Suchergebnisse

"The First World War led to a radical reshaping of Europe's political borders like hardly any previous event. Nowhere was this transformation more profound than in East Central Europe, where the collapse of imperial rule led to the emergence of a series of new states. New borders intersected centuries-old networks of commercial, cultural, and social exchange. The new states had to face the challenges posed by territorial fragmentation and at the same time establish durable state structures within an international order that viewed them at best as weak and at worst as provisional entities that would sooner or later be reintegrated into their larger neighbours' territory. An International History of Fragmentation challenges the traditional view that the emergence of these states was the product of a radical rupture that naturally led from defunct empires to nation states. Using the example of Poland and the Baltic States, it retraces the roots of the interwar states of East Central Europe, of their policies, economic developments, and of their conflicts back to deep in the First World War. At the same time, it shows that these states learned to harness the dynamics caused by territorial fragmentation, thus forever changing our understanding of what modern states can do"--

WWI led to a radical reshaping of Europe's political borders and the emergence of a series of smaller states from the ruins of larger empires. This study examines how four East Central European states - Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia - dealt with the breakdown of commerce and mobility, caused by new borders, high tariffs, and trade wars.

Der Physiker Johann Wilhelm Ritter (1776-1810) ist die herausragendste Figur unter den Naturforschern der Frühromantik im Kulturkreis Jena-Weimar. Obwohl Autodidakt, wurde er von Persönlichkeiten wie Goethe, Herder, Alexander von Humboldt und Brentano als wissenschaftlicher Partner geschätzt. Zitate aus Richters Autobiografie und aus dem Briefwechsel mit seinen Zeitgenossen lassen den Leser am Erkenntnisprozess und der Diskussion in der "scientific community" der Jena-Weimarer Romantiker teilhaben

To understand the mindset that obstructed the paths out of the interwar crisis, we need to reconstruct widely held expectations for the future of states. To examine how such expectations changed, diverged and competed, this paper investigates the work of inquiry committees, ranging from British and German committees engaged in post-war economic planning to the League of Nation's Commission of Enquiry for European Union of the early 1930s. The paper concludes that the interwar crisis can only be understood if we put the Great War and the Great Depression into a common frame. The war changed expectations, but not as drastically as we would instinctively assume. The expectation of an order of expanding, integrating blocs was challenged by the emergence of new 'small states' but survived. It was shattered when efforts to overcome the economic slump failed, leading to a broader acceptance of territorial revisionism across Europe than hitherto assumed.

The article argues that property redistribution was a major tool of democratization and nationalization in Poland and the Baltics. It provided governments with a means to give peasants a stake in the new democratic states, thus empower the new titular nations and at the same time marginalize former elites, who became national minorities. The most significant acts of property redistribution were the land reforms passed between 1919 and 1925, which achieved the status of founding charters of the new states. Activists of the disenfranchised minorities conceptualized minority protection as the "Magna Carta" of the international order, which should contain the principle of national self-determination and thus safeguard private property, the protection of which was not clearly regulated by international law. By examining the contingencies of the aftermath of the war in East Central Europe as well as discussions about changing conceptions of property ownership in both East Central and Western Europe, the article shows that land reform was meant to counter Bolshevism, but, at the same time, created the impression abroad that the new states themselves displayed revolutionary tendencies and did not respect private property — an image that became a significant argument of interwar territorial revisionists.