scholarly journals You can call me a comparativist, I studied American and Russian mass consciousness” / Interview prepared by B.Z. Doktorov

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-177
Author(s):  
Nikolai P. Nikolai P.
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Research Center ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Mass Consciousness ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
American Children ◽  
Presidential Advisors

The author describes his 50 years of experience in studying public opinion in America, the Soviet Union and Russia. This includes research at the Institute of American and Canadian Studies of American mass consciousness, the study of Americans’ attitudes towards economic and social problems, Soviet-American relations; and collaboration with leading American public opinion polling centers — the Gallup Institute, the University of Michigan, National Opinion Research Center in Chicago, studying the work of the L. Harris and M. Field polling services, the CBS-New York Times, ABC-Washington Post centers, the polling organizations of the Democratic and Republican parties, presidential advisors on public opinion. The author implemented his American experience in organizing the study of public opinion in the USSR and then in Russia when creating the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM), the Center for Studying Public Opinion of the Presidential Administration of Boris Yeltsin, the Agency for Regional Political Research, and other survey centers. Analyzed is the use of sociological surveys in Boris Yeltsin’s presidential election campaign in 1996. The author has conducted several joint Soviet/Russian-American public opinion studies: “Television and society”, “Soviet and American children on the threat of war”, “National problems of Russia”. The author describes his experience in communicating with leading American and Russian experts in the study of public opinion — G. Gallup, L. Harris, Yu.A. Zamoshkin, B.A. Grushin.

Images of Groups

1975 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin E. Spencer
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
The Soviet Union

“Last week it became apparent that the Soviet Union had determined to strike back with a diplomatic campaign of remarkably broad dimensions. Moscow's motivation appeared to be one of countering Peking's rising influence and increasing its own wherever possible” (Harrison Salisbury, The New York Times, Sept. 12, 1971).

scholarly journals British Requiem for the Peasantry in the USSR: Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-145
Author(s):  
Tatiana N. Krasavchenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Human Potential ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Pulitzer Prize ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Radical Transformation

The subject of this interdisciplinary article is the case of British journalists Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge. In 1933 they were the first and the only ones to draw the world’s attention to the tragedy in the USSR: Soviet power destroyed the foundation of traditional Russian society, i.e. the peasantry — for the sake of the rapid industrialisation of the country, the socialisation of agriculture and the radical transformation of man. The price of this new “main revolution” (according to G. Jones) or experiment, which originated in the brains of “rootless urbanists” — Bolsheviks (Muggeridge) were human-induced famine, death of millions of peasants in Ukraine, Volga, Cuban, and Rostov-on-Don regions. But fascinated by the embodiment of the idea of utopia, as well as proceeding from the interests of Realpolitik, the West ignored this tragedy. The article examines the conflict between the personality — Jones and society, Soviet and Western, as evidence to the fact that “a man can be destroyed but not defeated” (Hemingway). The subject of “famine” was developed in the works of A. Koestler, G. Orwell, research of R. Conquest, D. Rayfield, who in their ideas and opinions followed Jones and Muggeridge. Views on Russia of the latter ones and of an influential New York Times correspondent in Moscow — Walter Duranty, who in 1932 got a Pulitzer prize for his deceitful reports denying the famine in the Soviet Union, are presented here as ethically and culturally opposite: Stalin’s apologist Duranty viewed Russia as a country of Asians, of born slaves; Jones and Muggeridge saw it as a tragic country which was losing its mighty human potential — peasantry and natural course of development, and both of them anticipated the collapse of the Soviet regime. And the Soviet civilization collapsed, though 60 years later, for it was doomed: it is impossible to build Heaven on blood — to achieve world harmony at the cost of “a tear of a child” (Dostoevsky), i. e. the suffering of innocent people.

