Development Strategies and the Status of Women: A Comparative Study of the United States, Mexico, the Soviet Union and Cuba.

1988 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 178
Author(s):  
Lourdes Beneria ◽  
Margaret E. Leahy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
Development Strategies ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Status ◽  
United States Mexico ◽  
Status Of Women

The Structure of Great Power Politics, 1963–75

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Trachtenberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Fundamental Goal ◽  
The Status ◽  
Great Power Politics ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Political Understanding

This chapter details events that occurred from 1963 to 1975. John F. Kennedy's most fundamental goal as president of the United States was to reach a political understanding with the Soviet Union based on the following principle: America and Russia were both very great powers and therefore needed to respect each other's most fundamental interests. The United States was thus prepared, for its part, to recognize the USSR's special position in eastern Europe. America would also see to it that West Germany would not become a nuclear power. In exchange, the Soviets would have to accept the status quo in central Europe, especially in Berlin. If a settlement of that sort could be worked out, the great problem that lay at the heart of the Cold War would be resolved. However, to reach a settlement based on those principles, Kennedy had to get both the USSR and his own allies in Europe to accept this sort of arrangement.

Consular Immunities: the Kasenkina Case (U.S.–U.S.S.R.)

1949 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-56
Author(s):  
Lawrence Preuss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Legal Case ◽  
The Status

The recent Kasenkina and Samarin affairs, which led to a breach of consular relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, have raised a number of legal issues relating to the status of foreign consular officials. The legal principles involved, however, have been beclouded by widespread misunderstanding of the nature and scope of consular privileges and immunities, by obviously baseless charges made by the Soviet Government against that of the United States, and by the apparent reluctance of the latter to press to its fullest extent a sound legal case.

Paradoxes ofOstpolitik: Revisiting the Moscow and Warsaw Treaties, 1970

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 409-440
Author(s):  
William Glenn Gray
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Status ◽  
Ethnic Germans ◽  
To Come

AbstractThis article reexamines the diplomacy of Willy Brandt’sOstpolitik, focusing on two landmark achievements in 1970: the Moscow Treaty in August, and the Warsaw Treaty in December. On the basis of declassified US and German documentation, it argues that envoy Egon Bahr’s unconventional approach resulted in a poorly negotiated treaty with the Soviet Union that failed to address vital problems such as the status of Berlin. The outcome deepened political polarization at home and proved disconcerting to many West German allies; it also forced the four World War II victors—Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union—to save Brandt’sOstpolitikby grinding out an agreement on access to Berlin. By contrast, West German negotiations in Warsaw yielded a treaty more in line with West German expectations, though the results proved sorely disappointing to the Polish leadership. Disagreements over restitution payments (repacked as government credits) and the emigration of ethnic Germans would bedevil German-Polish relations for years to come. Bonn’sOstpolitikthus had a harder edge than the famous image of Brandt kneeling in Warsaw would suggest.

The Making of a Cold Warrior: Karl Gruber and Austrian Foreign Policy, 1945–1953

1995 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 99-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter Bischof
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
The Status ◽  
Small Powers

In the years 1945 to 1953, Karl Gruber exerted an influence over Austrian foreign policy at times resembling the dominant influence of a Kaunitz or a Metternich. But as a diplomatist Gruber did not come close to the finesse and shrewd sense of power that his two great predecessors possessed. Moreover, Gruber had to maneuver in less predictable domestic and international terrain. During his tenure in the Ballhausplatz, foreign policy wassubject to domestic partisan struggle as well as parliamentary control and public opinion. Furthermore, Austria no longer figured as a great power and was locked into the monumental Cold War struggle between East and West on the frontline of the superpower tensions. Gruber operated in an extremely hostile international environment. Instead of the traditional well-balanced nineteenth-century “concert of powers,” which had profited so much from Austrian professional statesmanship, the inexperienced Gruber faced the United States and the Soviet Union, which were in almost total control of international politics. The two superpowers were engaged in a gigantic ideological struggle, each striving for a preponderance of power. A small nation such as Austria was buffeted to and fro between the conflicts in Central Europe and could hardly escape the pull of the global “empires” fashioned at the time. The United States and the Soviet Union confronted each other in spiraling arms races (nuclear and conventional) and rigid alliance systems in an uneasy truce called the Cold War. In this context of a tight bilateral international system, even England and France—the former great powers reduced to the status of middling powers after the ignominious loss of their great colonial empires—had a difficult time holding on to their traditional influence in the international arena. Small powers like Austria were largely impotent, unless they fashioned for themselves some room to maneuver between the superpower blocs.

scholarly journals A Study on the Origin of China’s Modern Industrial Architecture and Its Development Strategies of Industrial Tourism

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 3609
Author(s):  
Rui Han ◽  
Daping Liu ◽  
Paolo Cornaglia
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Design Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Development Strategies ◽  
Concept Design ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Industrial Architecture ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Industrial Tourism

Due to the unique cultural attribution and facade aesthetics, China’s modern industrial architecture, built in the 1950s, played a significant role and expressed a specific historical value in the process of human industrial civilization. The objective of this study was to reveal the origin of China’s modern industrial architecture, meanwhile understanding the content, the channel, and the process of the global transfer of modern industrial architecture from the United States to the Soviet Union and then to China. With a literature review, we summarized the United States’ achievements of modern industrial architecture at the beginning of the 20th century and described the formation and evolution process of the Soviet Union’s modern industrial architecture from the 1920s to the 1950s. Through field investigation and measurement into China’s modern industrial plants, we comparatively analyzed the inheritance and changes among the United States, the Soviet Union, and China from the perspective of the planning concept, design theory, and structural technology. Finally, two sustainable development strategies of industrial tourism were proposed for China’s modern industrial heritage according to the comprehensive assessment, and two typical development patterns were presented based on their respective advantages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document