Suchergebnisse

FOCUSING ON GERMANY AND THE USSR AS TOTALITARIAN STATES, AND BRITAIN, U.S., AND FRANCE AS DEMOCRATIC STATES, AND RELYING LARGELY ON BIOGRAPHICAL AND AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES, SEVERAL DEMOCRATIC-TOTALITARIAN CONTRASTS ARE ADDRESSED; DEMOCRATIC STATES ARE CHARACTERIZED BY GENERALLY MORE STRUCTURED, LEGAL-RATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AT THE TOP LEVELS OF POLITICAL-MILITARY HIERARCHIES WITH MUCH GREATER RELIANCE ON COMMITTEE AND OTHER VOLUNTARY COORDINATING MECHANISMS OF THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS; MORE INVOLVEMENT BY MILITARY IN STRATEGIC ISSUES; MORE DIFFUSE AND OFTEN POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT STATUS AS WELL AS GREATER PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY FOR THE MILITARY; MUCH LESS DRASTIC MILITARY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FAILURE, BUT ALSO MUCH MORE PUBLIC-LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY BY MILITARY PROFESSIONALS. THE IMPACT OF THESE DIFFERENCES ON THE BATTLEFIELD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MIXED WITH SOME SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGES ACCURING TO THE TOTALITARIAN STATES.

There can be little doubt that the German military leadership played an important role in the events leading up to the outbreak of World War I. Although there may be some disagreement as to the extent of the general staff's influence, its assessment of the European situation is known to have carried great weight in the decision-making councils in Berlin. Much significant research has been done on the activities of the German military hierarchy in the prewar period, but certain subjects remain to be explored. One of these is the relationship of the Berlin general staff with its counterpart in Rome. A great deal of evidence exists which indicates that in the period from December 1912 until August 1914 the chief of the general staff, Helmuth Graf von Moltke, and other military leaders in Berlin were greatly concerned about their southern ally. The German generals, probably influenced by the theories of Clausewitz with his great emphasis on the value of numerical superiority, saw Italy, with her large mass-conscripted army of over thirty divisions, as the balance of power in any conflict between the Central Powers and the Franco-Russian Alliance.

Introduction. The transfer of technologies from defense to the civilian sector of the economy, their implementation in the commercial sphere of economic relations should lead to wider use, increase economic returns and further development of these technologies. The issues of diversification of the domestic defense industry are closely monitored by the top leadership of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the purpose of this study is to scientifically comprehend and analyze the provision by Russian legislation of the necessary and sufficient legal conditions for the transfer of technology from the military to the civilian sector. The scientific novelty of this work consists in the content and sequence of stages of technology transfer from the defense to the civilian sector of the economy and assessing the degree to which these stages are reflected in current legislation. Monitoring Tools. The subject is normative legal acts regulating this sphere of relations, as well as the works of scientists and specialists in this field. The dialectical method was used as a methodological basis. General scientific (analysis, system-structural, functional), special (concrete sociological), and private scientific (formal-legal, method of interpretation of the rule of law) methods were applied in this work. Results and Discussion. The materials collected during the analysis in this article allow us to analyze Russian legislation on the transfer of technology from the defense sector to civilian through the prism of the author's presentation of the stages of technology transfer and how this mechanism is viewed by domestic experts and researchers. The analysis conducted in this field will be useful both for lawyers who apply these laws, and for researchers who are faced with the effect of such laws in their professional activities. Conclusion. Based on the results of the research, we can conclude that it is advisable to adopt a single regulatory legal act governing all stages of the disposal of rights to military, special or ...

This report, submitted by Gen. George W. Davis contains "an account of the government of Porto Rico by the army of the United States", and includes "an account of the stewardship of the three military governors": Gen. John R. Brooke, Oct. 18-Dec. 9, 1898; Gen. Guy V. Henry, Dec. 9, 1898-May 9, 1899; Gen. George W. Davis, May 9, 1899-May 1, 1900. ; cover-title ; I. Historical.--II. Military government.--III. Gvernment under Spain.--IV. Provincial and municipal government.--V. Military legislation.--VI. Native statute and courts.--VII. The judiciary.--VIII. The inhabitants.--IX. Crime and prision.--X. Elections and the franchise.--XI. Public instruction.--XII. Charities.--XIII. Health.--XIV Revenues and expenditures.--XV. Commerece and industry.--XVI. Exchange of currency.--XVII. Church revenues and property.--XVIII. Agriculutre.--XIX. Public works.--XX. Hurricane relief.--XXI. The archives, etc.--Appendices. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The author addresses the issues regarding the ideal relationship between the commander and the statesman in time of war and the balance between political control and military operational expertise by examining what Carl von Clausewitz has to say about civil- military relations and the use of force. She looks in depth at Clausewitz s arguments, reviews his theoretical approach, and discusses four key implications of the basic idea that political purposes govern war. In conclusion, the author suggests that Clausewitz has issued both statesmen and commanders a challenge. Commanders must appreciate the necessity of subordinating military means to political ends, and statesmen must think as strategists as they make decisions about the relationship between ends and means and the achievement of their goals. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1116/thumbnail.jpg