DOCSLIB.ORG

The Brezhnev Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Brezhnev Bibliography The Brezhnev Bibliography General works on the Brezhnev era Amalrik, A., Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? (London, 1970). Bialer, S., Stalin’s Successors (Cambridge, 1980). Bialer, S., The Soviet Paradox; External Expansion, Internal Decline (London, 1986). Bialer, S. and T. Gustafson (eds), Russia at the Crossroads: The 26th Congress of the CPSU (London, 1982). Breslauer, G., Khrushchev and Brezhnev as Leaders (London, 1982). Brezhnev, L. I., Leninskim kursom, 7 vols (Moscow, 1970–9). Brezhnev, L. I., Ob osnovnykh voprosakh ekonomicheskoi politiki KPSS na sovremennom etape, 2 vols (Moscow, 1975). Brezhnev, L. I., Malaya zemlya (Moscow, 1978). Brezhnev, L. I., Ob osnovnykh voprosakh ekonomicheskoi politiki KPSS na sovremennom etape: rechi i doklady, 2 vols, expanded edn (Moscow, 1979). Brown, A. and M. Kaser (eds), The Soviet Union Since the Fall of Khrushchev, 2nd edn (London, 1978). Cohen, S., Rethinking the Soviet Experience (Oxford, 1985). Cohen, S., A. Rabinowitch and R. Sharlet (eds), The Soviet Union Since Stalin (London, 1980). Colton, T., The Dilemma of Reform in the USSR (New York, 1986). Conquest, R., Russia after Khrushchev (New York, 1965). Dallin, A. (ed.), The Khrushchev and Brezhnev Years (New York, 1992). Dallin, A. (ed.), The 25th Congress of the CPSU (Stanford, 1977). Dallin, A. and G. Lapidus (eds), The Soviet System in Crisis (Boulder, Col., 1991). Dornberg, J., Brezhnev. The Masks of Power (London, 1974). Fleron, F. J. (ed.), Technology and Communist Culture (New York, 1977). Hosking, G., A History of the Soviet Union, final edn (London, 1994). Hough, J., ‘The Brezhnev Era: The Man and the System’ Problems of Communism, 25(4), 1976. Hough, J., Russia and the West (New York, 1988). Hoffmann, E. P., The Politics of Economic Modernisation (Ithaca, 1982). Hoffmann, E. P. and R. Laird, The Soviet Polity in the Modern Era (Hawthorne, NY, 1984). Hoffmann E. P. and R. Laird. Technocratic Socialism: The USSR in the Advanced Industrial Era (Durham, Md., 1985). Keep, J., Last of the Empires (Oxford, 1996). McCauley, M., The Soviet Union after Brezhnev (London, 1983). McNeal, R. H., The Bolshevik Tradition (Englewood Cliffs, 1975). Medvedev, Zh., ‘Russia Under Brezhnev’, New Left Review, 117 (September–October 1978). Murphy, P. J., Brezhnev. Soviet Politician (Jefferson, NC, 1981). Nove, A., Stalinism and After, 3rd edn (London, 1989). Rigby, T. H., A. Brown and P. Reddaway (eds), Authority, Power and Policy in the USSR (London, 1980). 218 Bibliography 219 Smith, H., The Russians (London, 1976). Strong, J. (ed.), The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev and Kosygin (New York, 1971). Tucker, R. (ed.), Political Culture and Leadership Since Stalin (Brighton, 1987). Various, Leonid Brezhnev: The Period of Stagnation (Moscow, 1989). Volkogonov, D., The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire: Political Leaders from Lenin to Gorbachev (London, 1998). Memoirs Aksyutin, Yu. (ed.), L. I. Brezhnev: materialy k biografii (Moscow, 1991). Aleksandrov-Agentov, A., Ot Kollontai do Gorbacheva (Moscow, 1994). Arbatov, G., Zatnayuvsheesya vyzdorovlenie (1953–85gg.): svidetel’stvo sovremennika (Moscow, 1991). Burlatskii, F., Khrushchev and the First Russian Spring (London, 1991). Burlatskii, F., Vozhdi i sovetniki: o Khrushcheve, Andropove i ne tol’ko o nikh (Moscow, 1990). Dobrynin, A. F., Sugubo doveritel’no: Posol v Vashingtone pri shesti prezidentakh SshA (1962–1986) (Moscow, 1997). Gorbachev, M. S., Zhizn’ i reformy (Moscow, 1995). Grishin, V. V., Ot Khrushcheva do Gorbacheva. Politicheskie portrety pyati gensekov i A. N. Kosygina (Moscow, 1996). Medvedev, R., Lichnost i epokha. Politicheskii portret L. I. Brezhneva Vol. 1 (Moscow, 1991). Shelud’ko V. (ed.), Leonid Brezhnev (Rostov-on-Don, 1998). Domestic politics Amann, R., ‘Searching For An Appropriate Concept of Soviet Politics: The Politics of Hesitant Modernisation?’, British Journal of Political Science, 16/4, 1986. Blackwell, Robert, Jr, ‘Cadres Policy in the Brezhnev