat of conscription fueled a growing antiwar movement that forced Washington to find a way out of the war. After the United States withdrew in 1973, Communist forces overran South Vietnam and reunited the country under their rule in 1975. Films about the Vietnam War were produced in both North and South Vietnam, the Soviet Union (which armed the North) and South Korea and Australia (both dispatched troops to support the South). With few exceptions, many were seldom seen outside their lands of origin. With Hollywood’s dominance of movie markets in much of the world, American stories about the war dominated the imagination of moviegoers in the United States and most other countries. Hollywood took only slight interest in Vietnam during the war’s early years. The first major motion picture about American combat in Vietnam, John’s Wayne’s pro-war The Green Berets (1968), was a box-office hit but universally derided by critics. With the war’s increasing unpopularity and unsuccessful conclusion, the subject was deemed “box-office poison” by the studios for several years. By the late 1970s a rising generation of filmmakers embraced Vietnam as material for displaying American heroism, explaining the US defeat or exploring the ethical basis for war. The commercial breakthrough for Vietnam War movies was achieved by director Sidney Furie’s The Boys in Company C (1978), Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter (1978), and Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979). Each reflected in different ways America’s disillusionment and the physical and psychological toll charged to the men who served in the conflict. The theme continued with Platoon (1986), directed by a Vietnam combat veteran, Oliver Stone. A counter-trend appeared with Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo series (1982–2019), which amplified the resurgent nationalism that began under the Reagan administration. Providing a third perspective, Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) presented the war unemotionally as a fact of history. In the 21st century, movies on the Vietnam War continue to be made, if in diminished number. Characteristic of recent films, We Were Soldiers (2002) validates the experience of US ser","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86830514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-12DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0198
Lucian Staiano-Daniels
Historians still debate what to call the conflict that convulsed Central Europe from 1618 to 1648. Although it is largely accepted that this is “The Thirty Years War,” and indeed some people called it that shortly after it was over, some historians use this phrase to denote other wars, beginning earlier or ending later. This Thirty Years War was one of the most destructive conflicts on earth. Although the fighting took place primarily in central Europe, this complex multifaceted struggle eventually sucked in people from Ireland to Muscovy west to east, and from Norway to Italy north to south. Compared to the population at the time, it may have been proportionally more deadly than any war in western or central Europe before or since. This is an excellent time for Thirty Years War research. Some tenacious misunderstandings about the way early-17th-century strategy and combat worked are being rooted out. Primary source research is being done. Sterile debates that occupied the entire 19th and early 20th centuries are now barely even remembered. A full bibliography would list hundreds of thousands of works over four hundred years; here are several.
{"title":"Thirty Years War, 1618–1648","authors":"Lucian Staiano-Daniels","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0198","url":null,"abstract":"Historians still debate what to call the conflict that convulsed Central Europe from 1618 to 1648. Although it is largely accepted that this is “The Thirty Years War,” and indeed some people called it that shortly after it was over, some historians use this phrase to denote other wars, beginning earlier or ending later. This Thirty Years War was one of the most destructive conflicts on earth. Although the fighting took place primarily in central Europe, this complex multifaceted struggle eventually sucked in people from Ireland to Muscovy west to east, and from Norway to Italy north to south. Compared to the population at the time, it may have been proportionally more deadly than any war in western or central Europe before or since. This is an excellent time for Thirty Years War research. Some tenacious misunderstandings about the way early-17th-century strategy and combat worked are being rooted out. Primary source research is being done. Sterile debates that occupied the entire 19th and early 20th centuries are now barely even remembered. A full bibliography would list hundreds of thousands of works over four hundred years; here are several.","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76256162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0197
