Suchergebnisse

The article furthers the research on the relation of democratizing states with their former non-democratic regimes by focusing on the situation in the Central and Eastern Europe's re-established democracies. The author utilizes his previously introduced research framework, based on the assessment (and interplay) of the type of the regime and the manner in which it ended. This serves to emphasize differences in the democratic transition of the region's states and, accordingly, the various paths chosen by new leaders in dealing with the problem of Communist party activist responsibility. The article also touches upon structural and psychological legacy of Communism. Along with glaring commonalities of the former Communist bloc, there were specific issues as well. In short, the findings reflect the following: 1 ) The transition of Hungary, in many aspects, replicates the "reforma pactada" formula. Partially, this holds true for Poland, too, but its position was complicated by limits on democratic representation set via the pact, that ring more of those achieved by military hierarchy in the event of extrication. The two states may be viewed as hardly favorable to the purge of old apparatus, despite the Poles' formal lustration laws. 2) In the Czech Republic and former East Germany (GDR), the situation became favorable to the prosecution of regime's activists, as the stagnating post-totalitarianism simply collapsed in those countries leaving a power vacuum, without a possibility to mobilize in self-defence. However, the broad range purges, that ensued in these states, much too often came in contradiction with the principles of rule of law and universal human rights. 3) The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) did not experience direct collapse of the system, even though they also had just gone through stagnation.[.].

The article furthers the research on the relation of democratizing states with their former non-democratic regimes by focusing on the situation in the Central and Eastern Europe's re-established democracies. The author utilizes his previously introduced research framework, based on the assessment (and interplay) of the type of the regime and the manner in which it ended. This serves to emphasize differences in the democratic transition of the region's states and, accordingly, the various paths chosen by new leaders in dealing with the problem of Communist party activist responsibility. The article also touches upon structural and psychological legacy of Communism. Along with glaring commonalities of the former Communist bloc, there were specific issues as well. In short, the findings reflect the following: 1 ) The transition of Hungary, in many aspects, replicates the "reforma pactada" formula. Partially, this holds true for Poland, too, but its position was complicated by limits on democratic representation set via the pact, that ring more of those achieved by military hierarchy in the event of extrication. The two states may be viewed as hardly favorable to the purge of old apparatus, despite the Poles' formal lustration laws. 2) In the Czech Republic and former East Germany (GDR), the situation became favorable to the prosecution of regime's activists, as the stagnating post-totalitarianism simply collapsed in those countries leaving a power vacuum, without a possibility to mobilize in self-defence. However, the broad range purges, that ensued in these states, much too often came in contradiction with the principles of rule of law and universal human rights. 3) The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) did not experience direct collapse of the system, even though they also had just gone through stagnation.[.].

The article furthers the research on the relation of democratizing states with their former non-democratic regimes by focusing on the situation in the Central and Eastern Europe's re-established democracies. The author utilizes his previously introduced research framework, based on the assessment (and interplay) of the type of the regime and the manner in which it ended. This serves to emphasize differences in the democratic transition of the region's states and, accordingly, the various paths chosen by new leaders in dealing with the problem of Communist party activist responsibility. The article also touches upon structural and psychological legacy of Communism. Along with glaring commonalities of the former Communist bloc, there were specific issues as well. In short, the findings reflect the following: 1 ) The transition of Hungary, in many aspects, replicates the "reforma pactada" formula. Partially, this holds true for Poland, too, but its position was complicated by limits on democratic representation set via the pact, that ring more of those achieved by military hierarchy in the event of extrication. The two states may be viewed as hardly favorable to the purge of old apparatus, despite the Poles' formal lustration laws. 2) In the Czech Republic and former East Germany (GDR), the situation became favorable to the prosecution of regime's activists, as the stagnating post-totalitarianism simply collapsed in those countries leaving a power vacuum, without a possibility to mobilize in self-defence. However, the broad range purges, that ensued in these states, much too often came in contradiction with the principles of rule of law and universal human rights. 3) The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) did not experience direct collapse of the system, even though they also had just gone through stagnation.[.].