The Grey and Hazy Politics of Famine: An Evolving American Disposition to Russian Hunger

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelley Humber
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Humanitarian Aid ◽  
The United States ◽  
Secondary Source ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Research Fellowship ◽  
The Soviet Union

Perception of famine in the 20th century transformed from a Malthusian reality to a governmental liability. In this period of developmental flux, assistance to the starving in the form of humanitarian aid took on a new political role on the international stage. As part of an Undergraduate Summer Student Research Fellowship (USSRF) my research broadly examined the political utility of humanitarian aid between the United States and the Soviet Union during this period. This research project was centrally concerned with tracing the conceptual evolution of the ‘hungry Russian’ in American society. My research looked specifically at incidences of famine in the Soviet Union from 1921-1922, 1932-1933, 1946-1947, and American perceptions thereof. In order to understand the central question of this research project I combined secondary source reading with primary source archival research. I draw on archival material in the form of newsprint from the New York Times during the respective famines. I traced the frequency of discussion of Russian famine and compared this to the relative scale of famine devastation in the form of human deaths. Ultimately this process allows for conclusions to be drawn on the role of political interests in the humanitarian endeavor of providing relief during these famines. This research has both theoretical implications for understanding the conceptual shift surrounding humanitarian aid that occurred during this time period; as well as practical implications for critically-minded citizens who are interested in the historical weight behind state-sponsored humanitarian aid.

Efficiency vs. Equality and the Demise of Socialism

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Hardin
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World

One of my fellow graduate students at MIT had access to the Pentagon Papers at a time when they were still classified, and he was writing a dissertation on aspects of the American involvement in Vietnam. One morning over breakfast he discovered that he had been preempted by the New York Times. Every scholar recently working on the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe must understand that student’s sensation that morning. By now, they must face newspapers with a mixture of hope and foreboding. Events outrun the most radical predictions. Not only has the Wall crumbled, with pieces of it being sold as souvenirs, but Albania has established telephone connections to the world not long after westerners came to believe Albania had been the only nation in modem times to succeed in disappearing.

Some Reflections on Teaching the History of Russia and the Nationalities

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. Flynn
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of ◽  
Reasonable Answers

The New York Times welcomed, as did we all, the appearance of two excellent recent books, Hedrick Smith's The Russians and Robert Kaiser's Russia. But the reviewer began by saying, “It is amazing—worse it is alarming—to realize how little one knows about the Soviet Union.”1 This notion that we know little about Russia is an old one, of course, and has had its uses. One need but recall Churchill's famous tag about Russia as enigma wrapped in mystery to remember that declarations of ignorance can be used to spur action. Nonetheless, it should be clear by now that whatever else may be said about the notion of our ignorance concerning Russia, one can no longer simply say that it is true. American scholars for many years now have probed with remarkable success all aspects of the Russian experience. Yet the notion persists that we do not know Russia at all well. Why does this notion persist? What can, or should, be done about it? While definitive answers to such questions are too much to expect of any brief essay, the goal of this paper is to sketch at least the broad outlines of what appear to be some reasonable answers.

scholarly journals CHRISTIAN THINKERS ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (REINHOLD NIEBUHR AND GIORGIO LA PIRA)

2013 ◽  
pp. 22-28
Author(s):  
T. V. Zonova
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
President Obama ◽  
Reinhold Niebuhr ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Protestant Theologian

The author examines the legacy of two great Christian thinkers, the American Reinhold Niebuhr and the Italian Giorgio La Pira. Reinhold Niebuhr was a protestant theologian and political adviser to the Council of Foreign Relations and George Kennan’s Policy Planning Staff. The Mayor of Florence, Giorgio La Pira was a Dominican tertiary and professor of Roman law; he was a prominent Italian statesman and one of the fathers of the Italian Constitution. During the Cold War period both played a significant role in influencing public opinion, both proved to be among most influential religious thinkers of the 20th century. The author analyzes their views on international relations, in particularly on the western policy towards the Soviet Union, the use of nuclear weapons, the war in Vietnam and the communist issue. The legacy of the two thinkers is highly topical in front of the ethical dimension of choices in international politics today. Therefore the names of Christian thinkers are back again to the fore. It is worth noting that President Obama cites Niebuhr as one of his favorite philosophers. In an interview with «The New York Times» Obama felt it necessary to emphasize the Niebuhr's idea that there is “a real evil, fatigue and pain in the world, and one should be careful and modest in his belief of being able to eliminate these things. Nevertheless, we should not use it as an excuse for cynicism and inaction”. European observers and scholars also admit that Obama is following the thought of Niebuhr, who was demythologizing the idea of America as a visible place of the Kingdom of God». Niebuhr was well aware of the limitations of all humane schemes. Giorgio La Pira was aware as well that politics should always base on ethical principles and reflect the existing spiritual, cultural, political and economic diversity. His main purpose was the formation of a new hierarchy of values. Just like Reinhold Niebuhr, Giorgio La Pira, reflecting on key events of the 20th century, looked for a policy based on the precepts of Christianity. Just like Reinhold Niebuhr, La Pira stated the primacy of politics over economics. However there were some differences between the two thinkers. Niebuhr’s ontological pessimism was well known. On the contrary, La Pira was an optimist. He sincerely believed that his personal policy would help mankind to promote the cause of a new world.

