Anzac Day, which began as a memorial to the First World War’s Gallipoli campaign, is a symbolic occasion in Australia during which the nation state commemorates its losses all wars since. This essay examines the transformation of Australian nationalism from the interwar period through to the 1970s by tracing the national integration through war memory in the context of the ‘British world’: Australians’ perceptions of the imperial wars in which they participated and of their own national history have been defined by their country’s identity as a former British dominion. The nationalist historiography that arose following the Second World War encouraged a trend to emphasise a dichotomy between Australian nationalism and British imperialism. In this conceptualisation, the experiences of the two World Wars are the moment at which Australia’s identity separated from that of the Empire. The analysis on Anzac Day, however, suggests that the imperial identity generated within the ‘community of culture’ prevailed even after the Second World War. The decline of traditional British solidarity coincided with Australia’s gradual decolonisation and the subsequent self-examination that occurred during the ‘new nationalism’ of the 1960s–70s. The emergence of a nationalist historical discourse and the reinterpretation of war narratives reflected this reformation of national identity, which was not as self-evident as supposed in nationalist historiography.

抄録全体を表示

The year 1983 was called a “decisive year” by the Western European mass media. This was because, in that year, public opinion in Europe was split over the acceptance of U. S. Intermediate Nuclear Force missiles.
Antinuclear rallies that drew more than 100, 000 demonstrators in various parts of Europe created a phenomenon aptly named the “hot autumn”.
After five years, the peace movement in Europe has become tranquil. There are voices that oppose the decision of the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate all of their INF missiles.
What has brought about such a major change? Has Europe itself changed? This paper aims to explore the answers to these questions. It will discuss the controversies over nuclear weapons that occurred at the time in Great Britain, and the results of public opinion surveys that were conducted then in that country.
The paper focuses on the unilateral discussion to abolish nuclear forces, which constituted a major force in the debate of the “decisive year”. I have chosen to do so because I believe that therein lies the key to the understanding of Europe's nuclear umbrella mentality, and to some of the misinterpretations and errors that occurred at that time in evaluating the events of 1983.
The paper will not focus on the nuclear arguments of the left and the right wings, as they are obvious, but instead it will delve into how these arguments of the supporting bodies of the peace movement unfolded inside each organization, and how they were eventually appeased under their individual power structures.
These organizations are: 1) the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament); 2) the Labour Party; and 3) the Anglican Church.
The paper is not merely a reevaluation of the incidents of the past 1983, as I believe they continue to affect the current minds of the British citizenry.
I will suggest that the controversies that developed within the CND and the Anglican Church will continue to demand attention.
The 1982 schism in the CND was considered to be owing to the activities of the Trotskyists. If so, have those militants disappeared suddenly after the “hot autumn”?
Were not these people—who are not professional Labourites, much less professional Tories, and who could perhaps best be called the non-politiques—the main creators of the “Geldof Phenomenon”, having sympathized with and supported the Band Aid and the Sports Aid of Bob Geldof, who stood up for the relief of the African refugees after the INF missiles were deployed in Europe?

抄録全体を表示