scholarly journals SLAVIC COMMUNITIES IN AUSTRALIA: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THE CURRENT SITUATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
Olena Romanenko
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Median Income ◽  
National Unity ◽  
South Wales ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Australian Continent

Migration to the Australian continent has ancient origins. On 1 January 1901, the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia included six former colonies: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, and Western Australia. The British origin had 78% of those who were born overseas. The immigration was high on the national agenda. The most ambitious nation-building plan based on immigration was adopted in Australia in the post-World War II period. The shock of the war was so strong that even old stereotypes did not prevent Australians from embarking on immigration propaganda with the slogan “Populate or Perish”. In the middle 1950s, the Australian Department of Immigration realized that family reunion was an important component of successful settlement. In 1955 the Department implemented “Operation Reunion” – a scheme was intended to assist family members overseas to migrate to the continent and reunite with the family already living in Australia. As a result, 30000 people managed to migrate from countries such as Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union, and the former Yugoslavia under this scheme. Today Australia’s approach to multicultural affairs is a unique model based on integration and social cohesion. On governmental level, the Australians try to maintain national unity through respect and preservation of cultural diversity. An example of such an attitude to historical memory is a database created by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). For our research, we decided to choose information about residents of East-Central European origin (Ukraine-born, Poland-born, and Czech Republic-born citizens) in Australia, based on the information from the above mentioned database. The article provides the brief historical background of Polish, Ukrainian and Czech groups on the Continent and describes the main characteristics of these groups of people, such as geographic distribution, age, language, religion, year of arrival, median income, educational qualifications, and employment characteristics.

scholarly journals From DP Camps to the “Green Continent”

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexey Antoshin
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
Displaced Persons ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
New Information ◽  
National Archives ◽  
National University ◽  
National Archives Of Australia ◽  
The Government

This review focuses on a monograph written by Jayne Persian, lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland (Australia). The work is the first complex study devoted to the adaptation of former “displaced persons” (more particularly, émigrés from the Soviet Union) in Australia between the 1940s and 1960s. The work refers to an extensive complex of documents from the National Archives of Australia, the National Archives (United Kingdom), the Noel Butlin Archives Centre, Australian National University, and interviews with former “displaced persons” residing in Australia. The study is very important because it provides new information on the second wave of Soviet emigration, which is seldom examined by contemporary Russian scholars. Persian demonstrates that political factors played an important role in how the Australian government granted immigration permission. Quite frequently, Australia preferred people who shared anti-communist positions. Therefore, many former collaborators of the World War II era came to Australia; this hindered cooperation between the USSR and Australia. Persian shows that “new Australians” had difficulty integrating into society. The government tried to assimilate them, which pushed the immigrants to seek isolation in their communities. This book helps us understand the controversial character of the state policy of historical memory, a problem that is also very important for contemporary Russia.

scholarly journals A few remarks on East Prussia goldsmith heritage in Lithuania

Menotyra ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia Vasiliūnienė
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
World War ◽  
German Scientist ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
East Prussia ◽  
Second World

The newly identified goldsmiths’ works of East Prussia are presented in the article: a chalice from Kaunas St. Cross Church forged by Otto Schwerdfeger, a master in Königsberg, in 1704 (?), a ciborium from Vilnius St. Apostles Peter and Paul Church made by goldsmith Johann Kownatzky in Tilsit in the 1760–80s, and a monstrance from Valakbūdis Church made by Michael Greiffenhagen II, a master from Tilsit, in 1795 (?). After the World War II, East Prussia was annexed by the Soviet Union. Destruction of the region and its historical memory and enormous losses of the cultural heritage partly resulted in knowledge gaps in Lithuania about the goldsmithing in this region. For the knowledge of goldsmith history in East Prussia, works by Eugen von Czihak, a German scientist, based on the information collected before the First and Second World Wars are very important. The goldsmithing of Eastern Prussia is pretty seldom mentioned in the Lithuanian historiography. Only sparsely survived works by Königsberg, Tilsit and Klaipėda (Memel) masters from the 17th – 19th century have been published. On the contrary, the context of Lithuanian goldsmith history is described based on data provided by the German writings. According to our knowledge, the goldsmith heritage from Königsberg predominates in Lithuania. Not a few goldsmith works from Tilsit were also identified in Lithuania. The works of Eastern Prussian goldsmiths are of particular value. Because of the dramatic fate of Königsberg region, the survived number of goldsmith works throughout Europe is relatively low.