P. Lehr
Until rather recently, piracy as a form of seaborne organized crime seemed to be a phenomenon of the past—something that was relegated to a great number of books, some comics, and, of course, the silver screen: many Hollywood blockbusters revolve around pirates as larger-than-life swashbuckling characters, played for example by Douglas Fairbanks (The Black Pirate, 1926), Errol Flynn (Captain Blood, 1935), Yul Brynner (The Buccaneer, 1958), or Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, 2003 onward). Even the Muppets had a (comedy) go at pirates with Muppets Treasure Island (1996). That “real” pirates still exist and pose a formidable danger to seafarers at least in some parts of the world was known only to a small group of people outside the mariner community such as legal experts and some scholars, mainly from history departments. This blissful ignorance was swept away by the advent of Somali piracy between 2005 and 2008: suddenly, “real” pirates made headlines again, sparking a renewed interest in all things pirate, modern or not. It also resulted in a wave of publications focusing on modern pirates, trying to make sense out of why this age-old menace had returned with a vengeance. Even for specialists, this burgeoning literature, ranging from books aimed at the wider public and offering general overviews to very specialized research articles appealing to equally specialized audiences, it is difficult to keep track. This bibliography aims at referencing the leading works, in order to offer the reader a quick access to the vast repository of knowledge which is nowadays available. It will commence with general overviews, to then move to the most dangerous regional hot-spots of current piracy, which are West Africa (Gulf of Guinea), East Africa (Gulf of Aden and Somali Basin), and Southeast Asia (Straits of Malacca and Singapore plus South China Sea). Also, some secondary hot spots such as the Persian/Arabian Gulf and the Sundarbans at the bottom of the Bay of Bengal are referenced as well, although not much has been written about these manifestations of piracy. This is followed by works on root causes (why do people become pirates in modern times?), and works on modern pirates’ modus operandi, in particular their weapons and tactics (what do modern pirates do?). Finally, the focus will shift from piracy to counter-piracy at sea, on land, and at court—the latter part also including publications dealing with legal definitions of piracy such as included in the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LoSC). As regards the nature of the sources referenced, it should be noted that in order to reach out to a wide range of audiences, not only academic and scholarly publications are included, but also publications with a more journalistic approach that aim at the general public. Furthermore, great care was taken to include publications which are easily accessible—also for the benefit of a wider audience.
{"title":"Modern Piracy","authors":"P. Lehr","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0197","url":null,"abstract":"Until rather recently, piracy as a form of seaborne organized crime seemed to be a phenomenon of the past—something that was relegated to a great number of books, some comics, and, of course, the silver screen: many Hollywood blockbusters revolve around pirates as larger-than-life swashbuckling characters, played for example by Douglas Fairbanks (The Black Pirate, 1926), Errol Flynn (Captain Blood, 1935), Yul Brynner (The Buccaneer, 1958), or Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, 2003 onward). Even the Muppets had a (comedy) go at pirates with Muppets Treasure Island (1996). That “real” pirates still exist and pose a formidable danger to seafarers at least in some parts of the world was known only to a small group of people outside the mariner community such as legal experts and some scholars, mainly from history departments. This blissful ignorance was swept away by the advent of Somali piracy between 2005 and 2008: suddenly, “real” pirates made headlines again, sparking a renewed interest in all things pirate, modern or not. It also resulted in a wave of publications focusing on modern pirates, trying to make sense out of why this age-old menace had returned with a vengeance. Even for specialists, this burgeoning literature, ranging from books aimed at the wider public and offering general overviews to very specialized research articles appealing to equally specialized audiences, it is difficult to keep track. This bibliography aims at referencing the leading works, in order to offer the reader a quick access to the vast repository of knowledge which is nowadays available. It will commence with general overviews, to then move to the most dangerous regional hot-spots of current piracy, which are West Africa (Gulf of Guinea), East Africa (Gulf of Aden and Somali Basin), and Southeast Asia (Straits of