Perhaps it’s because she called Dopey Daughter “Precious Treasure” , which was shortened to Presh! Naturally our Emma got shortened too, she became Boo. At times she still gets called that by her siblings and her partner Luke.

Emma’s not very fond of the Internet, she finds it intrusive and will not have a bar of such rubbish as Facebook; (I’m not very fond of it either I only get there because I have many chums who expect it of me), so I will not be posting any pictures/photographs of her; well I may put a few on from when she was a baby and little girl so you can all see how cute and sweet she was as a child.

It’s been said that of all my children Emma most resembles me in temperament; she’s stubborn and strong willed. Don’t even think of arguing or disagreeing with her if she thinks she is right, it will get you nowhere!

Emma loves New York (it’s hard not to love NY except for the Yankees and she will disagree with me there most forcibly; she has been known to walk around with a Yankee shirt with the #2 on the back) and in 2008 she thought it would be nice and a good idea if the family all went to NY to celebrate her 30th birthday.

So we did.

For reasons beyond my comprehension she enjoys a TV show ” Sex & The City” which as you may well know is set in NY, apparently the sex part of the show like to buy cupcakes from a special cupcake shop and eat in a special restaurant. These are two actual places and so her birthday was celebrated with cupcakes and a luncheon at that restaurant.  A very enjoyable experience although I can’t remember what I ate so obviously the food wasn’t memorable.

Anyway today 6th July we celebrate our Emma’s birthday, I doubt she’ll ever get to see or read this but “HAPPY BIRTHDAY BOO “.

Tempting at this time of year: Andres Iniesta scores goals and gets assists

MANAGING a team in regular fantasy football contests offers little true variance.

Sitting at your computer and picking the same two strikers 100,000 others have, while the War Office reminds you it’s bin day tomorrow is unpreferred.

Having to then spend the tournament logging on to make transfers and, God forbid, ‘pick captains’, is quite frankly unacceptable.

In the Olisadebe auction, managers lock horns in that most competitive of arenas, the pub.

Once the auction’s over, managers are free to enjoy the tournament in the patented Ruud Gullit ‘bars and discotheques’ style.

For the uninitiated, here an idiot’s guide to the rules:

• Each manager has £100m to buy 11 players in a 4-4-2 formation
• Each team may have no more than one player of each nationality
• Managers breaking the rules are subject to the Titus Bramble Ruling.

The second rule in particular makes the Olisadebe ultimately challenging. Buying a bottom-drawer player from a top team is folly.

Going around the table, each gaffer takes it in turns to introduce a player to the bidding. The auction ends when every team is filled.

The Olisadebe ‘Brambles’ will be announced next week.

What experience tells us

Looking below at the top performers from the last international tournament, the Doctor Khumalo 2010 World Cup, the immediate thought is: what the bejabbers was someone up to spending £31.5m on a holding midfielder like Schweinsteiger?

During a domestic season, steady Eddies like Bastian ‘Pig-overseer’, making regular appearances and nicking the odd goal can be useful.

But in tournament football, where an absolute maximum of six games awaits, the only successful midfielders are those scoring just as many goals as their striking counterparts (Wesley Sneijder).

Forwards regularly finding the net and back fives from organised teams picking up clean sheets offer the best return on investment.

Creative wing backs getting assists and goals, while their side keeps clean sheets, are a handy addition.

The second thing you’ll notice from the table is that some household names went for chicken feed. There are three reasons for this:

1. all the other managers had bought their quota from that country (Iker Casillas)
2. those at the auction simply hadn’t considered that player of value (Thomas Muller)
3. the player had initially been bought for a large sum, forfeited through the Titus Bramble Ruling and bought on the cheap later in the evening (David Villa)

Top European’s from the 2010 Khumalo World Cup in South Africa

Follow the auction live on Twitter @jeffkennaleague or #eurosauction on Tuesday 29 May from 7pm (BST)

Look out for more news and features about the Olisadebe in the build up to the auction.

Jonathan Bailey has written that the First World War was the time of a true revolution in military affairs with regards to the development of artillery firing.[1] One of the first major developments that took place was the creation and refinement of the ‘clock code’ system.[2] Using this system, a pilot of the Royal Flying Corps, the forerunner to the RAF, was able to correct the fall of shot of the artillery by passing to the artillery battery commander details of how far from the target the guns were. The pilot would correct the shooting of the artillery by pointing out how far away and in what direction the shells of the guns had landed. The distance would be passed on using numbers and the direction using the picture of a clock face. The target was placed in the middle of the clock face and shells that fell beyond the target and on a straight line to the target would be corrected with a call of twelve, if it fell short on the same line the call would be six, at ninety degrees left of the target nine and ninety degrees right three. Any other direction would be corrected by using the hour on the clock with which it corresponded. This system would prove to function perfectly well throughout the whole of the First World War and was the system that the RAF went to war with in 1939.