The object of this master thesis is contemporary museum communication and representation. The goal of the thesis – to study the features of communication and identify perspective approaches to representation in the activities of contemporary Jewish museums in Central and Eastern Europe by the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow, as well as to develop recommendations for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. Main tasks of the thesis: to consider the essential characteristics of museum communication, its structure, the concept of strategies; to develop the author's methodology of contemporary museum communication strategies research for further study of selected cases; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow; to reveal the problems of the development of Jewish heritage in Belarus in the context of the country's politics of memory; to identify perspective communication strategies and representation approaches for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. The usage of such methods as a theoretical analysis, description, case study, field observation, expert online interview, focus group, synthesis and generalization led to a conclusion that emerging in the 60s of the XX century, the theory of museum communication is actively developing during the 1960s – 1990s, radically transforming the face of the museum. It becomes a cultural institution in which its two most important functions harmoniously coexist – storage and communication. However, henceforth the emphasis in museum activity is placed on mutual dialogical relations with its visitor, which are realized through the museum exhibition. The development receives the museum exhibition designing, which has the goal of helping to uncover the meanings laid down in the exhibition, as well as sociological and psychological researches that help the museum to better understand its audiences. Museum communication, as a result, becomes one of the most important theoretical aspects of museology as an independent scientific discipline, determining the perspective of its evolution to this day. The variety of communication processes of the contemporary museum is a set of tools for the implementation of cultural communication, and the principles of their development are nothing else than strategies for the museum's communication processes designed to construct specific working methods. Understanding the specifics of the communication processes of the contemporary museum made it possible to develop on the basis of the communication model of H. D. Lasswell an author's methodology, which was subsequently used to analyze the cases of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow. According to the results of the study, was determined the role of these museums as the agents of the historical and cultural policies of their states – Germany and Russia, acting as tools aimed at solving the urgent problems of a particular society. For Germany – overcoming the country's difficult national-socialist past, and for Russia – determining the problem of maintaining the unity of society in the ethnocultural diversity of a multinational state. Being aimed at such tasks, communication of both museums was physically expressed in costly but well-designed representational solutions, the specificity of which is in the need to conduct a dialogue with an audience that has low knowledge in the field of Jewish history and culture, as well as the complexity of the problematics of museums. Based on the conclusion about the significant role of state historical and cultural policies in the activities of the contemporary Jewish museum in Central and Eastern Europe, it was decided to conduct an in-depth analysis of the features of the politics of memory in Belarus, according to which it became known that in the context of the problematic processes of independence in Belarus, attention of the state turns to consolidation of the nation, which pushes into the background the need to preserve the memory of its ethnocultural communities. Thus, the preservation of the Jewish heritage of Belarus is an "external" problem in relation to the national discourse of the state, remaining on the periphery of its memory practices. These trends have a direct impact on the activities of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, forming a field of interconnected problems around it, which was identified through the study of the museum's case on the basis of the previously developed methodology. From the standpoint of identified problems in the development of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, as well as the results of the whole study, was made an attempt to identify perspective communication strategies and approaches to representations of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus that are recommendatory by their nature.

