The International Bibliography of Communist Studies. Issue 2012
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution: the First Phase*
SOVIET HISTORY IN THE GORBACHEV REVOLUTION: THE FIRST PHASE* R.W. Davies I. THE BACKGROUND The Khrushchev thaw among historians began early in 1956 and continued with retreats and starts for ten years. In the spring of 1956 Burdzhalov, the deputy editor of the principal Soviet historical journal, published a bold article re-examining the role of the Bolshevik party in the spring of 1917, demonstrating that Stalin was an ally of Kamenev's in compromising with the Provisional Government, and presenting Zinoviev as a close associate of en in.' The article was strongly criticised. Burdzhalov was moved to an uninfluential post, though he did manage eventually to publish an important history of the February revolution. The struggle continued; and after Khrushchev's further public denunciation of Stalin at the XXII Party Congress in 1961 there was a great flowering of publica- tions about Soviet history. The most remarkable achievement of these years was the publication of a substantial series of articles and books about the collectivisation of agriculture and 'de-kulakisation' in 1929-30, largely based on party archives. The authors-Danilov, Vyltsan, Zelenin, Moshkov and others- were strongly critical of Politburo policy in that period. Their writings were informed by a rather naive critical conception: they held that the decisions of the XVI Party Conference in April 1929, incorporating the optimum variant of the five-year plan and a relatively moderate pace of collectivisation, were entirely correct, but the November 1929 Central Committee Plenum, which speeded up collectivisation, and the decision to de-kulakise which followed, were imposed on the party by Stalin, who already exercised personal power, supported by his henchmen Molotov and Kaganovich. -
Mathematics Education Policy As a High Stakes Political Struggle: the Case of Soviet Russia of the 1930S
MATHEMATICS EDUCATION POLICY AS A HIGH STAKES POLITICAL STRUGGLE: THE CASE OF SOVIET RUSSIA OF THE 1930S ALEXANDRE V. BOROVIK, SERGUEI D. KARAKOZOV, AND SERGUEI A. POLIKARPOV Abstract. This chapter is an introduction to our ongoing more comprehensive work on a critically important period in the history of Russian mathematics education; it provides a glimpse into the socio-political environment in which the famous Soviet tradition of mathematics education was born. The authors are practitioners of mathematics education in two very different countries, England and Russia. We have a chance to see that too many trends and debates in current education policy resemble battles around math- ematics education in the 1920s and 1930s Soviet Russia. This is why this period should be revisited and re-analysed, despite quite a considerable amount of previous research [2]. Our main conclusion: mathematicians, first of all, were fighting for control over selection, education, and career development, of young mathematicians. In the harshest possible political environment, they were taking po- tentially lethal risks. 1. Introduction In the 1930s leading Russian mathematicians became deeply in- volved in mathematics education policy. Just a few names: Andrei Kolmogorov, Pavel Alexandrov, Boris Delaunay, Lev Schnirelmann, Alexander Gelfond, Lazar Lyusternik, Alexander Khinchin – they are arXiv:2105.10979v1 [math.HO] 23 May 2021 remembered, 80 years later, as internationally renowned creators of new fields of mathematical research – and they (and many of their less famous colleagues) were all engaged in political, by their nature, fights around education. This is usually interpreted as an idealistic desire to maintain higher – and not always realistic – standards in mathematics education; however, we argue that much more was at stake. -
On Labels and Issues: the Lysenko Controversy and the Cold War