The system of correcting artillery fire remained unchanged until 1938. The Air Council of the Air Ministry were against making alterations to the clock code system as they felt that it was adequate to meet the needs that the army would face in future conflicts. They felt that light aircraft could not be kept in action close to artillery units, as had been the case in the First World War.[3] The Air Council were also fearful of introducing a new, untried and unfamiliar system with the growing tensions in Europe at this time. The War Office were unimpressed with the Air Councils attitude and pushed for more to be done. The Air Ministry agreed to trials between the AOC-in-C 22 [Army Co-operation] Group and the Commandant of the School of Artillery in December, 1938.[4] The results of these trials and further trials conducted in order to test aircraft as well as procedure. The results were that light aircraft over the battlefield could observe fire with the ‘clock code’ system.[5] Spitfires conducted mock attacks on the aircraft and the Taylorcraft light aircraft observing the artillery fire had a good chance of dodging the fire of a modern fighter.[6] There was, however, no training for pilots in registering targets for the artillery. If an artillery officer required an appraisal of a prospective target the request would have to be sent along the command chain via an air liaison officer. When the information was received by the artillery battery it was usually out of date.[7] There was also pressure from within the War Office to establish a Flying Observation Post (Flying OP) and to begin plans to train Gunner Officers to fly. A Flying OP was to work in conjunction with Ground Observation Post (Ground OP) in establishing targets to be engaged and operating deep behind their own lines in order to be afforded the protection of friendly anti-aircraft guns.

The first of these Flying OPs was established in February, 1940.[8] This force was established ‘to determine in the light of practical experience obtained under war conditions the possibilities and limitations of the Flying OP, the most suitable type of aircraft and the most suitable organization [sic]’.[9] The tests were to be conducted in three parts. The first was an initial training period. The second a practical training with the French, and a final test in the French Army area in conditions of actual warfare including shoots against German targets it was at this time that the term Air Observation Post (Air OP) was adopted.[10] The flight was sent to France on 19 April, 1940.[11] The first of the three tests were conducted after the flight had moved to the continent. The final of the three tests was due to be carried out in early May and the forces were established ready to conduct the tests on 9 May, 1940.[12] The following day the Germans began to implement Fall Gelb (Case Yellow): the invasion of France and the Low Countries.[13] The artillery designated for the tests were forced to move back to their formations leaving the Air OP Flight (D Flight) waiting for the campaign to stabilise, when it was clear that this would not happen D Flight was recalled to England.[14]

One of the first official moves at changing artillery co-operation policy was a letter regarding the subject sent from the Director of Military Co-operation Air Commodore Victor Goddard to Barratt at Army Co-operation Command. In this letter, Goddard states that the Air Staff were against the formation of ‘special air units for artillery observation or reconnaissance, unless it can be clearly shown that there is an urgent requirement for such units which cannot be met by Army Co-operations squadrons’.[15] The School of Artillery recommended that a  certain number of aircraft should specialise in artillery work and should be trained by the School of Artillery so that they had the same tactical knowledge and the same the understanding of gunnery as an artillery officer.[16] This was just one aspect to an idea by the School of Artillery to allow aircraft to have tactical control over the fire of artillery batteries. In order to facilitate this the school further advised that a multi-seater aircraft should be employed in this work to allow an artillery officer to conduct the shoot according to artillery methods without the need for the artillery officer learning to fly. Artillery officers were also to be seconded to army co-operation squadrons specifically for artillery work.[17] The co-operation between the School of Artillery and Army Co-operation Command is evident and is surprising given the general relations that existed between the army and RAF in the wake of the Battle of France and the fall out that it had caused between the two services.[18]

Barratt wrote in a letter to the Under-Secretary of State for Air that ‘I consider that in order to get a true and undistorted picture of this problem, it is first desirable to set out the problem as the Army [sic] sees it, and to show in this picture what they conceive to be their requirements’.[19] Again the desire to see the problem from a view that would almost certainly be contradictory to the RAF shows that Barratt and his command were willing to adopt a different approach and attitude in co-operating with at least one part of the army. Barratt also voiced his concerns regarding the ability of the Air OP to operate in the face of enemy action. It was felt that ‘the Air OP must be entirely vulnerable to any enemy fighters which cares to shoot it down’.[20] Barratt’s concern over the safety of his pilots who may be conducting shoots using the Air OP system was to be a recurring issue in the development of artillery reconnaissance.

