‘1918-2018: The End of the War & The Reshaping of a Century’, 6-8 September 2018, University of Wolverhampton
This conference, hosted by the Centre for Historical Research at the University of Wolverhampton in association with the WFA and the FWW Network for Early Career & Postgraduate Researchers, seeks to spotlight the latest research on the events of 1918 as well as the global significances, consequences, and legacy of this watershed year.
The conference will include keynote addresses from some of the leading names in the field: Professor Alison Fell (Leeds), Professor Peter Frankopan (Oxford), Professor John Horne (TCD), Professor Gary Sheffield (Wolverhampton), Professor Sir Hew Strachan (St Andrews), Professor Laura Ugolini (Wolverhampton) & Professor Jay Winter (Yale).
We invite abstracts for 20-minute presentations fitting within the conference topic. Therein we encourage international perspectives and seek a range of historical approaches together with cross-disciplinary insights. Suggested themes may include but are not limited to:
Warfare in 1918
The War in 1918
Women in 1918
Strategy, Tactics & Technology
Victory & Defeat
Winners & Losers
Peace & (Ongoing) Conflict
Aftermaths, Legacies & Impacts
Veterans (Male & Female)
Civilians & Consequences
Gender, Class, Race & Ethnicity
Ends & Beginnings
Learning/Understanding the War
Commemoration & Memory
We welcome submissions from scholars, including early career researchers & postgraduate students, as well as independent researchers, organisations, and community projects.
The First World War Network is delighted to be among the institutions supporting this conference, and we are keen to encourage members to submit submissions on relevant topics. We hope to be in a position to offer a limited number of bursaries to help support the participation of ECRs/PGRs in this event, and will be providing opportunities for ECR/PGR development as part of the conference. For further details, please contact Dr Oli Wilkinson at the address below.
Abstracts of 250 words should be accompanied by your name, affiliation (if applicable) and a brief biographical statement (c. 100 words). Panel submissions will also be considered.
Lucie Whitmore, a PhD student at the University of Glasgow, co-founder of War Through Other Stuff, and member of the First World War Network, has kindly provided this review of our Research and Teaching Workshop, which took place last month at the University of Sheffield. The First World War Network are hard at work planning our next event now, and would love to hear your thoughts on what kind of specialist training and discussion YOU would like to see us provide. Join us by visiting the link below and completing our introductory questionnaire, and keep up with all the latest news by following us on Twitter @FwwNetwork:
Many thanks to Lucie for sharing her thoughts with us!
On July 18th, the First World War Network held their latest event at the University of Sheffield; a teaching and research workshop for postgraduates and early career researchers working on projects related to the First World War. I travelled down from Edinburgh for the event, and I’m so glad I braved the eight-hour round trip as the workshop proved not only to be incredibly helpful, but also a lovely opportunity to put faces to names and connect with other researchers.
The day started with a three-minute summary of research from every attendee, meaning that by the end of the first session we had a good idea of who everyone was and what they were working on. (Isn’t it nice at the end of a conference when you finally get a sense of all the different skills and interests in the room? This was like that – except at the start of the day, hooray!) While many of the attendees were PhD students like me, a good range of disciplines and backgrounds were also represented, and the chance to ask each other questions about our projects and experiences was very welcomed by all. A couple of projects discussed in this session with an online presence include:
After a nice long lunch break and a chance to chat with other attendees, we moved on to a session on teaching the First World War. Professor Alison Fell and Dr Chris Phillips led this session, with the aim to help us construct First World War-related teaching modules for undergraduate students. I have never done undergraduate teaching so I found all aspects of this session incredibly useful, with the First World War subject matter a bonus! By the end of this session we had all constructed teaching modules in small groups which we presented to the rest of the room. (I hope the ‘Dressing the First World War’ module Jenny Roberts and I designed comes to fruition one day!) One thing that I particularly liked about the teaching session was the reminder that there are infinite approaches we can take to the study and teaching of the history of war, as demonstrated by the great variety of ideas that were being discussed around the room.