Journal of the History of Biology (2012) 45:373–388 Ó Springer 2011 DOI 10.1007/s10739-011-9292-6 On Labels and Issues: The Lysenko Controversy and the Cold War WILLIAM DEJONG-LAMBERT City University of New York Bronx, NY USA E-mail: [email protected] WILLIAM DEJONG-LAMBERT Harriman Institute of Russian Eurasian and Eastern European Studies at Columbia University New York, NY USA NIKOLAI KREMENTSOV University of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada E-mail: [email protected] The early years of the Cold War were marked by vicious propaganda and counter-propaganda campaigns that thundered on both sides of the Iron Curtain, further dividing the newly formed ‘‘Western’’ and ‘‘Eastern’’ blocs. These campaigns aimed at the consolidation and mobilization of each camp’s politics, economy, ideology, and culture, and at the vilification and demonization of the opposite camp. One of the most notorious among these campaigns – ‘‘For Michurinist biol- ogy’’ and ‘‘Against Lysenkoism,’’ as it became known in Eastern and Western blocs respectively – clearly demonstrated that the Cold War drew the dividing line not only on political maps, but also on science. The centerpiece of the campaign was a session on ‘‘the situation in biological science’’ held in the summer of 1948 by the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASKhNIL) in Moscow. In his opening address on July 31, the academy’s president Trofim D. Lysenko stated that modern biology had diverged into two opposing trends. Lysenko and his disciples represented one trend, which -
The Soviet Biological Weapons Program and Its Legacy in Today's
Occasional Paper 11 The Soviet Biological Weapons Program and Its Legacy in Today’s Russia Raymond A. Zilinskas Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction National Defense University MR. CHARLES D. LUTES Director MR. JOHN P. CAVES, JR. Deputy Director Since its inception in 1994, the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Center) has been at the forefront of research on the implications of weapons of mass destruction for U.S. security. Originally focusing on threats to the military, the WMD Center now also applies its expertise and body of research to the challenges of homeland security. The Center’s mandate includes research, education, and outreach. Research focuses on understanding the security challenges posed by WMD and on fashioning effective responses thereto. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has designated the Center as the focal point for WMD education in the joint professional military education system. Education programs, including its courses on countering WMD and consequence management, enhance awareness in the next generation of military and civilian leaders of the WMD threat as it relates to defense and homeland security policy, programs, technology, and operations. As a part of its broad outreach efforts, the WMD Center hosts annual symposia on key issues bringing together leaders and experts from the government and private sectors. Visit the center online at http://wmdcenter.ndu.edu. The Soviet Biological Weapons Program and Its Legacy in Today’s Russia Raymond A. Zilinskas Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction Occasional Paper, No. 11 National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. -
Los Informes De Agosto De 1940. Estudios Sobre España Y Gibraltar Del Alto Mando De La Wehrmacht Y El Heer
Comunicaciones LOS INFORMES DE AGOSTO DE 1940. ESTUDIOS SOBRE ESPAÑA Y GIBRALTAR DEL ALTO MANDO DE LA WEHRMACHT Y EL HEER Alfonso Escuadra / Instituto de Estudios Campogibraltareños INTRODUCCIÓN En una ponencia anterior1 ya se argumentó en pro de las virtudes que el análisis de la documentación militar atesora a la hora de iluminar el entramado de las relaciones hispano germanas, durante la que se ha convenido en llamar “época de la gran tentación”2; o lo que es lo mismo durante los meses del verano-otoño de 1940. Y la razón de ello es que, a menudo, se tiende a relativizar la importancia de la misma dentro de este campo pensando quizás que esta sólo se refiera a cuestiones tácticas, excesivamente especializadas o de una importancia secundaria. Una clara consecuencia de ello es que, en el caso concreto del periodo al que hemos hecho referencia, la práctica totalidad de los estudios actuales siguen siendo deudores, de una forma importante, de la obra que Charles B. Burdick, publicó en Estados Unidos hace ahora nada menos que cuarenta años3. La dificultad del idioma o lo intrincado de la terminología militar germana no debe hacernos desistir en forma alguna, sobre todo si tenemos en cuenta que a la luz de estas fuentes, algunas de las tesis más en boga se resienten de una forma, a veces, definitiva. 1 A. Escuadra, El Kriegstagebuch des OKW. Fuente histórica en el estudio de las relaciones hispano germanas (verano-otoño 1940). VIII Jornadas de Historia del Campo de Gibraltar. La Línea 2006. 2 Christian Leitz, La Alemania nazi y la España franquista 1936-1945, Cap. -
