Suchergebnisse

Le 1 er novembre 1919, deux représentants de haut rang de l'Iran et de la nouvelle République indépendante d'Azerbaïdjan, qui se trouvaient à la Conférence de la paix à Paris, ont signé un protocole proposant une confédération entre les deux États. Sa mise en œuvre aurait pu modifier le tracé des frontières internationales en Transcaucasie. S'appuyant principalement sur des sources persanes, et adoptant ainsi le point de vue iranien, cet article examine les origines et les tentatives pour mettre en œuvre ce projet, finalement infructueux, comme une étude de cas illustrant le dynamisme de la diplomatie impliquant les petits États de la région caspienne qui tentaient de poursuivre des programmes de politique étrangère individuels dans l'ombre des empires.

International audience ; Using Iranian and British primary sources, this essay studies the heated dispute over Iran's immediate priorities in railway building that erupted within the Iranian government in the autumn of 1919, at which moment in time making a serious start with the development of Iran's so far virtually non-existent rail infrastructure involving, first and foremost, though not necessarily exclusively, Britain, appeared to be imminent due to the related stipulations of the Anglo-Persian treaty that had been signed in August of that year. Seeking conceptual inspiration from Ronald E. Robinson's thought on Railway Imperialism and drawing on seminal work on the issue of railway building ambitions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Iran by Paul Luft, this analysis seeks to contribute to two separate areas of inquiry. One the one hand, it represents an intriguing case study for a (yet to be written) history of how Iranians made foreign policy during the early constitutional period (as opposed to histories of Iran's place in the foreign policies of the Great Powers during that time). On the other hand, it aims at contributing to the study of the impact of European Imperialism on the Middle East in the immediate aftermath of the First World War.

International audience ; Using Iranian and British primary sources, this essay studies the heated dispute over Iran's immediate priorities in railway building that erupted within the Iranian government in the autumn of 1919, at which moment in time making a serious start with the development of Iran's so far virtually non-existent rail infrastructure involving, first and foremost, though not necessarily exclusively, Britain, appeared to be imminent due to the related stipulations of the Anglo-Persian treaty that had been signed in August of that year. Seeking conceptual inspiration from Ronald E. Robinson's thought on Railway Imperialism and drawing on seminal work on the issue of railway building ambitions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Iran by Paul Luft, this analysis seeks to contribute to two separate areas of inquiry. One the one hand, it represents an intriguing case study for a (yet to be written) history of how Iranians made foreign policy during the early constitutional period (as opposed to histories of Iran's place in the foreign policies of the Great Powers during that time). On the other hand, it aims at contributing to the study of the impact of European Imperialism on the Middle East in the immediate aftermath of the First World War.

International audience ; Using Iranian and British primary sources, this essay studies the heated dispute over Iran's immediate priorities in railway building that erupted within the Iranian government in the autumn of 1919, at which moment in time making a serious start with the development of Iran's so far virtually non-existent rail infrastructure involving, first and foremost, though not necessarily exclusively, Britain, appeared to be imminent due to the related stipulations of the Anglo-Persian treaty that had been signed in August of that year. Seeking conceptual inspiration from Ronald E. Robinson's thought on Railway Imperialism and drawing on seminal work on the issue of railway building ambitions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Iran by Paul Luft, this analysis seeks to contribute to two separate areas of inquiry. One the one hand, it represents an intriguing case study for a (yet to be written) history of how Iranians made foreign policy during the early constitutional period (as opposed to histories of Iran's place in the foreign policies of the Great Powers during that time). On the other hand, it aims at contributing to the study of the impact of European Imperialism on the Middle East in the immediate aftermath of the First World War.

International audience ; Using Iranian and British primary sources, this essay studies the heated dispute over Iran's immediate priorities in railway building that erupted within the Iranian government in the autumn of 1919, at which moment in time making a serious start with the development of Iran's so far virtually non-existent rail infrastructure involving, first and foremost, though not necessarily exclusively, Britain, appeared to be imminent due to the related stipulations of the Anglo-Persian treaty that had been signed in August of that year. Seeking conceptual inspiration from Ronald E. Robinson's thought on Railway Imperialism and drawing on seminal work on the issue of railway building ambitions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Iran by Paul Luft, this analysis seeks to contribute to two separate areas of inquiry. One the one hand, it represents an intriguing case study for a (yet to be written) history of how Iranians made foreign policy during the early constitutional period (as opposed to histories of Iran's place in the foreign policies of the Great Powers during that time). On the other hand, it aims at contributing to the study of the impact of European Imperialism on the Middle East in the immediate aftermath of the First World War.