The last session was led by Dr Matthew Ford, founder and editor-in-chief of the British Journal for Military History, and Dr Martin Hurcombe, co-editor of the Journal of War and Culture Studies. In this session, we all learned a huge amount about the journal publishing process, and particularly the kinds of decisions editors make about the content they publish. Both Matthew and Martin were very generous in sharing stories and advice from their quite different careers as journal editors. A few key pointers that I noted down from this session were:
When submitting an article to a journal make sure you have read their ‘house rules’. If you have not included all the information they require, or your article is in the wrong format, it could be rejected for those reasons alone.
Similarly, make sure you have fully understood the remit of the journal. Don’t waste time submitting articles that may not be within their scope and interest.
Editors are not interested in articles that simply ‘describe’. If you find some brilliant source material, do something with it!
When submitting to a journal, make sure you explain why your research matters.
If editors come back to you with lots of feedback after peer review, or you go through multiple rounds of peer-reviewing, this probably means they really want to submit your work. They are giving you everything you need to get the work published because they see the potential in you and your work.
If you get a rejection or bad feedback, try putting it out of your mind for a few days and come back to it with a little distance. It may be easier to digest!
The day ended with a quick visit to the pub before we all jumped back onto our trains home. My main take away from the workshop was how helpful it had been to attend an academic event which incorporated really practical, helpful sessions as well as the chance to share research ideas. As PhD students we are (usually) given training of sorts from our universities, but it is not usually as focused or specialist as this. I certainly feel far better equipped to design a teaching module or submit a journal article, and I very much look forward to seeing what the First World War Network will be teaching us next!
Lucie Whitmore is a final year PhD student at the University of Glasgow, researching women’s fashion in the First World War. She is the co-founder of ‘War Through Other Stuff’, and will be co-editing a special themed issue of the British Journal for Military History.
Registration for our Research and Teaching Workshop, taking place at the University of Sheffield on Tuesday 18th July, will close tomorrow at 12pm. We still have a very limited number of spaces available for anyone keen to participate in the event, which will feature contributions from:
Professor Alison Fell, Professor of French Cultural History at the University of Leeds
Dr Matthew Ford, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Sussex and Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal for Military History
Dr Martin Hurcombe, Senior Lecturer in French at the University of Bristol and Co-Editor of the Journal of War and Culture Studies
Dr Christopher Phillips, Lecturer in History at Leeds Trinity University
Attendance is free to all First World War Network members, and travel bursaries are available. To book your place, please email email@example.com, using ‘Research and Teaching Workshop’ as the subject line.
We are delighted to be able to announce that Dr Martin Hurcombe, Reader in French Studies at the University of Bristol and Co-editor of the Journal of War and Culture Studies, will take part in the ‘Research: Writing and Publishing Journal articles’ session at our next workshop.
Martin will join Dr Matthew Ford, Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal for Military History, to provide attendees with a thorough introduction to the process, procedures, and preparations you need to be aware of when submitting your research for publication.
The full programme of events for Tuesday 18 July is:
A limited number of places are still available, but PLEASE hurry to avoid disappointment. To request your place, please email firstname.lastname@example.org using ‘Research and Teaching Workshop’ as the subject.
FWW Network member Mike Hally, PhD doctoral candidate, Centre for the Study of Modern Conflict, University of Edinburgh, shares some insights after the recent ‘What Tommy Did Next’ symposium, including his hopes for the FWW Network to ‘join-up’ researchers working on parallel areas of First World War history (but often in complete ignorance of one another).
As with other conferences in the last year or so, we were all struck by the range and diversity of original research being carried out on the First World War and its aftermath – but also by how much we didn’t know about this work until we got people together. It does seem that lots of people are carrying out fascinating new research, much of it based on new sources, yet often without knowing about others’ work in related fields. I certainly include my own studies into the origins of the veterans’ groups that preceded the British Legion within this observation.
So it was great that our event also saw the UK launch of the FWW Network, which is much-needed as a way of joining up all these research projects and connecting all the people doing them. After Jay Winter gave a characteristically deep and thought-provoking Keynote Address on ‘the Silences of the Men Who Served’, the stage was set for the steering committee of Oliver, Chris, Philippa, and David, alongside Sarah Lloyd from the Everyday Lives in War engagement centre, to set out the case for the Network and what it hopes to achieve, plus the welcome news that, because it has AHRC funding, no-one will need to pay a membership fee!