scholarly journals Wars of Historical Memory: Social Objectives

2020 ◽  
pp. 11-29
Author(s):  
V. Tkachenko ◽  
V. Yakuba
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Pull Out ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The One ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
Heads Of State

The article is a study of the wars of historical memory. The process of increasing use of the historical past in the public life of the present is considered. History has become a political tool through which one or another socio-political system is legitimized or delegitimized. In a number of countries, laws have been passed to punish those who write “wrong”. Real “wars of historical memory” have broken out in international relations. The ethnicization of history and the establishment of narratives about one’s own nation as exclusively a “victim of history” are gaining momentum, which requires special treatment and appropriate compensation. In particular, the initiators of the proclamation of “wars of historical memory” in different countries are not the same. Remembrance wars are often declared at the highest level, involving officials, including heads of state, who “rebuff” and “put in place the wrongdoers”, reminding the nation of the nation’s incurable wounds and the terrible crimes of its neighbors. Objectively, the question of the social motives of the “wars of historical memory” is brewing. The authors share the view that the main reason is the escalation of the confrontation between Russia and the collective West. Historical politics, which has taken the form of “wars of historical memory”, is a symptom rather than a cause of this confrontation. It has been analyzed that the politicization of historical memory often leads to negative consequences, and there is no easy way out of this situation. And it is difficult to find that decisive link, undertaking which it would be possible to pull out the whole chain of pressing problems. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the controversy over the role of the Soviet Union in World War II has not been annihilated, but has intensified amid escalating tensions between East and West. Summarizing the evolution of “wars of historical memory” to a sharp aggravation, Marlene Laruel noted: “I interpret the wars for historical memory between Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, as narrative «related to the exclusion of Russia from Europe or inclusion in it”.

THE POLITICAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE 1989 GDR REFUGEES PASSING THROUGH HUNGARY

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-16
Author(s):  
Stelian TAMPU
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
The Political ◽  
World War ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Raising Awareness ◽  
German Nation

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.

scholarly journals The British Weekly: a case study of British propaganda to the Soviet Union during World War II

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 486-498
Author(s):  
Elena A. Kotelenets ◽  
Maria Yu. Lavrenteva
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
British Government ◽  
World War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Uk

The research investigates a publishing history of the Britansky Souyznik (British Ally) weekly (further - British Weekly) in Russian language, which was published in the Soviet Union by the UK Ministry of Information in the Second World War years and to 1950. This newspaper published reports from fronts where British troops fought against Nazi Germany and its allies, articles on British-Soviet military cooperation, materials about British science, industry, agriculture, and transport, reports on people’s life in the UK, historical background of British Commonwealth countries, cultural and literature reviews. British Weekly circulation in the USSR was 50,000 copies. The main method used for the research was the study of the newspaper’s materials, as well as the propaganda concepts of its editorial board and their influence on the audience. The researched materials are from archives of the Soviet Foreign Ministry as well as of the UK Ministry of Information and Political Warfare Executive (1940-1945), declassified by the British Government only in 2002, on the basis of which an independent analysis is conducted. The British Weekly played a bright role in the formation of techniques and methods of British foreign policy propaganda to Soviet public opinion in 1942-1945. Results of the research indicates that the British government launched foreign policy propaganda to the USSR immediately after breaking-out of World War II and used the experience of the British Weekly for psychological warfare in the Cold War years.

scholarly journals Kyrgyzstan Youth and their historical memory about the Great Victory

2021 ◽  
pp. 77-84
Author(s):  
G.I. Osadchay ◽  
◽  
A.A. Chernikova
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
World War ◽  
Social Time ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Social ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Great Victory