Malacca and Singapore plus South China Sea). Also, some secondary hot spots such as the Persian/Arabian Gulf and the Sundarbans at the bottom of the Bay of Bengal are referenced as well, although not much has been written about these manifestations of piracy. This is followed by works on root causes (why do people become pirates in modern times?), and works on modern pirates’ modus operandi, in particular their weapons and tactics (what do modern pirates do?). Finally, the focus will shift from piracy to counter-piracy at sea, on land, and at court—the latter part also including publications dealing with legal definitions of piracy such as included in the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LoSC). As regards the nature of the sources referenced, it should be noted that in order to reach out to a wide range of audiences, not only academic and scholarly publications are included, but also publications with a more journalistic approach that aim at the general public. Furthermore, great care was taken to include publications which are easily accessible—also for the benefit of a wider audience.","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82690528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0199
Caleb Karges
The War of the Spanish Succession was a large military conflict that encompassed most of western and central Europe spawning additional fighting in the Americas and the world’s oceans. Hostilities began with the invasion of Lombardy by imperial forces in 1701 and were concluded be the treaties of Utrecht (1713), Rastatt, and Baden (1714). The trigger for the war was the long-anticipated death of the childless King Charles II of Spain in 1700 and his will, which ignored several partition treaties signed by other powers and passed the entirety of the Spanish monarchy to Louis XIV of France’s grandson, Philip, Duke of Anjou (Philip V of Spain). The Austrian Habsburgs under Emperor Leopold I contested the will on the behalf of his second son the Archduke Charles (Charles VI of the Holy Roman Empire). With the European balance of power jeopardized by the prospect of a Bourbon succession in Spain, the Kingdom of England (Great Britain after 1707) and the United Provinces joined the Holy Roman Emperor in forming the Grand Alliance in 1702. The Grand Alliance, heretofore referred to as the Allies, expanded to consist ultimately of the emperor of and the states of the Holy Roman Empire (with a few notable exceptions), Great Britain, the United Provinces, Portugal, and the Duchy of Savoy-Piedmont. The pro-Bourbon alliance opposing the Grand Alliance consisted of France, Spain, the Electorate of Bavaria, and the Archbishopric of Cologne. The main military operations largely occurred along the frontiers of France and in the Spanish possessions in Europe such as the Spanish Netherlands, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula. Of notable exception were the Bavarian campaigns in 1703 and 1704. Throughout the war, each side tried to exploit real and potential revolts/insurgencies in the other’s territory. The Allies maintained a large military presence in Catalonia and set up a rival court in Barcelona under the Archduke Charles as “Charles III of Spain.” The land war in Europe was characterized by the military victories of the Allied commanders, the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy in Flanders, Germany, and Italy. However, the Bourbons maintained their supremacy in Spain itself. As the war protracted, financial and political exhaustion beset all sides. Despite sustained losses bringing France to the brink of collapse, Louis XIV continued to resist until Allied resolve softened with the events of 1710 and 1711 (the Tory victory in the British elections, the battle of Brihuega, and the death of Emperor Joseph I). The war ended with the signing of the treaties of Utrecht, Rastatt, and Baden (collectively known as the Peace of Utrecht) in 1713 and 1714. The British gained significant colonial possessions and concessions from the Bourbon powers as well as the territories of Gibraltar and Minorca. The Dutch received a reinforced barrier in the Low Countries. The Austrians received Spain’s possessions in Italy and the Low Countries. Philip V retained Spain and