By the end of the day it was very clear that most of the people there want to stay in contact, and the FWW Network will be the means by which that can be achieved. I’m looking forward to that happening and continuing to grow the contacts initiated that day. Perhaps an early task for the network will be to compile a searchable database of all these studies, the people working on them, keywords, related resources and so on?
Committee member Oliver Wilkinson responds: A key aim of the FWW Network is certainly to try to connect ECRs and PGRs working on the First World War. Therein we are currently looking at how to best us our website via a member’s section. We will certainly take on-board Mike’s suggestions of keywords and tags!
Save the dates! Between 6 and 8 September 2018, the Centre for Historical Research at the University of Wolverhampton, in collaboration with the Western Front Association and the FWWNetwork, will be hosting a major international conference entitled 1918-2018: The End of the War and the Reshaping of a Century.
2018 represents a major milestone in the history of the First World War, not least because it marks the centenary anniversary of the end of the conflict. This encompassing conference seeks to spotlight the latest research on the events of 1918 as well as the global significance, consequences, and legacies of this watershed year. It encourages international perspectives and seeks to encompass a wide range of historical approaches as well as cross-disciplinary insights.
The event will feature keynote addresses from some of the leading academic authorities on the First World War and what came afterwards, along with panel sessions from established and emerging academic researchers. Moreover, the event is being developed in collaboration with heritage agencies, museums, art galleries, funders, schools and community groups involved in First World War research, remembrance and events. FWWNetwork will be working hard to support postgraduate students and early career researchers’ involvement in the event.
Keynote contributions include:
Professor Alison Fell (University of Leeds)
Dr Peter Frankopan (University of Oxford)
Professor John Horne (Trinity College Dublin)
Professor Sir Hew Strachan (University of St Andrews)
Professor Jay Winter (Yale University)
We ask you to ‘Save the Date’ and we invite expressions of interest from scholars (including early career and postgraduate researchers), independent researchers, organisations, groups and individuals interested in participating (as either contributor or attendee) in the conference.
A formal call for papers will follow in summer 2017.
The conference is being organised by: Professor Stephen Badsey, Professor John Buckley, Dr Simon Constantine, Dr Spencer Jones, Professor Gary Sheffield, Professor Laura Ugolini and Dr Oliver Wilkinson.
To register your interest or for any further enquires please contact:
On the 26 & 27 February 2016, IWM North played host to the inaugural event organised by the First World War Postgraduate and Early Career Researchers Network (FWW Network). The conference committee comprised Philippa Read (Chair), Chris Phillips, David Swift and Oliver Wilkinson, with Nick Mansfield acting as a mentor. The group, set up in January 2014 as a self-sustaining off-shoot of IWM North’s Academic Network is dedicated to connecting early stage researchers working on any aspect of the First World War, in order to facilitate new debates, ideas and collaborations relating to the study of the conflict. We further aim to create partnerships between these scholars and organisations, groups, and individuals operating beyond the academy who can offer alternative insights and agendas, opening possibilities for the co-design and co-production of research. Our event, held in the Libeskind Room of IWM North was, therefore, designed to be inclusive.
It combined the latest academic scholarship from established and emerging researchers (30 research papers were delivered in parallel sessions over the two days alongside three keynote addresses by leading scholars in the field), with participation from heritage agencies, libraries, museums, archives, funding bodies, community groups and individual researchers. The academic contributions, which included substantial postgraduate involvement supported by Royal Historical Society bursaries, were augmented by information stands representing important archival repositories (The National Archives), museums (IWM; Leeds Museums & Galleries), organisations (Historic England), funding bodies (The Heritage Lottery Fund; AHRC First World War Engagement Centres), and ongoing commemorative projects (IWM Lives of the First World War).
