DOCSLIB.ORG

Yalta Conference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yalta Conference Yalta Conference 1 The Conference All three leaders were attempting to establish an agenda for governing post-war Europe. They wanted to keep peace between post-world war countries. On the Eastern Front, the front line at the end of December 1943 re- mained in the Soviet Union but, by August 1944, So- viet forces were inside Poland and parts of Romania as part of their drive west.[1] By the time of the Conference, Red Army Marshal Georgy Zhukov's forces were 65 km (40 mi) from Berlin. Stalin’s position at the conference was one which he felt was so strong that he could dic- tate terms. According to U.S. delegation member and future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, "[i]t was not a question of what we would let the Russians do, but what Yalta Conference in February 1945 with (from left to right) we could get the Russians to do.”[2] Moreover, Roosevelt Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. Also hoped for a commitment from Stalin to participate in the present are Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov (far left); United Nations. Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, RN, Marshal of the RAF Sir Charles Portal, RAF, Premier Stalin, insisting that his doctors opposed any (standing behind Churchill); General George C. Marshall, Chief long trips, rejected Roosevelt’s suggestion to meet at the of Staff of the United States Army, and Fleet Admiral William Mediterranean.[3] He offered instead to meet at the Black D. Leahy, USN, (standing behind Roosevelt). Sea resort of Yalta, in the Crimea. Stalin’s fear of flying also played a contributing factor in this decision.[4] Each leader had an agenda for the Yalta Conference: Roosevelt wanted Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan, specifically invading Japan, as well as Soviet par- ticipation in the UN; Churchill pressed for free elections The Yalta Conference, sometimes called the Crimea and democratic governments in Eastern and Central Eu- Conference and codenamed the Argonaut Conference, rope (specifically Poland); and Stalin demanded a Soviet held from February 4 to 11, 1945, was the World War II sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Eu- meeting of the heads of government of the United States, rope, an essential aspect of the USSR's national security the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, represented by strategy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Premier Joseph Stalin, respectively, for the Poland was the first item on the Soviet agenda. Stalin purpose of discussing Europe’s post-war reorganization. stated that “For the Soviet government, the question of The conference convened in the Livadia Palace near Yalta Poland was one of honor” and security because Poland in Crimea. had served as a historical corridor for forces attempt- ing to invade Russia.[5] In addition, Stalin stated regard- The meeting was intended mainly to discuss the re- ing history that “because the Russians had greatly sinned establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe. Within against Poland”, “the Soviet government was trying to a few years, with the Cold War dividing the continent, atone for those sins.”[5] Stalin concluded that “Poland Yalta became a subject of intense controversy. To some must be strong” and that “the Soviet Union is interested in extent, it has remained controversial. the creation of a mighty, free and independent Poland.” Yalta was the second of three wartime conferences among Accordingly, Stalin stipulated that Polish government-in- the Big Three. It had been preceded by the Tehran exile demands were not negotiable: the Soviet Union Conference in 1943, and was followed by the Potsdam would keep the territory of eastern Poland they had al- Conference in July 1945, which was attended by Stalin, ready annexed in 1939, and Poland was to be compen- Churchill (who was replaced halfway through by the sated for that by extending its western borders at the ex- newly elected British Prime Minister Clement Attlee) and pense of Germany. Comporting with his prior statement, Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor. Stalin promised free elections in Poland despite the Soviet 1 2 1 THE CONFERENCE sponsored provisional government recently installed by ets had already liquidated most of the governments; and him in Polish territories occupied by the Red Army. Poland whose government-in-exile was also excluded by Roosevelt wanted the USSR to enter the Pacific War with Stalin) and that all civilians would be repatriated. the Allies. One Soviet precondition for a declaration of war against Japan was an American official recognition 1.1 Key points of Mongolian independence from China (Mongolian Peo- ple’s Republic had already been the Soviet satellite state in The key points of the meeting are as follows: World War One and World War Two), and a recognition of Soviet interests in the Manchurian railways and Port • Arthur (but not asking the Chinese to lease), as well as Agreement to the priority of the unconditional sur- deprivation of Japanese soil (such as Sakhalin and Kuril render of Nazi Germany. After the war, Germany Islands) to return to Russian custody since the Treaty of and Berlin would be split into four occupied zones. Portsmouth; these were agreed without Chinese represen- • Stalin agreed that France would have a fourth oc- tation, consultation or consent, with the American desire cupation zone in Germany, but it would have to be to end war early by reducing American casualties. Stalin formed out of the American and British zones. agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific War three months after the defeat of Germany. Stalin pledged • Germany would undergo demilitarization and to Roosevelt to keep the nationality of the Korean Penin- denazification. sula intact as Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. • German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labour. (see also Forced labor of Germans after World War II and Forced labour of Germans in the Soviet Union). The forced labour was to be used to repair damage that Germany inflicted on its victims.