{"title":"War of the Spanish Succession, 1701–1714","authors":"Caleb Karges","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0199","url":null,"abstract":"The War of the Spanish Succession was a large military conflict that encompassed most of western and central Europe spawning additional fighting in the Americas and the world’s oceans. Hostilities began with the invasion of Lombardy by imperial forces in 1701 and were concluded be the treaties of Utrecht (1713), Rastatt, and Baden (1714). The trigger for the war was the long-anticipated death of the childless King Charles II of Spain in 1700 and his will, which ignored several partition treaties signed by other powers and passed the entirety of the Spanish monarchy to Louis XIV of France’s grandson, Philip, Duke of Anjou (Philip V of Spain). The Austrian Habsburgs under Emperor Leopold I contested the will on the behalf of his second son the Archduke Charles (Charles VI of the Holy Roman Empire). With the European balance of power jeopardized by the prospect of a Bourbon succession in Spain, the Kingdom of England (Great Britain after 1707) and the United Provinces joined the Holy Roman Emperor in forming the Grand Alliance in 1702. The Grand Alliance, heretofore referred to as the Allies, expanded to consist ultimately of the emperor of and the states of the Holy Roman Empire (with a few notable exceptions), Great Britain, the United Provinces, Portugal, and the Duchy of Savoy-Piedmont. The pro-Bourbon alliance opposing the Grand Alliance consisted of France, Spain, the Electorate of Bavaria, and the Archbishopric of Cologne. The main military operations largely occurred along the frontiers of France and in the Spanish possessions in Europe such as the Spanish Netherlands, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula. Of notable exception were the Bavarian campaigns in 1703 and 1704. Throughout the war, each side tried to exploit real and potential revolts/insurgencies in the other’s territory. The Allies maintained a large military presence in Catalonia and set up a rival court in Barcelona under the Archduke Charles as “Charles III of Spain.” The land war in Europe was characterized by the military victories of the Allied commanders, the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy in Flanders, Germany, and Italy. However, the Bourbons maintained their supremacy in Spain itself. As the war protracted, financial and political exhaustion beset all sides. Despite sustained losses bringing France to the brink of collapse, Louis XIV continued to resist until Allied resolve softened with the events of 1710 and 1711 (the Tory victory in the British elections, the battle of Brihuega, and the death of Emperor Joseph I). The war ended with the signing of the treaties of Utrecht, Rastatt, and Baden (collectively known as the Peace of Utrecht) in 1713 and 1714. The British gained significant colonial possessions and concessions from the Bourbon powers as well as the territories of Gibraltar and Minorca. The Dutch received a reinforced barrier in the Low Countries. The Austrians received Spain’s possessions in Italy and the Low Countries. Philip V retained Spain and","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84020521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0196
Peter Krentz
In 480 bce, the Greeks defeated the Persian fleet off the island of Salamis in the largest naval battle ever fought in the ancient world. The Greek victory proved to be the turning point in the war, for the Persian king, Xerxes, returned to Asia with his surviving ships and the majority of his land troops. The Persian invading forces, which included a diverse array of infantry recruited from the vast empire and warships and rowers from the peoples bordering the Mediterranean Sea, had advanced from Asia in tandem by land and sea along the coast of the Aegean, without encountering opposition until they reached the pass at Thermopylae in late August. When Thermopylae fell in a matter of days, the assembled Greek navy abandoned its position at nearby Artemisium, on the island of Euboea, and withdrew to the south. The Athenians evacuated their city and took their families to Aegina, Troizen, and Salamis, an island just off the coast of Attica, where the Greek fleet moored. Only some two dozen out of the hundreds of Greek cities sent ships; more Greek cities, in fact, fought for the Persians as subjects of the Persian Empire. By mid-September, Xerxes had advanced through central Greece, looting and burning as he went, and captured Athens. But with summer coming to an end and stormy weather on the way, he decided to attack at Salamis rather than wait for the Greek coalition to disintegrate. After blocking the exits from the straits at night to prevent escape, the Persians were surprised to find the Greeks ready to fight in the morning. In the battle, the outnumbered Greeks took advantage of restricted waters between Salamis and the mainland. The Persian ships became more and more crowded together as the ships in the rear pressed forward, their captains eager to prove themselves under Xerxes’ watchful eyes. The Greek ships, heavier and sturdier, won by ramming the Persian ships, which were designed for greater maneuverability but lacked the open water they needed. Scholars debate just about every aspect of the battle, from the reliability of the ancient sources to the nature of the wooden warships involved, from the numbers of these ships to the topography of the Salamis strait at the time of the battle, from the credibility of Themistocles’ trick to lure Xerxes into fighting to the reconstruction of the fighting itself and its last act, in which land troops played a role.
