ABSTRACT
The academic study of World War I in the past three decades has undergone a profound transformation. Whereas ‘traditional’ WWI historiography focused primarily on trench warfare and on political, military and diplomatic history, the ‘new wave’ of studies has expanded the field to many new areas. The attention paid to collective remembrance (e.g., Gregory 1994; Hynes 1997; Mosse 1996; Winter 1995) and to gender (e.g., Bourke 1996, 2006; Braybon 1998; Daniel 1997; Davis 2000; Healy 2006) has accounted for a significant portion of this new research, but outstanding contributions have also been made by historians dealing with refugees (Gatrell 1999, 2008), war crimes (Horne & Kramer 2001), trauma (Micale & Lerner 2001), welfare (Zahra 2006) and, most recently, prisoners of war (Audoin-Rouzeau & Becker 2002; Jones 2011; Moritz & Leidinger 2004; Nachtigal 2008; Rachamimov 2002, 2006) and internees (Stibbe 2008a, 2008b). As a result of these developments, the complex and often contradictory legacies of World War I are much better researched and understood.
