DOCSLIB.ORG

H-Diplo Roundtable XXII-1 on Gabriel Gorodetsky, Ed. the Complete Maisky Diaries, Volumes I-III

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
H-Diplo Roundtable XXII-1 on Gabriel Gorodetsky, Ed. the Complete Maisky Diaries, Volumes I-III H-Diplo H-Diplo Roundtable XXII-1 on Gabriel Gorodetsky, ed. The Complete Maisky Diaries, Volumes I-III Discussion published by George Fujii on Monday, September 7, 2020 H-Diplo Roundtable XXII-1 Gabriel Gorodetsky, ed. The Complete Maisky Diaries, Volumes I-III. Translated by Tatiana Sorokina and Oliver Ready. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. ISBN: 9780300117820 (hardcover, $300.00). 7 September 2020 | https://hdiplo.org/to/RT22-1 Editor: Diane Labrosse | Production Editor: George Fujii Contents Introduction by Warren Kimball, Rutgers University. 2 Review by Anne Deighton, University of Oxford. 7 Review by Norman Naimark, Stanford University. 10 Review by Vladimir Pechatnov, Moscow State Institute of International Relations. 13 Review by Alexis Peri, Boston University. 16 Review by Sergey Radchenko, Cardiff University. 21 Response by Gabriel Gorodetsky, Tel Aviv University and All Souls College, University of Oxford. 26 Introduction by Warren Kimball, Rutgers University As a friend once commented about a review of edited documents: “An incise, pithy review that highlights what everyone wishes to know about the collection, and can take away from the texts. Little nuggets about the drafts of history that never really blow in the conference window are the big story here.”[1] What is This Genre? In books like this, attaching ‘editor (ed.)’ after the name of the ‘author’ is misleading since the author is the one who wrote the diaries; in this case, Ivan Mikhailovich Maisky (Jan Lachowiecki), a Soviet- era diplomat who spent eleven years (1932-1943) in London as Joseph Stalin’s Ambassador to Great Britain. But gathering or compiling documents is not the same as what Gabriel Gorodetsky has done Citation: George Fujii. H-Diplo Roundtable XXII-1 on Gabriel Gorodetsky, ed. The Complete Maisky Diaries, Volumes I-III. H-Diplo. 09-07-2020. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/6402047/h-diplo-roundtable-xxii-1-abriel-gorodetsky-ed-complete-maisky Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-Diplo with the three volumes of The Maisky Diaries. In a very real sense, he wrote the book. That is not to say that gathering and compiling is less important for researchers. Published compilations, particularly of official government documents, such as the renowned seriesForeign Relations of the United States( FRUS), which has been published annually since 1862, require informed choices by knowledgeable compilers as to what documents are needed to construct an accurate and relatively complete picture. (In this era of the national security state, theFRUS series performs a different and particularly crucial task, it leverages the U.S. government to obey the law and declassify information that is at least 30 years old). But printing everything is not possible (there are always more documents to examine), nor is a full narrative, and it is generally seen as inappropriate for official historians to draw conclusions (however much they creep in by virtue of the selection process). Historians have long used relatively short samplings of documents for teaching purposes, but such books are rarely designed to offer either new documents or new ideas. Historians and editors fumble with our Germanic taxonomy of such publications; sometimes listing them as published documents, sometimes separating out diaries and memoirs, sometimes rolling them into a general ‘primary sources’ category. But documents and diaries are true ‘sources,’ created in and by persons of the era, giving them a special status. Commenting on them in the same pages of the publication is not only convenient for the reader, but sets up a very special synergy between historian and historical figures. In the twentieth century, historians and journalists played loose with diaries. What Arthur Bryant did with Lord Alanbrooke’s diaries discredited the value of extensive commentaries that accompany diaries and documents since Bryant’s narrative not only overtook Alanbrooke’s words, but much was purposefully left out.[2] Fortunately, Alanbrooke’s diaries later received unexpurgated and excellent editing and extensive notes.[3] Finally, in the early 1990s, the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) established a prize for collections that assessed and commented on the documents, placing them into the context of interpretive debates. The Link-Kuehl Prize is awarded for outstanding collections of primary source materials in the fields of international or diplomatic history, especially those distinguished by the inclusion of commentary designed to interpret the documents and set them within their historical context.