Suchergebnisse

The maintenance of peace and stability in the post-cold-war world in the circumstances of cooperation and partnership requires an appropriate approach and manner of resolving the crises triggered off by the collapse of communist federations. Imperial policies and regimes must be eliminated while the process of the geopolitical consolidation and the creation of independent and sovereign states in Central and Eastern Europe (and in Euro-Asia on the whole), built around the democratic and market principles, must be wrapped up. The new political leaders (mostly leftist) in the countries that for over fifty years (and now through the Kosovo crisis) have been developing the trans-Atlantic alliance within the military-political framework of NATO (based on the same values, principles, and goals), are now developing appropriate strategies for the post-cold-war hotspots (based on the accumulated experiences). (SOI : S. 89) + The author analyses the process of democratisation of international relations and the future configuration of international order following the end of the era of bipolar confrontation and the establishment of cooperation in the world which has witnessed the change in the key actors' roles regarding their approach to the resolution of the post-cold-war crises which jeopardise the world's peace and stability. First, the author provides a short outline of the genesis of the evolution of the US foreign policy, from the end of World War II to the beginning of the cold war and the formation of NATO. He points out that today's agenda of the international order, its structures, interventionism, and use of force in achieving political objectives, were already shaped at that time. The suggestions put forward constituted the framework and the foundation for the world politics until the late 80s; the cumulative effect of these responses on today's attempts at solving post- cold-war crises enables us to evaluate the roles and behaviour of individual actors in the resolution of the Kosovo crisis

The Vrhbosnian Archbishop dr. Josip Stadler was one of the ecclesiastical prelates who was most vigorously disputed and attacked. One group, which was particularly bitter toward Archbishop Stadler, was the Progressive youth. Trough their weekly and later daily Hrvatski pokret, published in Zagreb, they constantly attacked the archbishop, sometimes approaching the limit of insult. Upon a closer analysis of their writing, however, it is clear their attack was motivated primarily, almost exclusively, by the fact that the archbishop of Sarajevo espoused a diametrically opposite political vision of the future of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Furthermore, due to the fact that the Progressives, as they were called, adhered to an ideology impregnated with anti-Catholicism, the Archbishop, who was an ardent protector of the interests of his Catholic flock in a land where they were a minority, their bitterness toward archbishop can also be understood from that standpoint. Politically, Stadler agreed with the ideas of dr. Josip Frank, the head of the Pure Party of the State Right, who supported first the annexation of Bosnia and Hercegovina by the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and then her incorporation to Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia, so that all Croatian lands can be unified in a single body within the confines of the Habsburg domain. The Progressives, on the other hand, who were members of the Croatian-Serbian Coalition in Croatia, advocated a complete independence of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Since the Serbs were majority population in that region, their opponents accused them of promoting and advocating Serbian interests. In any event, the accusations against Archbishop Stadler by the Progressives should be looked upon with the awareness of their ideological and political presuppositions, and, in that sense, considerably modified. The same applies to the former Yugoslav historiography, for it uncritically appropriated both the ideology and political assessments of the Progressives and other "liberal", anti-Catholic groups. (SOI : CSP: S. 49f.)

The essay describes the evolution of the concept of political culture, from th concepts such as Comte's 'consensus', Durkheim's 'collective awareness', Weber's 'significance of individual actions', to Parson's 'action frame of reference', and Mead's 'national character'. The development began with Comte's search for differentia specifica of social sciences in relation to oth positive sciences and finished in 1963 with the introduction of the concept of political culture into political science by G. Mmond and S. Verba. Our analysis has shown that many definitions of political culture point out that i essence lies in people's beliefs since political culture is a set of beliefs regarding politics. As much as it may seem a paradox, it cannot be reduced to mere individual beliefs, but represents a system of inter-subjective opinions on various political objects. This explains the possible discrepancies between the political events and the political beliefs of the people, between their behaviour and political culture, and so on. Contrary to the belief of some authors, it has been shown how political culture may and should be taken as a common denominator for a variety of opinions on politics. Political attitudes, values, norms, public opinion and political ideologies are nothing but different manifestations of political culture. Thus, the concept of political culture includes diverse facets of the subjective attitude of people towards politics. This is the asset and not the downside of this concept, as some authors would have it. It is pointed out that the manifold manifestations of political culture do not carry the same 'weight' in explaining the political activism of people and the functioning of political systems. The relationship between these manifestations is extremely complex and a challenge for research. It is this very relationship that could explain the stable and less stable (i.e. stable and vacillating) reactions of people in their political activity. (SOI : PM: S. 128)

Branimir Altgayer was the most prominent Croatian of German nationality in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but he was especially so during the period of the Independent State of Croatia. Altgayer was born December 8, 1897 in the town of Przekopane (Galicia), where his father (born in Osijek) served as an Austro-Hungarian cavalry lieutenant. Altgayer spent his childhood in Slavonia, where he was brought up in a Croatian cultural atmosphere. After completing Croatian public school in Kutjevo and Croatian Gymnasium in Osijek and Zemun, he attended an Austro-Hungarian cavalry cadet school in Moravia between 1912 and 1915. He was an officer (ensign) in the Austro-Hungarian army (after 1915) until the end of the first world war, serving on the Russian, Rumanian, and Italian fronts. He was wounded twice and decorated several times. In the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes he was a cavalry captain (first class) of the Royal army. Following four years of service, he resigned. He worked at various civilian occupations for a time, but returned to the military between 1924 and 1927. He was very active in the cultural and political life of the German minority of Osijek and Slavonia. He was selected to the united council of the German minority association, the Kulturbund of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Schwäbisch-Deutscher Kulturbund), in December 1934. He was a prominent representative of the so-called Renewal movement (Erneuerungsbewegung), a radical current in the Kulturbund. Following a conflict between the old leaders of the Germans in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Renewalists which occasioned a split in the Kulturbund, Altgayer and the Renewalists are ejected from the Kulturbund for insubordination. At the beginning of 1936 he established a cultural and charitable organization for Germans of Slavonia in Osijek (Kultur-und Wohlfahrtsvereinigung der Deutschen in Slavonien). In January, 1939, he became a regional leader (Gauobmann) of the Germans in Slavonia (following the re-admittance of the Renewalists to the Kulturbund at the end of 1938). In early 1939, he leaves the Yugoslavian Radical Union, whose city councilor he was in Osijek, and joins the Croatian peasant party. After the creation of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in 1941, he was named leader of the German National Assembly for the NDH (Volksgruppenführer). From December 1941 he was director of state for the presidency of the NDH, but after January 1943 he was secretary of state for the same, and he was likewise promoted to the rank of reserve colonel in the Ustasha army. He was decorated by Leader of the Ustasha Dr. Ante Pavelic with the title "knight". For a short time in mid-1943 he went to the Eastern Front. At the end of the second world war he was deported to Yugoslavia from Austria by the British. In 1950, the district court of Zagreb sentenced him to death by firing squad. The sentence was carried out May 15, 1950. The investigative material of the Office of State Security (UDB-a) concerning Altgayer, especially the transcript of the trial from 1949, is an excellent source of information about the German minority in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the thirties and during the period of the Independent State of Croatia. (SOI : CSP: S. 638)