We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In order to take on the Japanese Army, with any hope of success, forces must be trained up to high standards of toughness, fighting efficiency, adaptability, discipline and morale.
18th Australian Infantry Brigade, Intelligence Summary1
Throughout the course of the Pacific War, Australian infantry brigades faced monumental challenges in the SWPA, not only from the terrain and from the enemy but also owing to a rapid evolution of tactics and technologies within these intermediate formations. With time and experience, brigades evolved from rudimentary beginnings into expeditionary forces, incorporating hitherto unfamiliar attached elements, support arms and modes of transportation, all while fighting their way across the SWPA. The Australian infantry brigades adapted from formations established on World War I doctrinal, operational and tactical principles into those using more ‘modern’ organisational techniques and structures. Such an analysis must include a brief examination of the state of these formations at the onset of the war in terms of historical legacies, ‘orders of battle’ and to a limited degree the raw material in terms of manpower represented by Australian brigades at this early stage. One particularly important aspect of this analysis is the key transition of several formations between 1942 and 1945 from ‘standard’ Australian infantry brigades to ‘Infantry Brigade Groups (Jungle)’ and finally to ‘Infantry Brigade Groups (Jungle)’ designated as amphibious ‘Assault Brigades’.2
This chapter revisits the arguments of the book concerning France’s experience of the Second World War – the debate over the Fall of France in 1940 that swings between “Decadence” and revisionist “Contingency,” and systemic collapse or “military misfortune.” The period after 1940 saw France struggle to recover its power and influence through two opposing strategies – Vichy through collaboration with Germany, whereas de Gaulle sided with the Allies. While de Gaulle proved the more strategically insightful, his struggle was, unfortunately, inhibited by diminutive numbers, which, to Eisenhower’s ire, contributed to a faltering French military performance in 1944–1945, emphasizing the fact that 1940 had reduced France to the status of a courtesy power in Allied eyes. Furthermore, like many leaders of France’s internal resistance, Franklin Roosevelt remained deeply skeptical of de Gaulle’s democratic intentions. Upon Liberation, de Gaulle maneuvered to restore the French state not only against the Americans, who refused to recognize the Gouvernement provisoire de la République française, but also against the chaos caused by resistance “feudals” with their own political agendas. Nor did l’amalgame of 1944 repair severely damaged French civil–military relations. The “resistance myth” underpinned France’s liberation narrative, one embraced by multiple actors led by de Gaulle, whose purpose was to minimize the pivotal role of the Allies and Africans in France’s liberation, exclude 1940, POWs, and Vichy collaboration from France’s wartime memory, and mask the fact that the “post-war” era found France in a weak position to reassert power over an empire where wartime mobilization had transformed mentalities, as the aftershock of wars of imperial independence was to prove. The mild punishments and blanket amnesties issued for wartime collaboration, the onset of the Cold War, which allowed former Vichy supporters to evoke a “lost cause” anti-communist “shield of France” alibi for their murderous conduct, and refusal to accept France’s role in the Shoah combined to undermine Gaullist promises of “renewal.” In fact, the post-war Fourth Republic resembled in essentials its pre-war predecessor.
In January 1940 British Ministry of Health circular 1307 proposed the introduction of mass childhood diphtheria immunization. This was a policy reversal after a decade during which opportunities for diphtheria prophylaxis were ignored, or resisted on grounds of cost. Diphtheria toxoid was to be the first of many centrally funded childhood immunizations in the UK and it set a pattern that has now held good for over 70 years. The circumstances in 1940 were particularly fortuitous, and diphtheria toxoid has since given successive generations of children a lifetime's protection from the disease; but difficulties have been experienced in introducing and evaluating some of the more recent immunizations, and in maintaining and justifying them in the face of parental scepticism and academic or pressure-group opposition, however ill-founded this may have been. The task of decision-making with regard to new candidate vaccines demands a careful balancing against the costs of the expected benefits during the recipient's lifespan.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.