Nationalism in Central Europe in the first half of the 20th century has been long seen as a decisive force behind people’s actions. Consequently, scholarship often portrays on-the-ground responses to nationalist ideologies in all of their forms (political, cultural, and economic) as either enthusiastic embracement, outright rejection or indifference. Our panel aims to shift the focus from ethnic or national identities to the practical strategies employed by figures, such as experts, civil servants, and local elites, in navigating the 1918–1945 period. By examining how these individuals pragmatically adapted policies and practices to their specific contexts, the panel highlights the complexity of decision-making beyond mere ideological interpretations. Furthermore, the panel explores the concept of scaling in historical analysis, investigating the interplay between local, regional, national, and international levels. Through micro-studies placed in Czech and Polish border towns, Nazi Berlin’s civil registry offices, and Geneva’s conference rooms, the panel offers a layered understanding of Czech, Polish, Yugoslav, and German histories.

Zora Piskačová’s study delves into how small-town leaders in Polish Cieszyn and Czech Český Těšín navigated post-WWI border challenges. She reveals that these administrators prioritized local autonomy and their constituents’ rights over national allegiance, transforming pre-national municipal ties into intricate cross-border networks to counter their nation states’ centralizing efforts. Nicole Albrecht’s paper shifts focus to rural spaces, characterizing Yugoslav experts in health, economics, education, and law as “peasant internationalists.” These individuals transcended ideological and political differences to enhance peasant living standards in Yugoslavia and beyond. By methodologically combining their “lived experience of internationalism” in Geneva with the analytical concept of “national indifference,” the paper shows how these internationalists leveraged peasant life realities to define Yugoslavia’s role in the international system from 1920 to 1948. Lastly, Émilie Duranceau-Lapointe dives into the offices of Nazi Berlin’s civil registry offices to analyze petitions submitted by German citizens to contest their imposed racial categorization as “Jews” and “Mischlinge.” She examines these petitions as traces of the interactions between petitioners—who maneuvered the state’s rhetoric and apparatus—and civil servants—whose decisions defined and shaped the categorical borders of the “Volksgemeinschaft.”

This panel explores the interactions among states, nations, empires, individuals, and international cooperative efforts through the following questions: How did norms and ideologies dictated at the top translate on the ground? Was nationalism, even in its extreme forms, the motivating factor behind individuals’ actions? How did local socio-economic considerations impact national and international (self-)perceptions and in turn, the formulation of international laws and standards? How did individuals’ actions and decisions reflect their relationship to their state? Which role do individuals’ pragmatic (purposefully non-ideological) discourse and conduct play in constituting or contributing to the national state?