Era’, Problems of Communism, 28, March–April 1979. Brzezinski, Z. (ed.), Dilemmas of Change in Soviet Politics (New York, 1969). Bunce, V. and J. M. Echols, III, ‘Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era: “Pluralism” or “Corporatism?”’, in D. R. Kelley (ed.), Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era (New York, 1980). Cocks, P., R. V. Daniels and N. W. Heer (eds), The Dynamics of Soviet Politics (Cambridge, Mass., 1976). Connor, W. D., ‘Generations and Politics in the USSR’, Problems of Communism, 24, September–October 1975. Cook, L. J., The Soviet Social Contract and Why It Failed (Cambridge, Mass., 1994). Dallin, A. and T. B. Larson (eds), Soviet Politics Since Khrushchev (Englewood Cliffs, 1968). Friedgut, T., Political Participation in the USSR (Princeton, 1979). Gustafson, T., Reform in Soviet Politics (Cambridge, 1981). Hammer, D., USSR: The Politics of Oligarchy (Hinsdale, 1974). Hough, J. and M. Fainsod, How the Soviet Union is Governed (Cambridge Mass., 1979). Hough, J., ‘The Soviet Union: Petrification or Pluralism?, Problems of Communism, 22, 1972. Hough, J., The Soviet Union and Social Science Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1977). 220 Bibliography Hough, J., Soviet Leadership in Transition (Washington, 1980). Kelley, D. R., The Politics of Developed Socialism (Westport, Conn., 1986). Kelley, D. R. (ed.), Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era (New York, 1986). Lewin, M., Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates (Princeton, 1974). McAuley, M., Politics and the Soviet Union (Harmondsworth, 1979). McAuley, M., Soviet Politics, 1917–91 (Oxford, 1992). Millar, J. R. (ed.), Cracks in the Monolith: Party Power in the Brezhnev Era (New York, 1992). Osborn, R., The Evolution of Soviet Politics (Homewood, Ill., 1974). Parker, J., Kremlin in Transition, 2 vols (London, 1992). Rigby, T. H., ‘The Soviet Leadership: Towards a Self-Stabilising Oligarchy?’, Soviet Studies, 22/2, October 1970. Rigby, T. H., ‘The Soviet Regional Leadership: The Brezhnev Generation’, Slavic Review, March 1978. Schapiro, L., The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (London, 1970). Sharlet, R., ‘The New Soviet Constitution of 1977’, Problems of Communism, 26, September–October 1977. Skilling, H. Gordon and F. Griffiths (eds), Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton, 1971). Terry, S. M., ‘Theories of Socialist Development in Soviet–East European Relations’, in S. M. Terry (ed.), Soviet Policy in Eastern Europe (New Haven, 1984). Willerton, J. P., ‘Patronage Networks and Coalition-Building in the Brezhnev Era’, Soviet Studies, 40, April 1989. Willerton, J. P., Patronage and Politics in the USSR (Cambridge, 1992). Zaslavsky, V., ‘The Rebirth of the Stalin Cult in the USSR’, Telos, Summer 1979. Economics Arnot, B., Controlling Soviet Labour (London 1988). Åslund, A., ‘How Small is Soviet National Income?’, in H. S. Rowen and C. Wolf (eds), The Impoverished Superpower: Perestroika and the Soviet Military Burden (San Francisco, Cal., 1990). Bergson, A., Planning and Performance in Socialist Economies: The USSR and Eastern Europe (Boston, Man., 1989). Bergson, A., ‘Neoclassical Norms and the Valuation of National Income in the Soviet Union: Comment’, Journal of Comparative Economics, 21/3, 1995. Berliner, J. S., The Innovation Decision in Soviet Industry (Cambridge, Mass., 1976). Birman, Igor, ‘The Financial Crisis in the USSR’, Soviet Studies, 32/1, 1980. Birman, Igor, Personal Consumption in the USSR and the USA (London, 1989). Bornstein, M., ‘Improving the Soviet Economic Mechanism’, Soviet Studies, 37/1, 1985. Brus, W., ‘1950 to 1953: The Peak of Stalinism’, ‘1953 to 1956: The “Thaw” and the “New Course”’, ‘1956 to 1965: In Search of Balanced Development’, and ‘1966 to 1975: Normalization and Conflict’, in M. Kaser (ed.), The Economic History of Eastern Europe 1919–75, Vol. 3, Institutional Change Within a Planned Economy (Oxford, 1986). Davies, R. W., Soviet Economic Development from Lenin to Khrushchev (Cambridge, 1998). Easterly, W. and S. Fischer, ‘The Soviet Economic Decline’, World Bank