The object of this master thesis is contemporary museum communication and representation. The goal of the thesis – to study the features of communication and identify perspective approaches to representation in the activities of contemporary Jewish museums in Central and Eastern Europe by the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow, as well as to develop recommendations for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. Main tasks of the thesis: to consider the essential characteristics of museum communication, its structure, the concept of strategies; to develop the author's methodology of contemporary museum communication strategies research for further study of selected cases; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow; to reveal the problems of the development of Jewish heritage in Belarus in the context of the country's politics of memory; to identify perspective communication strategies and representation approaches for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. The usage of such methods as a theoretical analysis, description, case study, field observation, expert online interview, focus group, synthesis and generalization led to a conclusion that emerging in the 60s of the XX century, the theory of museum communication is actively developing during the 1960s – 1990s, radically transforming the face of the museum. It becomes a cultural institution in which its two most important functions harmoniously coexist – storage and communication. However, henceforth the emphasis in museum activity is placed on mutual dialogical relations with its visitor, which are realized through the museum exhibition. The development receives the museum exhibition designing, which has the goal of helping to uncover the meanings laid down in the exhibition, as well as sociological and psychological researches that help the museum to better understand its audiences. Museum communication, as a result, becomes one of the most important theoretical aspects of museology as an independent scientific discipline, determining the perspective of its evolution to this day. The variety of communication processes of the contemporary museum is a set of tools for the implementation of cultural communication, and the principles of their development are nothing else than strategies for the museum's communication processes designed to construct specific working methods. Understanding the specifics of the communication processes of the contemporary museum made it possible to develop on the basis of the communication model of H. D. Lasswell an author's methodology, which was subsequently used to analyze the cases of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow. According to the results of the study, was determined the role of these museums as the agents of the historical and cultural policies of their states – Germany and Russia, acting as tools aimed at solving the urgent problems of a particular society. For Germany – overcoming the country's difficult national-socialist past, and for Russia – determining the problem of maintaining the unity of society in the ethnocultural diversity of a multinational state. Being aimed at such tasks, communication of both museums was physically expressed in costly but well-designed representational solutions, the specificity of which is in the need to conduct a dialogue with an audience that has low knowledge in the field of Jewish history and culture, as well as the complexity of the problematics of museums. Based on the conclusion about the significant role of state historical and cultural policies in the activities of the contemporary Jewish museum in Central and Eastern Europe, it was decided to conduct an in-depth analysis of the features of the politics of memory in Belarus, according to which it became known that in the context of the problematic processes of independence in Belarus, attention of the state turns to consolidation of the nation, which pushes into the background the need to preserve the memory of its ethnocultural communities. Thus, the preservation of the Jewish heritage of Belarus is an "external" problem in relation to the national discourse of the state, remaining on the periphery of its memory practices. These trends have a direct impact on the activities of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, forming a field of interconnected problems around it, which was identified through the study of the museum's case on the basis of the previously developed methodology. From the standpoint of identified problems in the development of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, as well as the results of the whole study, was made an attempt to identify perspective communication strategies and approaches to representations of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus that are recommendatory by their nature.

This article analyses priority directions of Poland in regional collaboration. It shows that Poland wants to strengthen its position in political unions by creating a common perspective of European integration. Poland wants to maintain strong relations with NATO by showing itself as a reliable ally in a transatlantic context. It also seeks to pursue active collaboration with Ukraine and other countries of Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus. Poland wants to increase its power in international politics and due to that fact it pursues various collaborations with Western countries and countries of Vysegrad group. What's more, it encourages partnerships with Eastern countries as well. Economic collaboration is one of the priority spheres in foreign politics and Germany is one of the most powerful countries in this sphere. Relations with the diaspora and those citizens of Polish origin who live in foreign countries encourages closer relations with neighbour states which contain the biggest amount of Poles.

This article analyses priority directions of Poland in regional collaboration. It shows that Poland wants to strengthen its position in political unions by creating a common perspective of European integration. Poland wants to maintain strong relations with NATO by showing itself as a reliable ally in a transatlantic context. It also seeks to pursue active collaboration with Ukraine and other countries of Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus. Poland wants to increase its power in international politics and due to that fact it pursues various collaborations with Western countries and countries of Vysegrad group. What's more, it encourages partnerships with Eastern countries as well. Economic collaboration is one of the priority spheres in foreign politics and Germany is one of the most powerful countries in this sphere. Relations with the diaspora and those citizens of Polish origin who live in foreign countries encourages closer relations with neighbour states which contain the biggest amount of Poles.