scholarly journals A Horse Derby, A Missed Connection, and Hiking through the Alps: John Dewey's 1928 visit to the Soviet Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladislav Ryabyy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Government ◽  
Soviet Russia

After December 6, 1917, the government of the United States led by President Woodrow Wilson decided not to recognize the new government of Russia, which was led by the Bolshevik Party. Some of the reasons for this lack of recognition came from the Bolshevik government’srefusal to honor prior debits owed by the Tsarist government and the seizure of American property. The next three presidents would continue this policy.1 For the next sixteen years, many Americans visited and wrote about the Soviet Union. Amongst those visitors was a delegation of twenty-five who visited the Soviet Union in the summer of 1928. Their stated purpose was to,“study methods of public instruction in Soviet Russia this summer.” 2 The most influential amongst the twenty-five was John Dewey, a professor of philosophy at Colombia University and one of the leading educational reformers in the United States. In the time during and after this trip Dewey wrote a series of articles for the “New Republic” and later collected these articles andplaced them in his book, Impressions of the Revolutionary World.3 This book also dealt with his travels to China in 1920, Turkey in 1924, and Mexico in 1926. This book does not tell the full story of the trip. By analyzing his letters that he sent during this time, one can recreate a partial itinerary of his daily activities and those that he met with. Those letters also reveal that this trip influenced not only the twenty-five educators from the United States but also had an impact on Soviet educators because they had the ability to finally meet the man that they had studied for so long. The United States Department of State was also interested in this trip and used it to learn more about the Soviet Union. The Department of State was also dealing with anticommunism at this time and this caused Dewey’s trip to be closely monitored. The New York Times and other newspapers reported on this trip and the aftermath of this trip can be seen through these reports. This trip impacted not only those within the Soviet Union but also the State Departments and the American public’s view of the Soviet Union.

The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?

1953 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst B. Haas
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
Daily Press ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Introductory Discussion

“The Soviet Union is now engaged in an audacious attempt JL to upset the established balance of power prevailing in Europe.” This statement was used by C. L. Sulzberger, writing in theNew York Timesfor March 23, 1952, to open a discussion of the Soviet offer to establish a unified and neutral Germany. It symbolizes the startling renaissance of the balance of power concept in recent years not only in the pages of learned journals, but in the daily press and in radio as well. This rebirth is probably attributable to the effort to reconsider the notions concerning international relations generally held during the League of Nations period, notions which emphasized open diplomacy, collective security, and the use of arbitration instead of unilateral force. The apparent futility of these methods seemed to call for the reintroduction of more meaningful concepts into the analysis of international affairs, and the balance of power thus reappeared as part of the general trend to re-establish the primacy of power as the key to the understanding of interstate relations. There would be no difficulty in this development if the term “balance of power” were free from philological, semantic, and theoretical confusion. Unfortunately, it is not. The term is defined differently by different writers; it is used in varying senses, even if not defined exactly at all; and, finally, it is the focal concept in several quite distinct theories of international relations. The purpose of this article is the clarification, not only of theverbaldifferences in meaning, but also of theapplied meaningsof the “balance of power” phrase as they vary in accordance with the intentions of the users. The necessity for such an attempt may be demonstrated by an introductory discussion of the variety of thought on this topic, in terms of substantive meanings no less than in terms of systems of classification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document