II. “Current Developments in the Jewish Community in the USSR”

1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-150
Author(s):  
Mordechai Altschuler
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Jewish Community ◽  
Jewish Communities ◽  
Cultural Activities ◽  
Soviet Jews ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Soviet Jewry ◽  
The Status

Professor Altschuler launched his discussion of the volatile status of Jews living in the USSR by challenging the popular understanding of ‘Soviet Jewry.’ Fundamental questions arise: how many Soviet Jews are there? What are the various types of Jewish communities within the Soviet Union, and how do they differ one from another? What are the distinguishing cultural activities of Soviet Jews? and what is the status of their emigration from the USSR?

The Soviet Union, Israel and Soviet Jewry (1964–67)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Heller
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
The West ◽  
American Imperialism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Soviet Jews ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Soviet Jewry ◽  
Six Day War

The new regime in the Kremlin did not bode well for Israel, as Brezhnev and Kosygin continued to condemn Israel as agent of American imperialism. They gave official backing to the new radical regime in Damascus, and supported the PLO’s terrorist activities. In response Israel increased its activities for Soviet Jewry. The establishment of diplomatic relations between West Germany and Israel was another cause for condemning Israel as participating in the anti-soviet campaign, and the Soviet press equated Zionism and Nazism. Israel admitted it was trapped between its demographic need for the emigration of Soviet Jews and its dependence on the west. The visit to the Soviet Union of both Egyptian and Syrian heads of states, and the public Soviet support for their regimes, was ominous. A year before the Six Day War the Kremlin accused Israel of concentrating troops on the border to topple the Syrian regime.

Khrushchev, Israel and Soviet Jewry (1961–64)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Heller
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Ukrainian Academy ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
Soviet Jews ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Ten Commandments ◽  
Soviet Jewry

Soviet-Israeli relations deteriorated because of the growing Arab dependenceon the USSR, the Soviet refusal to permit Soveit Jew to emigrate to Israel, and increasing anti-Semitism. Khrushchev’s denial of the existence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union only drove Israel to upgrade its campaign for emigration, although Israel acknowledged that the Soviet Jewish problem could best be solved by detente. The increase of anti-Semitism reached its peak when the Ukrainian Academy of Science published a violently anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist book claiming that Ben-Gurion eliminated the Ten Commandments, and compared Zionisn to Nazism. However, the Israeli leadership was unable to convince more than few intellectuals to raise their voices in favour of Soviet Jews.

Cold War consumption and the marketing of childhood in the Soviet Union and the United States, 1950-1960

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Peacock
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Usa ◽  
History Of ◽  
Global Discourse ◽  
The Cold War

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the relationship between childhood, consumption and the Cold War in 1950s America and the Soviet Union. The author argues that Soviet and American leaders, businessmen, and politicians worked hard to convince parents that buying things for their children offered the easiest way to raise good American and Soviet kids and to do their part in waging the economic battles of the Cold War. The author explores how consumption became a Cold War battleground in the late 1950s and suggests that the history of childhood and Cold War consumption alters the way we understand the conflict itself. Design/Methodology/Approach – Archival research in the USA and the Russian Federation along with close readings of Soviet and American advertisements offer sources for understanding the global discourse of consumption in the 1950s and 1960s. Findings – Leaders, advertisers, and propagandists in the Soviet Union and the USA used the same images in the same ways to sell the ethos of consumption to their populations. They did this to sell the Cold War, to bolster the status quo, and to make profits. Originality/Value – This paper offers a previously unexplored, transnational perspective on the role that consumption and the image of the child played in shaping the Cold War both domestically and abroad.

Introduction: Reflections on Baltic Exceptionalism

1989 ◽  
Vol 17 (02) ◽  
pp. 156-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrejs Penikis
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Columbia University ◽  
Soviet Leadership ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Status ◽  
New Thinking ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
Independence Movements

