It is an extremely challenging undertaking to examine childhood, school, and education in the period of the First World War in the Dual Monarchy, especially in the alpine regions. In their introduction, Christa Hämmerle and Hannes Stekl, two of the editors and organizers of the conference on which the reviewed volume is based, give an excellent overview of the current state of research on World War I's “school front” (especially in the alpine core lands of Cisleithania)—a term that they did not invent but use widely and correctly throughout their arguments. While publications in Western Europe—France, United Kingdom, and Germany—on the topic are plentiful, almost “unmanageable” (7), the editors immediately concede that studies for their specific region, the successor states of the Habsburg monarchy and in southeastern Europe, are rather rare (14–15).

Therefore the anthology is a very important preliminary contribution to inquire how children were mobilized in Austria(-Hungary) for the Great War. The various—altogether ten—thematic contributions offer excellent in-depth studies on a range of possible methodological approaches, from institutional perspectives to microhistories, covering subjects on gender and regional aspects to questions of social difference and milieus, as well as different spheres of mobilization. Nevertheless, one crucial aspect remains underexplored in the volume: while Western European countries, which are the point of origin in comparing all methodological approaches of the volume, could activate “national feelings” in their curricula and schoolbooks and rely on a self-evident “patriotism,” the Dual Monarchy—as a multiethnic (and at the same time gradually dissolving) entity with a vague all-state “identity”—did not have this possibility.

Efforts to create a transnational, multiethnic identity, which already failed at the end of the nineteenth century, continued in this period and ultimately did not succeed and instead, as the authors clearly show, oscillated between a kind of dynastic patriotism and a propagation of a (Austro?-)German supremacy—a dynamic also applicable to other spheres beyond education. The idea of loyalty toward the dynasty and a supranational “Austrianness” obviously was not sufficient for mobilizing large strata of the Cisleithanian populace for the Great War as the example of Trentino and South Tyrol shows, where Italian irredentism came to the fore. Unfortunately, this theme is not developed, and the other Kronländer (crownlands)—like Bohemia or Galicia, not to mention Transleithania—are missing. However, this is largely due to the mentioned desiderata of existing scholarship on childhood and war in these regions and not the fault of the authors as writing the history of Austria-Hungary from a “German-Austrian, alpine” perspective is notoriously difficult in Austrian historiography.

Altogether the results of the case studies—which elucidate different and very important aspects of wartime culture in schools—are not surprising: that a state-controlled education system tried to win hearts and minds for warfare; that a variety of tools and means served to instrumentalize schools for war efforts; that curricula and directives by school authorities became more and more belligerent; that disciplinary measures against any kind of resistance or deviance became more aggressive and harsh toward the end of the war, and so on. What is rather surprising is the fact that from the very beginning, already in the autumn of 1914, there were growing discrepancies between the administrative guidelines and the everyday reality in schools. These well-documented measures, guidelines, ordinances, and interventions were often unsuccessful, but the editors only mention this incidentally (33) or casually in a caption, without fully engaging with the question of whether the overall militarization was an Erfolgsprojekt (successful project) (35). Even until 1916—a turning point for war enthusiasm—all efforts were just “more or less successful” (41), which apparently means that they were far from being a sweeping, unqualified triumph and could—a bit more boldly—even be interpreted as a clear failure. This is astonishing and in sharp contrast to Western Europe: obviously different elements—like parents’ social position, school directives, and ethnic integration—had to correspond, so that war propaganda could function and find its proper audience or resonance. All other cases of war enthusiasm seemed to be more a kind of an adjustment to group-specific constraints: Ernst Langthaler highlights this in his microhistorical study by referring to the “the atomization of the war-time society” (111). Christa Hämmerle does the same in her study when she remarks that the abundances of ordinances and regulations by the school authorities illustrates the strength of opposing forces in her examination of the very early disintegration, the “crumbling” (Bröckeln) (134) of the school front. The limited—“more or less”—success of the propaganda machinery is also well shown in the—surprising—fact that, even in wartime, toys stayed—after a short period of adaption to more militaristic play—very conventional and retained a civilian character (234). Another interesting aspect is that—even though chances were given—no new types of games were created; innovation was not on the agenda. The same applies to the style of instruction in general, which again became more and more receptive, whereas Germany at the same time went in another direction—to more progressive methods and allowed for greater autonomy of the pupils (29). This is an interesting difference that needs to be elaborated on in more depth.

All in all, the volume give as an excellent overview to the field, offers a wide range of approaches, and is definitely a good starting point for further investigations on a regional level and in methodological terms.