[6] • Creation of a reparation council which would be lo- cated in the Soviet Union. • The status of Poland was discussed. It was agreed to reorganize the communist Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland that had been installed by the Soviet Union “on a broader democratic basis.” • The Polish eastern border would follow the Curzon A Big Three meeting room Line, and Poland would receive territorial compen- sation in the West from Germany. Furthermore, the Soviets had agreed to join the United • Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, but Nations, given the secret understanding of a voting for- forestalled ever honouring his promise. mula with a veto power for permanent members of the Security Council, thus ensuring that each country could • Citizens of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia were block unwanted decisions. to be handed over to their respective countries, re- At the time, the Red Army had occupied Poland com- gardless of their consent. pletely and held much of Eastern Europe with a military • Roosevelt obtained a commitment by Stalin to par- power three times greater than Allied forces in the West. ticipate in the UN. The Declaration of Liberated Europe did little to dispel the sphere of influence agreements that had been incor- • Stalin requested that all of the 16 Soviet Social- porated into armistice agreements. ist Republics would be granted UN membership. All three leaders ratified previous agreements about the This was taken into consideration, but 14 republics post-war occupation zones for Germany: three zones of were denied; Roosevelt agreed to membership for occupation, one for each of the three principal Allies: The Ukraine and Byelorussia while reserving the right, Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. which was never exercised, to seek two more votes [7] They also agreed to give France a zone of occupation, for the United States. carved out of the U.S. and UK zones. • Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire Also, the Big Three agreed that all original governments of Japan “in two or three months after Germany has would be restored to the invaded countries (with the ex- surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated,” ception of France, whose government was regarded as and that as a result, the Soviets would take pos- collaborationist; Romania and Bulgaria, where the Sovi- session of Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, 3 the port of Darien would be internationalized, and that the three would assist occupied countries to form in- the Soviet lease of Port Arthur would be restored, terim government that “pledged to the earliest possible among other concessions.[8] establishment through free elections of the Governments responsive to the will of the people” and to “facilitate • Nazi war criminals were to be hunted down and where necessary the holding of such elections.”[9] brought to justice. The agreement called on signatories to “consult together • A “Committee on Dismemberment of Germany” on the measures necessary to discharge the joint respon- was to be set up. Its purpose was to decide whether sibilities set forth in this declaration.” During the Yalta Germany was to be divided into six nations. Some discussions, Molotov inserted language that weakened the examples of partition plans are shown below: implication of enforcement of the declaration.[10] Regarding Poland, the Yalta report further stated that the • The eventual partition of Germany
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Oder-Neisse Line As Poland's Western Border
    Piotr Eberhardt Piotr Eberhardt 2015 88 1 77 http://dx.doi.org/10.7163/ GPol.0007 April 2014 September 2014 Geographia Polonica 2015, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp. 77-105 http://dx.doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0007 INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND SPATIAL ORGANIZATION POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES www.igipz.pan.pl www.geographiapolonica.pl THE ODER-NEISSE LINE AS POLAND’S WESTERN BORDER: AS POSTULATED AND MADE A REALITY Piotr Eberhardt Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw: Poland e-mail: [email protected] Abstract This article presents the historical and political conditioning leading to the establishment of the contemporary Polish-German border along the ‘Oder-Neisse Line’ (formed by the rivers known in Poland as the Odra and Nysa Łużycka). It is recalled how – at the moment a Polish state first came into being in the 10th century – its western border also followed a course more or less coinciding with these same two rivers. In subsequent cen- turies, the political limits of the Polish and German spheres of influence shifted markedly to the east. However, as a result of the drastic reverse suffered by Nazi Germany, the western border of Poland was re-set at the Oder-Neisse Line. Consideration is given to both the causes and consequences of this far-reaching geopolitical decision taken at the Potsdam Conference by the victorious Three Powers of the USSR, UK and USA. Key words Oder-Neisse Line • western border of Poland • Potsdam Conference • international boundaries Introduction districts – one for each successor – brought the loss, at first periodically and then irrevo- At the end of the 10th century, the Western cably, of the whole of Silesia and of Western border of Poland coincided approximately Pomerania.