Meanwhile, the conventions of the traditional academic conference were stretched thanks to performances and displays from creative artists inspired by the First World War. Social media was mobilized both to promote the event and to carry the ideas and debates taking place in Manchester to a wider audience via the network’s Twitter account (@FwwNetwork) and conference hashtag (#fwwcm16). As of 28 March 2016 the network’s Twitter account has 777 followers, is following 1,314, and has made 336 tweets). The five AHRC First World War Engagement Centres, who co-funded the event, were represented throughout the conference and contributed to the discussions and debates that it facilitated. Their participation consisted of papers offered by researchers linked to the various centres and an illuminating roundtable discussion between scholars, community researchers, archives and funding bodies. The conference was almost full to capacity with ninety two participants attending across the two days.
The conference was opened by Philippa Read (University of Leeds), chair of the FWW Network, who introduced the group and the rationale underpinning the event. The parallel panels then began with sessions dedicated to ‘Gender’ and ‘Precedents & Legacies’. In terms of the latter, the first paper was given by Nick Mansfield (University of Central Lancashire/Everyday Lives in the First World War) who has acted as mentor to the FWW Network since its creation. Nick discussed the parallels between different conflicts in his paper ‘Connections between Great Wars, 1642, 1805 and 1914’, particularly in terms of the public perceptions of war and its subsequent mythologisation. On the same panel, Jenny Macleod (University of Hull) analysed the importance of the Gallipoli Centenary for the Turkish, Australian and New Zealand states, and how commemoration of the Gallipoli campaign related to contemporaneous commemoration of the Armenia Genocide. Joel Morley (University of Essex) then discussed the treatment of the First World War by ex-servicemen in inter-war Britain, exploring the transmission of the conflict amongst the generation who would fight in the Second World War. His point about the paradigmatic horror that the conflict represented to later generations would recur throughout the conference. Hence, for example, he related how, due to hearing veterans’ testimonies of the trenches, many Britons in the 1939-45 war were determined to serve anywhere apart from in the infantry where – ironically – they would have been safer, at least before 1944!
On the parallel panel, ‘Gender’, Anna Branach-Kallas (Nicolaus Copernicus University) provided a comparative study of trauma, particularly family trauma, in novels of the Great War that have recently been published in England, France and Canada. She argued that while we usually associate the trauma of war with men at the front, the stress of the conflict transferred to relatives back home. In his paper, Jonathan Black (Kingston University) then argued that the North West of England is particularly rich in examples of more realistic and convincing representations of the British soldier in memorials to the war. In part, claimed Black, this owed something to a pre-existing tradition of memorial sculpture honouring the dead of the area from the second Anglo-Boer War. Black argued that influential images of the British male hero were created before 1914, linking the First World War to earlier conflicts and cultural representations of military masculinity in Britain. The final paper on this panel, by Jack Davies (University of Kent), drew upon the memoirs, newspapers and magazines of wounded soldiers to reveal the forgotten role of women as both disciplinarians and subverts in hospitals. He argued that women within hospitals helped to perpetuate deviant behaviour by aiding soldiers in circumventing military discipline. In addition, Davies claimed, soldiers were able to hide behind their wounds and disabilities to avoid not only military discipline but, to some extent, civilian justice as well.
The latter paper linked neatly to the third panel of the day, dedicated to ‘Disability’, in which Jason Bate (Falmouth University) offered a fascinating insight into the cultural memory of facially injured soldiers. Bate’s research uncovered personal photographs featuring facially injured soldiers taken in the years after the war, often depicting men at leisure or within familial settings, which contrasted sharply with the sterile and distancing photographs taken of their recuperation in hospital. Emily Bartlett (University of Kent) followed, discussing her investigations into the material legacy of charitable provisions for maimed soldiers in the inter-war period, particularly focusing upon the importance of cigarettes to charity in inter-war Britain. Overall, Bartlett claimed, the production, sale, and consumption of cigarettes provided comfort for disabled servicemen in interwar Britain and assisted their transition back to a civilian identity after the war.