[4] Are The Complete Maisky Diaries a new and unique collection? No. Maisky published portions of his diaries at some risk in Stalin’s Russia. Is there new material? Some, of course. Just read the reports of our reviewers, Anne Deighton, Norman M. Naimark, Vladimir Pechatnov, Alexis Peri, and Sergey Radchenko. But historians of “Communism” (the Yale University Press series) and of the Second World War (a more encompassing rubric) are all writing in what has become an era of ‘nuance.’ Truly new and important documentary evidence is scarce. The Maisky Diaries, The Kremlin Letters, the volumes of Churchill papers being published by Hillsdale College, all add to our evidence base; but to what degree?[5] In his introduction, Gabriel Gorodetsky writes that “it would hardly be an exaggeration to suggest that the diary rewrites some history which we thought we knew” (Maisky Diaries, 1: xvii). Yet even the Soviet-era records that are open and still opening (often thanks to hard working and insistent Citation: George Fujii. H-Diplo Roundtable XXII-1 on Gabriel Gorodetsky, ed. The Complete Maisky Diaries, Volumes I-III. H-Diplo. 09-07-2020. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/6402047/h-diplo-roundtable-xxii-1-abriel-gorodetsky-ed-complete-maisky Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 2 H-Diplo Russian researchers) have not revised our historical narrative so much as rounding it out.[6] The reviewers assess what is new and important. Was Maisky a ‘decider,’ someone who deflects, shifts, creates history? Dare I say, a Great Man? Or is he more like Henry Morgenthau, Jr., whose voluminous set of diaries ensured him a permanent and sometimes exaggerated place in history.[7] Or perhaps something in-between (there are no either/or alternatives in history). Gorodetsky has worked hard to assess objectively just what Maisky’s historical place should be; not an easy task when you spend a very sizeable chunk of your life closeted with a person. I confess to having images of biographer Howard K. Beale playing a flamboyant Teddy Roosevelt in a pince-nez, a white suit, and waving a cane while shouting “Bully”; and Arthur Link imitating a scholarly Woodrow Wilson in less exuberant but similar fashion. That none of the commentators seem to think that Gorodetsky has become infatuated with his subject is no mean accomplishment for a dedicated scholar who intensely engaged the same historical figure for over fifteen years. (Maisky Diaries, I, ix). Are these diaries more than just a self-told three volume tale of an interesting but relatively ineffective ambassador whose fame was based on his being in the right place at the exciting and portentous time? An ambassador who accomplished little beyond leaving a diary that allows us to peek into the personal, almost gossipy tales of a Russian revolutionary who was comfortable in bourgeoisie London and who chatted routinely with the great and near-great in England? Or is it a model study of an aspect of diplomatic history that is more and more being studied intensely: the effect the social and intellectual character of a player on the world stage? Did Maisky invent ‘new’ diplomacy? Or just practice one? Perhaps, perhaps not. Yet, as the Japanese have long understood, style is substance—and much of Maisky was sheer style. As Deighton suggests, there are two kinds of information—factual and impressionist. Events matter. Who said what to whom can be crucial. But what about that cup of coffee on a couch and the establishment of a personal relationship—which is what Maisky was all about? How did that work? As with most all diaries, there is a pretentiousness, a sense of self-importance, a search for immortality. So much so that Maisky kept three or more copies (before xerox?) of his diary lest Soviet authorities find and destroy it. In Gorodetsky’s words, it was “manifestly written with” awareness of Maisky’s own central role in the process” (Maisky Diaries, I, xv). That is a warning as well as an assessment. One of the dangers inherent in diaries and memoirs is the normal human tendency to exaggerate, even invent. In Deighton’s phrases: “Inevitably the reader has continually to ask herself for whom was this diary written, and under what constraints did Maisky write.” But “historians are well-accustomed not to take text purely at its face value, as Gorodetsky himself frequently points out.” It is not the “revelatory” quotes and information that the Maisky Diaries provide that gives us added