World War, 1939-1945--Great Britain--Medals, badges, decorations, etc, Korean War, 1950-1953--Great Britain--Medals, badges, decorations, etc, and Military decorations--Great Britain
Abstract
In February 1925 the War Office published an Army Order listing the battle honours awarded for the Great War, and although this was announced as the final list there were subsequent revisions and minor amendments. No such list was published after WWII but an (unofficial?) Record was published in 1958 by the War Office, with a limited distribution, which included the Korean War battle honours, and this is that list with 651 actions. This Record covers only British, including British Gurkha, Regiments and Colonial Regiments. In most cases there is a brief summary of the operations with an indication of the troops involved and these include Commonwealth troops though the question of their Battle Honours is one for the Commonwealth Government concerned and the Sovereign. There were a good many errors in the list, typographical, grammatical, misspelling of place names, dates and order of battle. In some cases there was confusion between those battle honours which were selected to be carried on the Colours and those which were simply awarded. Strange new regiments appeared:- Highlanders Light Infantry (a persistent favourite), King's Own Yeomanry Light Infantry, the K.A.R.R.R.C, London Irish Fusiliers, London Irish Buffs, Queen's Own Nigeria Regiment (an unauthorised ‘Queen's Own'), and the Royal West King Regiment, to name some of them. Place names also caused some trouble and in some of the brief descriptions of the engagements or actions there were order of battle mistakes such as the confusion between the 12th Frontier Force Regiment and 13th Frontier Force Rifles, two different regiments of the old Indian Army. The index contained scores of place names that had nothing to do with anything, this has been pruned drastically so that it contains only those places for which a battle honour was awarded. Every effort has been made to eliminate errors and present a corrected version and a number of sources was used the most important of which was H.C.B.Cook's The Battle Honours of the British and Indian Armies 1662-1982, a magnificent piece of work. Other valuable works included: Orders of BattleSecond World War 1939-1945 H.F.Joslen; Commonwealth Divisions 1939-1945 Malcolm A.Bellis; A Register of the Regiments and Corps of the British Army Arthur Swinson; Regiments and Corps of the British Army Ian S.Hallows and Handbook of British Regiments Christopher Chant.
Європейські історичні студії, Iss 9, Pp 79-95 (2018)
Subjects
Romania, Second World War, historiography, Holocaust, Ion Antonescu, Mihai I, and History (General) and history of Europe
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of different views in Romanian historiography on the participation of I. Antonescu, along with Germany, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland, in the war against the USSR, starting from June 22, 1941. It is known that the decision to join the anti-Soviet war was taken by I. Antonescu alone, without any consultation with any political group, or even with the king Mihai, who has learned from the BBC radio that Romania had entered the war with the USSR. First, the war was proclaimed as a “sacred war” against Bolshevism for the return of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, received full support from the king and from the leaders of the “historical parties”, as well as from a wide range of the population. However, in August 1941, at the request of Hitler, having already military rank of Marshal, Ion Antonescu decided to continue the war in the East, which has been completely unfounded (the territory to the East of the Dniester never belonged to Romania). The modern Romanian historiographers emphasize that the continuation of the anti-Soviet war on the other side of the Dniester, which led to large (and useless) human losses, has become one of Antonescu’s greatest mistakes. The article also raises the issue of the Holocaust in Romania during the Second World War (suppressed during the communist years), the decline in the scale of the tragedy in that period. It is noted that the arrest of I. Antonescu on August 23, 1944 was the merit of the young king, Mihai I, and his entourage, and not the Communist Party of Romania represented by Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu.
Naval History. Apr2020, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p28-34. 7p. 1 Color Photograph, 4 Black and White Photographs.
Subjects
HISTORY, WORLD War II -- Historiography, AMERICAN historians, BATTLE of Leyte Gulf, Philippines, 1944, WORLD War II naval operations, UNITED States. Navy, WORLD War, 1939-1945, and BATTLE of the Atlantic, 1939-1945
Abstract
The article discusses the efforts made by American historian Samuel Eliot Morison to record significant details of U.S. Navy (USN) operations during World War II for his 15-volume book series "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II." Topics explored include the access earned by Morison to USN records, his collaboration with publisher Little, Brown and Company, and the events addressed by Morison such as the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Leyte.
Johnson, Dominic D. P., VerfasserIn, (DE-588)143004980, (DE-627)641428618, (DE-576)33456557X, aut and Johnson, Dominic D. P., VerfasserIn, (DE-588)143004980, (DE-627)641428618, (DE-576)33456557X, aut
Nuova Rivista Storica; gen-apr2017, Vol. 101 Issue 1, p235-250, 16p
Abstract
Relations between Poland and Italy in the period 1939-1945 did not play leading role for both countries. After the defeat of September 1939, Polish government in exile (first in France and then in Britain) was interested in rebuilding and strengthening its international position. The Polish government sought support for his efforts in the allied Western powers of France and Britain. Fascist Italy was bound to Nazi Germany by the Pact of Steel and despite initial neutrality in the war, caused primarily from military unpreparedness and aversion to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, gravitated naturally and ideologically towards the Third Reich, eventually acting against France and England alongside Hitler, under the arbitrary decision of Mussolini and against their national interests. Hereby, in the second half of the interwar period Poland and Italy began to lean towards two different and potentially antagonistic configurations in the international system. After the Italian declaration of war against Western powers (made June 10-th 1940), Polish closest allies, they found themselves on opposite sides of the barricade. This meant that both countries now belonged to antagonistic political-military blocks, fighting in the name of completely separate objectives and political principles. It should be noted that from June 1940 these two countries played different and opposing roles. The collapse of fascism alongside failures at the front, the overthrow of Mussolini in mid-1943 and the armistice signed by the new Italian government with the Allies removed the most important barriers in Polish-Italian cooperation in theinternational arena. Poland and Italy were among the Allies, but the international situation of the two countries, which were initially indicating some symptoms of similarity, was different. Prospects of enhancing cooperation in all areas raised in the years 1944-1945 were disappointed by a new division of Europe, in which both Italy and Poland took completely separate sides. It is possible to say that both Poland and Italy became in 1944-1945 disputed subjects between the great powers, which necessarily affected their bilateral relationship at the time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
View/download PDF