The Legacy of the Soviet Agricultural Research System for the Republics of Central Asia and Caucasus
Discussion Paper No 99-1 January 1999 The Legacy of the Soviet Agricultural Research System for the Republics of Central Asia and Caucasus Alexei Morgunov Larry Zuidema Discussion Papers are preliminary reports of work in progress at the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). They are intended to stimulate discussion and elicit comments from interested professionals both within and outside ISNAR. They are not official ISNAR publications, they are not edited or reviewed by ISNAR, and their circulation is restricted. Discussion Papers reflect the views of the authors but not necessarily those of ISNAR. They may be cited with the author’s permission and due acknowledgment. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) P.O Box 93375 2509AJ The Hague The Netherlands Tel: (+31) (70) 3496100 Fax: (+31) (70) 381 9677 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.cgiar.org/isnar Contents Acknowledgments 1. Introduction 2. Agricultural Research in the Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the Soviet Union (1918-1991) 2.1 Historical Development 2.2 National Structure and Resources 2.3 Management of Agricultural Research 2.4 National and International Linkages 3. Evaluation of the USSR Academy of Agricultural Sciences (1929-1991) 3.1 Advantages 3.2 Disadvantages 4. The Development of National Agricultural Research Systems in the Republics (1991-1998) 4.1 Armenia 4.2 Azerbaijan 4.3 Georgia 4.4 Kazakstan 4.5 Kyrgyzstan 4.6 Tadjikistan 4.7 Turkmenistan 4.8 Uzbekistan 4.9 Russia 4.10 Ukraine 5. Future Prospects for Agricultural Research Reforms in the Republics 5.1 Current Trends in Reforming Agricultural Research 5.2 Application of Strategies for Reforming Agricultural Research 6. -
The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research Introduction on August, 7
The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research William deJong-Lambert The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research Introduction On August, 7, 1948 at the end of week long session of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Sciences (VASKhNIL) at the Ministry of Agriculture in Moscow, Trofim D. Lysenko declared that he had the support of the Central Committee for his Michurinist theory in biology. 1 Genetics was denounced as a pseudo-scientific doctrine that had provided the scientific rationale for racism, colonization and Nazi eugenics. In response, prominent Soviet geneticists recanted their belief in the “gene theory.” In the aftermath, Lysenko wielded absolute authority in Soviet biology to promote his agricultural techniques, premised primarily upon belief in “Lamarckism,” or the inheritance of acquired characteristics.2 The losses to Soviet agriculture resulting from just one of his initiatives—the “cluster planting of trees,” based in the idea that the trees would cooperate, rather than compete, for light and nourishment—has been calculated as a billion rubles.3 Lysenko’s impact upon Soviet biology has been well-documented, however few scholars have yet examined what took place outside of the Soviet Union.4 The effective ban on genetic 1 Ivan Michurin (1855-1935) was a plant breeder celebrated by the Bolsheviks as a model “peasant scientist.” Lysenko claimed his legacy as a way of gaining credibility. For a description of Michurin’s background see Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair, 40-54. 2 The possibility that evolution takes place according to a process whereby living organisms develop features in direct response to the conditions of their environment, which are then inherited by their offspring, had been widely accepted until the “modern” or “evolutionary” synthesis of genetics and natural selection in the early 1940s. -