value. It’s the combined narrative—Maisky’s diary and Gorodetsky’s expert commentaries—that make a unique and most valuable contribution to our understanding. The key for this roundtable is not our own individual interpretations, but the big picture; do we try to slog through three volumes of Maisky’s diaries and Gorodetsky’s weaving it all together, or do we just consult the volumes for the details we’re looking for by using the index to find what to read. Or do we just read them? I guess that depends on what we’re looking for, details or the grand encompassing image. Citation: George Fujii. H-Diplo Roundtable XXII-1 on Gabriel Gorodetsky, ed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Neville Chamberlain's Announcement of the Introduction of Conscription To
    FRANCO-BRITISH RELATIONS AND THE QUESTION OF CONSCRIPTION IN BRITAIN, 1938-1939 ABSTRACT - This article examines the relationship interaction between the French campaign for the introduction of British conscription during 1938-39 and the ebbs and flows of British public opinion on the same issue. In particular, it will demonstrate how French pressure for conscription varied in intensity depending on their perceptions of British opinion on the subject. It was this interaction between diplomatic and domestic pressures that ultimately compelled the British government to introduce conscription in April 1939. Furthermore, the issue of conscription also sheds light on the wider issue of Franco-British relations, revealing how French foreign policy was neither dictated by an ‘English Governess’ nor pursued independently of Great Britain. When Neville Chamberlain announced the introduction of conscription to the House of Commons on 26 April 1939 he not only reneged on previous promises but deviated from the traditional British aversion to peacetime compulsory service. Chamberlain defended himself by arguing that current international tensions could not be described as ‘peace-time in any sense in which the term could fairly be used’.1 Nonetheless, introducing conscription – albeit in a limited form2 – was alien to British tradition. How, therefore, can the decision be explained? What motivated the government to take such a step? This article sheds new light on the British decision to implement conscription in April 1939, moving beyond existing analyses by showing that the decision was motivated not only by a fusion of domestic and international pressures but by the interaction of the two. More specifically, contends that French pressure for British conscription ebbed and flowed in direct correlation to the French government’s perceptions of the British public’s attitude towards compulsory military service.
    [Show full text]
  • The Buildup of the German War Economy: the Importance of the Nazi-Soviet Economic Agreements of 1939 and 1940 by Samantha Carl I
    The Buildup of the German War Economy: The Importance of the Nazi-Soviet Economic Agreements of 1939 and 1940 By Samantha Carl INTRODUCTION German-Soviet relations in the early half of the twentieth century have been marked by periods of rapprochement followed by increasing tensions. After World War I, where the nations fought on opposite sides, Germany and the Soviet Union focused on their respective domestic problems and tensions began to ease. During the 1920s, Germany and the Soviet Union moved toward normal relations with the signing of the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.(1) Tensions were once again apparent after 1933, when Adolf Hitler gained power in Germany. Using propaganda and anti-Bolshevik rhetoric, Hitler depicted the Soviet Union as Germany's true enemy.(2) Despite the animosity between the two nations, the benefits of trade enabled them to maintain economic relations throughout the inter-war period. It was this very relationship that paved the way for the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 and the subsequent outbreak of World War II. Nazi-Soviet relations on the eve of the war were vital to the war movement of each respective nation. In essence, the conclusion of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact on August 23, 1939 allowed Germany to augment its war effort while diminishing the Soviet fear of a German invasion.(3) The betterment of relations was a carefully planned program in which Hitler sought to achieve two important goals. First, he sought to prevent a two-front war from developing upon the invasion of Poland. Second, he sought to gain valuable raw materials that were necessary for the war movement.(4) The only way to meet these goals was to pursue the completion of two pacts with the Soviet Union: an economic agreement as well as a political one.