{"title":"Battle of Salamis: 480 BC","authors":"Peter Krentz","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0196","url":null,"abstract":"In 480 bce, the Greeks defeated the Persian fleet off the island of Salamis in the largest naval battle ever fought in the ancient world. The Greek victory proved to be the turning point in the war, for the Persian king, Xerxes, returned to Asia with his surviving ships and the majority of his land troops. The Persian invading forces, which included a diverse array of infantry recruited from the vast empire and warships and rowers from the peoples bordering the Mediterranean Sea, had advanced from Asia in tandem by land and sea along the coast of the Aegean, without encountering opposition until they reached the pass at Thermopylae in late August. When Thermopylae fell in a matter of days, the assembled Greek navy abandoned its position at nearby Artemisium, on the island of Euboea, and withdrew to the south. The Athenians evacuated their city and took their families to Aegina, Troizen, and Salamis, an island just off the coast of Attica, where the Greek fleet moored. Only some two dozen out of the hundreds of Greek cities sent ships; more Greek cities, in fact, fought for the Persians as subjects of the Persian Empire. By mid-September, Xerxes had advanced through central Greece, looting and burning as he went, and captured Athens. But with summer coming to an end and stormy weather on the way, he decided to attack at Salamis rather than wait for the Greek coalition to disintegrate. After blocking the exits from the straits at night to prevent escape, the Persians were surprised to find the Greeks ready to fight in the morning. In the battle, the outnumbered Greeks took advantage of restricted waters between Salamis and the mainland. The Persian ships became more and more crowded together as the ships in the rear pressed forward, their captains eager to prove themselves under Xerxes’ watchful eyes. The Greek ships, heavier and sturdier, won by ramming the Persian ships, which were designed for greater maneuverability but lacked the open water they needed. Scholars debate just about every aspect of the battle, from the reliability of the ancient sources to the nature of the wooden warships involved, from the numbers of these ships to the topography of the Salamis strait at the time of the battle, from the credibility of Themistocles’ trick to lure Xerxes into fighting to the reconstruction of the fighting itself and its last act, in which land troops played a role.","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76469505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-29DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0193
S. Doebler, Matthew Restall
The traditional, master narrative of the momentous collision of worlds in 16th-century Mexico and Peru centers on small bands of Spaniards, who quickly overwhelmed indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere with their superior technology and leadership. That narrative, rooted in the accounts and perspectives of the Spanish conquistadors themselves, has until very recently dominated the historiography of “the Conquest,” as it has long been known. The years since the 1970s have seen monumental shifts in how scholars approach the period of “the Conquest,” stemming from two distinct historiographic currents, which together have driven complex revisions to the master narrative of “the Conquest.” The first is New Military History (NMH), which emphasizes the study of war and society. New military historians focus on social, cultural, and gendered aspects of war, as opposed to the set-piece tactical battle histories, unit histories, and biographies of famous generals. Though still interested in battle itself, the NMH came to emphasize larger implications of war. While the NMH hardly engaged directly with the Conquests of Mexico and Peru, its development widened the pool of scholars considered “military” historians, made the study of warfare widely accepted, increased the field’s diversity, and pushed military historians to be more theoretical. As NMH blurred the lines between military, social, and cultural history, a second shift took place, known as the New Conquest History (NCH). The NCH developed primarily within colonial Latin American history. During the last quarter of the 20th century, scholarship focusing on Latin America increasingly studied indigenous peoples, African slaves and their descendants, and non-elite Spaniards, whose experiences in the Conquest period were largely ignored. The NCH gives indigenous-language sources particular attention, but also stresses newly found sources or the reinterpretation of familiar ones—be they written in Spanish or a native tongue, or a nontextual visual source—in order to reveal new protagonists and multiple perspectives on contact phenomena and Conquest moments. “The Conquest” is now seen as a protracted series of wars of invasion, resulting in slow and incomplete conquests of indigenous societies. Spanish-language literature published in Latin America is too vast to be included here. Instead we focus on English-language books and articles, which themselves will lead researchers into Spanish-language primary and secondary sources.
