Dominion Armies in World War II

In September 1939, a committee of the British War Cabinet estimated that the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa could raise fourteen divisions of the fifty-five-division field force it hoped the British Commonwealth would assemble for the war against Germany and the other Axis powers. The British got what they were looking for, and then some. The Canadians raised three infantry divisions, two armored divisions, and two independent armored brigades. They also raised another three divisions for home defense, one of which was designated for the invasion of Japan when the war in the Far East ended in August 1945. The Australians generated four infantry divisions and one armored division for the 2nd Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF), plus another two armored cavalry divisions and eight infantry divisions (not all of which were fully manned) for the militia and home defense. Two of those militia infantry divisions fought in the New Guinea campaign. The 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2 NZEF) comprised one infantry division (later converted to an armored division), which fought in the Mediterranean, and a two-brigade infantry division that deployed to the Pacific theater, where it worked under American command until its disbandment in October 1944. The South Africans raised two expeditionary infantry divisions, one of which fought in East Africa and the Western Desert until converted to an armored division and deployed to Italy in 1943. The other division fought in the Western Desert from mid-1941 until its capture at Tobruk in June 1942. The first serious studies of the dominion armies in World War II were the official histories, commissioned by the respective governments to record what their soldiers had done and accomplished. The works remain solid records of what happened, and, cost and profit being less of a concern for government publication projects than they are for independent presses, the official histories are almost invariably better illustrated with clear maps and well-chosen photographs than the histories that followed. A generation of dominion historians since the 1970s has continued to explore their nations’ wartime histories, challenge long-held assumptions, and fill in historical gaps left by the official histories, most along purely national lines. Combined with the official histories, these new national histories have formed a solid foundation for a growing number of transnational examinations of the British Commonwealth armies since the mid-2000s.

Crime Prevention and the Coproduction of Security: Outcomes of Citizen Participation at the Neighborhood Level in Neoliberal Chile

A study of the implications of the coproduction-of-security policy implemented by Chile’s postdictatorship governments shows that the appeal for citizen participation in security provision has resulted in individual practices of home defense and protection rather than the development of the associative programs promoted by the state. This has come about in a context of extreme fear of crime and mistrust of the institutions in charge of security. The fact that the discourse of security coproduction is interwoven with the individuation and privatization that characterize Chilean society calls for a review of the agenda of citizen participation in security issues. Un estudio de las implicaciones de la política de coproducción de seguridad implementada por los gobiernos postdictadura de Chile muestra que el llamado a la participación ciudadana en provisión de seguridad ha resultado en prácticas individuales de defensa y protección del hogar más que en el desarrollo de programas asociativos promovidos por el estado. Esto ha ocurrido en un contexto de miedo extremo al crimen y desconfianza de las instituciones a cargo de la seguridad. El hecho de que el discurso de la coproducción de seguridad esté entrelazado con la individuación y la privatización que caracteriza a la sociedad chilena requiere una revisión de la agenda de participación ciudadana en temas de seguridad.