This paper examines how Latvian communities abroad reacted to and were influenced by a change of the first magnitude in the political life of their homeland, namely, the proclamation of the Republic of Latvia on November 18, 1918. News of the proclamation, first of all, necessitated diaspora Latvians choosing attitudes towards the new phenomenon, which highlighted the political pre‑dispositions of the different groups within the diaspora. Polarisation of opinions was followed shortly by a wave of activities both in support of and against the new Republic. These activities included gathering financial resources for war victims and state institutions in Latvia, public relations campaigns in diaspora host countries, political lobbying etc. The establishment of the Republic of Latvia also profoundly influenced and intensified the internal formation processes within the diaspora. A marked increase of activity is observable in all fields of engagement that are characteristic of an active ethno‑national diaspora: the internal organisational structure was further developed; contacts with the homeland intensified; mutual links between geographically distant diaspora groups became closer. The great political changes in the homeland gave the Latvian diaspora the push necessary to fully develop and become an active ethno‑national diaspora.

In the chaotic situation following the British invasion of southern Palestine at the end of 1917, military officials faced several countervailing pressures. In addition to ongoing military priorities (including international norms pertaining to military occupations, such as the law of the ‘status quo’), pressing humanitarian concerns, and even the personal religious sentiments of individual officers, the British occupation administration was forced to take into account international pressures and interventions resulting from the overlapping and conflicting promises made during the war (inter alia, Sykes‑Picot agreement, Husayn‑McMahon correspondence, Balfour Declaration, and President Wilson’s 14 Points). This paper focuses on the land policy‑making process as a case study with which to weigh the various factors pressing upon the military occupation as it evolved during its first three years. Land ownership was a huge concern: a properly functioning land registry was seen as key to the improvement of economic and social conditions in the largely agricultural economy, and British interventions were followed closely by all interested parties. The land has also been at the centre of the ensuing century‑long conflict between Arabs and Jews. Thus, a close examination of land policies (and especially the 1920 land ordinance) offers an extremely important window on both the rule of law in the aftermath of the war and our understanding of the current, unending conflict in the land.

This paper investigates the situation of Galician refugees in the Habsburg Empire during the last year of the First World War. The majority of the refugees returned home following the eastward movement of the frontline in 1915 (i.e. after the Gorlice‑Tarnów campaign). However, many others stayed deep within the Austro‑Hungarian Empire till the end of the war. According to the official reports of the Ministry of the Interior, there were still 90 thousand refugees (25% Poles, 28% Jews, and 46% Ukrainians, then known as Ruthenians) receiving social benefits from the state in the Austrian part of the Empire on 1st September 1918. Moreover, one can add countless refugees who stayed in the interior of the Empire at their own expense. The situation became even more complicated when the feelings of enmity on the part of the local inhabitants escalated. Pressed by society, the local authorities started expelling the refugees. As a consequence, some of them returned home, while others still stayed in exile in search of a better life. What is even more interesting is that some of them (mostly Jews) emphasised the lack of a bond with the new Polish state born in November 1918.

The independence of newly born (or reborn) states at the end of 1918 raised the question of the future of the aristocratic families who had built their position in the pre‑war empires. An interesting example of such dilemmas arose in Poland. This was connected with the fate of two originally German‑speaking families. One of them was a branch of the imperial Habsburg family that settled in Żywiec (German: Saybush) in western Galicia. The other: rich and powerful family of Hofburg von Pless having their main seat in Pszczyna (German: Pless) in Prussian Upper Silesia. They were both members of the absolute elite of European aristocracy, being related to many noble and royal families and playing important roles in the political and economic life of Austro‑Hungary and Germany. What they also had in common was the fact, that their estates were located in a borderland between different ethnic and national groups. After the end of World War One, almost all these properties became part of the independent Polish state. As a result, the new administration treated the families with serious distrust. However, their national choices were different: the Habsburgs of Żywiec started to consider themselves as pure Polish, while the Hofburgs radically adhered to their German self‑identity. This article shows what the criteria were behind these choices.

The Vistula Pomeranian (the former Prussian province of West Prussia) remained the longest dependent part of the partitioning power of Poland, which was reborn after 1918. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Polish population of these lands, whose original ethnic component was Kashubians, strengthened their national awareness under the influence of modernisation processes. As in the entire Prussian partition, the dominant factor here was the idea of national solidarity built around an attachment to Catholicism. The defeat of Germany in World War I was associated by the local Poles with the incorporation of Pomeranian lands into the borders of the Polish Republic. The decisions of the Paris Conference of 1919 were awaited with hope and enthusiasm. Independence, however, brought disappointment caused by the economic crisis, as well as the inability of the central authorities to deal with the native population. Against this background, there were conflicts and misunderstandings throughout the entire interwar period. After 1920, the slogans of regional particularism gained popularity among the indigenous Pomeranian population. However, the German threat of the yoke forced local political and social activists to respond to the idea of unification of Pomeranian lands with the rest of the country, pushed by the central authorities.