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet-American Relations and the Origins of Containment 1941-1946: the Force of Tradition
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1988 Soviet-American relations and the origins of containment 1941-1946: The force of tradition Anita Louise Coryell The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Coryell, Anita Louise, "Soviet-American relations and the origins of containment 1941-1946: The force of tradition" (1988). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5179. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5179 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 Th i s is an unpublished m a n u s c r ip t in w h ic h c o p y r ig h t s u b s i s t s . Any f u r t h e r r e p r in t in g of i t s c o n t e n t s m u st be APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR. Ma n s f i e l d L ib r a r y U n i v e r s i t y of Mo n ta n a Da t e : , 1 , SOVIET-AMERICAN RELATIONS AND THE ORIGINS OF CONTAINMENT, 1941-1946: THE FORCE OF TRADITION By Anita Louise Coryell B.A., Rutgers, The State University, 1974 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1988 Approved by: Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School lusrt/J Date UMI Number: EP40643 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Yalta, a Tripartite Negotiation to Form the Post-War World Order: Planning for the Conference, the Big Three’S Strategies
    YALTA, A TRIPARTITE NEGOTIATION TO FORM THE POST-WAR WORLD ORDER: PLANNING FOR THE CONFERENCE, THE BIG THREE’S STRATEGIES Matthew M. Grossberg Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in the Department of History, Indiana University August 2015 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Master’s Thesis Committee ______________________________ Kevin Cramer, Ph. D., Chair ______________________________ Michael Snodgrass, Ph. D. ______________________________ Monroe Little, Ph. D. ii ©2015 Matthew M. Grossberg iii Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without the participation and assistance of so many of the History Department at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Their contributions are greatly appreciated and sincerely acknowledged. However, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the following: Dr. Anita Morgan, Dr. Nancy Robertson, and Dr. Eric Lindseth who rekindled my love of history and provided me the push I needed to embark on this project. Dr. Elizabeth Monroe and Dr. Robert Barrows for being confidants I could always turn to when this project became overwhelming. Special recognition goes to my committee Dr. Monroe Little and Dr. Michael Snodgrass. Both men provided me assistance upon and beyond the call of duty. Dr. Snodgrass patiently worked with me throughout my time at IUPUI, helping my writing progress immensely. Dr. Little came in at the last minute, saving me from a fate worse than death, another six months of grad school. Most importantly, all credit is due Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Horace Wilson and Appeasement*
    The Historical Journal, 53, 4 (2010), pp. 983–1014 f Cambridge University Press 2010 doi:10.1017/S0018246X10000270 SIR HORACE WILSON AND APPEASEMENT* G. C. P E D E N University of Stirling ABSTRACT. Sir Horace Wilson was Neville Chamberlain’s confidential adviser while the latter was prime minister. The article addresses three questions. First, what was Wilson’s role in Whitehall in connection with rearmament and foreign policy? Second, did he diminish the influence of the Foreign Office? Third, what contribution does his defence of appeasement make to understanding of a subject that continues to divide historians? The article concludes that Wilson played an important role in enabling Chamberlain to pursue his foreign policy goals. However, when there was outright disagreement between Wilson and the Foreign Office, it was the Foreign Office view that prevailed. Finally, the evidence of Wilson’s words and actions, both in 1937–9 and later, broadly supports R. A. C. Parker’s post-revisionist interpretation of appeasement, particularly as regards Munich, but Wilson was a good deal firmer in 1939 about Britain’s will to fight, if necessary, than his critics then or later allowed. No history of British appeasement is complete without some reference to Sir Horace Wilson’s role as Neville Chamberlain’s confidential adviser, and in particular to Wilson’s meetings with Hitler as the prime minister’s emissary im- mediately prior to the Munich conference in September 1938. Yet there has been no serious study of Wilson himself in relation to appeasement since Martin Gilbert published a short article in History Today in 1982.1 To date, archival work on Wilson’s career has been confined to his years at the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade.2 This neglect would have surprised Wilson’s contemporaries.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Global Governance
    2 A History of Global Governance It is the sense of Congress that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation open to all nations with definite and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation and enforcement of world law. House Concurrent Resolution 64, 1949, with 111 co-sponsors There are causes, but only a very few, for which it is worthwhile to fight; but whatever the cause, and however justifiable the war, war brings about such great evils that it is of immense importance to find ways short of war in which the things worth fighting for can be secured. I think it is worthwhile to fight to prevent England and America being conquered by the Nazis, but it would be far better if this end could be secured without war. For this, two things are necessary. First, the creation of an international government, possessing a monopoly of armed force, and guaranteeing freedom from aggression to every country; second, that wars (other than civil wars) are justified when, and only when, they are fought in defense of the international law established by the international authority. Wars will cease when, and only when, it becomes evident beyond reasonable doubt that in any war the aggressor will be defeated. 1 Bertrand Russell, “The Future of Pacifism” By the end of the 20th century, if not well before, humankind had come to accept the need for and the importance of various national institutions to secure political stability and economic prosperity.
