The treasure of the Berlin State museums and its allied capture: remarks and questions

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 308-341
Author(s):  
K Goldmann

Following the disclosure of archives in the former Soviet Union detailing art works taken from Germany at the end of World War II, it is now possible to reconstruct more accurately a history of those objects removed from Germany but never returned. Inconsistencies in the documentary evidence concerning both the location of objects sent West from Berlin and other repositories (particularly in the last few months of the war) and the number of objects returned to Germany indicate that the United States may have been involved in an unofficial policy of claiming as war booty art treasures form the conquered German nation. This article attempts to detail some of those inconsistencies by comparing what is known of the inventories of German museums before the war, the movements of art objects and repositories used during the war, and the inventories of the German museums today, in order to reconstruct some of this missing pact.

Refuge ◽  
1998 ◽  
pp. 43-48
Author(s):  
Boris Kovalev

Based on documents for the Russian archives, which in the early 1990s became open to the researchers, the author gives an account of the problem of collaborating with Nazi Germany in the USSR during World War II. He discusses the role of special punitive detachments, formed from the local populations in the occupied territories, in assisting Nazis in their policy of terror and genocide. A brief history of the infamous 667th punitive battalion, "Shelon, " and some of its members serves as an illustrative example. The author also explains why so many Nazi collaborators from the former Soviet Union managed to escape punishment and settle in the Western countries, Canada and the United States in particular, and also traces the history of some of them.


2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-16
Author(s):  
Stelian TAMPU

Raising awareness on the political-historical background of the popular movements of the 20th century is very important because behind the stories there were often ill-considered political decisions. It is interesting to see how the last century leaders of the great powers represented their self-interests, and what political games they had developed to achieve their political goals. The interests of nations living in countries were often not interesting to take into consideration. The Soviet Union was not a nation-state, but neither was the United States of America, while at that time most of the European states were nationstates, and along this were nations that sought to assert their national interests, by force when necessary. However, the post-World War II political settlements did not serve the interests of the German nation, but divided its population and turned them against one other. This is why the movement of German citizens within Germany has occurred.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 228-234
Author(s):  
V. I. Batyuk

In 2020 the whole world commemorated the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II — the most horrifi c war in the human history. However, the celebration of the victory over fascism was overshadowed by the growing tension among the leading actors of contemporary international relations. In this context, a high level of responsibility falls on the academic community to rebuff politically motivated attempts to rewrite history and revise the outcomes of this war. The book under review could make an important contribution to that end. The book provides a comprehensive and balanced analysis of the history of World War II. The reviewer emphasizes that rather than providing a detailed examination of military operations the authors focused on their impact on the development of the international relations system. In particular, the book provides a detailed picture of the complex interactions within the strategic triangle — the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain — both during the war and in the years after the war. As a result, the book under review not only provides an opportunity to better understand the key trends in relationships between the Great Powers during the war, but also sheds new light on the origins of the bipolar system and the beginning of the Cold War. The reviewer concludes that, despite sometimes excessively Eurocentric approach of the authors, this book is a seminal work on the history of World War II and a major event for the Russian academic community. As such, this book can be recommended to both professional historians and a wider audience.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-44
Author(s):  
A. Yu. Borisov

It is unfortunate to note again today that World War II did not end, it continues in the form of the war of memory. Politicians and scholars who stand as ideological successors of collaborators are trying to rewrite the history of those tragic days, to downplay the role of the Soviet Union in the victory over fascism. They try to revive certain political myths, which have been debunked long ago, that the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany bear equal responsibility for the outbreak of World War II, that the Red Army did not liberate Eastern Europe but ‘occupied’ it. In order to combat these attempts it is necessary to examine once again a turbulent history of the inter-war period and, particularly, the reasons why all attempts to form a united antifascist front had failed in the 1930s, but eventually led to the formation of the anti-Hitler coalition.The paper focuses on a complex set of political considerations, including cooperation and confrontation, mutual suspicions and a fervent desire to find an ally in the face of growing international tensions, which all together determined the dynamics of relations within a strategic triangle of the Soviet Union — the United States — Great Britain in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The paper shows how all attempts to establish a collective security system during the prewar period had shattered faced with the policy of appeasement, which allowed the Nazi Germany to occupy much of Europe. Only the Soviet Union’s entry into the war changed the course of the conflict and made a decisive contribution to the victory over fascist aggressors. The author emphasizes that at such crucial moment of history I.V. Stalin, F.D. Roosevelt and W. Churchill raised to that challenge, demonstrating realism, common sense and willingness to cooperate. Although within the anti-Hitler coalition there was a number of pending issues, which triggered tensions between the Allies, their leaders managed to move beyond old grievances, ideological differences and short-term political interests, to realize that they have a common strategic goal in the struggle against Nazism. According to the author, this is the foundation for success of the anti-Hitler coalition and, at the same time, the key lesson for contemporary politicians. The very emergence of the anti-Hitler coalition represented a watershed in the history of the 20th century, which has determined a way forward for the whole humanity and laid the foundations for the world order for the next fifty years.