    [Show full text]
  • Political, Moral and Legal Aspects of the Resettlement of German Population After World War II
    POLISH REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW 2018, Vol. 7, Issue 2 WOLLT IHR DEN TOTALEN KRIEG? Political, Moral and LEGal Aspects of the Resettlement of German Population After World War II Jerzy Kranz* Abstract: Germany had started the Second World War in an intentional and conscious manner, obviously being aware that every action can have unpredictable and unwanted consequences. The Potsdam decisions were taken by the Great Powers after assuming supreme authority in Germany. They constituted a manifestation of the Allies’ rights and responsibilities. The territorial changes of Germany and the transfer of population were part of the general regulation of the effects of the Second World War. These decisions were not a simple matter of revenge. They must be perceived in a wider political perspective of European policy. The resettlement by Germany of ethnic Germans to the Reich or to the territories it occupied constituted an instrument of National Socialist policy. This German policy turned out in 1945 to be a tragic irony of fate. The resettlement decided in Potsdam must be perceived in the context of German legal responsibility for the war’s outbreak. The individual perception of the resettlement and individual guilt are different from * Professor, Department of International Law and European Union, Kozminski University 9 Jerzy Kranz the international responsibility of the state and from the political-historical responsibility of the nation. In our discussion we made the distinction between the individual and the collective aspect as well as between the legal and historical/ political aspect. We deal with the guilt of individuals (criminal, political, moral), the international legal responsibility of states, and the political and historical responsibility of nations (societies).
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of War Reparations in Polish-German Relations After World War Ii
    Patrycja Sobolewska* THE QUESTION OF WAR REPARATIONS IN POLISH-GERMAN RELATIONS AFTER WORLD WAR II DOI: 10.26106/gc8d-rc38 PWPM – Review of International, European and Comparative Law, vol. XVII, A.D. MMXIX ARTICLE I. Introduction There is no doubt that World War II was the bloodiest conflict in history. Involv- ing all the great powers of the world, the war claimed over 70 million lives and – as a consequence – has changed world politics forever. Since it all started in Poland that was invaded by Germany after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the attack, this country has suffered the most. On September 17, 1939 Poland was also invaded by the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the Germans razed Warsaw to the ground. War losses were enormous. The library and museum collec- tions have been burned or taken to Germany. Monuments and government buildings were blown up by special German troops. About 85 per cent of the city had been destroyed, including the historic Old Town and the Royal Castle.1 Despite the fact that it has been 80 years since this cataclysmic event, the Polish government has not yet received any compensation from German authorities that would be proportionate to the losses incurred. The issue in question is still a bone of contention between these two states which has not been regulated by both par- ties either. The article examines the question of war reparations in Polish-German relations after World War II, taking into account all the relevant factors that can be significant in order to resolve this problem.
    [Show full text]
  • YUGOSLAV-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1953- 1957: Normalization, Comradeship, Confrontation
    YUGOSLAV-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1953- 1957: Normalization, Comradeship, Confrontation Svetozar Rajak Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy London School of Economics and Political Science University of London February 2004 UMI Number: U615474 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615474 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ” OF POUTICAL «, AN0 pi Th ^ s^ s £ £2^>3 ^7&2io 2 ABSTRACT The thesis chronologically presents the slow improvement of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, starting with Stalin’s death on 5 March 1953, through their full normalization in 1955 and 1956, to the renewed ideological confrontation at the end of 1956. The normalization of Yugoslav-Soviet relations brought to an end a conflict between Yugoslavia and the Eastern Bloc, in existence since 1948, which threatened the status quo in Europe. The thesis represents the first effort at comprehensively presenting the reconciliation between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, between 1953 and 1957. It will also explain the motives that guided the leaderships of the two countries, in particular the two main protagonists, Josip Broz Tito and Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, throughout this process.