Barratt also voiced his concerns regarding the ability of the Air OP to operate in the face of enemy action. It was felt that ‘the Air OP must be entirely vulnerable to ant enemy fighters which cares to shoot it down’.[21] Barratt’s concern over the safety of his pilots who may be conducting shoots using the Air OP system was to be a recurring issue in the development of artillery reconnaissance.  Barratt’s response to the trials was one of scepticism and he considered ‘that body of experience gained in the late war and since has all pointed to the advantages of the ‘Clock Code’ system’.[22] Barratt’s belief in the ‘clock code’ system stemmed more from the fear of false conclusions being drawn from brief experiments than from any sense of conservatism about changing the system used for artillery reconnaissance.[23] This became a realisation when Barratt was forced to explain to the Under Secretary of State for Air about the lack of efficiency regarding artillery co-operation in Army Co-operation Squadrons. ‘I feel that much of the falling off in efficiency in this part of the Army Co-operation Squadron task has been due to the propagation of rumour as to other and better methods than those shown in AP 1176’.[24] Further trials were conducted using the artillery method during April 1941 and the conclusions reached were similar to those seen previously. These were that the ‘artillery methods of ranging by corrections to line and range are simpler, quicker, and more efficient than any method based on the ‘clock code’.

The failures of the ‘clock code’ system in France combined with further problems faced in the fighting in Libya led to a loss of confidence in the system in the army.[25] Barratt’s response was that the ‘clock code’ system was not at fault in these operations but that the aircraft employed in it were operating in the face of intense enemy opposition. He was concerned that the trials had been too few and were skewed in favour of a positive result by the School of Artillery.[26] Whilst these concerns may be interpreted as simply blocking a new development that had been shown to work in order to preserve the autonomy of the RAF whilst conducting army co-operation work. The evidence of co-operation between Army Co-operation Command and the School of Artillery, shown above, leads more to the conclusion that Barratt felt that the procedure could not be successfully carried out, and wished to see more trials conducted before it would receive his approval.

The procedure for artillery reconnaissance first developed during the First World War was only really suitable for the conditions of that war. The lack of fluidity and almost stable  front lines allowed a system to develop, quickly, this system, however, was only suited to those conditions. This was very quickly discovered during the first major test of this procedure against the relatively quicker and more mobile warfare of the German Wehrmacht in 1940. The attitudes of both the British Army and the RAF to co-operation during the inter-war period, in Britain at least, did little to improve the situation before the British Expeditionary Force was stationed in France. This left those charged with the responsibility of modifying the existing procedure with only the experience of the First World War to guide them and on which to base their expectations. Much co-operation between the School of Artillery and Nos. 70 and 71 Groups of Army Co-operation Command occurred, despite the general feeling of animosity still felt by both services in Britain.[27] This co-operation was the most that had been seen between the army and RAF since the formation of the RAF as an independent force in 1918.  Barratt’s move to block the adoption of the new procedure that was being trialled during 1941 can be interpreted in several ways. His reasoning for doing so, however, appears to be that of confirming the results already achieved through more rigorous and testing trials in order to confirm the results. Through further testing at a higher level the procedure, as well as those responsible for carrying it out, would be exposed to more stress and so a greater degree of authenticity could be achieved. Trials of this nature would also confirm if the procedure could be implemented with ease by the majority of pilots whose responsibility would be increased from observing the fall of shot to conducting shoots, potentially in the face of enemy opposition. Barratt’s major concern with the new system appears to be its increased complexity and he was rightly concerned after his experiences in France that pilots would be unable to conduct the shoot if they were having to continually keep a look-out for enemy fighter activity.

By Matthew Powell, PhD Candidate, Centre for War Studies, University of Birmingham

Got word? How? Obviously not by SMS or mobile call but I’m left pondering the alternative. Did the SWH ring Ishobel at her hotel? Send a telegram? From my research into the Twenties in Sydney it is amazing to someone from the 21st century how often they got mail in the early part of the last century: twice in the metropolitan area and for a time a delivery on Saturday which beggars belief. Telegrams too seem to arrive very quickly, including the dreaded ones from the War Office – “We regret to inform you…”

Did the SWH send a boy running through the streets of London with a message? Who knows? There is, of course no way of knowing now. As they say “you had to be there.”  And taking that line of thought I can imagine a 22nd century historian possibly stumbling over emails, letters, the odd diary, containing such lines as: “Met this great guy last night. Too good to be true so I googled him.”

Google may be around for another 100 years. Or it may be lost in time in the way of “got word” and “shanks pony” – a term my Mine Manager/diarist great-great grandfather Richard Pope frequently used in the 1880s. “Took ‘shanks pony’ into Silverton from Broken Hill.” A special breed of horse you are wondering? No, it means to walk. So there you are, you were way off course just as I maybe off course when I speculate on Ishobel’s “got word”.

The past is another country. They definitely do things differently there.

The sterling silver lapel badge was intended to be worn in civilian clothes. It had been the practice of some women to present white feathers to apparently able-bodied young men who were not wearing the King’s uniform. The badge was to be worn on the right breast while in civilian dress, it was forbidden to wear on a military uniform.