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Grant ◽  
Alice Fisher Fellow

Russian and Soviet nurse refugees faced myriad challenges attempting to become registered nurses in North America and elsewhere after the World War II. By drawing primarily on International Council of Nurses refugee files, a picture can be pieced together of the fate that befell many of those women who left Russia and later the Soviet Union because of revolution and war in the years after 1917. The history of first (after World War I) and second (after World War II) wave émigré nurses, integrated into the broader historical narrative, reveals that professional identity was just as important to these women as national identity. This became especially so after World War II, when Russian and Soviet refugee nurses resettled in the West. Individual accounts become interwoven on an international canvas that brings together a wide range of personal experiences from women based in Russia, the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Canada, the United States, and elsewhere. The commonality of experience among Russian nurses as they attempted to establish their professional identities highlights, through the prism of Russia, the importance of the history of the displaced nurse experience in the wider context of international migration history.


Author(s):  
Serhiy Коzak

The main objective of this study is to review the journalistic and editorial activities of Ivan Bahrianyi from the perspective of articles of the newspaper “Ukrainski Visti”/”Ukrainian News”, a unique edition published in Germany and the United States after World War II (1945-2000). One of the several methods of research was to analyze the publications of I. Bahrianyi and about I. Bahrianyi, which we found on the pages of this newspaper. In particular, in the course of this task, a new valuable fact about Ivan Bahrianyi’s collaboration with the edition for eighteen years (1945 – 1963) was obtained, the publications of this period were analyzed and the peculiarities of the newspaper’s functioning when it was headed by Ivan Bahrianyi were ascertained. It is revealed that on the pages of this edition I. Bahrianyi acted in several posts: as the author of journalistic articles and works of art, as the editor-in-chief, and as a prominent political figure of the Ukrainian diaspora (the chairman of the URDP, the head of the Ukrainian National Council). However, in whatever role Ivan Bahriany appeared on the pages of the newspaper (publicist, author of art works, public figure, editor), each of them was important and each of them can be considered as a separate cultural and spiritual property, but at the same time they all make up the phenomenon, which undoubtedly deserves a separate section in the history of the press of Ukrainian political emigration in the mid and the second half of the twentieth century.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Emil Dwi Febrian

This article examines history collapse of the Soviet Union with Ibn Khaldun's ashabiyah theory. The Soviet Union was first communist nation founded in 1922 after fall of the Russian-Monarchy due to the crisis and saparatist movement in 1917. Post World War II, the Soviet Union became a center of the communist movement around the world, and advanced in industrial sector, known as a superpower nation in the 20th century beside the United States. However, the Soviet Union was declared collapsed in 1991. This article found that Ibn Khaldun's ashabiyah can explain history of the Soviet Union in three stages of state metamorphosis; formation, glory, and collapse. Ashabiyah means a bond that unites the people, but it can be positive and negative. Analysis with negative ashabiyah, concluded that the collapse of Marxism-Leninism in Soviet Union was due to the denial of this philosophical teaching to create the privileges of the Communist Party became an authoritarian regime, and considered irrelevant and opposed by society. Authoritarianism happaned because of exclusivism and cult, and could occur in non-communist nations, including Indonesia in the New Order era, this shows that it is not ideology that created of authoritarian regimes, but political practices in specific nations.


2021 ◽  
pp. 088832542095215
Author(s):  
Félix Krawatzek

This article is part of the special cluster, “Here to Stay: The Politics of History in Eastern Europe”, guest-edited by Félix Krawatzek & George Soroka. The Western outskirts of the former Soviet Union suffered huge levels of destruction during World War II. It is for this reason that the memories of the war in countries such as Belarus and the Baltics have centered on the local opposition to the Nazi occupiers in an attempt to bring societies together after the war. This article compares how Latvia and Belarus have represented their involvement in World War II over time and undertakes an analysis of how young people today perceive of this aspect of their country’s history. Of particular interest is the extent to which young people are prepared to admit the existence of collaboration and whether a persona of moral authority is able to shift how young people assess the need for critical engagement with history. To that end, the study relies on an original survey generated in early 2019, which also enquired into questions related to historical memory. I argue that young Belarusians are, on average, more prepared to acknowledge collaboration than young people in Latvia and that the involvement of a moral authority shifts assessments of history in a decisive way in Belarus only. The results for Latvia stress in particular the persistent divide relating to the country’s two linguistic communities.