International audience ; Inverting the gaze initially adopted by scholars of Iran that had been inspired by Said's Orientalism thesis, a line of academic enquiry that one might call Iranian Occidentalism, i.e. the study of Iranian perceptions, or perhaps better, (re)constructions, of the West, has been gathering considerable momentum in the last decade or so. However, while work has been done on several different facets of this Iranian Occidentalism – e.g. on its manifestations in travelogues, in poetry and prose literature, in the arts, or in academic philosophy – no attention has so far been paid by scholars to the question of how, if at all, Iranian historians have studied the history of the Occident in their academic writings. This essay addresses this desideratum and breaks new ground by analysing the rare instance of one of 20th-century Iran's most venerated historians – the 'father of Modern Iranian history', Fereydun Adamiyat (1920-2008) – writing on a completely non-Iran related, major topic within Modern European history, namely the rise of National-Socialism in Germany and the fall of the Weimar Republic. This analysis starts by explaining Adamiyat's account of the destruction of Germany's democracy in the 1930s in its unexpected context – a book on Social-Democratic thought in Iran at the time of the Constitutional Revolution (1906-1911) published in Tehran for the first time in 1975. It then proceeds to assessing Adamiyat's account of the triumph of National Socialism in 1930s Germany in terms of its merits as a contribution to scholarship before enquiring into the potential of a present-day political agenda on the part of Adamiyat in having chosen to write on this specific topic at the specific time that he did, namely during the mid-1970s, i.e. at a time when Iran seemed to have reached a level of stability and (sudden) wealth that could not have been more different from the troubled final years of the Weimar Republic. In so doing this essay does not only open up an entirely new chapter in the ...

International audience ; Inverting the gaze initially adopted by scholars of Iran that had been inspired by Said's Orientalism thesis, a line of academic enquiry that one might call Iranian Occidentalism, i.e. the study of Iranian perceptions, or perhaps better, (re)constructions, of the West, has been gathering considerable momentum in the last decade or so. However, while work has been done on several different facets of this Iranian Occidentalism – e.g. on its manifestations in travelogues, in poetry and prose literature, in the arts, or in academic philosophy – no attention has so far been paid by scholars to the question of how, if at all, Iranian historians have studied the history of the Occident in their academic writings. This essay addresses this desideratum and breaks new ground by analysing the rare instance of one of 20th-century Iran's most venerated historians – the 'father of Modern Iranian history', Fereydun Adamiyat (1920-2008) – writing on a completely non-Iran related, major topic within Modern European history, namely the rise of National-Socialism in Germany and the fall of the Weimar Republic. This analysis starts by explaining Adamiyat's account of the destruction of Germany's democracy in the 1930s in its unexpected context – a book on Social-Democratic thought in Iran at the time of the Constitutional Revolution (1906-1911) published in Tehran for the first time in 1975. It then proceeds to assessing Adamiyat's account of the triumph of National Socialism in 1930s Germany in terms of its merits as a contribution to scholarship before enquiring into the potential of a present-day political agenda on the part of Adamiyat in having chosen to write on this specific topic at the specific time that he did, namely during the mid-1970s, i.e. at a time when Iran seemed to have reached a level of stability and (sudden) wealth that could not have been more different from the troubled final years of the Weimar Republic. In so doing this essay does not only open up an entirely new chapter in the ...