The badge bears the royal cipher of GRI (for Georgius Rex Imperator; George, King and Emperor) and around the rim “For King and Empire; Services Rendered”. Each badge was uniquely numbered on the reverse. The War Office made it known that they would not replace Silver War Badges if they went missing, however if one was handed into a police station then it would be returned to the War Office. If the original recipient could be traced at his or her discharge address then the badge would be returned.

Dad’s Army actor Arnold Ridley – Mr Godfrey – was one of those awarded a “Wound  Badge” after being seriously injured in the Battle of the Somme. He died in 1984  aged 88.
Read more:  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/11/08/history-of-first-world-war-heroes-revealed-online-115875-23545373/#ixzz1jPXeEGvU

Related articles

• Online research, part 4 (bennettgenealogy.wordpress.com)
• More about the First World War nursing records at the National Archives (cumpstonresearch.wordpress.com)
• Great War Medal Collectors Companion (cumpstonresearch.wordpress.com)
• Silver war badge recipients revealed online (guardian.co.uk)
• Henry Haines. World War One Memorial Plaque (ttandm4h.wordpress.com)
• World War I German Letter Update! (frederictonregionmuseum.wordpress.com)

Secrets: Mabel Elliott

Miss Elliott spotted an agent’s secret message written in lemon juice between the lines of what seemed an ordinary letter.

The spy, Anton Kuepferle, had detailed positions of British warships and forces defending London in his secret note. The discovery in 1915 led to the Kuepferle’s arrest but he hanged himself before his trial.

Miss Elliott, who worked for the War Office as a letters’ censor, also exposed two other German spies through their letters.

They were convicted after Miss Elliott testified against them but had to use a false name at the trials. Her work went unnoticed until the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) found documents relating to it last week.

‘Now we have these facts about the plot, we should recall her with great respect,’ said Prof Lesley Yellowlees, the RSC’s first female president next year.

‘I cannot help but speculate about the avenues that would have been open to Miss Elliott in today’s world, where women’s talents generate better rewards.’

Miss Elliott, who was born in 1885, spoke fluent German, Dutch and French. She never married and died aged 59 during World War II.

The RSC is now appealing for people who knew the family of Miss Elliott to come forward. ‘This is only a tiny bit of her story and we hope someone will tell us a bit more about her,’ said Brian Emsley, of the RSC.

‘We’d like to find out anything about her family background. She is shrouded in secrecy and we believe she deserves to be in the spotlight for possibly saving the country from invasion.’

• It was reported that 120 Czech students had been executed by the Gestapo, and many thousands transported, following riots on Independence Day.
• Six enemy aircraft were sighted off South-East Coast, and unidentified planes over the Firth of Forth area.
• Grenade attacks on the Western Front.
• Five more ships reported sunk by German mines off the East Coast, namely Swedish ‘B.O. Borjesson’, ‘British ‘Blackhill’ and ‘Torchbearer’, Italian ‘Grazia’ and Yugoslav ‘Carica Milica’.
• The British steamer ‘Pensilva’ was torpedoed.
• The Lithuanian vessel ‘Kaunas’ reported sunk by a mine near Zeebrugge.
• Both Dutch and Belgian Governments protested as flights of belligerent planes over their territories.
• Paris announced that in the last four weeks the tonnage of German merchandise captured exceeded by several thousands tons that of French merchantmen lost through enemy action.
• Mr Eden broadcast a speech in French on his visit with Dominion Ministers to France.
• Captain Knudsen, master of the Danish vessel ‘Canada’ sunk on November 4th near the Humber, declared that his was due to a ‘magnetic’ mine.

Monday, 20th November

• SS Guards reported to be in control of Prague.
• The Admiralty announced that German air-craft made an unsuceesful attack on a British destroyer in the North Sea.
• German aircraft, seen over Kent, Essex and the Thames estuary chased out of sea by British fighters. One, a Heinkel bomber, was later proved to have been shot down. No bombs were dropped.
• Enemy plane appeared over the Orkneys and was beaten off by anti-aircraft fire.
• German reconnaissance planes made a number of flights over France, including Normandy and Rhone Valley.
• Twenty-two survivors of British steamer ‘Arlington Court’, torpedoed off the Irish Coast on November 16th, were landed.
• British Trawler ‘Wigmore’ was reported sunk.
• German plane shot down over Holland by Dutch Air Patrol.
• Reported by London agents of Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. that the number of those lost in the ‘Simon bolivar’ totalled 83.
• Reported from Capetown that the German liner ‘Windhuk’ has slipped out of Lobito, Portugese East Africa, refitted with full armament of a raider.