The German Strategy Crisis During the Summer of 1940 Leonard Spencer Cooley Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Major Papers Graduate School 2004 What next?: the German strategy crisis during the summer of 1940 Leonard Spencer Cooley Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_majorpapers Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Cooley, Leonard Spencer, "What next?: the German strategy crisis during the summer of 1940" (2004). LSU Major Papers. 46. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_majorpapers/46 This Major Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Major Papers by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT NEXT? THE GERMAN STRATEGY CRISIS DURING THE SUMMER OF 1940 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Arts In The Interdepartmental Program In Liberal Arts by Leonard S. Cooley, Jr. B.S. and B.A. Louisiana State University 1997 May 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………. iii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………… 1 2 GREAT BRITAIN REFUSES TO SURRENDER………… 7 3 OPERATION SEA LION: THE DIRECT APPROACH….. 16 4 GIBRALTAR: THE INDIRECT APPROACH……………. 29 5 SEA LION POSTPONED…………………………………. 40 6 GIBRALTAR AND OPERATION FELIX………………... 53 7 CONCLUSION……………………………………………. 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………. 77 VITA………………………………………………………………………. 83 ii ABSTRACT The German blitzkrieg across France during May 1940 was the culmination of three years of daring political and military moves that had brought most of Europe under German control. -
FROM CARTOGRAPHY to DIPLOMACY. STRATEGIES AROUND GIBRALTAR DURING the SECOND WORLD WAR / 271 Julio Ponce Alberca Situation in Spain in the Early 1940S
269 269 HISTORIA 396 FROM CARTOGRAPHY TO DIPLOMACY. ISSN 0719-0719 STRATEGIES AROUND GIBRALTAR E-ISSN 0719-7969 VOL 11 DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR N°1 - 2021 [269-300] CARTOGRAFÍA Y DIPLOMACIA. ESTRATEGIAS EN TORNO A GIBRALTAR DURANTE LA SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL Julio Ponce Alberca University of Seville, Spain [email protected] Abstract The aim of this paper is to analyse the role of Gibraltar during the Spanish Civil War and World War 2. To that end, it begins with the cartographic information that Germans had about the Rock for a hypothetical invasion. The strategic enclave had already played a key role throughout the Spanish Civil War, but the outbreak of the world war highlighted its geographical importance in terms of control of the seas and world trade routes between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Due to its geographical position, Gibraltar was located at the crossroads of multiple national and international interests. Under such circumstances, official government declarations differed greatly from unspoken realities: under Spanish neutrality lay an implicit support for the allies blocking a possible German invasion of the Rock. In fact, that was the position the allied powers expected from Francoist Spain. Keywords: Maps, Second World War, Spain, Gibraltar. Resumen Este trabajo tiene por objetivo analizar el papel desempeñado por Gibraltar durante la guerra civil española y, especialmente, durante la guerra mundial. Para ello se parte de la información cartográfica que los alemanes dispusieron del Peñón para su * This article has been translated within the framework of the research project Central Power, Local Powers and Modernisation in Spain (1958- 1979): a study from comparative history (HAR2015-63662-P) by the Mi- nistry of Science, Innovation and Universities - State Research Agency, co-financed by ERDF funds. -
Repercussões Do Caso Lysenko No Brasil Por Meio Da Análise Da Mídia Impressa No Brasil (1940
Anais Eletrônicos do 14º Seminário Nacional de História da Ciência e da Tecnologia – 14º SNHCT REPERCUSSÕES DO CASO LYSENKO NO BRASIL Marcelo Lima Loreto* Luisa Medeiros Massarani** Ildeu de Castro Moreira*** 1 INTRODUÇÃO O caso Lysenko foi emblemático na História da Ciência e ocorreu no cenário de profundas disputas ideológicas e políticas que dividiam o mundo em capitalismo e comunismo, período denominado Guerra Fria. Em 7 de agosto de 1948, em uma sessão ocorrida na Academia de Ciências da União Soviética, que ficou conhecida como Conferência de VASKhNIL, o biólogo e agrônomo ucraniano Trofim Denisovič Lysenko (1898-1976) declarou que contava com o apoio do Partido Comunista da União Soviética (PCUS), dirigido por Josef V. Stalin, para sustentar a teoria michurinista na Biologia, elaborada originalmente pelo médico e pesquisador russo Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin (1855-1935). O Michurinismo consistiu em uma variedade de experiências e iniciativas agrícolas baseadas na teoria lamarckista da hereditariedade. Defendia a ideia de que os organismos vivos poderiam ser condicionados para sobreviverem em qualquer tipo de ambiente, passando às gerações seguintes as novas características adquiridas, diferente do que afirmavam os darwinistas, que falavam em seleção natural do mais apto, sem a possibilidade de condicionamento do genótipo. Estas e outras ideias foram amplamente desenvolvidas na URSS, na época de Lysenko, especialmente a partir do Plano de Stálin para a Transformação da Natureza1, lançado em 1949, que tinha o objetivo de combater a seca e aumentar a produção de cereais na URSS, que passava por um período de fome extrema. Lysenko retratou a Genética ocidental como sendo “burguesa”, “fascista” e que fornecia uma justificativa para o racismo e a colonização pelos países capitalistas. -
