Suchergebnisse

Summary

The political map of Europe was transformed by the collapse of the Soviet Union & the reunification of Germany, ending four decades of stability & leading to new political configurations: the emergence of the independent Baltic states -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania -- with regional links not only to neighboring Russia but to Western Europe as well. The recent political history of the Baltic states is summarized, from their interwar independence to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact & their renewed independence in the early 1990s. Also discussed are postindependence demographic & social problems & prospects in the Baltics: the presence of large Russian minorities, language tests for citizenship, & the states' aspirations for European Union membership. The European Union has tried to serve as go-between for the region, & there are especially close & positive ties between the Baltic states & the Nordic countries. A. Siegel

NEXT TO THE PARTY ELITE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THERE ARE SEVERAL POLICY ELITES IN THE USSR. THEY CONSIST OF OFFICIALS IN EVERY FIELD OF POLICY & HAVE THEIR BASIS OF POWER IN THE RESOURCES THAT ARE ALLOCATED IN THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET. MOST RESOURCES FLOW TO THE ECONOMY, THE SCIENTIFIC & CULTURAL SECTOR, THE MILITARY, & THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPARATUS. ELITES IN THESE SECTORS CAN BE MOST INFLUENTIAL IN THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS. THE PARTY ELITE MAKES ALL LONG-TERM POLICY DECISIONS, IT CAN REGULATE THE RECRUITMENT OF NEW MEMBERS INTO THESE POLICY ELITES & IT CAN CALL THE ELITES TO ACCOUNT BY PERMITTING PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF POLICY DECISIONS. POLICY ELITES HAVE MORE INFLUENCE IN POLICY-MAKING WHEN THEY HAVE MORE REPRESENTATIVES IN THE POLITBURO & THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. THEIR REPRESENTATION HAS GROWN SINCE 1953--IRREGULARLY--BUT THE PARTY ELITE STILL HAS THE MAJORITY IN THESE PARTY ORGANS. POLICY ELITES HAVE INFLUENCE AS THERE IS A CONSTANT FLOW OF THEIR MEMBERS INTO THE PARTY ELITE. THIS MAKES THE PARTY ELITE LESS COHERENT & CAUSES MORE INTERNAL DISPUTES. YET THE POLICY ELITES ARE NOT CONTENT WITH POSSIBILITIES TO INFLUENCE POLICY MAKING; THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PARTY ELITE THAT DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE INFLUENCE, ESPECIALLY IN LONG-TERM POLICY DECISIONS. HA.

An image in technicolor. Fifty years of wars in Vietnam 1940-1990 gives a broad and innovative interpretation of the history of Vietnam between 1940 and 1990. Black and white characterisations, one-sided interpretations and prevailing myths are debunked. Instead, a nuanced and multifaceted picture is given in which the United States is less prominent.
History is not only written by the victors and, in this case too, the history of Vietnam during this period cannot be attributed solely to Ho Chi Minh and the success of the Communists in 1975. The internal losers, that is, the other political movements and their leaders, must also be given a crucial place in Vietnam's history. For example, the civil wars that took place between 1940 and 1990 played an unmistakable role.
The older, idealised image of North Vietnam is inaccurate. This country was a dictatorial and oppressive police state. After 1954, the North Vietnamese leaders were embroiled in a fierce power struggle and were largely responsible for the war in South Vietnam. The answer to the question of who the legitimate representatives of the Vietnamese nation were also requires a more balanced judgment of non-Communist politicians, such as Bao Dai, Ngo Dinh Diem and Nguyen Van Thieu.
As for the role of international players, initially, it was the Cold War that determined the United States' interference; later, it was American credibility. In the end, it was the support from China and the Soviet Union that was the deciding factor for North Vietnam's victory.
Important new perspectives are given on the role of minorities, the meaning of 'a third way', the devastating effects of the strategy, the role of women and girls, and the mental and cultural aspects of the wars.