First Year Of War Research Articles

The Political Mood in Leningrad during the First Year of theSoviet‐German War

The 872-day siege of Leningrad is one of the largest life-and-death struggles in history. No city in modern times has suffered greater loss of life over a comparable period of time. According to recent estimates, close to two million Soviet citizens died within the city or defending it from the outside between 1941 and 1944. The civilian death toll within Leningrad was about one million. When most of those deaths occurred, during the first year of the Soviet-German War, Leningrad was strategically important for the USSR. Had Germany taken the city in the latter half of 1941, it could have linked up with Finland, consolidated its position on the Baltic, and directed additional hundreds of thousands of troops to the offensive against Moscow. In turn, had Germany then quickly seized Moscow (and perhaps Stalin), Soviet resistance might have ended.' For historians of the Soviet Union, Leningrad's first year of war represents an important period for gauging the extent to which the general population supported the Communist state following years of state-directed mass terror, which had left an indelible mark on Leningrad. Expressions of support for the system, or protests against it, assumed a much greater significance in the first year of the war than at any time during the 1930s. With German Army Group North camped less than three miles south of Leningrad, the city's defense was very much in doubt. The prevailing uncertainty compelled supporters of the party-state to rally to its defense, and, likewise, gave opponents with pent-up grievances their best chance since the Civil War to overthrow the government, though all realized that political revolution would lead almost automatically to enemy occupation of Leningrad.

The Self-Deception of the Strong: France on the Eve of the War of the League of Augsburg

in September 1688, they fully expected to impose peace on the Germans within a matter of months. Their hopes rested upon the conviction that the Emperor Leopold, beset by a war with the Turks in Hungary and administrative and financial chaos within his Austrian lands, was too weak to fight in the West-whether or not the Turks continued the war in Hungary. Lacking firm leadership from the emperor, Louis was convinced that the dismal prospects of successful resistance to France would quickly bring out the rivalries and distrust which permeated German politics. Once this happened, the German princes would be ready for peace on Louis' terms.' French predictions of Leopold's military weakness proved disastrously wrong as the first year of war clearly demonstrated, and consequently so did their expectations of German disunity and impotence. Nonetheless, Louis' military predictions were the product of the best and most extensive intelligence apparatus in Europe. In the years following the Truce of Ratisbonne in 1684, French agents had provided

Agricultural Man-Power

During the past year, agricultural man-power in Canada has assumed a new importance. With a growing recognition that food is a vital weapon of war and the realization that the farm working force has been seriously depleted during the past three and a half years, the problems of farm labour have been forced into the foreground.It was natural perhaps, during the first years of war, when munitions, aeroplanes, army vehicles, and ships were in such great demand; when men were needed in large numbers for the armed forces; and when surpluses of many essential farm products existed, that farm production should be considered of secondary importance. Today, the situation has changed. The relative importance of food has sharply increased. Not only have the surpluses of bacon, dairy, and poultry products disappeared, but the requirements of the Allied Nations for these and other provisions have greatly expanded. To contribute her share in supplying essential foods and fibres to the Allied Nations and to meet home requirements, Canada must have adequate farm man-power.It is proposed in this paper to deal with the subject of agricutural man-power largely from an economic point of view. In making this limitation, it is realized that the economic considerations cannot be divorced arbitrarily from other ever-present social factors. These latter factors cannot be ignored, and will have to be considered, at least indirectly, in several parts of the discussion. The main economic aspects of agricultural man-power covered here might be briefly indicated. In the first place, the nature of the present farm man-power problem will be outlined. The extent and character of the existing farm working force will be analysed and the sources of additional labour discussed. The mobilization of this man-power through measures introduced by the federal and provincial governments will be reviewed. Finally, some problems for the immediate and long-run future will be raised and discussed.

The First Year of War: Its Economic Effects on Twenty-Six Counties of Ireland

The First Year of War: Its Economic Effects on Twenty-Six Counties of Ireland

New Zealand's First Year of War

New Zealand's First Year of War

New Zealand's First Year of War

\A7HERE Britain goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand, said the late Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. M. J. Savage, on September 6, I939. The same point was made by the late Mr. Savage's successor, Mr. Peter Fraser, on June I9, I940, when he said: Whatever decision the British Government took in the difficult circumstances in which it found itself, it would be understood, accepted and supported by New Zealand to the very end. These statements of successive Labor Prime Ministers sum up the attitude of a majority of New Zealanders. New Zealand's open crusading for collective security had ceased a year before the war broke out, and it was no surprise when New Zealand promptly allied herself with the United Kingdom in September i939. Without previously consulting Parliament, which however was wholeheartedly behind the decision, the Labor Cabinet swiftly declared war. The New Zealand Government placed its entire manpower and economic resources at Britain's disposal and took immediate statutory authority to organize this manpower and these resources and to suppress any dissenting minority. After the invasion of the Netherlands and the collapse of France, New Zealand in June extended this authority and gave the Government power to call up every man and to take any property for war purposes. This followed the Churchill Government's similar enactment. In the same month a War Council widely representative of political and economic interests was formed, and the following month a War Cabinet composed of three members of the Labor Party and two members of the conservative Opposition took charge of New Zealand's war effort. New Zealand is cooperating in the Empire Air Force scheme and is aiming to contribute annually 3,700 airmen trained or partly trained. The New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy automatically passed under Admiralty control at the outbreak of the war. There has been little publicity on the disposition of the Naval

America’s First Year of War

Essay| April 01 1918 America’s First Year of War: An Anniversary Summary Current History (1918) 8_Part-1 (2): 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1918.8P1.2.247 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation America’s First Year of War: An Anniversary Summary. Current History 1 April 1918; 8_Part-1 (2): 247–253. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1918.8P1.2.247 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentCurrent History Search This content is only available via PDF. © 1918 by The Regents of the University of California1918 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

America’s First Year of War

Research Article| April 01 1918 America’s First Year of War: An Anniversary Summary Current History (1918) 8_Part-1 (2): 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1918.8.2.247 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation America’s First Year of War: An Anniversary Summary. Current History 1 April 1918; 8_Part-1 (2): 247–253. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1918.8.2.247 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentCurrent History Search This content is only available via PDF. © 1918 by The Regents of the University of California1918 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The Vital Statistics for the First Year of War.

The Vital Statistics for the First Year of War.