ABSTRACT What did peasants discuss at party meetings? Were they mobilized by ethnic politics or indifferent to them altogether? The end of the First World War brought about universal male suffrage in much of Europe, and with it the process of mass politics began. The concept of national indifference is important in understanding interwar politics, because this period is often studied teleologically with attention focused on extremism and nationalism as the primary mobilizing issue Agrarian movements have been under-researched, and when Agrarians have been studied, it has been through the prism of elite politics. This comparative paper seeks to redress this omission by looking at grassroots rural politics. The interwar countryside was marked by profound political, economic and social transformation but also in terms of what Robert Paxton has described as the ‘triple crisis of the countryside’ – worsening economic conditions, the declining status of the countryside and inadequate political representation. The paper will explore how reform and crisis impacted how agrarian politics functioned at a local level by asymmetrically comparing cases from Romania, Poland and Ireland, with the final case helping to contextualize Eastern Europe within the wider European experience This paper argues that the rural population was mobilized, but primarily in the context of local issues rather than national ethno-political questions. Local party organization was, to paraphrase James C Scott, the site ‘of an exchange of small arms fire’ in rural class conflict, as questions regarding the control of public space, generational conflict and power within the village mobilized peasants. Thus, I argue that it was the underlying socio-economic issues that mobilized the rural population, not nationalism. The dynamics of these conflicts were shaped by local economic, political and social power dynamics, and by using indifference as a concept, we can look more deeply at interwar politics from a grassroots perspective and develop a more nuanced understanding of local, national and European politics.

中文翻译：

---

冷漠但动员起来：东欧和西欧两次世界大战期间的农村政治

摘要 农民在党的会议上讨论了什么？他们是被民族政治所动员还是对他们完全漠不关心？第一次世界大战的结束在欧洲大部分地区实现了普遍的男性选举权，大众政治的进程也随之开始。民族冷漠的概念对于理解两次世界大战之间的政治很重要，因为这一时期经常被目的论地研究，重点关注极端主义和民族主义作为主要动员问题的土地运动尚未得到充分研究，而当土地运动被研究时，它已经通过精英政治的棱镜。这篇比较论文试图通过审视基层农村政治来弥补这一遗漏。两次世界大战之间的农村以深刻的政治、经济和社会转型以及罗伯特·帕克斯顿所说的“农村三重危机”——经济状况恶化、农村地位下降和政治代表不足。本文将通过不对称比较罗马尼亚、波兰和爱尔兰的案例，探讨改革和危机如何影响地方层面的农业政治运作，最后一个案例有助于将东欧置于更广泛的欧洲经验中。动员，但主要是在地方问题而不是国家民族政治问题的背景下。用詹姆斯 C 斯科特的话来说，地方党组织是农村阶级冲突中“小武器交火”的场所，作为关于公共空间控制的问题，村内的代际冲突和权力动员了农民。因此，我认为动员农村人口的是根本的社会经济问题，而不是民族主义。这些冲突的动态受到当地经济、政治和社会权力动态的影响，通过将冷漠作为一个概念，我们可以从草根的角度更深入地看待两次世界大战之间的政治，并对地方、国家和欧洲政治有更细致的理解。 .