    [Show full text]
  • <K>EXTRACTS from the REPORT on the TRIPARTITE
    Volume 8. Occupation and the Emergence of Two States, 1945-1961 Excerpts from the Report on the Potsdam Conference (Potsdam Agreement) (August 2, 1945) The Potsdam Conference between the leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain was held at Cecilienhof Palace, the home of Crown Prince Wilhelm Hohenzollern, in Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945. The Soviet Union was represented by Josef Stalin; the U.S. was represented by President Harry S. Truman, who had only been in office for a few months, having succeeded Franklin Delano Roosevelt on April 12, 1945. Winston Churchill represented Great Britain at the start of the conference, but after the Labor Party won the elections of July 27, 1945, he was replaced by the new prime minister, Clement R. Attlee, who signed the agreement on behalf of Great Britain on August 2, 1945. The agreement reached by Stalin, Truman, and Attlee formed the basis of Allied occupation policy in the years to come. The provisions with the most far-reaching consequences included those concerning borders. It was agreed, for example, that the Oder- Neisse line would be established as Poland’s provisional western boundary, meaning that Poland would undergo a “western shift” at the expense of German territories in Pomerania, Silesia, and Eastern Prussia. It was also agreed that the territory around East Prussian Königsberg would be ceded to the Soviet Union. In addition, the conference settled upon the “transfer” of Germans from the new Polish territories and from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. These measures constituted an essential basis for the division of Germany and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan and the Cold War ______
    Background Essay: The Marshall Plan and the Cold War _____________________________________________ The Cold War was fought with words and threats rather than violent action. The two nations at war were the United States and the Soviet Union. Although the two superpowers had worked as allies to defeat Germany during World War II, tensions between them grew after the war. Feelings of mistrust and resentment began to form as early as the 1945 Potsdam Conference, where Harry S. Truman and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin met. Stalin was interested in expanding Russia’s power into Eastern Europe, and the U.S. feared that Russia was planning to take over the world and spread the political idea of Communism. Truman’s response to the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence and current conditions of war-torn Europe would become known as the Truman Doctrine. This doctrine proposed to give aid to countries that were suffering from the aftermath of World War II and threatened by Soviet oppression. The U.S. was especially concerned about Greece and Turkey. Due to the slow progress of Europe’s economic development following WWII, Truman devised another plan to offer aid called the Marshall Plan. The plan was named after Secretary of State George Marshall due to Truman’s respect for his military achievements. Truman hoped that by enacting the Marshall Plan two main goals would be accomplished. These goals were: 1.) It would lead to the recovery of production abroad, which was essential both to a vigorous democracy and to a peace founded on democracy and freedom, and which, in the eyes of the United States, the Soviet Union had thus far prevented.
    [Show full text]
  • American Tourism to the Eastern Bloc, 1960-1975
    Seeing Red: American Tourism to the Eastern Bloc, 1960-1975 A Thesis Presented to the Academic Faculty by Kayleigh Georgina Haskin In Partial Fulfillment of the Degree Requirements for the Bachelor of Science in History, Technology, and Society with the Research Option Georgia Institute of Technology May 2018 Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to everyone who played a large or small role in the completion of this project. I would especially like to thank Dr. Kate Pride Brown, my research mentor, for all of her encouragement and guidance during this project; Dr. Laura Bier for being a flexible second-reader; Dr. Tobias Wilson-Bates for his detailed and constructive comments on the drafts I submitted; Kayla McManus-Viana for her enthusiasm and willingness to help edit, even during finals week; and finally, I would like to thank my parents for all of their inspiration and support over the past twenty years. Abstract Theoretical literature asserts that tourism should lead to better interactions between nations with different ideas and cultures. However, empirical studies find that this is often not the case, and certain pre-trip factors are more influential in changing tourists’ opinions than the experience itself. This study examines one of these potential factors: the role that the news media plays in shaping public opinion about foreign countries prior to travel. Using a case study of American tourists to the Eastern Bloc from 1960-1975, this paper suggests that media portrayal contributed to the negative views Americans held of the Soviet Union and the lack of opinion change after travel.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering George Kennan Does Not Mean Idolizing Him
    UNITED STATES InsTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT Melvyn P. Leffler This report originated while Melvyn P. Leffler was a Jennings Randolph Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. He was writing his book on what appeared to be the most intractable and ominous conflict of the post–World War II era—the Cold War. He was addressing the questions of why the Cold War lasted as long as it did and why it ended when Remembering it did. As part of the ongoing dialogue at the United States Institute of Peace, he was repeatedly asked about the lessons of the Cold War for our contemporary problems. George Kennan His attention was drawn to the career of George F. Kennan, the father of containment. Kennan was a rather obscure and frustrated foreign service officer at the U.S. embassy in Lessons for Today? Moscow when his “Long Telegram” of February 1946 gained the attention of policymakers in Washington and transformed his career. Leffler reviews Kennan’s legacy and ponders the implications of his thinking for the contemporary era. Is it Summary possible, Leffler wonders, to reconcile Kennan’s legacy with the newfound emphasis on a “democratic peace”? • Kennan’s thinking and policy prescriptions evolved quickly from the time he wrote the Melvyn P. Leffler, a former senior fellow at the United States “Long Telegram” in February 1946 until the time he delivered the Walgreen Lectures Institute of Peace, won the Bancroft Prize for his book at the University of Chicago in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of the 5/42 Regiment of Evzones: a Study on National Resistance and Civil War in Greece 1941-1944
