Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Allied occupation of germany (1918-1930) »

The author of the article examines views of modern Ukrainian historians on the problem of deployment of Austro-German forces on the territory of Ukraine in 1918. The paper shows a comparative analysis of the points of view of Ukrainian researchers on this problem, reveals the discussion in Ukrainian historiography regarding the use of the term «occupation» in the context of the policy of the Central Power Conclusions: the use of the term «occupation» is generally recognized among Ukrainian historians. Researchers consciously and argumentatively call the actions of the Austro-German troops occupation, and any attempts to abandon this interpretation cause resistance from the scientific community and reflects the attitude of Ukrainian historians to attempts to the absence of this term. The aim of the article is to analyze the existing views of Ukrainian historians on the problem of deployment of Austro-German forces on the territory of Ukraine in 1918. At the same time, Ukrainian historiography was able to come to a comprehensive understanding of the policy of Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1918, which combines both the idea of the Austro-German occupation and the idea of allied assistance from Germany and Austria-Hungary to the Ukrainian People's Republic in the fight against the Bolsheviks. It is revealed that both of these views not only do not contradict, but also complement each other. The special value of the works of R. Ya. Pirig and V. F. Soldatenko is noted. It is concluded that the synthesis of «occupation» and «allied» interpretations became the basis for the concept of «atypical occupation», which most accurately reflects the significance of the Austro-German intervention for the Ukrainian People's Republic.

The article studies some of the more complicated and sensitive issues of the Civil War in the South of Russia – relations of the Armed Forces of South Russia with the Krai governments of the Don and the Kuban and separatist movements as an important factor in the Whites’ defeat in the South of Russia. Both issues are covered in ‘Defamation of the White Movement,’ one of the last works of General A. I. Denikin. Its manuscript has been introduced into scientific use by the authors. Commanders and military authorities of the Volunteer Army with A. I. Denikin at its head were not tied down by regional interests and could pursue national interests in their policy in order to restore an all-Russian unity destroyed by the revolution. Regional concerns of the Don, Kuban, Little Russian, Caucasian independentists were in direct conflict with the national tasks that the Volunteer Army and the Armed Forces of South Russia strove to solve. Unlike the Don Ataman P. N. Krasnov, who was forced to cooperate with the occupation authorities of Imperial Germany, whose troops had occupied the territory of the Great Don Army for the most of 1918, and unlike other regional administrators in the German-occupied territories, the Whites did not cooperate with the occupiers and at times counteracted their anti-Russian policy. Denikin's propaganda successfully used this fact to fall back on traditional patriotic sentiments and to eat away at the Kremlin regime’s support. Centrifugal tendencies in the South of Russia did not allow the Volunteers to consolidate anti-Bolshevik forces and made an armed resistance to the Bolsheviks impossible. Hence A. I. Denikin’s uncompromising stand on separatist aspirations of independentists. In his view, it was the separatists’ activities in different regions of the former Russian Empire that hindered the successful offensive of the armed forces of South Russia, for instance, on the Moscow direction. Internal dissent was exacerbated by intervention of foreign forces – German occupation forces, the Allied Intervention, and active Bolshevik influence on the outskirts of the former Empire. The article compares Denikin’s text with testimonies of contemporaries and writings of historians. Thus, the authors have been able to show that his slender work reliably and accurately recreates the complex and dramatic situation, which led to the defeat of the anti-Bolshevik forces in the Civil War.

When he drew up the operations project for the Allied armies in the East, in order to exploit success, after the capitulation of Bulgaria (16/29 September 1918), General Franchet d’Esperey certainly relied on Romania’s support, establishing the Danube Army strength to only three divisions. Indeed, it was the mission of this army to secure both the right flank of the main operation carried out in Belgrade’s direction and the left flank of the secondary operation carried out in the direction of Constantinople, against a possible intervention by the Austro-German armies in Romania. Henri Mathias Berthelot, former head of the French Military Mission in Romania, who had lived both the days of repression and the glory of the Romanian Army, was also a certain proof of the intention of the Allies to cooperate with Romania. The article presents aspects of the cooperation of the Allies with the forces of the Romanian Army that resulted in liberating the Romanian territory from the occupation of the Central Powers and in creating the necessary circumstances for the achievement of Greater Romania.