    [Show full text]
  • Churchill's Diplomatic Eavesdropping and Secret Signals Intelligence As
    CHURCHILL’S DIPLOMATIC EAVESDROPPING AND SECRET SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY, 1941-1944: THE CASE OF TURKEY Submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. Department of History University College London by ROBIN DENNISTON M.A. (Oxon) M.Sc. (Edin) ProQuest Number: 10106668 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. uest. ProQuest 10106668 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 ABSTRACT Churchill's interest in secret signals intelligence (sigint) is now common knowledge, but his use of intercepted diplomatic telegrams (bjs) in World War Two has only become apparent with the release in 1994 of his regular supply of Ultra, the DIR/C Archive. Churchill proves to have been a voracious reader of diplomatic intercepts from 1941-44, and used them as part of his communication with the Foreign Office. This thesis establishes the value of these intercepts (particularly those Turkey- sourced) in supplying Churchill and the Foreign Office with authentic information on neutrals' response to the war in Europe, and analyses the way Churchill used them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anschluss Movement and British Policy
    THE ANSCHLUSS MOVEMENT AND BRITISH POLICY: MAY 1937 - MARCH 1938 by Elizabeth A. Tarte, A.B. A 'l11esis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Part ial Fulfillment of the Re­ quirements f or the Degree of Master of Arts Milwaukee, Wisconsin May, 1967 i1 PREFACE For many centuri.es Austria. bad been closely eom'lect E!d \'lieh the German states. 111 language and eulture. Austri.a and Germany had always looked to each other. AS late as the t~tentieth century. Austria .st111 clung to her traditional leadership in Germany . In the perlod following the First World War, Austria continued to lo(!)k to Germany for leadership. Aus tria, beset by numerous economic and social problems. made many pleas for uni on with her German neighbor. From 1919 to 1933 all ;novas on the part of Austria and Germany for union, -v.71\ether political oreeon01;n1c. were th"larted by the signatories of the pea.ce treaties. Wl ,th the entrance of Adolf Hitler onto the European political stage, the movement fQr the Anschluss .. - the union of Germany and Austria .- t ook on a different light. Austrians no longer sought \.Ulion with a Germany v.ilich was dominated by Hitler. The net"l National $Gclalist Gertna,n Reich aimed at: the early acq'U1Si ,tiQn of Austria. The latter "(vas i mportant to the lteich fGr its agricultural and Batural reSources and would i mprove its geopolitical and military position in Europe. In 1934 the National Soci aU.sts assaSSinated Dr .. U.:. £tlto1bot''t Pollfuas, the Aust~i ..\n Cbaneellot'l in ,an 8.'ttcmp't to tillkltl c:ronet:Ql or his: eountry.
    [Show full text]
  • Summit Diplomacy: Some Lessons from History for 21St Century Leaders Transcript
    Summit Diplomacy: Some Lessons from History for 21st Century Leaders Transcript Date: Tuesday, 4 June 2013 - 6:00PM Location: Barnard's Inn Hall 4 June 2013 Summit Diplomacy: Some Lessons From History For 21st Century Leaders David Reynolds This is the first of a series of three lectures about history and policy, about the ways in which historians might be able to contribute to current policy debates. Tonight, I am talking about diplomacy; next week, there will be something about environmental policy; and then, thirdly, about development policy, and that is an example of what history and policy is trying to do: link up academic research with issues of current concern in the political arena. Some lessons from history, “lessons” in quotation marks because, as you will see, I am wary about the use of the term “lessons” or I think at least we have to be clear what history can teach and what it cannot teach… Here we are, statesmen on the world stage. There is Winston Churchill in Washington in 1941, and there is David Cameron and Barack Obama at the G20 Summit in Toronto, a year or so ago I think – example, the G20, of how summitry has become institutionalised in the last 60 years, and that is something I will get onto in a moment. The idea of a summit meeting is now very much very familiar to us. There is Time magazine from the 1980s, from 1985, “Let’s Talk”, Reagan and Gorbachev. This summitry is about top level meetings for high stakes. What I want to suggest to you is that, despite all that media attention about something special to do with summitry, it is rooted in daily life.