On October 20, 1989 the Harriman Institute's Nationalities and Siberian Studies Program of Columbia University sponsored a panel discussion entitled, “The Baltic Republics Fifty Years After the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.” The panel, consisting of Dr. Allen Lynch, Dr. Stephan Kux, Mr. Jenik Radon and Mr. William Hough, analyzed the current situation in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as in the other republics from a variety of perspectives, and debated the motivations and appropriateness of the response of the Western powers to the growing strength of the various independence movements in the Baltic republics. The following edited transcript of those proceedings points up the complex and contentious nature of the status of the Baltic republics in the era of Gorbachev, in both the domestic (Soviet) and international contexts. Nationalist leaders within the Soviet Union debate the appropriate tactics and pace to pursue their goals. The Soviet leadership dabates the extent to which autonomy may be granted to the nationalities. Western leaders consider their options in responding to the changes in the Soviet Union, changes which necessitate an overhaul of policies nearly a half-century old as well as some “new thinking” on their parts. The discussion centered on two issues: (1) What in general has been the response of the West to nationalist movements in the USSR and how appropriate has that response been? (2) Is there any validity to claims of Baltic “exceptionalism”? The following introduction comments briefly on these issues and places them into perspective by drawing on the discussion and exploring several key points.

Immigration Wave: Soviet Jew Exodus

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assaf Razin
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Human Capital ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Physical Capital ◽  
Behavioral Characteristics ◽  
Soviet Jews ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Residential Capital

The disunion of the Soviet Union and the destruction of communism in the USSR 1987-1991 triggered the recent emigration wave of Soviet Jews to various parts of the world, primarily to Israel. The professional, social, attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of the 1990s Jewish exodus cohort proved to be distinctive. Immigrants came mostly from urban areas, with advanced education systems. Immigration produced massive investments, both in residential structures and in non-residential capital. These investments were so substantial that they increased the capital to labor ratio and facilitated economic growth, aided by the remarkable human capital brought by the immigrants. The massive investments in physical capital and infrastructures were financed by capital imports as immigrants themselves fled their former homes almost penniless and credit constrained so that they hardly saved.

In the Name of State Sovereignty? The Justification of War in Russian History and the Present

2021 ◽  
pp. 395-416
Author(s):  
Paul Robinson ◽  
Mikhail Antonov
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Military Interventions ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Necessary Evil

This chapter shows that the Russian philosophical and legal traditions regarding war have advanced along a number of different tracks. In Imperial Russia, some thinkers adopted pacifist positions; others regarded war as a necessary evil. A similar bifurcation of thought can be seen in the Soviet era. The Soviets expounded a belief in the principles of non-interference and peaceful coexistence. At the same time, they also sometimes portrayed war in a positive light. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian scholars and political leaders have generally supported state sovereignty and rejected attempts to justify humanitarian interventions, regime change, and preventive war (on these Western strategies, see Geis/Wagner, Stohl, and Jahn in this volume). Nevertheless, they have on occasion resorted to very similar language themselves. Russian narratives thus oscillate between favouring pacifism and sovereignty as means of preserving the status quo and, as an exception, supporting military interventions when these are required by the transient goals of Russian foreign policy.

Estonia

2019 ◽  
pp. 123-132
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Kathryn Lee Boyd ◽  
Kristen L. Nelson ◽  
Rajika L. Shah
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Jewish Community ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
The Soviet Union

The independent Republic of Estonia was attacked and formally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940. It was subsequently invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941 until Soviet troops re-entered the country in 1944. At the end of the war, virtually every member of Estonia’s small prewar Jewish community had been murdered, deported, or had fled the country. Estonia’s independence was restored in 1991, and post-Communist Estonia passed restitution laws that applied generally to private and communal immovable property confiscated during the Communist era. Estonia endorsed the Terezin Declaration in 2009 and the Guidelines and Best Practices in 2010.

scholarly journals Science Diplomacy and Soviet-American Academic and Technical Exchanges

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-408
Author(s):  
Olga Krasnyak
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Science Diplomacy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
American Academic

Summary The 1958 Lacy-Zarubin agreement on cultural, educational and scientific exchanges marked decades of people-to-people exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union. Despite the Cold War tensions and mutually propagated adversarial images, the exchanges had never been interrupted and remained unbroken until the Soviet Union dissolved. This essay argues that due to the 1958 general agreement and a number of co-operative agreements that had the status of treaties and international acts issued under the authority of the US State Department and the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the exchanges could not proceed without diplomatic supervision. This peculiarity puts academic and technical exchanges specifically into the framework of science diplomacy, which is considered a diplomatic tool for implementing a nation state’s foreign policy goals determined by political power.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document