{"title":"Conquest of Mexico and Peru","authors":"S. Doebler, Matthew Restall","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0193","url":null,"abstract":"The traditional, master narrative of the momentous collision of worlds in 16th-century Mexico and Peru centers on small bands of Spaniards, who quickly overwhelmed indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere with their superior technology and leadership. That narrative, rooted in the accounts and perspectives of the Spanish conquistadors themselves, has until very recently dominated the historiography of “the Conquest,” as it has long been known. The years since the 1970s have seen monumental shifts in how scholars approach the period of “the Conquest,” stemming from two distinct historiographic currents, which together have driven complex revisions to the master narrative of “the Conquest.” The first is New Military History (NMH), which emphasizes the study of war and society. New military historians focus on social, cultural, and gendered aspects of war, as opposed to the set-piece tactical battle histories, unit histories, and biographies of famous generals. Though still interested in battle itself, the NMH came to emphasize larger implications of war. While the NMH hardly engaged directly with the Conquests of Mexico and Peru, its development widened the pool of scholars considered “military” historians, made the study of warfare widely accepted, increased the field’s diversity, and pushed military historians to be more theoretical. As NMH blurred the lines between military, social, and cultural history, a second shift took place, known as the New Conquest History (NCH). The NCH developed primarily within colonial Latin American history. During the last quarter of the 20th century, scholarship focusing on Latin America increasingly studied indigenous peoples, African slaves and their descendants, and non-elite Spaniards, whose experiences in the Conquest period were largely ignored. The NCH gives indigenous-language sources particular attention, but also stresses newly found sources or the reinterpretation of familiar ones—be they written in Spanish or a native tongue, or a nontextual visual source—in order to reveal new protagonists and multiple perspectives on contact phenomena and Conquest moments. “The Conquest” is now seen as a protracted series of wars of invasion, resulting in slow and incomplete conquests of indigenous societies. Spanish-language literature published in Latin America is too vast to be included here. Instead we focus on English-language books and articles, which themselves will lead researchers into Spanish-language primary and secondary sources.","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73699374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-29DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0195
Margaret George, Victoria M. Young
A war artist is one who captures the subject of war in some type of artistic form. Since the beginning of time, artists have recorded scenes of war as a visual record of a culture’s existence and tribulations. Images of battles, ship portraits, leaders, and soldiers made up the bulk of war images until the late 19th century. The creators of the majority of these works are unknown, but when the entire world first went to war in 1914, nations hired official war artists to depict the action, including warplanes, tanks, and other newly developed technologies, among other aspects, as subject matter. These artists were mostly men, who were on the front lines sketching, painting, and photographing the action, collecting the visuals of war that they might then collate into an official work for a nation. As the 20th century progressed into our current era, images became immediately accessible on television and film, in news reports, and in live streams, as reporters embedded themselves with soldiers. Official war artists still exist in several nations, as do official collections of artwork created by them. We also have vibrant unofficial images of war produced by soldiers and prisoners for their own purposes, or by people protesting war itself. In compiling this bibliography, we sought to convey the breadth of war art mainly in 2-D media in chronology, type, artistic style, and maker, including voices of artists whenever possible. We also considered how artists from differing sides in battle impact each other’s artistic production. Being an artist who depicts war is a challenge. How do you convey honor and brutality, tradition and modernity, glory and defeat? How do you watch devastation around you and provide witness as you record the intensity and sadness of death? Combat artists of a particular country create art that reveals their experience of war. Is it personal? Or should it only be a documentary? The complexities found in creating the art of war are many, yet without these works there are centuries of battle we would not understand from social, political, or technological viewpoints.