Economic Review, 9, 1995. Bibliography 221 Ehrlich, É., ‘Contest between Countries: 1937–1986’, Soviet Studies, 43, 1991. Ellman, M. and V. Kontorovich (eds), The Disintegration of the Soviet Economic System (London, 1992). Ellman, M. and V. Kontorovich (eds), The Destruction of the Soviet Economic System: An Insider’s History (London, 1998). Goskomstat SSSR, Narodnoe khoziaistvo SSSR za 70 let (Moscow, 1987). Goskomstat SSSR, Narodnoe khoziaistvo SSSR v 1988 godu (Moscow, 1989). Gregory, P. R., ‘Productivity, Slack, and Time Theft in the Soviet Economy’, in J. R. Millar, (ed.), Politics, Work, and Daily Life in the USSR: A Survey of Former Soviet Citizens (Cambridge, 1987). Grossman, G., ‘The “Second Economy” of the USSR’, Problems of Communism, 26, 1976. Grossman, G., ‘Subverted Sovereignty: the Historic Role of the Soviet Underground’, in S. S. Cohen, A. Schwartz and J. Zysman (eds), The Tunnel at the End of the Light: Privatization, Business Networks, and Economic Transformation in Russia (Berkeley, 1998). Hanson, P., ‘Success Indicators Revisited: The July 1979 Decree on Planning and Management’, Soviet Studies, 35/1, 1983. Harrison, M., ‘Soviet Economic Growth since 1928: The Alternative Statistics of G. I. Khanin’, Europe–Asia Studies, 45/1, 1993. Harrison, M., ‘Trends in Soviet Labour Productivity, 1928–1985: War, Postwar Recov- ery, and Slowdown’, European Review of Economic History, 2/2, 1998. Knorr, H., ‘Shchekino: Another Look’, Soviet Studies, 38/2, 1986, pp. 141–69. Kontorovich, V., ‘Soviet Growth Slowdown: Econometric vs Direct Evidence’,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Collapse and Recovery of Subjective Well-Being in Post-Communist Russia
    Ronald Inglehart, Roberto Foa, Eduard Ponarin, Christian Welzel UNDERSTANDING THE RUSSIAN MALAISE: THE COLLAPSE AND RECOVERY OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN POST-COMMUNIST RUSSIA BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAM WORKING PAPERS SERIES: SOCIOLOGY WP BRP 32/SOC/2013 This Working Paper is an output of a research project implemented at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE). Any opinions or claims contained in this Working Paper do not necessarily reflect the views of HSE. Ronald Inglehart1, Roberto Foa2, Eduard Ponarin3 and Christian Welzel4 UNDERSTANDING THE RUSSIAN MALAISE: THE COLLAPSE AND RECOVERY OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN POST-COMMUNIST RUSSIA This article analyzes the decline of subjective well-being and a sense of national self- esteem among the Russian people that was linked with the collapse of the communist economic, political and social systems in the 1990s—and a subsequent recovery of subjective well-being that began more recently. Subjective well-being is closely linked with economic development, democracy and physical health. The people of rich countries tend show higher levels than those of poor countries, but already in 1982, the Russia people ranked lower on happiness and life satisfaction than the people of much poorer countries such as Nigeria or India; external signs of this malaise were rising alcoholism and declining male life expectancy. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, subjective well-being in Russia fell to levels never seen before, reaching a low point in 1995 when most Russians described themselves as unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives as a whole. Since 2000, this trend has been reversing itself, but in 2011 Russia still ranked slightly lower than its level in 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation
    Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation J. MICHAEL WALLER "They write I'm the mafia's godfather. It was Vladimir Ilich Lenin who was the real organizer of the mafia and who set up the criminal state." -Otari Kvantrishvili, Moscow organized crime leader.l "Criminals Nave already conquered the heights of the state-with the chief of the KGB as head of a mafia group." -Former KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin.2 Introduction As the United States and Russia launch a Great Crusade against organized crime, questions emerge not only about the nature of joint cooperation, but about the nature of organized crime itself. In addition to narcotics trafficking, financial fraud and racketecring, Russian organized crime poses an even greater danger: the theft and t:rafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To date, most of the discussion of organized crime based in Russia and other former Soviet republics has emphasized the need to combat conven- tional-style gangsters and high-tech terrorists. These forms of criminals are a pressing danger in and of themselves, but the problem is far more profound. Organized crime-and the rarnpant corruption that helps it flourish-presents a threat not only to the security of reforms in Russia, but to the United States as well. The need for cooperation is real. The question is, Who is there in Russia that the United States can find as an effective partner? "Superpower of Crime" One of the greatest mistakes the West can make in working with former Soviet republics to fight organized crime is to fall into the trap of mirror- imaging.
    [Show full text]
  • In March 1972 the Leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet
    MueRecognitionller in Return for Détente? Recognition in Return for Détente? Brezhnev, the EEC, and the Moscow Treaty with West Germany, 1970–1973 ✣ Wolfgang Mueller Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/13/4/79/697792/jcws_a_00167.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 In March 1972 the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Leonid Brezhnev, unexpectedly suggested that the Soviet Union might be willing to recognize the European Economic Community (EEC). Until that point, the Soviet Union had refused to recognize the EEC and had regularly and vigorously attacked it as a “community of monopolists” and a stalking horse for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Brezhnev’s predecessor, Nikita Khrushchev, had conveyed similar signals re- garding possible recognition in 1962, but he never turned the idea into reality. In contrast, some ten years later, Brezhnev inspired the start of negotiations between the EEC and the Soviet bloc’s Council of Mutual Economic Assis- tance (CMEA). This article draws on Soviet archival documents as well as Western and Russian publications and memoirs to analyze the background, circumstances, and consequences of Brezhnev’s initiative. The article gives special attention to the following questions: What convinced Brezhnev and his colleagues in 1972 to change their hitherto uniformly negative assessment of the EEC? Was this change the result of a major policy reassessment or simply a byproduct of other considerations? How was the initiative linked with broader Soviet foreign policy goals? Why was it not ultimately successful? In answering these questions, the article traces the external and internal factors that inspired the Soviet initiative, including the EEC enlargement process, East-West détente, CMEA integra- tion, Ostpolitik, and Soviet and East European economic and political develop- ments.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Looking Back at Brezhnev
    russian history 41 (2014) 299-306 brill.com/ruhi Introduction Looking Back at Brezhnev Peter Rutland Wesleyan University [email protected] Victoria Smolkin-Rothrock Wesleyan University [email protected] In the West, the Soviet Union is most often viewed through the Cold War lens of capitalist triumph over socialist decline and failure. Rather than take seri- ously the communist challenge to capitalist modernity, the Soviet project is presented as a historical dead-end, a doomed experiment that collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. The Soviet Union – the story goes – was ruled by a stultified bureaucracy under which citizens enjoyed limited per- sonal freedom and dissidents were ruthlessly persecuted. The attempt to build a centrally-planned economy on principles antithetical to the market led to colossal inefficiency and stagnant growth. Moscow’s competition with the United States for global hegemony brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and fueled bitter conflicts from Afghanistan to Angola. The system’s survival depended on stringent controls on communication with the outside world. Russians, of course, have a more complicated relationship to their own past. Even as the historical legacies of Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchev and Gorbachev, remain contentious, the Soviet Union of Leonid Brezhnev, who was General Secretary from 1964 to 1982, is often portrayed as something of a golden age.1 The papers gathered here were originally presented at a conference “What Was the Soviet Union? Looking back at the Brezhnev years,” held at Wesleyan University on 20–21 October 2011. 1 See Otto Boele, “Remembering Brezhnev in the New Millennium: Post-Soviet Nostalgia and Local Identity in the City of Novorossiisk,” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review 38 (2011): 3–29, as well as the theme issue on the “long 1970s” in the Russian journal Neprikosnovennyi zapas 52 (2007).
    [Show full text]
  • THE LAND WARFARE PAPERS Perestroika and Soviet Military
    THE LAND WARFARE PAPERS No.5 OCTOBER 1990 Perestroika and Soviet Military Personnel By Robert B. Davis A National Security Affairs Paper Published on Occasion by THE INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY Arlington, Virginia PERESTROIKA AND SOVIET MILITARY PERSONNEL by Robert B. Davis THE INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN AUSA INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER In 1988 the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) established within its existing organization a new entity known as the Institute of Land Warfare. Its purpose is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of the editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an AUSA Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper, but does suggest that AUSA believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. S, OCTOBER 1990 Perestroika and Soviet Military Personnel by Robert B. Davis Mr. Robert B. Davis is a research psychologist with the U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Davis received his undergraduate degree from Arkansas College and his advanced degree from Troy State University, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Estonian Collective Farms and Postmodern Architecture Dr
    Screening Soviet Standards: Estonian Collective Farms and Postmodern Architecture Dr. Andres Kurg, Senior Researcher, Institute of Art History, Estonian Academy of Arts in Tallinn Lunch Lecture, presented by The Center for the Study for Europe, Department of History of Art and Architecture, and Prof. Sophie Hochhäusl, Boston University. May 3, 12.00-1.00 pm, Pardee School of Global Studies, 121 Bay State Rd., Room 126 Co-moderated by Ewa Matyczyk, PhD Candidate, History of Art and Architecture and PJ Carlino, PhD Candidate, American and New England Studies. Abstract: The 1970s and the early 1980s have the Eastern bloc, which led to the so called “vel- in the Soviet history retrospectively been termed vet” revolution and to the “singing” revolutions in as the “era of stagnation”: a period of stalling the Baltic countries? economy, lack of reforms and repression of democratic initiative. This sense of stasis has Andres Kurg is Senior Researcher at the Insti- been further underlined by frequent representa- tute of Art History, Estonian Academy of Arts in tions of the era’s building production that show Tallinn. His research explores the architecture uniform mass housing areas, filling the entire and design of the Soviet Union in the late 1960s country with same-looking prefabricated panel and 1970s in relation to technological transfor- structures. mations and changes in everyday life as well as My talk will counter this stereotype by focusing its intersections with alternative art practices. He on Soviet Estonian rural co-operative farms – studied art history at the Estonian Academy of kolkhozy and sovkhozy – that maintained their Arts and architectural history at University Col- economic efficiency in these years and reused lege London.