Tuesday, 21st November

• Gestapo announced arrest of man alleged to be responsible for the Munich bomb explosion, and also of two British confederates.
• HM Destroyer ‘Gipsy’ struck a mine off East Coast and was later beached. There were 40 casualties.
• Japanese liner ‘Terukuni Maru’ sunk of East Coast by German mines.
• Premier announces that, as a reprisal to German violations of international marine law, exports of German origin and ownership will be subject to seizure on the high seas.
• RAF Fighters shot down a Dornier 17 reconnaissance bomber off Deal.
• Enemy aircraft appeared about 7pm over East Coast. Fighter aircraft went up and anti-aircraft batteries engaged them. Coastal defences and a German seaplane fought a machine-gun duel. No bombs were dropped.
• German Heinkel bomber sighted over Sutherland. Enemy planes were seen over the smaller islands of the Orkneys.
• Admiralty announced loss off East Coast of minesweeper trawler ‘Mastiff’ by German mine.
• Paris reported air engagements on Western Front. German reconnaissance plane brought down over French lines. Two fighters brought down in flames over enemy lines. Heinkel bomber pursued out to sea and brought down by British fighter.
• Three Fleetwood tawlers, ‘Thomas Hankins’, ‘Delphine’, and ‘Sea Sweeper’ reported sunk by enemy action.
• Finnish steamer ‘Asta’ seized by German warship near the Aaland Islands. This was the 16th Finnish ship detained by Germany.
• German cargo steamer ‘Rheingold’ brough as naval prize into Scottish port.

Wednesday, November 22nd

• France decided to take measures of reprisals against German breach of mines law similar to those announced by British Government.
• Six Germans aircraft made a bombing attack on the Shetlands. An RAF seaplane lying in its moorings was set on fire. No British casualties.
• Enemy aircraft appeared during the day over East Coast and Thames Estuary. One raider driven almost on housetops by RAF fighters.
• During Wednesday night enemy aircraft approached South-East Coast; one shot down over the sea by anti-aircraft fire.
• Six German aircraft shot down by Allied aircraft over French territory, including three Messerschmitts. Another Messerschmitt was shot down by anti-aircraft guns.
• Air Ministry announced that RAF aircraft made successful flights on Monday and Tuesday over Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Breman.
• Italian steamer ‘Fianona’ struck by mine during Tuesday night off SE Coast of England, but did not sink.
• Paris announced that two U-boats had been sunk by French torpedo-boat.
• The Admiralty announced that German freighter ‘Bertha Fisser’ which has been masquerading as ‘Emden I’ and also as Norwegian Iceland. Her crew tried to scuttle her, the ship ran on the rocks, and her crew were picked up by the intercepting warship.
• Sir John Simon broadcast an appeal to the British public to save and lend to the Government.

Thursday, November 23rd

• Admiralty announced that HM minesweeper ‘Argonite’ had been sunk by a mine.
• Proved that magnetic mines had been dropped by parachute from German seaplanes over Thames Estuary and SE Coastal waters.
• Six vessels reported sunk by mine or U-boat action around British coasts; British steamers ‘Geraldus’, ‘Lowland’, ‘Darino’, and trawler ‘Sulby’; Greek steamers ‘Elena R’; French trawler ‘Saint Claire’.
• Air Ministry announced that RA in France brought down seven enemy bombers.
• Unidentified aircraft passed over North Scotland.
• Romanian Cabinet resigned.
• Dutch Government lodged a protest against British and French blockade.
• Total of dead in Bohemia and Moravia following suppression of Czecho-Slovak demonstrations said to be 1,700.

Tuesday October 17th 1939
Statement issued by the War Office through the Ministry of Information:
German propaganda has endeavoured to create the impression that Poland was sacrificed by her Allies fruitlessly and that the efforts of the Polish Army contributed nothing to the contribution towards the final victory of her Allied was important, as the following points show:

1. The Casualties inflicted by Poland on the Germany army were undoubtedly greater than speech. Even if German losses totalled only 150,000 casualties (a reasonable estimate), this represents a considerable wastage at the outset of what may be a long war.
2. German losses in material also were considerable. In one attack alone they lost 83 tanks on a narrow front, and in Sosnkowski’s successful counter attack near Lwow on September 16th they are reported to have lost over 100 tanks. Losses of German aircraft were also appreciable; and German consumption of petrol – the weakest point in her supply system – was enormous.
3. By holding about 70 German divisions on the Eastern Front the Polish Army enabled France to complete her mobilisation without disturbance.
4. By compelling Germany to concentrate the bulk of her air force on the Eastern Front Poland contributed greatly to the safe transportation of the BEF to France.
5. The Polish campaign had furnished the Allies with valuable information as to the tactics developed by Germany in the use of aircraft, tanks and motorized units.
6. There is a reason to believe that the inability of German infantry to advance without tank support against even relatively weak Polish defensive positions came as a severe shock to German formations, who are aware that the Maginot Line is an infinitely more formidable proposition. The moral of German tanks personnel who also shaken by the effectiveness of even the very limited anti-tank artillery commanded by the Poles.
7. Finally, the heroic defence of Warsaw, Modlin, etc. has given an example of the world of utmost gallantry in desperate circumstances. That example will stimulate the Allied forces in the West; and it has always been clear that the Poles’ eventual independence would have to be established by the victory of the Allies and not by the outcome of events on Polish soil.