This article analyses priority directions of Poland in regional collaboration. It shows that Poland wants to strengthen its position in political unions by creating a common perspective of European integration. Poland wants to maintain strong relations with NATO by showing itself as a reliable ally in a transatlantic context. It also seeks to pursue active collaboration with Ukraine and other countries of Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus. Poland wants to increase its power in international politics and due to that fact it pursues various collaborations with Western countries and countries of Vysegrad group. What's more, it encourages partnerships with Eastern countries as well. Economic collaboration is one of the priority spheres in foreign politics and Germany is one of the most powerful countries in this sphere. Relations with the diaspora and those citizens of Polish origin who live in foreign countries encourages closer relations with neighbour states which contain the biggest amount of Poles.

During 1904–1940, a total of 26 periodicals were published in Lithuania and in foreign countries in which the Lithuanian language was used alongside others. The demand for multilingual periodicals had emerged during the first part of the 20th c. as new cultural, economic, and political conditions took shape in Eastern and Central Europe. For the governments and businesses of Lithuania, Germany, Latvia, and Poland, the development of economic relations was of the biggest importance, and this process was to be stimulated using the multilingual publications that were being released in these countries. Also, particular importance was granted to the political cooperation of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Cultural relations, on the other hand, were less expressed in the multilingual periodicals and not characterized by commercial success. For propaganda purposes, a considerable number of multilingual publications were released by Germany during the First World War. Apart from Lithuanian, these multilingual publications were marked by the use of German, English, Polish, French, Latvian, and Russian languages; among the rarer instances were Belarusian, Yiddish, and Estonian texts. The emergence of multilingual periodicals and the presence of the Lithuanian language in these publications reflected the international recognition of the Lithuanian nation and its state. It represented an understanding of multiculturalism and peculiar needs within the society and resembled the dialogue occurring across the political, economic, and cultural dimensions.

During 1904–1940, a total of 26 periodicals were published in Lithuania and in foreign countries in which the Lithuanian language was used alongside others. The demand for multilingual periodicals had emerged during the first part of the 20th c. as new cultural, economic, and political conditions took shape in Eastern and Central Europe. For the governments and businesses of Lithuania, Germany, Latvia, and Poland, the development of economic relations was of the biggest importance, and this process was to be stimulated using the multilingual publications that were being released in these countries. Also, particular importance was granted to the political cooperation of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Cultural relations, on the other hand, were less expressed in the multilingual periodicals and not characterized by commercial success. For propaganda purposes, a considerable number of multilingual publications were released by Germany during the First World War. Apart from Lithuanian, these multilingual publications were marked by the use of German, English, Polish, French, Latvian, and Russian languages; among the rarer instances were Belarusian, Yiddish, and Estonian texts. The emergence of multilingual periodicals and the presence of the Lithuanian language in these publications reflected the international recognition of the Lithuanian nation and its state. It represented an understanding of multiculturalism and peculiar needs within the society and resembled the dialogue occurring across the political, economic, and cultural dimensions.

During 1904–1940, a total of 26 periodicals were published in Lithuania and in foreign countries in which the Lithuanian language was used alongside others. The demand for multilingual periodicals had emerged during the first part of the 20th c. as new cultural, economic, and political conditions took shape in Eastern and Central Europe. For the governments and businesses of Lithuania, Germany, Latvia, and Poland, the development of economic relations was of the biggest importance, and this process was to be stimulated using the multilingual publications that were being released in these countries. Also, particular importance was granted to the political cooperation of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Cultural relations, on the other hand, were less expressed in the multilingual periodicals and not characterized by commercial success. For propaganda purposes, a considerable number of multilingual publications were released by Germany during the First World War. Apart from Lithuanian, these multilingual publications were marked by the use of German, English, Polish, French, Latvian, and Russian languages; among the rarer instances were Belarusian, Yiddish, and Estonian texts. The emergence of multilingual periodicals and the presence of the Lithuanian language in these publications reflected the international recognition of the Lithuanian nation and its state. It represented an understanding of multiculturalism and peculiar needs within the society and resembled the dialogue occurring across the political, economic, and cultural dimensions.