In the parallel session, the two papers showcased centenary research projects taking place in the North West, both of which seek to discover new narratives about the impact of the war on communities in the region. Keith Vernon (University of Central Lancashire) outlined an ongoing project which is using the registers of the Harris Institute (the forerunner of the University of Central Lancashire) to explore the wartime experiences of non-combatants, especially women and adolescents, in Preston during the First World War. Partnering with ‘Preston Remembers’ (a Heritage Lottery Fund partnership project), the project aims to use the community research already conducted into the city’s war memorials, layering the wartime data of the Harris Registers, in an attempt to relate the wartime experiences of those non-combatants to the combatant experiences of the soldiers who have subsequently been recorded on community war memorials. The sophistication that such methods can achieve were indicated by the second paper, jointly delivered by Ian Gregory and Corinna Peniston-Bird (both of Lancaster University). Gregory and Bird discussed the Streets of Mourning Project, focused on the city of Lancaster. Here, digital humanities have been effectively used to map First World War casualties across the city, prompting an innovative investigation into the spatial dimensions of loss on the home front. The resulting data and maps, representing casualty densities, allows for considerable further investigation into questions such as patterns of habitation and enlistment, and familial patterns of recruitment during the war. Most powerfully, however, the project allows the deaths to be related to the communities affected.
At lunchtime, delegates moved through the museum’s main gallery space to the Watershard Café where an impressive sculpture entitled ‘BLAST’ had been set up by Ian Kirkpatrick, an independent artist, and Lucy Moore, curator at Leeds Museum and Galleries. The sculpture was one of a series created by Kirkpatrick during his residency with Leeds Museums and Galleries. It depicted a British machine gunner, and was partly inspired by the goss china ornaments produced during the war. The art work adorning the figure was taken from war artefacts held in Leeds Museum’s collections. Kirkpatrick and Moore gave a brief overview of the sculpture and the ‘A Graphic War’ exhibition trail, which had explored the role of graphic design at home and on the front lines during the First World War, within which ‘BLAST’ had featured. Delegates were then able to peruse the sculpture and discuss the piece further with the artist. The sculpture remained on display in the Watershard Café during the full two days of the conference, and was thus viewed by public visitors to the museum as well as conference delegates.
The afternoon sessions began with parallel panels. In ‘Material Cultures’, Sonya Andrew (University of Manchester) began by discussing the development of two textile triptychs that were created to form visual narratives on the imprisonment of a conscientious objector in the First World War, and the impact of these on the CO’s family. Andrew examined the processes of recalling and commemorating conscientious objection, and the construction of visual narrative as an act of individual remembrance, from the perspective of the maker as author. She contrasted this with audience interpretations of the textiles when located in a range of buildings, such as church, gallery, bank and museum. Andrew’s presentation concluded by examining the impact of site on interpretations of the visual narrative, considering how the function of a building may contribute to shaping viewers’ perceptions of the images in the textiles. Hanna Smyth (University of Oxford) then analysed the Canadian and South African war memorials at Vimy and Delville Wood, and considered what they can reveal about the identities of the nations whose dead they honoured. For the Canadians, the memorial embodied the fusion of British and French identities; for the South Africans, of British and Afrikaner. However, neither memorial paid tribute to the indigenous peoples of either country.
Meanwhile, in ‘Forgotten Episodes’, Florence Largillière (Queen Mary University, London) explored French Jewish veterans of the First World War, examining the role of the conflict in perceptions and practices of antisemitism in the 1930s. Veterans felt they had proved their worth during the war. They had fought and many had died for France. They believed that they deserved to be treated as valued members of the French nation. Amidst growing antisemitism in 1930s Europe, French Jewish veterans reacted by reminding the nation of their participation in the Great War via overt displays of their patriotism. However, their efforts would not protect patriotic Jews from the 1940 Antisemitic Statute. French Jewish veterans became second-class citizens under the Vichy regime, despite their heroic accomplishments, their nationalist discourses, their medals, even their Legions of Honour. In the second paper of the session, Christophe Declercq (University College, London) gave an insight into the disappearance of the history of Belgian refugees in Britain during and after the First World War. One reason for the ‘forgetting’ of this mass migration of peoples was the mobility and transnational character of the Belgian exile, which Declercq related to Belgians disappearing from view to the current commemorative community projects.