    [Show full text]
  • Detente Or Razryadka? the Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CGU Theses & Dissertations CGU Student Scholarship 2013 Detente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American- Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977. Daniel S. Stackhouse Jr. Claremont Graduate University Recommended Citation Stackhouse, Daniel S. Jr.. (2013). Detente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977.. CGU Theses & Dissertations, 86. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/86. doi: 10.5642/cguetd/86 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the CGU Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in CGU Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Détente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977 by Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr. A final project submitted to the Faculty of Claremont Graduate University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History. Claremont Graduate University 2013 Copyright Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr., 2013 All rights reserved. APPROVAL OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE This dissertation has been duly read, reviewed, and critiqued by the Committee listed below, which hereby approves the manuscript of Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr. as fulfilling the scope and quality requirements for meriting the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Janet Farrell Brodie, Chair Claremont Graduate University Professor of History William Jones Claremont Graduate University Professor of History Joshua Goode Claremont Graduate University Professor of History ABSTRACT Détente or Razryadka? The Kissinger-Dobrynin Telephone Transcripts and Relaxing American-Soviet Tensions, 1969-1977 by Daniel S.
    [Show full text]
  • War Memory Under the Leonid Brezhnev Regime 1965-1974
    1 No One is Forgotten, Nothing is Forgotten: War Memory Under the Leonid Brezhnev Regime 1965-1974 By Yevgeniy Zilberman Adviser: Professor David S. Foglesong An Honors Thesis Submitted To The History Department of Rutgers University School of Arts and Sciences New Brunswick, NJ April, 2012 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements Pg. 3 Introduction Pg. 5 1964-1967: Building the Cult Pg. 18 a) Forming the Narrative: Building the Plot and Effacing the Details Pg. 21 b) Consecrating the War: Ritual, Monument and Speech Pg. 24 c) Iconography at Work: Soviet War Poster Pg. 34 d) Digitizing the War: On the Cinema Front Pg. 44 1968-1970: Fascism Revived and the Battle for Peace Pg. 53 a) This Changes Everything: Czechoslovakia and its Significance Pg. 55 b) Anti-Fascism: Revanchism and Fear Pg. 59 c) Reviving Peace: The Peace Cult Pg. 71 1970-1974: Realizing Peace Pg. 83 a) Rehabilitating Germany Pg. 85 b) Cinema: Germany and the Second World War on the Film Screen Pg. 88 c) Developing Ostpolitik: War memory and the Foundations for Peace Pg. 95 d) Embracing Peace Pg. 102 Conclusion: Believing the War Cult Pg. 108 Bibliography Pg. 112 3 Acknowledgements Perhaps as a testament to my naivety, when I embarked upon my journey toward writing an honors thesis, I envisioned a leisurely and idyllic trek toward my objective. Instead, I found myself on a road mired with multiple peaks and valleys. The obstacles and impediments were plentiful and my limitations were numerous. Looking back now upon the path I traveled, I realize that I could not have accomplished anything without the assistance of a choice collection of individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Mikhail Gorbachev and His Role in the Peaceful Solution of the Cold War
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations and Theses City College of New York 2011 Mikhail Gorbachev and His Role in the Peaceful Solution of the Cold War Natalia Zemtsova CUNY City College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/49 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Mikhail Gorbachev and His Role in the Peaceful Solution of the Cold War Natalia Zemtsova May 2011 Master’s Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of International Affairs at the City College of New York Advisor: Jean Krasno ABSTRACT The role of a political leader has always been important for understanding both domestic and world politics. The most significant historical events are usually associated in our minds with the images of the people who were directly involved and who were in charge of the most crucial decisions at that particular moment in time. Thus, analyzing the American Civil War, we always mention the great role and the achievements of Abraham Lincoln as the president of the United States. We cannot forget about the actions of such charismatic leaders as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill, and Franklin D. Roosevelt when we think about the brutal events and the outcome of the World War II. Or, for example, the Cuban Missile Crisis and its peaceful solution went down in history highlighting roles of John F.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic and Foreign Problems of the Brezhnev Era CHAPTER 5 Domestic and Foreign Problems of the Brezhnev Era