Tuesday October 19th
Translation of French text of the ‘Treaty of Mutual Assistance’, signed in Ankara, between France, Great Britain and Turkey:

Article 1
In the event of Turkey being involved in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by that Power against Turkey, of the United Kingdom will co-operate effectively with the Turkish Government and will lend it all aid and assistance in their power.

Article 2

1. In the event of an act of aggression by a European Power leading to war in the Mediterranean area in which the United Kingdom and France are involved. Turkey will collaborate effectively with France and the united Kingdom and will lend them all aid and assistance in its power.
2. In the even of an act of aggression by a European Power leading to war in the Mediterranean area in which Turkey is involved, France and the United kingdom will collaborate effectively with Turkey and will lend it all aid and assistance in their power

Article 3
So long as the guarantees given by France and the United kingdom to Greece and Rumania by their respective Declarations of April 13th, 1939, remain in force, Turkey will co-operate effectively with France and the United Kingdom and will lend them all aid and assistance in its power, in the event of France and the United Kingdom being engaged in hostilities in virtue of either of the said guarantees.

Article 4
In the event of France and the United Kingdom being involved in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression committed by that Power against either of those States without the provision of Articles 2 and 3 being applicable, the High Contracting Parties will immediately consult together.
It is nevertheless agreed that in such an eventuality Turkey will observe at least a benevolent neutrality towards France and the United Kingdom.

Article 5
Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3 above, int he event of either:

1. Aggression by a European Power against another European States which the Government of one of the High Contracting Parties had, with the approval of that State, undertaken to assist in maintaining its independence of neutrality against such aggression, or
2. Aggression by a European Power which, whilst directed against another European State, constituted, in the opinion of the Government of one of the High Contracting Parties, a menace to its own security,

the high Contracting Parties will immediately consult together with a view to such common action as might be considered effective.

Article 6
The present Treaty is not directed against any country, but is designed to assure France, the United Kingdom, and Turkey of mutual aid and assistance in resistance to aggression should the necessity arise.

Article 7
The Provisions of the present Treaty are equally binding as bilateral obligations between Turkey and each of the two other high Contracting Parties.

Article 8
If the High Contracting Parties are engaged in hostilities in consequence of the operation of the present Treaty, they will not conclude an armistice or peace except by common agreement.

Article 9
The present Treaty is concluded for a period of 15 years.

Protocol No 1
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries state that their respective Governments agree that the Treaty of Mutual Assistance dated this day shall be put into force from the moment of its signature.

Protocol No 2
The obligations undertaken by Turkey in virtue of the above-mentioned Treaty cannot compel that country to take action having as its effect, or involving as its consequence entry into armed conflict with the U.S.S.R.

The Haldane reforms of the British Army, undertaken during the early years of the Twentieth Century, have been widely researched and documented. What he did and why he did it is well understood but no-one has ever asked the question as to how he was able to achieve it in the face of such institutional, social and individual resistance to change. Using a contemporary change management model as an analytical framework, this talk will examine how Haldane, the Liberal Imperialist Secretary of State for War (1905-1912), implemented lasting reform of the British Army, when his immediate Unionist predecessors, St John Brodrick and Arnold-Forster, had failed. It will demonstrate how political expediency, foreign policy and military strategy influenced Haldane and why his nation in arms concept failed to improve the public’s perception of the regular and auxiliary forces. The main thrust of the talk will highlight that Haldane understood the intellectual complexities of institutional change and that lasting reform required the technical and social dimensions of it to be addressed simultaneously and as an organic whole. His understanding of Hegelian philosophy provided him with a means of synthesising numerous ideas into a viable solution and his intellectual, social and political skills provided him with the tools to implement it. Coupled with a long tenure in office and the support of first-class military advisors, such as Major General Haig and Colonel Ellison, Haldane’s success was not, as he claimed, that he entered office without preconceived ideas about army reform, but that he simply did not announce them and in doing so gained the support of the reform-weary Generals in the War Office. The talk will conclude that Haldane, contrary to historical orthodoxy, did have preconceived ideas about army reform as early as 1901 and that he was lobbied by eminent soldiers, journalists and politicians before taking office about how he should restructure the Army.

By Simon Higgens

H.G. Wells[1] knows Churchill well and says that he is a good man, not mercenary and not even a careerist. He has always lived “like a Russian commissar”, “requisitions” his motor cars, etc., but cares nothing about money. But [H.G. Wells] says Churchill has a certain power of shutting his eyes to facts and has the weakness of never wanting to let down a personal friend, which accounts for the non-sacking of various people. [Wells] has already made a considerable row about the persecution of refugees. He considers that the centre of all sabotage is the War Office. He believes that the jailing of anti-Fascist refugees is a perfectly conscious piece of sabotage based on the knowledge that some of these people are in touch with underground movements in Europe and might at some moment be able to bring about a “Bolshevik” revolution, which from the point of view of the governing class is much worse than defeat. He says that Lord Swinton is the man most to blame. I asked him did he think it was a conscious action on Lord [Swinton]’s part, this being always the hardest thing to decide. He said he believed Lord [Swinton] knows perfectly well what he is doing.