{"title":"Artists and War Art","authors":"Margaret George, Victoria M. Young","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0195","url":null,"abstract":"A war artist is one who captures the subject of war in some type of artistic form. Since the beginning of time, artists have recorded scenes of war as a visual record of a culture’s existence and tribulations. Images of battles, ship portraits, leaders, and soldiers made up the bulk of war images until the late 19th century. The creators of the majority of these works are unknown, but when the entire world first went to war in 1914, nations hired official war artists to depict the action, including warplanes, tanks, and other newly developed technologies, among other aspects, as subject matter. These artists were mostly men, who were on the front lines sketching, painting, and photographing the action, collecting the visuals of war that they might then collate into an official work for a nation. As the 20th century progressed into our current era, images became immediately accessible on television and film, in news reports, and in live streams, as reporters embedded themselves with soldiers. Official war artists still exist in several nations, as do official collections of artwork created by them. We also have vibrant unofficial images of war produced by soldiers and prisoners for their own purposes, or by people protesting war itself. In compiling this bibliography, we sought to convey the breadth of war art mainly in 2-D media in chronology, type, artistic style, and maker, including voices of artists whenever possible. We also considered how artists from differing sides in battle impact each other’s artistic production. Being an artist who depicts war is a challenge. How do you convey honor and brutality, tradition and modernity, glory and defeat? How do you watch devastation around you and provide witness as you record the intensity and sadness of death? Combat artists of a particular country create art that reveals their experience of war. Is it personal? Or should it only be a documentary? The complexities found in creating the art of war are many, yet without these works there are centuries of battle we would not understand from social, political, or technological viewpoints.","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73070690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0194
Katy Doll
Propaganda has a rich history and an equally rich literature. Scholars do not always agree on a single definition of propaganda, but Jowett and O’Donnell’s 2019 book, Propaganda and Persuasion (Los Angeles: SAGE), defines it as a “deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” Persuasive communication itself has been used since the beginning of communication. The term “propaganda,” however, did not come into use until the 1600s and was first associated with disseminating or promoting particular ideas, such as propagating religious faith. Historical analysis of propaganda has focused on the 20th and 21st century when propaganda was considered a widespread issue and has increasingly become an accepted area of study. Given the widespread use of atrocity propaganda in World War I and the power of the Nazi propaganda machine in World War II, 20th-century wars generally receive the most attention from scholars. Historians and communications scholars have attempted to remedy this more modern focus with major anthologies spanning earlier periods. However, as propaganda can often take a host of forms and did not come into the general modern meaning of the word until the 20th century, studies of earlier periods often focus on communication or iconography. Much of the English-language work done on propaganda also skews extremely toward the United States and the United Kingdom. Some of the earliest works on propaganda came from those who worked in propaganda in some capacity. These early works have gradually been supplemented with rigorous historical and communication analyses. The two fields are the most prolific in their study of propaganda, but art historians have also added to the understanding of the visual culture of propaganda and scholars in other fields such as sociology, politics, and rhetoric have also added to the literature on propaganda. Scholars also have devoted attention to the close relationship between propaganda and technology. Together these efforts make for a diverse field that examines propaganda products, their creation, their dissemination, and their purpose. Because of the ephemeral nature of most propaganda and the way various archives have or have not been available to scholars, propaganda can be a challenging topic of study. Some works attempt to study the reception of propaganda while others focus on the creation and dissemination process. Monographs focusing on a single country or conflict outnumber those works spanning conflicts and continents. Several notable exceptions have comparative analysis or bring together works from multiple perspectives. Propaganda will continue to be of vital interest to scholars and hopefully will include works from scholars with increasing language skills and access to diverse archives.