During 1904–1940, a total of 26 periodicals were published in Lithuania and in foreign countries in which the Lithuanian language was used alongside others. The demand for multilingual periodicals had emerged during the first part of the 20th c. as new cultural, economic, and political conditions took shape in Eastern and Central Europe. For the governments and businesses of Lithuania, Germany, Latvia, and Poland, the development of economic relations was of the biggest importance, and this process was to be stimulated using the multilingual publications that were being released in these countries. Also, particular importance was granted to the political cooperation of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Cultural relations, on the other hand, were less expressed in the multilingual periodicals and not characterized by commercial success. For propaganda purposes, a considerable number of multilingual publications were released by Germany during the First World War. Apart from Lithuanian, these multilingual publications were marked by the use of German, English, Polish, French, Latvian, and Russian languages; among the rarer instances were Belarusian, Yiddish, and Estonian texts. The emergence of multilingual periodicals and the presence of the Lithuanian language in these publications reflected the international recognition of the Lithuanian nation and its state. It represented an understanding of multiculturalism and peculiar needs within the society and resembled the dialogue occurring across the political, economic, and cultural dimensions.

The paper compares the political economic systems under German (1915–1918) and Soviet (1940–1941, 1944–1990 m.) occupations in Lithuania. During the World War I, Lithuania was part of the German occupation zone Ober Ost, ruled by the higher commando of the German Eastern front (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). The German military command of Eastern front under Paul Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used Lithuania as a laboratory for large scale social experiment, creating the first planned command administrative economy in the world. After they were promoted to the higher commando of all German armed forced and established in 1917–1918 de facto military dictatorship over Germany, they made the attempt to establish the Ober Ost system in the metropole. Although the realization of the complete "Hindenburg programme" did fail, by 1917 Germany lived under military socialism (Kriegssozialismus) and coercive economy, which became the example and source of inspiration for Bolsheviks constructing Soviet model of state socialism. In 1940, this model came back to Lithuania, history making the full circle. This means that the market transition in 1990–1992 was second restoration of capitalism in Lithuania, because in 1918–1922 the capitalist economic system also was restored here jointly with the establishment of national state. Contemporary Lithuania demands from Russia to pay for damage inflicted on Lithuanian economy by Soviet occupation, and interwar Lithuania did demand the same form Weimar Germany in 1922–1923. However, while interwar Lithuania did ask to pay only direct occupation damage, contemporary Lithuania demands to compensate also the indirect damage. The main part of this damage is the loss of the national income which Lithuania did not receive in 1940–1990 because the efficient capitalist economic system was replaced by the less productive state socialist system during this time. However, the calculations of the indirect damage incorrectly assume that all varieties of capitalism are more efficient in the developing countries in comparison with command administrative system. The assumption that the variety of capitalism which existed in Lithuania by 1940 (state cooperative capitalism) was not less efficient than Stalinist Soviet socialism is politically correct one, as much as the expectation that under this system independent Lithuania would become advanced technological frontier country ("second Finland") by 1990. Nevertheless, the counterfactual development path of the independent capitalist Lithuania in 1940–1990 would include critical conjunctures and crossroads, which could end with Lithuania entering "low road" development path. Tellingly, Latin American capitalist country Uruguay (similar to Lithuania and other Baltic culture by its size and economc structure) had higher GDP per capita level than Lithuania in 1940, but by 1990 this level was lower than in Soviet Lithuania. Importantly, Uruguay never was under Soviet Russian occupation, did not construct socialism or suffered war damage.

