Homo duplex (z problematyki przynależności narodowej i państwowej Josepha Conrada)

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-51
Author(s):  
Stefan Zabierowski

The paper aims to interpret the term “homo duplex” used by Joseph Conrad to characterize his personality in the letter to the historian Kazimierz Waliszewski. The author presents various meanings of this duality as Conrad was a citizen of the Russian Empire, and then of Great Britain. His profession was also twofold: first he was a French seaman, then an English seaman to become finally an outstanding representative of English literature. As an English writer, he emphatically emphasized his links with Polish culture, in particular with the literature of the Romantic period.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-40
Author(s):  
Konstantin Ivanov

Central Asia was mainly desert land that contained just a few small, densely populated oases when it was forcibly occupied by Imperial Russia between 1865 and 1885. What reason was there to gain control of it? It did not serve any military purpose because the Russian Empire was already well protected on its southern frontier by Central Asia’s notorious deserts and dry steppes. Nor was there much economic advantage to be gained. To present it merely as an opportunity for the thievish embezzlement of public money — and theft there was — is somewhat beside the point. The advance of Great Britain into the same region from the opposite side reflected the same trend. What kind of reasoning was behind these incursions? The counterintuitive answer is that the only rational reason to move into the region was a scientific one. At that time the Central Asia was still a blank spot on European maps and it was the only region on Earth in which the great empires had not yet confronted each other. The frontier lines of both empires were bound to move in on each other, although neither empire gained much advantage from the expansion. The article analyzes the way in which the struggle for the territory eventually turned into a symposium about the territory. The main agents in that war — and also its beneficiaries — were the British and Russian military geodesists and surveyors who used the latest astronomical methods. Systematic mapping of the desert region was important not only for the geographical knowledge it produced, but also for advancing the surveyors’ careers and improving their social status and personal prosperity. The so-called Afghan Demarcation between the Russian Empire and Great Britain in 1885 seemed to them more like an enjoyable conference for sharing topographical and geographical information than a hostile confrontation. After the outer and inner demarcations had been fixed, the result was that this region — “Created by the Lord in Anger” — was surveyed and studied not only in terms of geography, but also geologically, ethnically and historically.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-78
Author(s):  
Evgeny Sergeev

The paper deals with the main trends in relations between Great Britain and Soviet Russia in the context of the ‘Baltic problem’, which emerged on the international agenda right after the collapse of the Russian Empire, in the process of the Bolsheviks assuming power and conducting a war against the Whites, the troops of the Entente, and the armies of the new independent states. The author focuses on subsequent stages in the decision-making process, and actual steps taken by London and Moscow with regard to the three new east Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, taking the latter as a special case. In conclusion, a transition can be traced from the first attempts by Britain to guarantee mere self-governing status for the countries in question, to full recognition of their independence, supported by the Bolshevik government, which, however, opposed the emergence of the Baltic League (or Federation) under the indirect patronage of Britain supported by the League of Nations.


Author(s):  
Miroslav Jovanovic

The Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Belgrade holds four letters that the Nikolaj Velimirovic (1881-1956) sent in 1916. to philologist Aleksandar Belic (1876-1960). Both of them were send by the Serbian government in the missions at the the Allied capitals - Velimirovic in London, Belic in Petrograd. Velimirovic?s view of international relations and the importance of the impact of the Russian Empire in Great Britain led him to cooperation with Belic to help Serbia in achieving its war aims.


Author(s):  
Mykhailo Buryan ◽  
◽  
Mariia Buryan ◽  

This article deals with topical issues related to the analysis of the international situation that developed on the European continent, in the South Caucasus, in Asia Minor on the eve of the Crimean War (1853–1856). Special attention is paid to the geopolitical plans of Great Britain, France, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire in relation to the South Caucasus region, where the Russian Empire was quite strong at that time. As a result of the victorious Russo-Iranian (1804–1813) and Russo-Turkish (1806–1812) Wars, The Russian Empire controlled the territory of almost the entire Caucasus region, which could not but worry London, because this threatened the British presence in India-a colonial Pearl that Great Britain was not going to lose. British analysts warned their government about the danger from the Russian Empire, and the Western press supported them in this. France joined the anti-Russian coalition, pursuing its own goals. London and Paris have made efforts to get Vienna to stand up to Russia as well. As a result of the upcoming war, the countries of the South Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Circassian, etc.) were to fall under the Protectorate of Turkey and Great Britain. The author draws attention to the fact that there were several plans to start a war against the Russian Empire, in each of which a significant role was assigned to the Crimean Peninsula, the military-political and strategic importance of which does not lose its weight today, especially against the background of the tense situation in the black and Azov seas in our time.