宣传有着丰富的历史和同样丰富的文献。学者们并不总是同意宣传的单一定义，但Jowett和O 'Donnell在2019年出版的《宣传与说服》(propaganda and Persuasion，洛杉矶:SAGE)一书中将其定义为“有意识的、系统的尝试，以塑造感知、操纵认知和指导行为，以实现进一步宣传者预期意图的回应。”说服性沟通从一开始就被使用。然而，“propaganda”这个词直到17世纪才开始使用，最初与传播或促进特定思想有关，比如宣传宗教信仰。对宣传的历史分析主要集中在20世纪和21世纪，当时宣传被认为是一个普遍存在的问题，并日益成为一个公认的研究领域。鉴于第一次世界大战中暴行宣传的广泛使用和第二次世界大战中纳粹宣传机器的力量，20世纪的战争通常受到学者们的最多关注。历史学家和传播学学者试图用跨越早期的主要选集来弥补这种更现代的关注。然而，由于宣传通常可以采取多种形式，并且直到20世纪才进入这个词的一般现代含义，因此早期的研究通常侧重于传播或图像学。许多以英语进行的宣传工作也极度倾向于美国和英国。一些最早的关于宣传的作品来自于一些从事宣传工作的人。这些早期的作品逐渐被严谨的历史和传播分析所补充。这两个领域对宣传的研究最为丰富，但艺术史学家对宣传的视觉文化的理解也有所增加，社会学、政治学和修辞学等其他领域的学者也增加了对宣传的研究。学者们也对宣传与技术的密切关系给予了关注。这些努力共同构成了一个考察宣传产品、其创作、传播及其目的的多样化领域。由于大多数宣传的短暂性，以及学者可以或无法获得各种档案的方式，宣传可能是一个具有挑战性的研究课题。一些作品试图研究宣传的接受，而另一些则关注创作和传播过程。专注于单一国家或冲突的专著数量超过了跨越冲突和大陆的专著。有几个值得注意的例外是比较分析或从多个角度汇集作品。宣传将继续是学者们的重要兴趣所在，希望将包括语言技能不断提高的学者的作品，并能接触到各种档案。
{"title":"Propaganda","authors":"Katy Doll","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199791279-0194","url":null,"abstract":"Propaganda has a rich history and an equally rich literature. Scholars do not always agree on a single definition of propaganda, but Jowett and O’Donnell’s 2019 book, Propaganda and Persuasion (Los Angeles: SAGE), defines it as a “deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” Persuasive communication itself has been used since the beginning of communication. The term “propaganda,” however, did not come into use until the 1600s and was first associated with disseminating or promoting particular ideas, such as propagating religious faith. Historical analysis of propaganda has focused on the 20th and 21st century when propaganda was considered a widespread issue and has increasingly become an accepted area of study. Given the widespread use of atrocity propaganda in World War I and the power of the Nazi propaganda machine in World War II, 20th-century wars generally receive the most attention from scholars. Historians and communications scholars have attempted to remedy this more modern focus with major anthologies spanning earlier periods. However, as propaganda can often take a host of forms and did not come into the general modern meaning of the word until the 20th century, studies of earlier periods often focus on communication or iconography. Much of the English-language work done on propaganda also skews extremely toward the United States and the United Kingdom. Some of the earliest works on propaganda came from those who worked in propaganda in some capacity. These early works have gradually been supplemented with rigorous historical and communication analyses. The two fields are the most prolific in their study of propaganda, but art historians have also added to the understanding of the visual culture of propaganda and scholars in other fields such as sociology, politics, and rhetoric have also added to the literature on propaganda. Scholars also have devoted attention to the close relationship between propaganda and technology. Together these efforts make for a diverse field that examines propaganda products, their creation, their dissemination, and their purpose. Because of the ephemeral nature of most propaganda and the way various archives have or have not been available to scholars, propaganda can be a challenging topic of study. Some works attempt to study the reception of propaganda while others focus on the creation and dissemination process. Monographs focusing on a single country or conflict outnumber those works spanning conflicts and continents. Several notable exceptions have comparative analysis or bring together works from multiple perspectives. Propaganda will continue to be of vital interest to scholars and hopefully will include works from scholars with increasing language skills and access to diverse archives.","PeriodicalId":44755,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76158867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：