examples from the Balkan War to make arguments about the nature of the special Serb sacrifice for the creation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. In the third section, John Paul Newman, Petra Svoljšak, and Christoph Mick explore the ways in which Croatian, Slovene, Polish, and Ukrainian veterans and families struggled — and generally failed — to develop an effective voice to commemorate sacrifices that had often been made for the Habsburg state, and thus went unrecognized and unrewarded in Yugoslavia and Poland. All three authors detail the many problems faced by disabled or impoverished veterans who had fought for the ‘wrong’ side, and often did not qualify for state benefits, meagre as those were. Despite their attempts to organize themselves in statewide interest groups or to work in tandem with nationally privileged veterans’ groups (something that only occasionally worked), disabled and impoverished veterans not only faced hostility from nationalists, but also the inability of insolvent states in the 1930s to expand their meagre welfare programmes. In a final chapter in this section, Laurence Cole analyses the ways in which local people and communities in the Tyrol — both North and South — attempted to commemorate their war dead and war sacrifice, while avoiding the hostile attention of the Italian Fascist and Austrian Corporatist regimes. By including among his research the most local of efforts, Cole’s article suggests useful ways to approach open questions posed by this volume about so-called ‘silent commemorations’. Those attempts — when they involved semi-public efforts — often memorialized intimately human issues of comradeship and death, rather than assigning any grander nationalist or imperial significance to the actions of the war’s dead and its survivors. In some cases, Germanspeaking communities examined by Cole in the South Tyrol were able to commemorate wartime sacrifice in this way even under the watchful eye of their Fascist rulers. Both the editors and Berghahn books are to be congratulated on having produced an exceptional collection of essays for three reasons in particular. First, these essays address common questions in a highly coherent fashion. Secondly, despite their common focus, the essays offer a range of creative and sometimes new approaches to a difficult set of questions that are only now beginning to be addressed by historians. Third, this collection offers an excellent attempt to go beyond the imperial fragmentation of 1918 that created several often mutually antagonistic historiographies, and to relativize the meaning of 1918 for the region. Thus the volume helps the reader to understand several critical and influential continuities that survived the official end of empire.

中文翻译：

---

阿诺德勋伯格的战后欧洲华沙幸存者

巴尔干战争的例子来论证塞尔维亚人为建立塞尔维亚人、克罗地亚人和斯洛文尼亚人王国而做出的特殊塞尔维亚牺牲的性质。在第三部分，John Paul Newman、Petra Svoljšak 和 Christoph Mick 探讨了克罗地亚、斯洛文尼亚、波兰和乌克兰的退伍军人和家庭如何努力——而且通常都失败了——形成一种有效的声音来纪念经常做出的牺牲哈布斯堡王朝，因此在南斯拉夫和波兰没有得到承认和奖励。这三位作者都详细描述了残疾或贫困的退伍军人面临的许多问题，他们曾为“错误的”一方而战，而且往往没有资格获得国家福利，尽管如此微薄。尽管他们试图在全州范围内组织自己的利益团体或与享有国家特权的退伍军人团体（只是偶尔奏效）合作，但残疾和贫困的退伍军人不仅面临民族主义者的敌意，而且还面临 1930 年代资不抵债的国家的无力感扩大他们微薄的福利计划。在本节的最后一章中，劳伦斯·科尔分析了蒂罗尔州北部和南部的当地人和社区试图纪念他们的战死者和战争牺牲品的方式，同时避免了意大利法西斯主义者和奥地利社团主义者的敌对关注制度。通过在他的研究中包括最本地化的努力，科尔的文章提出了有用的方法来解决本书提出的关于所谓的“无声纪念”的开放性问题。这些尝试——当它们涉及半公开的努力时——往往是亲密地纪念人类的同志关系和死亡问题，而不是赋予战争死者及其幸存者的行为任何更大的民族主义或帝国主义意义。在某些情况下，科尔在南蒂罗尔考察的德语社区即使在法西斯统治者的监视下也能够以这种方式纪念战时牺牲。尤其是出于三个原因，编辑和 Berghahn 书籍都应祝贺他们制作了出色的论文集。首先，这些文章以高度连贯的方式解决了常见问题。其次，尽管他们的共同关注点，这些文章提供了一系列创造性的、有时是新的方法来解决一系列困难的问题，而这些问题现在才开始被历史学家解决。第三，该系列提供了超越 1918 年帝国分裂的极好尝试，这种分裂创造了几个经常相互对立的历史编纂，并将 1918 年对地区的意义相对化。因此，本书有助于读者理解在帝国正式终结后幸存下来的几个重要且有影响力的连续性。