To-night to a lecture with lantern slides by an officer who had been in the Dunkirk campaign. Very bad lecture. He said the Belgians fought well and it was not true that they surrendered without warning (actually they gave three days’ warning) but spoke badly of the French. He had one photograph of a regiment of Zouaves in full flight after looting houses, one man being dead drunk on the pavement.

[1] When the diary was typed, five hyphens were shown here, but Orwell wrote ‘H.G. Wells’ above them; so his name has been given here without the square brackets. The second use of his name and initials, in square brackets, had several hyphens; the third had five hyphens, so the initials have been dropped. For the significance of this minutiae about the number of hyphens, see introduction to war-time diary.

[2] Orwell wrote ‘Swinton’ over the seven hyphens originally typed, so his name is given here without square brackets. The next appearance of ‘Swinton’, in square brackets, replaces seven hyphens; the third use replaces six. The six must, in this context, stand for ‘Swinton’, so it is apparent that the number of hyphens cannot be wholly relied upon. Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Viscount Swinton (1884-1972; Earl, 1955), entered Parliament as a Unionist (allied closely with the Conservatives) in 1918. He was Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1931-35; Secretary of State for Air, 1935-38; Chairman of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, 1940-42; Cabinet Minister Resident in West Africa, 1942-44; and Minister of Civil Aviation, 1944-45. Peter Davison

This afternoon I remembered very vividly that incident with the taxi-driver in Paris in 1936, and was going to have written something about it in this diary. But now I feel so saddened that I can’t write it. Everything is disintegrating. It makes me writhe to be writing book-reviews etc. at such a time, and even angers me that such time-wasting should still be permitted. The interview at the War Office on Saturday may come to something, if I am clever at faking my way past the doctor. If once in the army, I know by the analogy of the Spanish war that I shall cease to care about public events. At present I feel as I felt in 1936 when the Fascists were closing in on Madrid, only far worse. But I will write about the taxi driver some time[1].

[1] Orwell eventually did so, in ‘As I Please,’ 42, Tribune, 15 September 1944. Peter Davison

E. says the people in the Censorship Department where she works lump all “red” papers together and look on the Tribune[3] as being exactly in exactly the same class as the Daily Worker[4]. Recently when the Daily Worker and Action[5] were prohibited from export, one of her fellow-workers asked her, “Do you know this paper, Daily Worker and Action?”

Current rumours: That Beaverbrook[6] since his appointment has got 2,000 extra aeroplanes into the air by cutting though bottle-necks. That the air raids, possibly on London, are due to begin in 2 day’s˚ time. That Hitler’s plan for invading England is to use thousands of speed-boats which can ride over the minefields. That there is a terrible shortage of rifles (this is from several sources). That the morale of the ordinary German infantry of the line is pitiably low. That at the time of the Norway business the War office˚ were so ill-informed as not even to know that the Norwegian nights are short and imagined that troops which had to disembark in broad daylight would have the cover of darkness.

[1] Alfred Duff Cooper (1890-1954; Viscount Norwich, 1952) was a Conservative politician, diplomat, and author. After he resigned as First Lord of the Admiralty, through disagreement with Chamberlain over Munich, he became the figurehead of the patriotic right. Churchill made him Minister of Information in May 1940.

[2] See 636 [Complete Works] for Orwell’s review of this play.

[3] A socialist weekly, then edited by Raymond Postgate, to which Orwell contributed many reviews and essays.

[4] The Communist Party’s daily newspaper in Britain.

[5] The journal of the British Union of Fascists.

[6] In May, Max Aitken, first Baron Beaverbrook (1897-1964), the Canadian newspaper proprietor, had been made Minister of Aircraft Production by Churchill. He was effective, if controversial. Later he was made Minister for War Production. In 1918 he had served as Minister of Information. Peter Davison

[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h] [i]

[1] Presumably a file Orwell kept on this subject. Possibly related to his reference ‘File S.P.1.’ Peter Davison

[a] [b] [c] [d]

The Post Office Home Guard was created in 1939 under the instruction of the Postmaster General. Its purpose was to defend the Post Office from enemy attack. Whilst its initial membership predominantly comprised men, it also accepted women, but their roles initially were confined to duties such as fire-watching. This was to change by the end of 1940, when women performed all of the duties previously undertaken by men. Considerable enthusiasm was expressed by Post Office staff for this initiative. They could volunteer their services to the Post Office Home Guard provided that they did not spend more than 40 hours per month performing these duties.

