U.S. support for Ukraine’s liberation during the Cold War: A study of Prolog Research and Publishing Corporation

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 51-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taras Kuzio
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Government Support ◽  
External Representation ◽  
The Political ◽  
Underground Structures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Opposition Movements

The US government established contact in Western Europe with anti-Communist refugees following World War II and covertly supported a variety of groups. Initially in the 1940s cooperation between the OSS/CIA and émigré groups provided support for the parachuting of couriers to contact underground organizations in ethnic homelands and over the next four decades until the late 1980s through support for non-violent methods against Soviet power. One of the organisations supported by the US government was Prolog Research and Publishing Corporation that existed from 1952 to 1992. Prolog was established by zpUHVR (external representation of the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council), the political umbrella of Ukrainian nationalist, anti-Soviet partisans who fought a guerrilla war against the Soviet state until the early 1950s. US government support facilitated a democratic alternative to nationalist émigrés who dominated the Ukrainian diaspora as well as a different strategy towards the pursuit of the liberation of Ukraine. Prolog proved to be more successful in its liberation strategy of providing large volumes of technical, publishing and financial support to dissidents and opposition currents within the Communist Party of Ukraine. The alternative nationalist strategy of building underground structures in Soviet Ukraine routinely came under threat from infiltration by the KGB. US government support enabled Prolog to publish books and journals, including the only Russian-language journal published by a Ukrainian émigré organization, across the political spectrum and to closely work with opposition movements in central-eastern Europe, especially Poland.

Venture Funders — Are They the Solution?

1998 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-83
Author(s):  
Paul M. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Small Business ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Fast Track ◽  
Government Support ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Investment Company ◽  
Business Investment ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Financial Climate

The author briefly describes what venture funders do and how they do it to illuminate the process of high-tech business formation and development. By way of illumination, he gives two short histories of successful university spin-outs that his company, Zero Stage Capital, has helped launch. He then examines how this firm's knowledge and experience may apply in the context of the Scottish university and financial climate, and bearing in mind the goals of Scotland's Technology Ventures strategy. Finally, he discusses the US government support initiatives for small business, the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program. He suggests an approach for its application in increasing the birth-rate of fast-track technology-based ventures in Scotland or in other countries that have the infrastructure to support and enhance the process.

The Way to Waimanalo

Runaway ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Chaney
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
Public Performance ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Margaret Mead ◽  
Office Of Strategic Services ◽  
Morphology Learning ◽  
The Way

The narrative setting for this chapter is the new Oceanic Institute and its sister facility, Sea Life Park, in Waimanalo, Hawaii, in the early 1960s, where Bateson is studying the way dolphins communicate with each other. Among his colleagues – pioneers in dolphin training for public performance and ocean scientists with military contracts – Bateson was beloved but misunderstood. At issue was Bateson’s deep scorn for modern utilitarian science and B.F. Skinner behaviorism. The source of this scorn can be found in Bateson’s background: his youth in British naturalism and as the son of the founder of genetics William Bateson; his 1936 marriage to Margaret Mead, their work in Papau New Guinea and Bali, and their part, along with Ruth Benedict, in Boasian cultural relativism and the culture and personality school of anthropology; Bateson's anthropological morphology, learning theory, and concept of schismogenesis; and his black ops work with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II. In the aftermath of the war, the US government opened its doors to the social sciences to aid in its Cold War policies. Bateson’s marriage to Margaret Mead crumbled amidst his refusal to accompany her through these doors.

Building the World War II Memorials, 1945–1960

2018 ◽  
pp. 183-221
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Conner
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
World War ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Creation

This chapter looks at the longer aftermath of WWII and traces the creation of the second generation of ABMC sites. Focusing on the process of securing grounds overseas, allowing family members to decide where their loved ones would be buried, and obtaining US government clearance on designs, the account is reminiscent of the start of the ABMC and its first project. By 1960, fourteen cemetery memorials had been dedicated. This chapter also highlights the leadership of the agency’s second chairman, General George C. Marshall, and his direction of the building of memorials in eight countries to remember the 400,000 Americans who had died and the 16 million who had served in WWII. Marshall’s high standing in the US government and in the public esteem, just as was true of Pershing, greatly helped the agency to fulfill its renewed mission. The special treatment shown the grave of General George S. Patton in the Luxembourg American Cemetery is also detailed.

Internment of Japanese and Japanese Latin Americans During World War II

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selfa A. Chew
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Forced Migration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coastal Zones ◽  
World War ◽  
Internment Camps ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government

The lives of Latin American Japanese were disrupted during World War II, when their civil and human rights were suspended. National security and continental defense were the main reasons given by the American countries consenting to their uprooting. More than 2,000 ethnic Japanese from Peru, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, and Nicaragua were transferred as “illegal aliens” to internment camps in the United States. Initially, US and Latin American agencies arrested and deported male ethnic Japanese, regardless of their citizenship status. During the second stage, women and children joined their relatives in the United States. Most forced migration originated in Peru. Brazil and Mexico established similar displacement programs, ordering the population of Japanese descent to leave the coastal zones, and in the case of Mexico the border areas. In both countries, ethnic Japanese were under strict monitoring and lost property, employment, and family and friend relationships, losses that affected their health and the opportunity to support themselves in many cases. Latin American Japanese in the United States remained in camps operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the army for the duration of the war and were among the last internees leaving the detention facilities, in 1946. At the conclusion of World War II, the Latin American countries that had agreed to the expulsion of ethnic Japanese limited greatly their return. Some 800 internees were deported to Japan from the United States by the closure of the camps. Those who remained in North America were allowed to leave the camps to work in a fresh produce farm in Seabrook, New Jersey, without residency or citizenship rights. In 1952, immigration restrictions for former Latin American internees were lifted. Latin American governments have not apologized for the uprooting of the ethnic Japanese, while the US government has recognized it as a mistake. In 1988, the United States offered a symbolic compensation to all surviving victims of the internment camps in the amount of $20,000. In contrast, in 1991, Latin American Japanese survivors were granted only $5,000.