Cahiers Du Monde Russe, 57/1
Cahiers du monde russe Russie - Empire russe - Union soviétique et États indépendants 57/1 | 2016 Terres, sols et peuples : expertise agricole et pouvoir (xixe - xxe siècles) Land, soil and people : Agricultural expertise and power (19th-20th centuries) Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8322 DOI : 10.4000/monderusse.8322 ISSN : 1777-5388 Éditeur Éditions de l’EHESS Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 janvier 2016 ISBN : 978-2-7132-2540-6 ISSN : 1252-6576 Référence électronique Cahiers du monde russe, 57/1 | 2016, « Terres, sols et peuples : expertise agricole et pouvoir (xixe - xxe siècles) » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2018, Consulté le 28 septembre 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8322 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/monderusse.8322 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 28 septembre 2020. © École des hautes études en sciences sociales 1 NOTE DE LA RÉDACTION Ce numéro des Cahiers du Monde russe a bénéficié d’une aide à la traduction de l’Institut historique allemand de Moscou (DHIM). Cahiers du monde russe, 57/1 | 2016 2 SOMMAIRE Introduction Expertise And The Quest For Rural Modernization In The Russian Empire And The Soviet Union Katja Bruisch et Klaus Gestwa Réglementer l’utilisation des terres Blurred Lines Land surveying and the creation of landed property in nineteenth‑century Russia Igor Khristoforov Agrarian Experts And Social Justice Land allotment norms in revolution and Civil War, 1917‑1920 David Darrow The Soviet Village Revisited Household farming and the changing image of socialism in the late Soviet period Katja Bruisch Les intérêts politiques et économiques, facteurs déterminants de l’expertise Sweet Development The sugar beet industry, agricultural societies and agrarian transformations in the Russian empire 1818‑1913 Susan Smith‑Peter Engineering Empire Russian and foreign hydraulic experts in Central Asia, 1887‑1917 Maya K. -
1 Mark B. Tauger September 2014 Retrospective for Yale Agrarian
Mark B. Tauger September 2014 Retrospective for Yale Agrarian Studies This paper briefly presents the development of my ideas about Soviet agriculture and the famine of 1931-1933 and some of the issues that this research has raised. It omits my work on India and world agriculture, which I would be happy to discuss. The standard view sees Soviet collectivization as a policy of exploitation, a view based on certain Marxist theories and a very selective use of evidence. The standard view also holds that the famine of the early 1930s was the result of collectivization. A related interpretation views the famine as genocide aimed against allegedly rebellious nationalists. My research has shown that the famine resulted from drought, plant disease and pest infestations that caused two years of crop failures. I argue that this famine has to be understood in a broader context of earlier famines and Soviet agricultural sciences. I showed that the famines of the 1920s, not mentioned in previous studies, led Soviet leaders to resort to collectivization to restructure Soviet agriculture on the model of American mechanized farming, as an attempt to overcome its vulnerability to environmental disasters. Another important context is the history of Soviet agricultural sciences. The literature is split over the ability of Trofim Lysenko to distort Soviet biological research. Some studies focus on Lysenko’s victims such as N. I. Vavilov and overstate Lysenko’s impact; others show that many scientists evaded his domination. The case of Pavel Luk’ianenko shows that there were scientists in the USSR who witnessed the famine, understood its environmental causes, and worked to improve Soviet agriculture to prevent these disasters despite Lysenko.