Post Office Home Guard

The Post Office Home Guard formed part of what became known as the ‘Factory Home Guard’. They were created as a ‘spin off’ to the National Home Guard. For the Post Office, and for the nation, the defence of communications, essential services and industry were covered by this group. The best defence would be achieved with cooperation between the Factory Home Guard units and the national Home Guard.[1]

Five major roles and responsibilities were identified for the Post Office Home Guard.[2] First, they would work to defend their local Post Office. A small proportion of Telephonists in the exchanges classified as ‘vulnerable’ by a government-appointed Vulnerable Points Officer would then be recruited to the Post Office Home Guard, and trained to operate selected exchanges in the event of an invasion. Second, the Post Office Home Guard would be responsible for providing telecommunications for the Army, Navy, air force as well as civil defence, government and industry. Its main task was to protect vital communications. Third, the POHG members would be exempt from the fire watching duties covered under separate arrangements within the Essential Work Order. Fourth, there were three classifications to Post Office premises, and members of the POHG were expected to defend all three, but the priorities attached to all three were different. Buildings were classified as: key points of national importance; important centres; and finally, premises of lesser importance. Also the POHG were given points in which a constant presence should be maintained. Areas with large sorting offices and telephone exchanges (major cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester) were afforded the highest level of protection by both the National Home Guard and the Post Office Home Guard, in the interest of protecting and maintaining their services in the event of an enemy attack. 

Towards the end of the war, senior Post Office managers and Treasury officials claimed that men over 60 were not fit for Home Guard duties, and neither should they be expected to perform these or any other duties involving defending the country.[3] Others on the committee argued that the biggest problem for the Post Office was that it had its own Home Guard. They believed that if its staff joined the outside Home Guard, then their claims of irksome duties and hours would receive more attention from the government. However, the Post Office Management assured the staff that if there was evidence that their duties in the Post Office Home Guard was detrimentally affecting their Post Office duties, then they would be relieved of this.[4] This possibly explains why all Post Office Home Guard sections had been disbanded by 1946.

[1] BPMA, Post 56/108, Letter from P J Grigg, War Office, July 1941

[2] BPMA, Post 56/108,  F Reid POHG commander to regional directors, 18 April, 1941

[3] Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick (hereafter MRC), MSS.148/UCW/2/1/28, Quarterly Meeting the Executive Council, 12-14 July, 1944, p. 34.

[4] Ibid, p. 34.

In case you aren’t familiar with what a victory garden is, there is a really cool website that has transcribed an electronic version of a wartime Victory Garden Handbook from 1944. Because of the food shortages and the need to provide for our boys overseas, the war office encouraged Americans to grow gardens to provide basic essentials. Also, it bears note that during the war many farms were reappropriated by the government so produce became scarce. Emphasis was also placed on women learning to can and preserve food. I want to learn how to do that as well.

I came across this really cool book, Eating for Victory, hence the title of this post:

“Victory gardens, ration books. While men fought overseas, women fought the war at home, by going to work and, more subtly, by feeding their families. Mandatory food rationing during World War II challenged, for the first time, the image of the United States as a land of plenty and collapsed the boundaries between women’s public and private lives by declaring home production and consumption to be political activities.”

Victory gardens and rationing of course complement each other and this whole phenomenon was certainly not unique to America. In fact, it was modeled after the British system. Below is a 1939 newsreel from the British Food Ministry:

If you’re anything like me you may think it strange that victory gardens didn’t outlast the war. If you watch the clip below, “Food for Fighters” from the Office of War Information, you can glimpse how technology and preserving methods created for war purposes was put into domestic use in the late 40′s and 50′s and contributed to the conspicuous consumption that era is known for:

In case you don’t follow… I was trying to find an installment of the Popular Science newsreels that I saw on Turner Classic Movies ages ago about these new fangled frozen meals and how they helped “modern busy families who didn’t have time to cook fresh meals” etc… Also, during the war canning fruits and vegetables became common practice, but we never really stopped. Its interesting how, as is shown in the clip above, these preserving methods began as a way to keep food fresh because it needed to endure over a long time and changing conditions… but as it became a part of the social fabric of our lives it became an anathema to freshness. So perhaps this trend towards locally grown and/or organic food is an attempt to regain this sense of sustainability and “freshness” that somehow got so lost along the way. This is actually well illustrated by the end of the 1940′s House PBS series.

On that note I’d like to pass on to you two websites. Red, White, & Grew is a blog “promoting the Victory Garden Revival and other simple, earth-friendly endeavors”, which has links to many more resources. Secondly, check out this really cool website! The Victory Garden of Tomorrow, which makes modern homefront propaganda art. Seriously, check it out!

Oh! And these keyhole gardens in Lesotho are also seriously cool!!

-Kate