Does the United States Push Revolutions to Cuba? The Case of Grenada

1986 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Pastor
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Bloc ◽  
World War ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Policy Analysts ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Political Model

One of the most difficult and frustrating challenges to US foreign policy in the post-World War II period has been coping with third world revolutions, particularly those in the Caribbean Basin. Whether the revolution has been in Cuba, Nicaragua, or Grenada, relations with the US have always deteriorated, and the revolutionary governments have moved closer to the Soviet bloc and toward a Communist political model. Both the deteriorating relationship and the increasingly belligerent posture of the US have conformed to a regular pattern; so too have the interpretations of the causes and consequences of the confrontation.US government officials and a few policy analysts tend to view the hostile attitudes and policies of the revolutionary governments as the cause of the problem.

scholarly journals Le contrôle gouvernemental des entreprises multinationales : Le cas des États-Unis

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-322
Author(s):  
Ryamond Vernon
Keyword(s):  
Government Support ◽  
Administrative Staff ◽  
American Government ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Homogeneous Pattern ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Guide Lines

The article is a case study of the relationship between the American government and US multinational corporation. It argues that while the state - MNE relationships vary from country to country, the US pattern is one of a very limited transnational role for government. Main factors in this pattern are the division of powers between the various branches and agencies of the US government, and changes in administrative staff following each national election. Few cases of government effort at business guidance are found: antitrust policy, foreign aid to friend governments, ineffectual protests again nationalisation of foreign subsidiaries of US MNE, exceptional cases of purposeful intervention, and the US adherence to international guide lines to MNE conduct sponsored by OECD. The article studies in more detail the case of oil, in which the US government is supposed to have intervened in a more direct way. The article concludes that US foreign policy is too complex to be understood simply in terms of government support of US multinational abroad. Besides us industry and the American government are themselves too split to produce a single and homogeneous pattern of policy.

Politics of Resilience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juha Vuori
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
The Political ◽  
External Shocks ◽  
World War ◽  
Neoliberal Governmentality ◽  
Critical Awareness ◽  
Strategic Bombing ◽  
Political Concern ◽  
The Us

The resilience of urban populations has been a state concern at least since the US strategic bombing surveys of World War II, but resilience really entered national security strategies and “all hazards” approaches to security and disaster management in the mid-2000s, when it was adopted as a concept for resolving the insecurities of the “war on terror” and climate change. The entry of resilience-thought into politics has several intellectual roots. Psychologically, the notion refers to individuals’ and societal groups’ capacity to recover from, or resist, misfortune speedily and easily. In the political uses of resilience, it has come to denote not only recovery from stresses and disturbances, or “bouncing back” to a previous normalcy, but also a “bouncing forward” effect through adaptation that can be considered desirable despite the general negativity attached to being vulnerable to continuous external shocks. While resilience has been a political concern since the 2000s, much of resilience research does not take politics into account when discussing, analyzing, and promoting resilient systems and practices for societies. This can lead to a normative contestation of resilience that stems from the normalization and essentialization of resilience as a universal and neutral public good for all, when it in actuality is saddled with conflicting values and involves both power and politics. Furthermore, resilience can also take on “perverse” forms where the resilience of internal elements of a system can work against the sustainability or viability of its whole, or where resilience maintains socially unjust or ecologically unhealthy practices. Even authoritarian political orders can display resilience. Accordingly, studies that focus on the politics of resilience tend to take a critical view of it, and of the politics it produces or maintains. When examining resilience with such critical awareness, questions such as resilience of what, to what, and for whom become relevant. Furthermore, when researching resilience, it is prudent to ask what it does politically and socially, what kinds of subjectivities and objectivities it produces, what kinds of values are inscribed and prescribed in its use, and who or what puts forth resilience speech and practices. One of the main critical viewpoints on the politics of resilience has been that it is a form of neoliberal governmentality that shifts responsibility to individuals and vulnerable groups for their own survival while simultaneously removing their political agency to affect change in regard to the continuous perturbations they face. Still, some suggest that resilience as such should not be conflated with the resilience politics of particular states and societies, but instead be examined more broadly, maintaining the possibility that it can also serve progressive agendas. To get a grasp on such angles of approach to resilience, the present bibliographical article presents an overview of what the politics of resilience is thought to be in its literature, what the origins and genealogy of resilience are, and what kind of debates and topics the literature has produced on the politics of resilience.

Corporate Influence and World War II: Resolving the New Deal Political Stalemate

1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Waddell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
State Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
The Political ◽  
World War ◽  
The New Deal

Since many scholars focus on the New Deal as the foundation for modern U.S. governance, it is widely assumed that the United States is characterized by a weak state as compared to the welfare states of Western Europe. Yet, in the wake of World War II, the United States established a national security “warfare state” that rivaled the welfare states of Western Europe in scope of authority and operations and in its isolation from popular forces. The wartime redirection of U.S. state power also resolved the political stalemate stemming from the executive-congressional and business-government tensions roused during the New Deal. In fact, the course of wartime statebuilding was in many ways a response to the political tensions of the New Deal and to the expectation that the organization of wartime mobilization would indelibly define the postwar organization of U.S. state power. As this article argues, wartime mobilization resolved the New Deal political stalemate in large part by granting various segments of the corporate community the opportunity to influence the shape of U.S. national state power.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document