The first day concluded with a keynote by Helen McCartney (King’s College, London) which examined whether the familiar narratives of the First World War have been challenged or reinforced by new commemorative projects. Through an analysis of two projects, the Tower of London poppy installation and the letter to the Unknown Soldier website and book, McCartney sought to establish how a variety of different local and national interest groups had interacted with commemorative projects. She argued that, alongside the dominant ‘futility script’ attached to commemorations of the conflict, there also exists an opposing ‘sacrificial narrative’ that stresses the debt owed to the fallen for our ongoing ‘freedom’. McCartney’s paper provided a hugely engaging, and very fitting keynote upon which to end the first day of the conference, and it attracted considerable further discussion in the question time that followed. As day one closed, it emphasised questions that resonated throughout the conference: Why should the First World War be remembered? Why is the centenary such an important moment? And, crucially, how should we remember the First World War?
Day two began with a powerful and thought provoking keynote address. Jay Winter (Yale University), delivered a paper which dealt with the conference’s key themes through a combination of humour, personal reflection, and a survey of the speaker’s long and distinguished career as a historian of the conflict. Winter raised questions relevant to practitioners of History in general, as well as those particularly concerned with the First World War. He began with the assertion that there is a tendency to revert to national narratives, based on national identities, in the research and remembrance of the First World War. He went on to trace key developments in the historiographical approaches to the conflict which led to the creation of transnational histories which, though challenging national identities and narratives, had major impacts in the way the war is remembered and commemorated. Indeed, Winter claimed that transnational history was local history, and that the transnational perspective he presented provided a better way to write national histories. He linked these developments to his experiences as an adviser at the Historial de la Grande Guerre, Peronne, allowing him to further examine the expansion of public history which has radically changed the landscape in which history is understood. Indeed, Winter stressed the compatibility of such public histories with academic scholarship, asserting the responsibilities that he feels academics have in the sphere of public history. Academic historians, he claimed, have a responsibility to ‘do’ public history or others will ‘do it worse!’ Winter’s paper both illuminated the first day’s discussions and ignited debates which continued throughout the second day.
Following the keynote, proceedings then moved to the day’s first set of parallel panels. Santanu Das (King’s College, London) began discussions in the ‘Global Perspectives’ panel by examining the importance of race, ethnicity and religion in commemorations in Britain, India, Pakistan and elsewhere. On a similar vein, Richard Smith (Goldsmith’s, London) discussed the memory and representation of West Indian servicemen fighting for Britain during the conflict. Therein, he situated these memories within recent media representations, especially those on the BBC, over the course of the war’s centenary. Representations of war experiences similarly characterised Burcin Cakir’s (Glasgow Caledonian University) paper as she spoke about the place of Gallipoli in Turkish literature and memorabilia, and the enduring significance of the landings for the Turkish regime today.
‘Faith’ constituted the theme of the parallel session, which began with Arabella Hobbs (University of Pennsylvania) seeking to place France’s attempts to come to terms with the war within the context of the nation’s relationship with the Catholic church. By examining post-war representations of the gueule cassée, Hobbs showed how Catholicism positioned itself as an indispensable force for healing in post-war France. Gethin Matthews (Swansea University) also focused on Christianity, within the context of Welsh non-conformity and the form and function of war memorials erected in Welsh chapels. Matthews’ paper drew heavily upon the speaker’s wide ranging research, and delegates were treated to a huge number of photographs, many from Matthews’ own collection, of the various memorials erected to Wales’ fallen. Catriona McCartney (University of Durham) drew the session to a close by examining the role of British Sunday Schools in the First World War. As bastions of Christianity in Britain both before and during the war, McCartney considered the role of the Sunday School on the home front, the impact of the war on the schools and, linking to the two previous papers in the panel, discussed how particular religious communities attempted to commemorate ‘their’ fallen in the war’s aftermath.