    The Rise and Fall of the 5/42 Regiment of Evzones: A Study on National Resistance and Civil War in Greece 1941-1944 ARGYRIOS MAMARELIS Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy The European Institute London School of Economics and Political Science 2003 i UMI Number: U613346 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U613346 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 9995 / 0/ -hoZ2 d X Abstract This thesis addresses a neglected dimension of Greece under German and Italian occupation and on the eve of civil war. Its contribution to the historiography of the period stems from the fact that it constitutes the first academic study of the third largest resistance organisation in Greece, the 5/42 regiment of evzones. The study of this national resistance organisation can thus extend our knowledge of the Greek resistance effort, the political relations between the main resistance groups, the conditions that led to the civil war and the domestic relevance of British policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II Nathan Stepp
    Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II Volume 15 Article 9 2010 Determining the "Homeland": Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II Nathan Stepp Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Stepp, Nathan (2010) "Determining the "Homeland": Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II," Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II: Vol. 15 , Article 9. Available at: http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol15/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stepp: Determining the "Homeland" 66 Historical Perspectives May 2010 Determining the "Homeland": Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II Nathan Stepp Introduction The Holocaust and World War II were, without a doubt, two of the most horrific events in the 20th century. Tragedies continued after the guns were silenced, however, and these have tended to be overlooked. At the conclusion of World War II, Europe's national borders were hastily redrawn. Truman, Churchill, and Stalin determined at the Potsdam Conference in May 1945 that the borders of Poland and Germany should shift "back" to the Oder­ Neisse line. l Germany, under Hitler's Third Reich, was certainly guilty of unjustly seizing much of Poland's land during the war.
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Ethnography of Rural Life in Communist Albania
    Accepted Manuscript (AM) of King, R. and Vullnetari, J. (2016) From shortage economy to second economy: An historical ethnography of rural life in communist Albania. Journal of Rural Studies 44: 198–207 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.010][accepted January 2016; published online 24 February 2016]. From Shortage Economy to Second Economy: An Historical Ethnography of Rural Life in Communist Albania Abstract Few accounts exist of the nature of everyday rural life in communist societies, such as those which existed in Eastern Europe between the end of World War Two and circa 1990. In this paper we use oral-history testimonies from older people to reconstruct an ‘historical ethnography’ of rural life in Albania, the most isolated and repressive of the East European socialist regimes. We build our analysis around the dialectical relationship between the ‘shortage economy’, which was all-pervasive and derived from the Albanian regime’s Stalinist policy of prioritising mining and heavy industry over consumer goods and agriculture, and the ‘second economy’ which developed as a bottom-up strategy to overcome some of the imbalances and blockages in the official or ‘first’ economy. Fieldwork was carried out in clusters of villages and settlements corresponding to cooperatives and a state farm in four locations in different parts of Albania. Within the symbiotic or ‘lubricating’ relationship between the shortage economy and the second economy, we examine the ‘institutionalised hierarchy of access’ that gave some people and groups privileged access to scarce goods, whilst others remained in a marginalised and partially excluded state. Keywords: Albania; communist era; shortage economy; second economy; everyday rural life; oral history [The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in Journal of Rural Studies; 24 February 2016; DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.010].
    [Show full text]
  • Bruno Kamiński
    Fear Management. Foreign threats in the postwar Polish propaganda – the influence and the reception of the communist media (1944 -1956) Bruno Kamiński Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of History and Civilization of the European University Institute Florence, 14 June 2016 European University Institute Department of History and Civilization Fear Management. Foreign threats in the postwar Polish propaganda – the influence and the reception of the communist media (1944 -1956) Bruno Kamiński Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of History and Civilization of the European University Institute Examining Board Prof. Pavel Kolář (EUI) - Supervisor Prof. Alexander Etkind (EUI) Prof. Anita Prażmowska (London School Of Economics) Prof. Dariusz Stola (University of Warsaw and Polish Academy of Science) © Bruno Kamiński, 2016 No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author Researcher declaration to accompany the submission of written work Department of History and Civilization - Doctoral Programme I <Bruno Kamiński> certify that I am the author of the work < Fear Management. Foreign threats in the postwar Polish propaganda – the influence and the reception of the communist media (1944 -1956)> I have presented for examination for the Ph.D. at the European University Institute. I also certify that this is solely my own original work, other than where I have clearly indicated, in this declaration and in the thesis, that it is the work of others. I warrant that I have obtained all the permissions required for using any material from other copyrighted publications.
    [Show full text]