MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053051110 · doi:10.1353/jmh.2004.0115

British Strategy and Politics During the Phony War: Before the Balloon Went Up (review)

2004· article· en· W2053051110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Talbot Imlay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsBattlePeriod (music)HistoryEconomic historyLawPolitical scienceAncient historyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: British Strategy and Politics During the Phony War: Before the Balloon Went Up Talbot Imlay British Strategy and Politics During the Phony War: Before the Balloon Went Up. By Nick Smart. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003. ISBN 0-275-97296-8. Notes. Select bibliography. Index. Pp. 267. $67.95. The Phony War, Nick Smart argues, has not received its scholarly due. The brief period between the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 and the beginning of the Battle of France in May 1940 is most often viewed either as the sequel to the squalid era of appeasement or as a prelude to Germany's stunning military victories in the West. Smart's purpose is to render the Phony War its historical autonomy, to treat it as "a separate affair, possessing its own cause and course" (p. 8). His chosen method is an examination of British strategy and politics during this period. Smart, the author of an earlier study of Britain's National Government during the 1930s, is at his best in describing the politics of the period. Adopting a "high politics" approach that focuses primarily on the ambitions and activities of a small group of prominent politicians, Smart sheds light on such subjects as Minister of War Hore-Belisha's downfall in January 1940, whose origins he traces to the political maneuvering of Anthony Eden, and on Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's defeat in May 1940. Regarding the latter event, Smart argues that the government appeared impregnable until the last moment, that Chamberlain's fall represented a political coup d'état, and that Foreign Secretary Halifax's renunciation of the prime ministership stemmed not from the belief that Churchill was a more appropriate wartime leader but from the hope of limiting the influence of Labour Ministers—something Halifax presumably could not accomplish from his seat in the House of Lords. Smart's account of British politics, which is based on the diaries and personal papers of many of the leading actors, is intriguing. At the same time, it worth mentioning that the high politics approach comes at the cost of important political trends that occurred partly or wholly outside of Parliament, most notably the internal evolution of Labour Party policy toward the government. Given the fact that it was Labour's refusal to serve under Chamberlain that paved the way for Churchill's appointment, Smart's relative neglect of Labour is unfortunate. Smart's treatment of British strategy, which is based primarily on secondary sources, is less satisfying than his treatment of British politics. He rightly devotes considerable space to the origins of the Scandinavian campaign in early 1940 but fails to place the subject in the larger context of British and Anglo-French strategy. Why, with a massive German military build-up in Western Europe, did the British seek to divert scarce military resources to peripheral theaters? The answer lies not so much in the political and military preparations for the campaign as in the growing doubts about whether time was an ally—the underlying principle of Allied strategy. If time was not an ally, if time was working in Germany's favor, then something needed to be done quickly to change this situation. Since Germany's military strength in the West ruled out anything in this theater, the British (and the French) had to look elsewhere—to Scandinavia and perhaps further [End Page 992] North to the Soviet Union. A second and related weakness of Smart's account of British strategy is the relative neglect of the French side. British strategy during this period has to be studied in the context of Anglo-French strategy, if only because its miniscule military contribution to the common cause rendered Britain dependent on France. Equally to the point, it was the French, more than the British, who during the Phony War came to believe that time was not an ally. This belief threw French strategy into crisis—a crisis to which the British could not remain indifferent. Talbot Imlay Université Laval Quebec, Quebec, Canada Copyright © 2004 Society for Military History

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Military HistorySame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207