Book Review: Crossing Many Bridges: Memoirs of a Pharmacist in Poland, the Soviet Union, the Middle East, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Nebraska

DICP ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 719-720
Author(s):  
William J. Jusko
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

Baghdad Pact

1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 212-213 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Government

On September 23, 1955, Pakistan announced its formal adherence to the alliance formed on February 24 by Iraqand Turkey, and adhered to by the United Kingdom on April 5 (Baghdad Pact). On October 11, the government of Iran announced its intention to adhere to the Pact; following parliamentary approval of the decision, Iran formallyadhered on November 3. Both before and after Iran's formal adherence to the Pact, the Soviet Union, according to press reports, protested strongly. In a note of October 12, the Soviet government declared that the accession of Iran was incompatible with the interests of consolidating peace and security in the near and middle east, and contradicted certain treaty obligations of Iran with respect to the Soviet Union. In a subsequent note, the Soviet Union repeated its protest, alleging that Iran's adherence to the Pact “inflicted serious damage” to relations between Iran and the Soviet Union, and that Iran would have to bear the full consequencesof joining. In a reply to the earlier Soviet note, Iran had declared that its object in adhering to the Pactwas the consolidation of peace and security in the middle east; the Pact was for defensive purposes, and Iran'sadherence should not mar Iranian-Soviet friendly relations, nor did it conflict with the terms of existing agreements between Iran and the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, both the United States and United Kingdom had formally welcomed Iran's decision.

Strategy, Diplomacy, and the Cold War

2019 ◽  
pp. 164-186
Author(s):  
Melvyn P. Leffler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Joint Chiefs Of Staff ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter takes a look at U.S. war planning during the Cold War. Looking through Joint Chiefs of Staff records, the chapter shows that U.S. war planning, although crude, began in the early months of 1946. If war erupted, for whatever reasons, the war plans called for the United States to strike the Soviet Union (USSR). Expecting Soviet armies to overrun most of Europe very quickly, planners assumed that the United States would launch its attack primarily from bases in the United Kingdom and the British-controlled Cairo-Suez base in the Middle East. To protect the latter, it would be essential to slow down Soviet armies marching southward to conquer the Middle East. The United States needed the Turkish army to thwart Soviet military advances and required Turkish airfields to insure the success of the strategic offensive against targets inside the USSR.

Intervention, 1956

1957 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Military Interventions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Military

The military interventions initiated by Israel, the United Kingdom, and France in Egypt and by the Soviet Union in Hungary, during October and November, 1956, have different historical backgrounds and different political purposes. They may have been politically connected with one another, and in any case they were connected by the fact that they occurred at the same time and were all dealt with by the United Nations. It is the purpose of this article to examine the legal justification for these interventions with only the minimum historical background necessary for that purpose. The criteria for aggression which the writer developed in the July, 1956, number of this Journal will be assumed and for their justification the reader is referred to that article.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 646-650
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Ministers

On April 9, 1951, the deputies of the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union began their sixth week of Paris meetings in an attempt to frame an agenda for a conference of the foreign ministers.

Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization

1961 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-514 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Director General ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

The second session of the Assembly of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) was held in London from April 5–14, 1961. Mr. W. L. de Vries, Director-General of Shipping in the Netherlands Ministry of Transport, was elected President of the session and Mr. Ove Nielson, Secretary-General of IMCO, acted as secretary. The Assembly elected Argentina, Australia, India, and the Soviet Union to fill out the sixteen-member Council on which Belgium, Canada, France, West Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States were already represented. The Assembly: 1) established a Credentials Committee consisting of Canada, Japan, Liberia, Poland, and Turkey; 2) adopted a budget for 1962–1963 of $892,-350; 3) approved Mauritania's application for membership by a two-thirds vote following the rule that non-members of the United Nations had to be approved by such a vote after recommendation by the Council; and 4) in view of the advisory opinion of June 8, 1960, of the International Court of Justice to the effect that the Maritime Safety Committee was improperly constituted, dissolved the committee and elected Argentina, Canada, France, West Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Liberia, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to the reconstituted committee. The Assembly during its second session also approved an expanded work program submitted by the IMCO Council including new duties connected with international travel and transport, with special reference to the simplification of ship's papers. The Assembly asked IMCO to study the arrangements for the maintenance of certain light beacons used for navigation at the southern end of the Red Sea which were being maintained by the United Kingdom with the help of the Netherlands. Also under consideration was a new convention on the safety of life at sea submitted to the Assembly by a Conference on Safety of Life at Sea and containing a number of recommendations to IMCO on studies relating to such matters as ship construction, navigation, and other technical subjects on safety at sea. The Assembly decided that in conjunction with United Nations programs of technical cooperation the UN should be informed that IMCO was in a position to provide advice and guidance on technical matters affecting shipping engaged in international trade.