International audience ; Inverting the gaze initially adopted by scholars of Iran that had been inspired by Said's Orientalism thesis, a line of academic enquiry that one might call Iranian Occidentalism, i.e. the study of Iranian perceptions, or perhaps better, (re)constructions, of the West, has been gathering considerable momentum in the last decade or so. However, while work has been done on several different facets of this Iranian Occidentalism – e.g. on its manifestations in travelogues, in poetry and prose literature, in the arts, or in academic philosophy – no attention has so far been paid by scholars to the question of how, if at all, Iranian historians have studied the history of the Occident in their academic writings. This essay addresses this desideratum and breaks new ground by analysing the rare instance of one of 20th-century Iran's most venerated historians – the 'father of Modern Iranian history', Fereydun Adamiyat (1920-2008) – writing on a completely non-Iran related, major topic within Modern European history, namely the rise of National-Socialism in Germany and the fall of the Weimar Republic. This analysis starts by explaining Adamiyat's account of the destruction of Germany's democracy in the 1930s in its unexpected context – a book on Social-Democratic thought in Iran at the time of the Constitutional Revolution (1906-1911) published in Tehran for the first time in 1975. It then proceeds to assessing Adamiyat's account of the triumph of National Socialism in 1930s Germany in terms of its merits as a contribution to scholarship before enquiring into the potential of a present-day political agenda on the part of Adamiyat in having chosen to write on this specific topic at the specific time that he did, namely during the mid-1970s, i.e. at a time when Iran seemed to have reached a level of stability and (sudden) wealth that could not have been more different from the troubled final years of the Weimar Republic. In so doing this essay does not only open up an entirely new chapter in the ...

International audience ; Inverting the gaze initially adopted by scholars of Iran that had been inspired by Said's Orientalism thesis, a line of academic enquiry that one might call Iranian Occidentalism, i.e. the study of Iranian perceptions, or perhaps better, (re)constructions, of the West, has been gathering considerable momentum in the last decade or so. However, while work has been done on several different facets of this Iranian Occidentalism – e.g. on its manifestations in travelogues, in poetry and prose literature, in the arts, or in academic philosophy – no attention has so far been paid by scholars to the question of how, if at all, Iranian historians have studied the history of the Occident in their academic writings. This essay addresses this desideratum and breaks new ground by analysing the rare instance of one of 20th-century Iran's most venerated historians – the 'father of Modern Iranian history', Fereydun Adamiyat (1920-2008) – writing on a completely non-Iran related, major topic within Modern European history, namely the rise of National-Socialism in Germany and the fall of the Weimar Republic. This analysis starts by explaining Adamiyat's account of the destruction of Germany's democracy in the 1930s in its unexpected context – a book on Social-Democratic thought in Iran at the time of the Constitutional Revolution (1906-1911) published in Tehran for the first time in 1975. It then proceeds to assessing Adamiyat's account of the triumph of National Socialism in 1930s Germany in terms of its merits as a contribution to scholarship before enquiring into the potential of a present-day political agenda on the part of Adamiyat in having chosen to write on this specific topic at the specific time that he did, namely during the mid-1970s, i.e. at a time when Iran seemed to have reached a level of stability and (sudden) wealth that could not have been more different from the troubled final years of the Weimar Republic. In so doing this essay does not only open up an entirely new chapter in the ...

Comme la Perse, qui s'est proclamée solennellement neutre au début de la Grande Guerre, est devenue malgré tout l'un des théâtres du conflit, l'historiographie la représente comme un pion dépourvu de toute volonté propre dans le jeu des puissances belligérantes. La consultation des sources persanes permet de dresser un tableau diffèrent. À l'inverse des analyses habituelles, cet article se propose d'examiner la politique étrangère poursuivie par la Perse durant la guerre ainsi que dans l'immédiat après-guerre sans traiter la partie persane en quantité négligeable. Il conclut que, loin d'avoir été des hommes naïfs et stupides, ou, pire encore, de simples instruments entre les mains des Britanniques, les diplomates persans de l'époque ont su habilement poursuivre une politique étrangère délibérée et concertée visant à la réalisation de buts de guerre, ou plutôt, de buts de paix, précis et très ambitieux.

Der totale Krieg und die gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Neugestaltung / Touraj Atabaki und Kaveh Ehsani. - Das Deutsche Reich und Persien: Hoffnungen, (Miss-) Erfolge und Legenden / Oliver Bast. - Afghanistan im Rahmen der Geostrategie Deutschlands / Matin Baraki. - Muslimische Kriegsgefangene im Halbmond- und Weinberglager: Für den Heiligen Krieg? / Gerhard Höpp. - Afghanen in des Kaisers Jihad / Thomas Ruttig. - Das Unvorstellbare erinnern: zum 100. Jahrestag des Genozids an den Armeniern / Barbara Eder. - Tropfen im Meer der Revolution: Mirsaid Sultan-Galiew / Jörg Tiedjen. - Exilpolitik, Global Sounds und Tropenmedizin: deutsch-arabische Kooperation und der 1. Weltkrieg / Irit Neidhardt