Suchergebnisse

Adapted from the source document.

Introduction. The article considers the problem of solving the Austrian issue by consolidating the country's neutrality in 1955 in the context of a possible modeling of the situation on the German issue. The consolidation of a neutral non-aligned status with Austria was the result of a broad domestic and foreign policy compromise. At the same time, the main features of the Austrian path to the neutrality of 1945–1955 are highlighted, making this one of the most well-known compromise precedents of the Cold War possible.

Methods and materials. The research of the model character of the "Austrian solution" of 1955 is possible only with regard to the intertwining historical contexts in which the development of the German and Austrian issues took place from 1945 to 1949. The author uses the comparative historical method in the article while comparing historical features of the development of the German and Austrian issues between 1945 and 1955 and comparing different views and concepts of historians. The information base of the article consists of narrative and documentary sources, as well as a wide range of scientific research works of Austrian, German and Russian researchers.

Analysis. The main internal reasons for the successful resolution of the Austrian issue are the existence of the pro-Western government elected in 1945, the unity of the main political forces of Austria in the matter of restoring sovereignty, and the personal role of Chancellor Julius Raab. The main international reasons are the change in the course of the USSR within the framework of the peaceful coexistence policy, as well as the reciprocal cooperation policy of the Western Allies. The author considers the problem both in historical and in historiographical perspectives.

Results. The possibility of applying the "Austrian solution" to the situation with the divided Germany became the subject of a sharp historiographical dispute, which was called "Model Debate" in Austria. Two famous historians, Rolf Steininger and Michael Gehler, developed a concept confirming the model character of the Austrian solution to the situation with Germany. Most of Austrian historians tend to view the successful resolution of the Austrian issue as a single precedent, or phenomenon, of the Cold War. When comparing the situation with Germany and the attempts to model the Austrian version of it, they point to the different potential and significance of the countries for the Western Allies and the USSR, different goals of foreign policy of victorious powers in the German and Austrian issues.

Сколько бы раз ни говорилось о том, что отношения между Россией и западными странами уже не могут ухудшиться, новостная повестка дня доказывает нам обратное. Так министр обороны Германии пригрозила России применением ядерного оружия, если та не подчинится директивам НАТО. Хотя сама Германия не обладает ядерным оружием, подразумевалось, что атака может быть предпринята американским арсеналом с европейской территории. И такая риторика становится все более частой. Тема холодной войны России и США, как двух крупнейших держав обсуждается в разных странах с завидной периодичностью. Президент США Джо Байден заявил, что не стремится к новой холодной войне. Однако, большинство европейцев считают, что она уже идет между США и их главными соперниками – Китаем и Россией. Некоторые европейцы также считают свою страну непосредственным участником конфликта. В рамках данной статьи мы проанализируем различные точки зрения по данному вопросу. А так же сделаем ряд выводов.

This article assesses the role of geographical and social factors that influenced the toponyms currently officially fixed on the maps of Australia and Oceania. It is noted that the fundamental reason for naming the toponyms of Australia and Oceania is the desire of speakers of different languages to leave a memory of themselves on geographical maps. The names of the largest number of Australian place names were given by the first settlers — navigators and discoverers. A significant number of them are English geographical names. Among the least common extralinguistic factors influencing the formation of toponyms, the names of vital objects by natives stand out. The instability of such toponyms in the language is noted. Such toponyms are mostly descriptive. Due to the wide field for research activities, a unified universal classification of toponyms has not yet been developed. The article analyzes the classifications of toponyms existing in linguistics and proposes its own classification of toponyms based on practical material from the geographical names of Australia and Oceania. The main criteria for highlighting the structural elements of the classification is the presence or absence of word-formation elements, many of which are typical for the sphere of toponymy. A large group is formed by phrases, which the authors of the article subdivide depending on the number of components. Particular attention is paid to the use of the article as part of the toponym, as well as graphic signs. The classification presented by the authors of the article also makes it possible to judge that the toponyms of Australia and Oceania are part of the lexical system of the general literary language.

Adapted from the source document.

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

Politics is an essential part of people's life. It influences every aspect of nowadays society. Economics and culture, social life and personal problems of each human, education and healthcare, everything depends on the current politics established in the country.

Статья посвящена рассмотрению и анализу основных вех «холодной войны» и ее влиянии на систему региональной безопасности в Европе. Автор отмечает ключевую роль Старого Света в тот исторический период времени, выделяя колоссальное сосредоточение вооруженных сил в регионе вкупе с геополитической стабильностью.

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]