Peace-Keeping and Disarmament: A Report of the Discussions at the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament

1963 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan F. Neidle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Arab Republic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
General Assembly Resolution

Pursuant to agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States, endorsed by General Assembly resolution of December 20, 1961, representatives of the following countries took part in the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament: Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, the Soviet Union, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Council of Foreign Ministers

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-229
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
German Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Foreign Ministers

Proposed Meeting of the Council: Meeting in Prague on October 20 and 21, 1950, the foreign ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, eastern Germany and the Soviet Union issued a statement in reply to the communiqué on Germany released on September 19 by the foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Charging that the position of the three western governments was merely a screen to conceal the aggressive objectives of the North Atlantic Treaty and that the creation of mobile police formations was nothing less than the reconstitution of a German army, the eight foreign ministers stated that they considered as urgent 1) the publication by the three western powers and the Soviet Union of a statement of their intent to refuse to permit German rearmament and of their unswerving determination to create a united peace-loving German state; 2) the removal of all restrictions hindering the development of the peaceful German economy and the prevention of a resurgence of German war potential; 3) the conclusion of a German treaty and the withdrawal of all occupation forces within one year of its conclusion; and 4) the creation of an all-German constituent council to prepare for a provisional German government. The text of the communiqué was communicated to the United Kingdom, the United States and France under cover of a Soviet note on November 3. Stating that the Prague declaration possessed “the greatest significance for the cause of assuring international peace and security” and touched the “fundamental national interests of the peoples of Europe,” the Soviet government proposed the convening of the Council of Foreign Ministers „for consideration of the question of fulfillment of the Potsdam agreement regarding demilitarization of Germany.”

Relief and Rehabilitation Organizations: Committee of European Economic Cooperation

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-160
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Joint Conference ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

On June 5, 1947, the Secretary of State of the United States, George C. Marshall, stated that the United States could not proceed much further with its plans to assist European recovery unless the countries themselves reached some agreement as to their requirements and to their own contribution to European recovery. Immediately following this speech at Harvard University, representatives of the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union met in Paris to discuss the possibility of a joint conference on the problem. After the Soviet representative (Molotov) withdrew, sixteen nations, upon the invitation of France and the United Kingdom, met in Paris from July 12 to September 22, 1947, to draw up a joint program for European reconstruction. Participating countries were: United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

scholarly journals Book Review: Heidi Blake, From Russia with Blood: The Kremlin’s Ruthless Assassination Program and Vladimir Putin’s Secret War on the West. New York: Mulholland Books, 2019.

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Cuevas
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
The West ◽  
Economic Liberalism ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Secret War

In the years following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western leaders and political scientists lauded the turning point in history as a momentous triumph of democracy and economic liberalism over communism and the doomed command economic model. Western nations and the United Kingdom in particular, saw the period immediately after the Soviet collapse as an opportunity for political and economic cooperation not seen in more than a half century. Lavish public relations events including state dinners, meetings with the Queen of England and inclusion on the G-8 Economic Council were all extended to and accepted by Russia’s president in the years following what many in the West considered a victory for global democracies everywhere. Yet in Heidi Blake’s book, From Russia with Blood: The Kremlin’s Ruthless Assassination Program and Vladimir Putin’s Secret War on the West, what becomes vividly clear is that to Putin, this event marked the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century” (p.12), and he laid the blame squarely on the West.

Main Contents and Comment on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Moon ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Celestial Bodies ◽  
Outer Space Treaty

This chapter introduces the ratification by member states and main contents of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (Title: Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies). Furthermore, the author explains the reason it the contents of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty should be amended. The treaty was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January 1967, and entered into force on 10 October 1967. As of June 2020, 110 countries are parties to the treaty, while another 23 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document