The days second set of parallel panels saw Geoff Cubitt (University of York) and Jessica Moody (University of Portsmouth) opening the ‘Cultural Representations’ panel by discussing their research into visitor experiences to First World War exhibitions at York Castle Museum and Scarborough Art Gallery. In the paper, Cubitt and Moody offered insights into the meanings attached to commemorative activities by members of the public, alongside highlighting some of the more amusing incidence of ignorance found among those who viewed the exhibitions. Their paper was followed by Suzie Hanna and Alisa Miller (Norwich University of the Arts) who discussed their novel work on an animated tribute to the ex-servicemen of the Great War. Hanna and Miller focused on remembering men who had survived the war, and illuminated challenges they faced in the post-war civilian landscape which seemed odd and alien to them following their war experiences. Their film, clips from which were played alongside discussions of the animation processes, thus raised important questions regarding the legacy of the conflict throughout the twentieth century.
The parallel session consisted of a roundtable discussion chaired by Alison Fell (University of Leeds) representing the Gateways to the AHRC First World War Engagement Centre. Participants also included Keith Lilley (Queen’s University, Belfast) representing the Living Legacies AHRC First World War Engagement Centre, Michael Noble (University of Nottingham) representing the Hidden Histories AHRC First World War Enjoyment Centre, Karen Brookfield representing the Heritage Lottery Fund, Rosemary Collins (Open University) speaking in relation to a centenary community project, and Liz Woolley as an independent researcher. Therein, the representatives of the AHRC First World War Engagement Centres provided an overview of the role of the centres, and the nature of their activities to date in support of First World War projects. Fell noted how her roles within the centre pushed her beyond her traditional ‘comfort zones’ via involvement in diverse projects and, as a consequence, had provided new directions and new insights for her own work. Lilley and Noble, meanwhile, stressed how the centres sought to begin with the community project, addressing the fundamental question of ‘What do community research projects want/need from academics?’ Here, answers could include access to the skills or specialisms or, equally, it might be simply that the centre can facilitate access to university resources or tools necessary to deliver a community project. Brookfield provided further information about the role of the Heritage Lottery Fund within the centres, as well as the other schemes through which organisations are able to support First World War community research. Collins provided an overview of a specific project, supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has explored the impact of the war on Radcliffe-on-Trent. Her contribution stressed the community role of such projects; arguing that they were not solely about uncovering the past but that they also served a contemporary social function, cohering communities in pursuit of ‘their’ histories. Woolley was able to give a further example of a community history project, the commemoration of the 66 men named on the war memorial in St Matthew’s Church in Grandpont, south Oxford, which provides a model of how other local communities could carry out similar projects. Along with the diverse experiences and insights offered by the panel members, the session afforded considerable time for discussion and questions. Once the floor was opened there were frank discussions between the various agencies and individuals represented at the event. Academic contributors, for example, spoke of the challenges and benefits of co-produced research; archives were able to provide insight into their activities, especially their community/public engagement agendas; independent scholars further illuminated the challenges, indeed the intimidation, that they encountered in undertaking First World War research.
Lunch was again held in the Watershard café, accessed through the main gallery space. However, early return to the Liberskind room afforded delegates the opportunity to view the conference’s second artistic offering. Dawn Cole introduced and then performed a dramatic piece entitled ‘The Silence of Knitting’. The performance was developed in response to the silence that is perceived during war, and was based on the archive of VAD Nurse Clarice Spratling. The knitting itself proved powerful, silencing the delegates (fortunately for the only time over the two days!).
After lunch, the final keynote paper of the conference was delivered by Maggie Andrews (University of Worcester). Andrews’ paper discussed the role of gender and the home front in the commemorations linked with the centenary, drawing upon her wide ranging experience of commemorative practices as part of the Voices of War and Peace AHRC First World War Engagement Centre. She noted that we tend to remember soldiers, particularly the fallen, through the lens of their domestic role: as husbands, fathers, and sons, rather than as armed and trained soldiers. This exposed how the domestic could be mobilised to make the battlefront more palatable. Andrews further engaged with fundamental questions about the impact of the present on interpretations of the past, exploring the multiple and malleable meanings about the war found in current commemorative activities. She provided a keynote which asked as many questions as it answered, and one which prompted much discussion both immediately after and for the rest of the conference, her ideas and evidence meshing well with the other keynote addresses.