    Chapter 5: Domestic and foreign problems of the Brezhnev era CHAPTER 5 Domestic and foreign problems of the Brezhnev era This chapter analyses Leonid Brezhnev’s rule of the USSR until his death in 1982. The extent to which this was an era of political, economic and social stagnation is fully explored. Soviet foreign policy in the 1970s is also discussed, in particular the reasons for the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and its consequences. You need to consider the following questions throughout this chapter: + What were the key features of the USSR’s politics, society and economy under Brezhnev? + Was Brezhnev’s leadership to blame for Soviet stagnation from 1964 to 1982? + What challenges did Soviet foreign policy face in the Brezhnev era? + To what extent were the USSR’s aims achieved in Afghanistan? + Why did the USSR invade Afghanistan? + How serious were the socio-economic and political problems confronting the USSR by the time of Brezhnev’s death? 1 Politics, economy and society under Brezhnev Key question: What were the key features of the USSR’s politics, society and economy under Brezhnev? By 1964, Nikita Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of KEY TERM the Soviet Union (CPSU), was viewed by senior party members as increasingly unable to exercise the necessary leadership and stability Presidium Dominant, required for the USSR to uphold its world position. policy-making body within the CPSU formed by the Khrushchev was removed from party leadership following a plot by Council of Ministers, members of the Presidium, in which Leonid Brezhnev played a leading part.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Violence in the Former Soviet Union Richard H
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2011 Ethnic Violence in the Former Soviet Union Richard H. Hawley Jr. (Richard Howard) Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES ETHNIC VIOLENCE IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION By RICHARD H. HAWLEY, JR. A Dissertation submitted to the Political Science Department in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2011 Richard H. Hawley, Jr. defended this dissertation on August 26, 2011. The members of the supervisory committee were: Heemin Kim Professor Directing Dissertation Jonathan Grant University Representative Dale Smith Committee Member Charles Barrilleaux Committee Member Lee Metcalf Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii To my father, Richard H. Hawley, Sr. and To my mother, Catherine S. Hawley (in loving memory) iii AKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who made this dissertation possible, and I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all of them. Above all, I thank my committee chair, Dr. Heemin Kim, for his understanding, patience, guidance, and comments. Next, I extend my appreciation to Dr. Dale Smith, a committee member and department chair, for his encouragement to me throughout all of my years as a doctoral student at the Florida State University. I am grateful for the support and feedback of my other committee members, namely Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet”: from Bolshevik Utopia to Soviet Modernity
    Introduction Countercultures Ideologies and Practices Alternative Visions A HISTORY OF THE “SOVIET”: FROM BOLSHEVIK UTOPIA TO SOVIET MODERNITY Anna Krylova Introduction: Crossing out “Proletarian,” Writing “Soviet”1 In early 1936,Aleksandr Kosarev, the thirty-three-year-old leader of the All-Union Young Communist League (Komsomol), and his Central Committee worked away on a draft of the organiza- tion’s new membership rules. The draft was forwarded directly to Joseph Stalin, who must have spent hours hand-editing the lengthy document. The resulting document was cleansed of what most scholars today would associate with the signature Bolshevik lingua franca of the socialist project undertaken in the Soviet Union. Stalin consistently crossed out the familiar Bolshevik terms, categories, and metaphors that Kosarev had copied from the old rules. Stalin wrote “nonaffi liated” in place of “proletarian” and “laboring” in place of “class conscious.”2 Two months later, at the Komsomol Congress that gathered to adopt the new mem- bership rules, Stalin began to use the term “Soviet” to refer to these “party-less” and “laboring” young people. The toast with which he ended the Congress, “Long live the Soviet youth,” sounded like a definitive corrective to Kosarev and other weath- ered Komsomol leaders, who still preferred to refer to their 1 I am grateful to Social organization as the “young generation of the proletarian revolu- History for allowing me to draw on materials 3 tionaries.” published in Anna Krylova, “Imagining Socialism in the Soviet Century,” Social The odd but explicit opposition between the Bolshevik political History 42, no. 3 (2017): lingua franca and Stalin’s discursive intervention carried out under 315–41, in this essay, DOI: 10.1080/03071022 the rubric of the “Soviet” cannot help but give a scholar of modern .2017.1327640, reprinted Russia pause.
    [Show full text]