Presented are results of a sociological study (qualitative comparative analysis of in-depth interviews) in the historical memory of Kyrgyzstan young citizens as one of participating states of Eurasian integration, namely, their ideas about World War II and formation of historical memory, as well as understanding and interpretation of integration processes between countries of NIS. For the Soviet Union citizens, the victory in World War II was not just a socio-historical milestone. Social time is a key element in formation of historical memory. It is interesting how the social time of historical events can be interpreted quite subjectively in a given community. Since the Victory was the most important event in the history of the Soviet Union, it can be assumed that historical memory of the war serves as a social link of integration processes. Therefore, the study of descendants historical memory of the victors in the Great Patriotic War becomes an interesting and scientifically urgent task. The specificity of this study was the methodology based on the use of a qualitative comparative analysis of results of in-depth interviews of Kyrgyzstan young citizens. More than 400 persons were interviewed using a non-random sample, and no less than 50 informants from each group, selected by the snowball method. The empirical object of research is the youth of the Kyrgyzstan Republic, belonged to the generation of “millennials” and “postmillennials” (18–38 years old). The historical memory of the Great Victory is largely connected with today’s ideas about the Eurasian integration of the NIS. Although it would seem that the content of the social memory of young people does not have a direct impact on the process of Eurasian integration, but as a potential force, it can spontaneously manifest itself in public life, or under certain conditions and the presence of an organized force, it can be included in the socio-political discourse.

Legacies of Stalin or Putin? Public Opinion and Historical Memory in Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 106591292110416
Author(s):  
Vitali Shkliarov ◽  
Vera Mironova ◽  
Sam Whitt
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
World War ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Historical Reflection ◽  
Vladimir Putin ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Negative Appraisals

Our research considers the relationship between historical memory and political evaluations of the past and present. We first examine how historical reflection on the Soviet Union under Stalin is influenced by memories of familial suffering during World War II and victimization under the widespread Soviet gulag prison system. Based on a 2019 representative survey of Ukraine, we show that respondents who recall family members being injured or killed fighting during World War II and those who recount families being imprisoned in Soviet gulags have increased positive and negative appraisals of the Soviet Union under Stalin respectively. However, we also find that favorable opinions of Stalin are strongly predicted by approval of Vladimir Putin, who has actively promoted rehabilitation of Stalin’s legacy to bolster personalist rule at home and justify revisionist agendas abroad, including in Ukraine. Our results underscore interactions between the present and past in shaping historical memory such that what appears as enduring legacies of the past could also be a function of present political circumstances.

Cold War Exiles and the CIA

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Tromly
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Home Base ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Secret War

During the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, the United States government unleashed covert operations intended to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of these efforts, the CIA undertook support of Russian exiles, populations uprooted either during World War II or by the Russian Revolution decades before. No one seemed better prepared to fight in the American secret war against communism than the uprooted Russians, whom the CIA directed to carry out propaganda, espionage, and subversion operations from their home base in West Germany. Yet the American engagement of Russian exiles had unpredictable outcomes. Drawing on recently declassified and previously untapped sources, Cold War Exiles and the CIA examines how the CIA’s Russian operations became entangled with the internal struggles of Russia abroad and also the espionage wars of the superpowers in divided Germany. What resulted was a transnational political sphere involving different groups of Russian exiles, American and German anti-communists, and spies operating on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Inadvertently, CIA’s patronage of Russian exiles forged a complex sub-front in the wider Cold War, demonstrating the ways in which the hostilities of the Cold War played out in ancillary conflicts involving proxies and non-state actors.

Military Technology Races

1999 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vally Koubi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Technology ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Distribution ◽  
Strategic Defense ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Military

Because of the nature of modern weapons, significant innovations in arms technology have the potential to induce dramatic changes in the international distribution of power. Consider, for example, the “strategic defense initiative” (SDI), a program initiated by the United States in the early 1980s. Had the program been successfully completed, it might have led to a substantial devaluation of Soviet nuclear capabilities and put the United States in a very dominant position. It should not then come as a surprise that interstate rivalry, especially among super powers, often takes the form of a race for technological superiority. Mary Acland-Hood claims that although the United States and the Soviet Union together accounted for roughly half of the world's military expenditures in the early 1980s, their share of world military research and development (R&D) expenditures was about 80 percent. As further proof of the perceived importance of R&D, note that whereas the overall U.S. defense budget increased by 38 percent (from $225.1 billion to $311.6 billion in real terms) from 1981 to 1987, military R&D spending increased by 100 percent (from $20.97 billion to $41.96 billion). Moreover, before World War II military R&D absorbed on average less than 1 percent of the military expenditure of major powers, but since then it has grown to 11–13 percent. The emphasis on military technology is bound to become more pronounced in the future as R&D becomes the main arena for interstate competition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document