    [Show full text]
  • FINLAND's RELATIONS with the SOVIET UNION, 1940-1952 By
    FINLAND'S RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION, 1940-1952 by HANS PETER KROSBY B.A., University of British Columbia, 1955 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in INTERNATIONAL STUDIES We accept this Thesis as conforming to the required standard: UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1958 ABSTRACT In March 194-0, Finland had just completed another life and death struggle with the Soviet Union, the second such struggle since Bolshevik autocracy- replaced Tsarist autocracy in Russia in 1917. During the following fifteen months, Soviet diplomacy endeavoured to complete the job which the Red Army had "begun. By a unilateral and extremely liberal interpretation of the Peace Treaty of March 12, 1940, the Soviet Union tried to isolate Finland from her other neighbours and to establish a favourable basis for a complete annexation of Finland in the manner of the three Baltic States. Surrounded by Soviet and German military might, and noticing the increasing friction in the Nazi-Soviet alliance, Finland, in order to save herself from an imminent Soviet invasion, grasped the only straw which seemed to offer some hope: a transit agreement for German troops from Finland's Bothnian coast to Kirkenes in oc• cupied Norway. The resulting presence of German troops in the country did save Finland from becoming the seventeenth Soviet Socialist Republic in 1940 or 194-1* but it also involved her deeply in the Nazi-Soviet conflict which followed. When Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 194-1, Finland tried in vain to have her neutrality respected, and she was attacked by Soviet forces three days after the German aggression.
    [Show full text]
  • A Good Example of Peaceful Coexistence?
    A Good Example of Peaceful Coexistence? The Soviet Union, Austria, and Neutrality, 1955–1991 WOLFGANG MUELLER WOLFGANG MUELLER A GOOD EXAMPLE OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE? THE SOVIET UNION, AUSTRIA, AND NEUTRALITY, 1955‒1991 ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN PHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHE KLASSE HISTORISCHE KOMMISSION ZENTRALEUROPA-STUDIEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VON ARNOLD SUPPAN UND GRETE KLINGENSTEIN BAND 15 WOLFGANG MUELLER A Good Example of Peaceful Coexistence? The Soviet Union, Austria, and Neutrality 1955‒1991 Vorgelegt von w. M. Arnold Suppan in der Sitzung am 18. Juni 2010 Cover: The Austrian chancellor, Julius Raab (r.), welcomes Nikita Khrushchev in his office, 30 June 1960, photograph by Fritz Kern, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek – Bildarchiv, FO504632_4_48. Cover design: Oliver Hunger British Library Cataloguing in Publication data. A Catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library. Die verwendete Papiersorte ist aus chlorfrei gebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt, frei von säurebildenden Bestandteilen und alterungsbeständig. Alle Rechte vorbehalten ISBN 978-3-7001-6898-0 Copyright © 2011 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Druck und Bindung: Prime Rate kft., Budapest http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/6898-0 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.at Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... 9 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 13 Soviet-Austrian relations, 1945–1955 ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stalin's Big-Fleet Program
    Naval War College Review Volume 57 Article 6 Number 2 Spring 2004 Stalin’s Big-Fleet Program Milan L. Hauner Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Hauner, Milan L. (2004) "Stalin’s Big-Fleet Program," Naval War College Review: Vol. 57 : No. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol57/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hauner: Stalin’s Big-Fleet Program STALIN’S BIG-FLEET PROGRAM Milan L. Hauner The Party is in favor of small submarines with a short range. You can build three times as many submarines for your money as big ones.... but the actual problem lay in a quite different sphere. Big submarines mean a policy of aggression, to further world revolution. Small sub- marines mean coastal defense—that is, self-defense, and postponement of world revolution. ARTHUR KOESTLER his is the answer that in Koestler’s famous 1941 novel Darkness at Noon the Tpolice investigator Ivanov gives the accused Rubashov, who asked him why a certain admiral had to be executed. “The times are against us,”Ivanov continues; “we are in the hollow of a wave and must wait until we are lifted by the next.”His explanation suggests what actual Soviet naval strategy Dr.
    [Show full text]