Christian X of Denmark. Positioning themselves as a ‘neutrality bloc’, the monarchs hoped that their collaborative efforts might help to offset the repeated incursions by the belligerents into their countries’ neutral rights. The focus of the chapter is primarily on the symbolic nature of monarchical agency in a stressed conflict-ridden environment. Chapter 4 emphasizes the ways in which Sweden’s foreign relationships during the war were dependent both on highly fluid formal diplomatic interactions and on activist renderings of Sweden’s national identity and purpose in the international arena. In turn, Chapter 5 addresses the mobilization of ideas of war, peace and neutrality in Denmark through the analysis of the work of the intellectual, Georg Brandes. In Chapter 6, Jonas strays away from neutrality to analyse the impact of the First World War on the Finnish independence movement in the wake of the Russian revolutions of 1917. The chapter plays with national myths, royal visits and cultural diplomacy. The chapter feeds into Jonas’ final case study and chapter on the post-war future of the Åland archipelago. The question of who would control this geo-strategic territory was as important to the European great powers as it was to Sweden and Finland. There is much to be said for highlighting the diversity of Scandinavians’ war experiences and of their political considerations of neutrality, but, overall, I am not sure that Jonas’ experiment with eclecticism worked. The chapters function well as singular pieces, but they do not connect up easily into book form. A conclusion might have helped Jonas draw the interconnected themes together more clearly, but sadly that was lacking. Most of the chapters also left me begging for more comparative work on the same theme (for example, by contrasting Sweden’s public activists with those in Norway, Denmark and Finland or by comparing Brandes with other intellectuals). Altogether, there seemed to be seven distinct book projects presented here, each of which were not given space to come to full fruition. None of this critique, however, takes anything away from the fact that an English-language work on the history of Scandinavia in the First World War is a welcome addition to the field. Jonas has certainly expanded and complicated our understanding of the myriad faces of this global total war and has opened up all manner of avenues for future research.

中文翻译：

---

斯坦尼斯拉夫·库尔奇茨基 (Stanislav Kulchytsky)，乌克兰 1932-1933 年的饥荒：大饥荒的剖析

丹麦的克里斯蒂安十世。君主将自己定位为“中立集团”，希望他们的合作努力可能有助于抵消交战国一再侵犯其国家中立权利的行为。本章的重点主要是在充满压力的冲突环境中君主代理的象征性质。第 4 章强调了瑞典在战争期间的外交关系依赖于高度流动的正式外交互动以及瑞典在国际舞台上的民族认同和目的的激进渲染的方式。反过来，第 5 章通过分析知识分子乔治·布兰德斯（Georg Brandes）的工作，讨论了丹麦战争、和平与中立思想的动员问题。在第 6 章中，乔纳斯偏离了中立立场，分析了第一次世界大战对 1917 年俄罗斯革命后芬兰独立运动的影响。本章涉及国家神话、皇室访问和文化外交。本章是乔纳斯最后的案例研究和奥兰群岛战后未来的章节。谁将控制这片地缘战略领土的问题对欧洲大国与瑞典和芬兰一样重要。强调斯堪的纳维亚人战争经历的多样性和他们对中立的政治考虑有很多话要说，但总的来说，我不确定乔纳斯的折衷主义实验是否奏效。这些章节作为单独的部分运作良好，但它们不容易连接成书本形式。一个结论可能有助于乔纳斯更清楚地将相互关联的主题结合在一起，但遗憾的是缺乏这一点。大多数章节也让我乞求在同一主题上进行更多的比较工作（例如，将瑞典的公共活动家与挪威、丹麦和芬兰的公共活动家进行对比，或者将布兰德斯与其他知识分子进行比较）。总的来说，这里似乎展示了七个不同的图书项目，每个项目都没有空间来实现。然而，这些批评都没有否定这样一个事实，即关于第一次世界大战期间斯堪的纳维亚历史的英语著作是该领域的一个受欢迎的补充。乔纳斯无疑扩大并复杂了我们对这场全球全面战争的无数面孔的理解，并为未来的研究开辟了各种途径。