2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 691-702
Author(s):  
Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet

In 1946, the entertainer and activist Paul Robeson pondered America's intentions in Iran. In what was to become one of the first major crises of the Cold War, Iran was fighting a Soviet aggressor that did not want to leave. Robeson posed the question, “Is our State Department concerned with protecting the rights of Iran and the welfare of the Iranian people, or is it concerned with protecting Anglo-American oil in that country and the Middle East in general?” This was a loaded question. The US was pressuring the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops after its occupation of the country during World War II. Robeson wondered why America cared so much about Soviet forces in Iranian territory, when it made no mention of Anglo-American troops “in countries far removed from the United States or Great Britain.” An editorial writer for a Black journal in St. Louis posed a different variant of the question: Why did the American secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, concern himself with elections in Iran, Arabia or Azerbaijan and yet not “interfere in his home state, South Carolina, which has not had a free election since Reconstruction?”


Author(s):  
Michihiro Ama ◽  
Michael Masatsugu

Japanese Buddhism was introduced to the United States at the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago in 1893, but the development of Japanese American Buddhism, also known as Nikkei Buddhism, really began when Japanese migrants brought Buddhism with them to Hawaii and the continental United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been influenced by, and has reflected, America’s sociopolitical and religious climate and the US relationship to Japan, to which generations of Japanese Americans, such as Issei (literally, first generation, referring to Japanese immigrants), Nisei (second-generation American-born offspring of the Issei), and Sansei (third generation), responded differently. While adapting to American society, Japanese American Buddhists maintained their cultural practices and ethnoreligious identity. The history of Japanese American Buddhism discussed in this article spans from the late-19th Century to the 1970s and is divided into three major periods: the pre-World War II, World War II, and the postwar eras. Japanese American Buddhism is derived from the various Buddhist organizations in Japan. The Nishi Hongwanji denomination of Jōdo Shinshū, a form of Pure Land Buddhism known as Shin Buddhism in the West, is the oldest and largest form of ethnic Japanese Buddhism in the United States. In Hawaii, Nishi Hongwanji founded the Hompa Hongwanji Mission of Hawaii (HHMH) in Honolulu in 1897. On the continental United States, it established the Buddhist Mission of North America (BMNA) in San Francisco in 1898, currently known as the Buddhist Churches of America (BCA). Other Japanese Buddhist organizations also developed in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century. They include the Jōdo-shū, another sect of Pure Land Buddhism; Higashi Hongwanji, another major denomination of Jōdoshin-shū; Sōtō-shū, a Zen Buddhist school; Shingon-shū, known as Kōyasan Buddhism; and Nichiren-shū. The characteristics of Japanese American Buddhism changed significantly during World War II, when approximately 120,000 persons of Japanese descent living in the West Coast states were incarcerated because of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066. The postwar period witnessed a rapid transformation in the status and visibility of Japanese Buddhism in the United States. This transformation was driven by the promotion of ethnonational Buddhism by Nisei and by the growth of interest in Zen Buddhism among the general American public. The positive reception of Japanese Buddhism in the United States reflected and reinforced the transformed relationship between the United States and Japan from wartime enemies to Cold War partners. While they experienced greater receptivity and interest in Buddhism from nonethnics, they could no longer practice or espouse Jōdo Shinshū teachings or adapted practices without clarification. Debates concerning the authenticity of Jōdo Shinshū Buddhism and Japanese American Buddhist practices were interwoven within a longer history of American Orientalism. By the 1960s, Japanese American Buddhist communities were transformed by the addition of a small but vocal nonethnic membership and a new generation of Sansei Buddhists. Demands for English-speaking ministers resulted in the creation, in 1967, of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, the first graduate-level training program in the United States endorsed by Nishi Hongwanji. This article is an overview of Japanese American Buddhism with a focus on the development of the Nishi Hongwanji Shin Buddhist organizations in the United States. English scholarship on the development of other Japanese Buddhist organizations in the United States is still limited. Throughout the history of Japanese American Buddhism, Nikkei Buddhists negotiated with America’s political institutions and Christian churches, as well as with Euro-American Buddhists, over Buddhist and cultural practices to maintain and redefine their ethnoreligious tradition. Buddhist temples provided the space for them to gather and build a community of shared faith and cultural heritage, discuss their place and the role of Buddhism in American society, and express their concerns to America’s general public.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document