The state of captivity offers a thematic platform which feeds into these conceptualizations, but this has so far been done primarily from a metropolitan and military point of view. What about those diasporic civilians who found themselves interned
From the view of diaspora, rather than metropole
Because of the propaganda biases and idea of "honor, shape, sacrifice
societal changes from the nineteenth to the twentieth century
connected with German and Russian Revolution: Class speaking ** Part of the author saying that WWI shaped society that mixed classes (both Soldier-civilian and other class dynamics) and went beyond nationality (in the midst of nationalist movement)**
Were these men soldiers or were they civilians? What about non-reservists?
here's (in the diaspora of Germans) the civilian-military line blured
e question of totalization is inextricably linked to the contested differentiation between civilians and soldiers. In the pre-war years the two spheres became increasingly blurred
Similar to my DIS
The authors show that these multi-ethnic and polymorphous empires mobilized millions of imperial subjects, mainly combatants but also non-combatant labourers, turning the conflict into a truly global war in multiple locations
This is an influential work to the authror
tor Georg Wagener was a proponent of nationalist sentiment, organizing the Kaiser’s birthday celebrations and similar festivities in Fort Napier Camp, South Africa.
I read this in chapter 4
Investigating internment under an imperial lens thus points to the globally integrated nature of the policy
An argument
had borrowed their free-trade ideas from England while neglecting Russian national interests.
national as opposed to free-trade
mperial mentalit
Imperial mentality began in expansion in Asia