World War I

For many Hungarian soldiers in Italy, 3 and 4 November 1918 meant not the armistice and a return home, but the beginning of a prolonged stay in one of the Italian prison camps. It is widely known why these soldiers fell into captivity, but their prospects of returning home are still somewhat unclear. The topic is particularly interesting since some of the Hungarian soldiers were to return to a different country from the one they left given that from 1918–1919 onward, their native land now belonged to one of the successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

This paper discusses a short but very important episode of First World War history concerning the Yugoslav ruling over Rijeka (Fiume) in 1918 as seen through the war experience and writings of Stanislaw Krakow. In the interwar period, Krakow became one of the most known representatives of Expressionism while at the same time a prominent journalist, philatelist, numismatist, art collector, movie director, etc.

In his study the author deals with the exiting World War II from several viewpoints. First he analyses the heritage from the exiting World War I, that is those efforts which did not succeed after 1918, but became an inspiration for the post-1945 period, such as the international influence of the United States, the international justice system, the foundation of the UN and European integration. In the second part he focuses on the specifics of the exiting World War II such as the occupation, brutality and the global dimension.

The study applies the French term "sortie de guerre" (exiting the war) to the issues at the end of the Great War in the Habsburg monarchy, Central-Eastern Europe and in Slovakia, which was part of this area. It pays special attention to the issues of the minorities and the search for the possible ways in which they could be protected by international law and the treaties signed after the end of World War I. Exiting the war for Slovaks cannot be considered from a narrow local perspective.

To start, the author asks a thought-provoking question – whether France has definitively exited World War I. He defends the methodological approach to exiting the war, which may better render the complexities of the reconciliation of the war experience than the oft-used term the post-war period. He deals with the different amounts of time taken, and especially the persisting grief from the loss of loved ones which carries over into the later generations and in such a way the Great War still seems to be relevant even today.

This article is an introduction to the thematic issue of Forum Historiae 2/2018 dedicated to the subject of exiting wars in France and Central European countries in 19th and 20th centuries. In addition to introducing the main research questions and hypotheses, which the authors of the issue worked with, and to the outline of their main conclusions, the editors also provide a brief comparison of exiting wars in East-Central Europe in 20th century.

In this text the writer analyses the formation of attitudes of the Ukrainian civilian population settled in the territory of Eastern Galicia towards the representatives of the Polish civilian and military powers in the period of the Polish-Ukrainian (1918-1920) and the Polish-Russian (1920) war conflicts and in the immediately following period when Poland seized power over this territory. He develops the issue against a background formed by a complicated military and political situation in this area (including the consequences of Civil War in Russia which was fought also here).

The paper dealing with the fates of men mobilised to fight on the battlefields of the Great War treats them from the aspect of creating new, specific social relations, nets and communities. Having deprived them of their families, relatives and local communities the warfare also caused that many of those who survived were separated from their dearest and nearest not only during the War but also during the years immediately following the conflict.

Atrocities committed in the Civil War in Russia in 1917-1920 had no parallel at that time. Both sides participating in the conflict, the Bolsheviks and "the Whites", led their operations in a way much different from the period war standards. Executions and pacifications of the citizens, committed both by the Red Army and soldiers of "the Whites", were the rule of the day. They war events caused famine and mass migration of the civilian population, attempting to find protection and help from the allied armies that took part in the intervention in Russia.

An impact of the war events and war regimes upon the family opens space for comparative studies of social consequences of the WWI and WWII. Survival and behavioural strategies may be another starting point for a study of models of behaviour and mental reactions to extraordinary conditions created by a war conflict. The study focuses on these two schemes and highlights their potential to become universal concepts acceptable for studying an impact exerted by war on a society in general.