The paper compares the political economic systems under German (1915–1918) and Soviet (1940–1941, 1944–1990 m.) occupations in Lithuania. During the World War I, Lithuania was part of the German occupation zone Ober Ost, ruled by the higher commando of the German Eastern front (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). The German military command of Eastern front under Paul Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used Lithuania as a laboratory for large scale social experiment, creating the first planned command administrative economy in the world. After they were promoted to the higher commando of all German armed forced and established in 1917–1918 de facto military dictatorship over Germany, they made the attempt to establish the Ober Ost system in the metropole. Although the realization of the complete "Hindenburg programme" did fail, by 1917 Germany lived under military socialism (Kriegssozialismus) and coercive economy, which became the example and source of inspiration for Bolsheviks constructing Soviet model of state socialism. In 1940, this model came back to Lithuania, history making the full circle. This means that the market transition in 1990–1992 was second restoration of capitalism in Lithuania, because in 1918–1922 the capitalist economic system also was restored here jointly with the establishment of national state. Contemporary Lithuania demands from Russia to pay for damage inflicted on Lithuanian economy by Soviet occupation, and interwar Lithuania did demand the same form Weimar Germany in 1922–1923. However, while interwar Lithuania did ask to pay only direct occupation damage, contemporary Lithuania demands to compensate also the indirect damage. The main part of this damage is the loss of the national income which Lithuania did not receive in 1940–1990 because the efficient capitalist economic system was replaced by the less productive state socialist system during this time. However, the calculations of the indirect damage incorrectly assume that all varieties of capitalism are more efficient in the developing countries in comparison with command administrative system. The assumption that the variety of capitalism which existed in Lithuania by 1940 (state cooperative capitalism) was not less efficient than Stalinist Soviet socialism is politically correct one, as much as the expectation that under this system independent Lithuania would become advanced technological frontier country ("second Finland") by 1990. Nevertheless, the counterfactual development path of the independent capitalist Lithuania in 1940–1990 would include critical conjunctures and crossroads, which could end with Lithuania entering "low road" development path. Tellingly, Latin American capitalist country Uruguay (similar to Lithuania and other Baltic culture by its size and economc structure) had higher GDP per capita level than Lithuania in 1940, but by 1990 this level was lower than in Soviet Lithuania. Importantly, Uruguay never was under Soviet Russian occupation, did not construct socialism or suffered war damage.

The paper compares the political economic systems under German (1915–1918) and Soviet (1940–1941, 1944–1990 m.) occupations in Lithuania. During the World War I, Lithuania was part of the German occupation zone Ober Ost, ruled by the higher commando of the German Eastern front (Oberbefehlshaber Ost). The German military command of Eastern front under Paul Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used Lithuania as a laboratory for large scale social experiment, creating the first planned command administrative economy in the world. After they were promoted to the higher commando of all German armed forced and established in 1917–1918 de facto military dictatorship over Germany, they made the attempt to establish the Ober Ost system in the metropole. Although the realization of the complete "Hindenburg programme" did fail, by 1917 Germany lived under military socialism (Kriegssozialismus) and coercive economy, which became the example and source of inspiration for Bolsheviks constructing Soviet model of state socialism. In 1940, this model came back to Lithuania, history making the full circle. This means that the market transition in 1990–1992 was second restoration of capitalism in Lithuania, because in 1918–1922 the capitalist economic system also was restored here jointly with the establishment of national state. Contemporary Lithuania demands from Russia to pay for damage inflicted on Lithuanian economy by Soviet occupation, and interwar Lithuania did demand the same form Weimar Germany in 1922–1923. However, while interwar Lithuania did ask to pay only direct occupation damage, contemporary Lithuania demands to compensate also the indirect damage. The main part of this damage is the loss of the national income which Lithuania did not receive in 1940–1990 because the efficient capitalist economic system was replaced by the less productive state socialist system during this time. However, the calculations of the indirect damage incorrectly assume that all varieties of capitalism are more efficient in the developing countries in comparison with command administrative system. The assumption that the variety of capitalism which existed in Lithuania by 1940 (state cooperative capitalism) was not less efficient than Stalinist Soviet socialism is politically correct one, as much as the expectation that under this system independent Lithuania would become advanced technological frontier country ("second Finland") by 1990. Nevertheless, the counterfactual development path of the independent capitalist Lithuania in 1940–1990 would include critical conjunctures and crossroads, which could end with Lithuania entering "low road" development path. Tellingly, Latin American capitalist country Uruguay (similar to Lithuania and other Baltic culture by its size and economc structure) had higher GDP per capita level than Lithuania in 1940, but by 1990 this level was lower than in Soviet Lithuania. Importantly, Uruguay never was under Soviet Russian occupation, did not construct socialism or suffered war damage.