Suchergebnisse

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of cultural propaganda in formulating and conducting foreign policy aiming at political supremacy and cultural penetration within the overall context of the ideological conflict between East and West during the Cold War era. Educational and cultural exchanges and other events of a nominali}'' nonpolitical nature are examined within their political context. In particular, the paper observes Anglo-Soviet relations over Greece. These relations turned increasingly hostile in mid-February 1945. Around that time a marked intensification of Soviet propaganda occurred. In July 1945, the Greek-Soviet League was established. It is interesting that, in response, the British Foreign Office concidered that the British Council in Athens should be reinforced and acquire a permanent representative. It was also decided to reopen the question of the Anglo-Greek Cultural Convention that was signed in 1940 but never ratified. This presentation seeks to examine the purpose of establishing these two cultural agencies, their staffing, the funding of their activities, the content of their cultural programmes, and the profile of their Greek supporters, both state officials and private individuals. How successful was the effort by the British Council and the Greek-Soviet League to promote their cultural programmes and what was the impact of these programmes on Greek public opinion? How did their cultural initiatives continue during the Greek Civil War? On the basis of the sources available, did each agency, and if so to what degree, enjoy the support of the country it represented? The comparative study of British and Soviet cultural propaganda in Greece will contribute to understanding the differences and similarities in the means used by each country to achieve its political ends in Greece.

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; Alexandros N. Teneketzis, Art and Politics in Cold War. The International Sculpture Competition for the Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner The gradual transfer of the metropolis of the western art world from Paris to New York and specifically in circles around the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) under the leadership of Alfred H. Barr Jr. and with the theoretical foundation by Clement Greenberg, but practically under the guidance and financing from the CIA, was also visible in the case of public memory and art about the Second World War. The international institution that was the cause for the widespread diffusion of the artistic standards grown in USA was the "International Sculpture Competition for the Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner", which was organized under the auspices of the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London and the Tate Gallery, but actually with the encouragement, blessings and supervision of the CIA. The competition was from the beginning a large turnout and the proposals submitted until January 1953 surpassed 3.500 –mainly abstract or semi­abstract stylistic suggestions. The biggest names at the time in the international arena of sculpture in West took part, while artists from the Eastern Bloc boycotted the process. Therefore were precluded any realistic academic representative works and of course any relationship with socialist realism, giving thus the tone for both the style, and for all other future monuments in the western world. Eventually, the first prize of 2.500 pounds awarded to the British sculptor Reg Butler, unknown to the general public until that time but with a decisive commitment to abstraction. However, the work of Butler was never completed, principally because of the changing international circumstances and relationships after the death of Stalin in '53 and Khrushchev's secret speech in '56. The new "Thaw" era in East­West relations imposed the final rejection in 1960. A public monument like that of Butler's, which would refer to the previous tense situation, was no more possible. Nevertheless, the dual objective of recognition and legitimization of abstract art in the western world and at the same time of the weakening of socialist realism and therefore of communism was promoted and achieved up to a certain degree.

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; Alexander Helladius (ca. 1686- ?) from Larissa was an important Greek intellectual and made a name for himself in Western Europe through his studies and activities in various countries. The objective of this paper is to examine his relations with Russia, the emerging political and military power of the Orthodox East at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Helladius met with Peter the Great through the help of Robert Erskine, Peter's personal physician, in Karlsbad in 1712 and decided to dedicate his magnum opus Status praesens Ecclesiae Graecae [Altdorf] (1714) to the Czar as a sign of extreme admiration and as a token of gratitude. Probably, through that act Helladius was intending to secure his future move to Russia, where numerous Greeks were living and working at that time including some of his friends (e.g., Anastasios Michail from Nausea). Helladius arrived to Moscow in September of 1715 and was employed as a physician, since he had studied medicine earlier at the University of Altdorf. Although his further whereabouts in Russia still remain unknown, Helladius played several years later indirectly a role through his book Status in the condemnation of his compatriots, Serapheim from Mytilini in 1732 and Liverios Golettis in 1734. Russia's most eminent ecclesiastical figure at that time, Feofan Prokopovich, used the information provided by Helladius in his Status about these two persons as additional evidence in order to achieve their condemnation. It is hoped that the investigation of archival material in the future will shed more light on Helladius' activities in Russia and will unearth an ignored side of the Graeco-Russian relations of that period.

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; The aim of the current study is an attempt to address the problem which emerged in the Hellenic Society during the years of the inter war as well as the first post civil war period, due to the change of the calendar. The introduction, from the Hellenic Church, of the new (Gregorian) calendar in 1924 created a strong reaction among the believers wich resulted to the creation of a new movement, named Greek Religions Community of Genuine Orthodox Christians (C.O.Ch.). This conservative minority, having had a great influence, insisted in the reinstatement of the old calendar and caused important conflict in the Hellenic society. The issue is examined from a political viewpoint, since the G.O.Ch. functioned as a pressure group towards the governments, demanding the free exercise of their religious duties. The governments appeared rather uncourageous in facing the problem, as they relied on G.O.Ch's vote. However, there had been systematic chasing persecutions against their clergymen, with them arrested or sent to the exile, facts which aggravated the problem. In this article, we also attempt to analyse the ideological stigma of the G.O.Ch. movement as their moved against all innovations of West-European origin and they declared their dedication to the traditional customs. Another aspect of the issue, concerns the so-called Macedonian issue and since the Church as well as many politicians considered the G.O.Ch. as being Serving the Yugoslav propaganda between the Slavonic-speaking minority of Macedonia, given that the Serbian Church maintained the old calendar. The C.O.Ch. Church attempted to defend itself against those accusations claiming that the change of the calendar served the political plans on the northern neighbours.