The issue of the membership of Ukraine and Ireland in the post-colonial countries is investigated. The arguments of opponents of the definition of Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire / USSR and Ireland as part of Great Britain as colonies are analyzed: an insufficiently clear definition of empire in modern political science, which allows not at least recognizing the USSR as an empire; absence of official colony status in Ukraine and Ireland; the presence of developed industry in the late USSR, which contradicts colonial status. Each of the arguments is consistently recognized as insufficiently important. The definition of an empire is given, which corresponds to both the British Empire and the Russian / USSR. The typologies of these empires were carried out: Great Britain was recognized as a liberal modern (disciplinary) empire, and the Russian Empire / USSR as an autocratic / authoritarian modern (disciplinary) empire. The key differences of these empires are highlighted. Thanks to the definition of a colony as a territory that has sovereignty limited in favor of the metropolis and is an object of specific colonial policy, as well as the identification of the types of colonies (colonies that are socioculturally close to the metropolis, colonies that are socioculturally different from the metropolis, internal colonies), it is proved that Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire/USSR and Ireland as part of Great Britain correspond to such a variety of colonies as territories dependent on the metropolis, populated socioculturally close to the metropolis in settlement, but not identical to it. An attempt was made to compare the colonial policy of Great Britain in relation to Ireland and the Russian Empire / USSR to Ukraine. Despite the difference in these empires, a significant number of parallels were found: the redistribution of resources in favor of a socioculturally distinct metropolis; cultural and linguistic colonization policies; the spread of specific self-identification of the population («Soviet person» and «British»); resettlement of residents of the metropolis in the colony; the emergence of famine as a result of the colonial policy (Irish potato famine of 1845-1849 and the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine). The similarity (goal, struggle methodology, etc.) between the national liberation movements of Ireland (Irish Republican Brotherhood, Irish Republican Army) and Ukraine (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Ukrainian Insurgent Army) is analyzed. As a conclusion, an affirmative answer was provided to the question posed in the title of the article – yes, at this point in time Ukraine is a post-colonial country, and Ireland has been such for at least the first decades after independence.


Author(s):  
A.V Goncharenko

The article investigates Britain’s position in colonial contradictions during World War I, based on the use of documents from Russia’s foreign policy department. The causes, course and consequences of the intensification of British politics in the colonial problem are described. The process of formation and implementation of London’s foreign policy initiatives in the colonial issue during the study period is examined. There are analyzed the role of Great Britain in the intensification of the colonial struggle between the great states during the First World War (1914-1918) and its perception by diplomatic representatives of the Russian Empire. During the First World War of 1914-1918, a set of problems and approaches to them were crystallized, which had a serious impact on the colonial contradictions between the great states in general and the position of Great Britain in this problem in particular. There is a considerable contrast between the methods of politics and the aspirations of the leading countries of the world at that time - Japan and Russia - on the one hand, and the United Kingdom and France - on the other. France is increasingly convinced that close co-operation in these matters with London is the only guarantee of the success of its colonialism. In addition, during the First World War, the new industrial states (Germany, Italy, and Japan) sought to capture the colonies for the sake of confirming their new status in the world, and the great colonial powers of the past (Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands) - to hold on to the rest for the sake of preservation of ephemeral international prestige, Russia - to expansion. The largest colonial empires - Great Britain and France were interested in maintaining the status quo. Whitehall’s policy on the colonial issue, at the time, can be traced to a very definite line, confirming the message of Russian diplomats linked to attempts to preserve the situation in their remote possessions and not get involved in conflicts and expensive measures where this can be avoided. In this sense, the British government has shown some flexibility and foresight - the relative weakening of the empire’s military and economic power about of the emergence of new, rapidly developing industrial powers and the achievement of colonies of certain selfsufficiency, made it necessary to revise traditional foreign policy. London was already unable to fully control the situation at sea, as well as to ensure the security of its vast possessions. Therefore, block cooperation with countries with close geopolitical interests comes to the fore, and policy in the colonies is gradually transformed from an expansionist one to a stabilization one aimed at reducing the costs of the metropolis and preventing potential conflicts in strategically important areas. In addition, Britain’s interests in the colonial issue largely coincide with the position of the United States, which also seeks to ensure “open doors” and “equal opportunities” instead of military-political contest. Key words: the Great Britain, First World War, international relationships, foreign policy, colonialism, colonial contradictions.


Author(s):  
V.N. Shkunov ◽  

The article is devoted to the problems of trade and economic rivalry between the Russian Empire and Great Britain in the first half of the XIX century, when the two powers were looking for adequate methods and forms of protecting their interests in Central Asia and Afghanistan. The author pays special attention to the problems of economic development and foreign trade of Afghanistan in the period under review. He examines the main objects of export and import, trade volumes, channels for the sale of goods, ethnic and confessional characteristics of merchants who participated in trade with Kabul. The role of the diplomatic service of Russia and Great Britain, travelers, scouts, merchants in collecting the necessary information about the situation in the Middle East is noted. The author focuses on the role and importance of the Central Asian khanates and merchants in promoting Russian goods to Afghanistan. The regional peculiarities of the organization of foreign trade are noted (by the example of Baloch).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document