Following Professor Andrews’ paper, the conference reverted back to parallel sessions. In ‘Commonwealth Commemorations’, Penny Edwell (Australian Defence Force Academy) provided a run-down of individual and community-based commemorative projects taking place in Australia, and considered the manner in which Australian national identities were being both challenged and confirmed by the commemoration. Her paper was followed by Teresa Iacobelli (Queen’s University, Kingston), whose paper focused on the significance of popular media and commemorations in determining evolving narratives of the war in Canada. The two papers covered similar ground and complemented one another, with multiple questions arising with relevance to both speakers.
In the parallel session, ‘Transmitted Legacies’, Jessica Hammett (University of Sussex) explored the role of small groups in remembering the First World War. Her paper investigated how First World War veterans mobilised an ex-service identity, based on their experiences in that conflict, whilst employed within civil defence during the Second World War. Interestingly, Hammett examined how the First World War was mobilised by these men in response to criticism directed at members of the civil defence during the Second World War. Here, her work related to other groups of ex-servicemen who sought to mobilise their First World War experiences to deal with post-war challenges, such as the French Jewish veterans as considered by Florence Largillière on day one. Vincent Trott (Open University) then offered his insights into the importance of interwar literature in forging memories of the war for men too young to have taken part. Exploring the authorial intent and reception of such literature, especially during the so-called war books boom of 1928-30, Trott contextualised the role of literature in imbuing the new generation with dominant ideas about war and about manhood which, ultimately, would impact on their experiences during the Second World War.
The final parallel sessions dealt with ‘Sites of Memory’ and ‘Uncomfortable Pasts’. In the former, Laura Brandon of the Canadian War Museum spoke of the recent controversy surrounding Canada’s ‘Never Forgotten’ National Memorial, while Emma Login (National Memorial Arboretum) provided an overview of changing attitudes to memorialisation in Peterborough over the one hundred years between 1914 and 2014. Both stressed the ongoing relevance of memorialising the First World War, and discussed the competing agendas and interests involved in these processes from the perspectives of Canadian and British ‘stakeholders’. ‘Uncomfortable Pasts’ began with a joint paper, by Matthias Meirlaen (Université Lille) and Karla Vanraepenbusch (Université Catholique de Louvain) on execution sites in occupied Belgium and France. They revealed the use of execution sites in France and Belgium after the war, and the methods by which civil authorities commemorated the memories of the executed, both on the sites themselves and in the cities of Antwerp, Liege and Lille. Emile Coetzee (North West University) continued the theme of commemoration, this time of a far less celebratory nature. Coetzee’s paper discussed the intriguing case of Wijand ‘Vic’ Hamman, an Afrikaner solider killed in the war, who was subsequently ignored by his home town. Coetzee’s paper illuminated the depth of feeling among the community of Lichtenburg towards the British, the residue of the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 and the ongoing controversies of South African politics. Finally, Kamil Ruszala (Jagiellonian University) presented the final paper of the conference, and the only one to focus exclusively upon the Eastern Front. Ruszala discussed the work of the Austro-Hungarian Army in creating the ‘warrior cemeteries’ of the Gorlice-Tarnów battlefield. Drawing upon a range of architectural drawings of both realised and unrealised creations, Ruszala highlighted the use of heroic, mythological imagery in the cemeteries of the Austro-Hungarian armies, and emphasised the role of famous artists, sculptors and painters within the Kriegsgräberabteilung Krakau.
Following the papers, Oliver Wilkinson and Philippa Read brought the conference to a formal close by thanking all of the participants for a highly engaging, interesting and (we hoped) an enjoyable event. The organising committee is currently discussing routes to further disseminate the research findings and collaborations facilitated by the conference. Moreover, the FWW Network remains an active forum for early career and postgraduate research into the First World War. It intends to establish and maintain contact with researchers in these stages of their career, and to organise future events for both academic and wider audiences. On behalf of the network, and all those who participated or attended, our thanks are reiterated to the AHRC First World War Engagement Centres and the Royal Historical Society for their generous financial support which made the event possible.