The purpose of the article is to reveal the peculiarities of the formation of the German occupation forces and anti-Bolshevik armies in Ukraine and southern Russia in 1918 based upon data of German archives. The author draws attention to the fact that during the German occupation of the western outskirts of the former Russian Empire, one of the basic problems of the stability of the regime was the formation of an armed wing of anti-Bolshevik forces from the remnants of the disintegrated old army and its command staff. The escalation of the Civil War would not have been possible without the organization of thousands of officers and their supply of weapons. As part of the 1918 campaign of the Great War, both the Entente and Germany and its allies did this. The Ukrainian state became a particularly large potential for replenishing the White armies. The policy of the occupying command often came into complete conflict with the course of German diplomacy aimed at normalizing relations with Soviet Russia. Support for the recruitment and transit of officers, financing and arming of the «Great Russian» armies became an increasingly acute problem for both the Ukrainian authorities and the German headquarters, counting on the foreign policy reorientation of the White movement, especially before the death of M.V. Alekseev. As a result, the author draws conclusions that the documents published for the first time allow to reconstruct the process of formation of the Southern and Astrakhan armies, as well as to determine their role in the further consolidation of the White movement in southern Russia.

When he drew up the operations project for the Allied armies in the East, in order to exploit success, after the capitulation of Bulgaria (16/29 September 1918), General Franchet d’Esperey certainly relied on Romania’s support, establishing the Danube Army strength to only three divisions. Indeed, it was the mission of this army to secure both the right flank of the main operation carried out in Belgrade’s direction and the left flank of the secondary operation carried out in the direction of Constantinople, against a possible intervention by the Austro-German armies in Romania. Henri Mathias Berthelot, former head of the French Military Mission in Romania, who had lived both the days of repression and the glory of the Romanian Army, was also a certain proof of the intention of the Allies to cooperate with Romania. The article presents aspects of the cooperation of the Allies with the forces of the Romanian Army that resulted in liberating the Romanian territory from the occupation of the Central Powers and in creating the necessary circumstances for the achievement of Greater Romania.

The wars of 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 are without parallel in the expansive stretch of decades of the pan-European conquest and occupation of Africa in creating such profound opportunity to study the very entrenched desire by the European conqueror-states in Africa to perpetuate their control on the continent and its peoples indefinitely. The two principal protagonists in each conflict, Britain and Germany, were the lead powers of these conqueror-states that had formally occupied Africa since 1885. Against this cataclysmic background of history, Africans found themselves conscripted by both sides of the confrontation line in 1914–1918 to at once fight wars for and against their aggressors during which 1 million Africans were killed. Clearly, this was a case of double-jeopardy of conquered and occupied peoples fighting for their enemy-occupiers. In the follow-up 1939–1945 war, when Germany indeed no longer occupied any African land (having been defeated in the 1914–1918 encounter), Britain and allies France and Belgium (all continuing occupying powers in Africa) conscripted Africans, yet again, to fight for these powers in their new confrontation against Germany, and Japan, a country that was in no way an aggressor force in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were killed in this second war. In neither of these conflicts, as this study demonstrates, do the leaders of these warring countries who occupied (or hitherto occupied) Africa ever view their enforced presence in Africa as precisely the scenario or outcome they wished their own homeland was not subjected to by their enemies. On the contrary, just as it was their position in the aftermath of the 1914–1918 war, Britain, France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal in 1945 each envisaged the continuing occupation of the states and peoples of Africa they had seized by force prior to these conflicts. Winston Churchill, the British prime minster at the time, was adamant: ‘I had not become the king’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire’. Charles de Gaulle, leader of the anti-German ‘free French forces’, was no less categorical on this score: ‘Self-government [in French-occupied Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, South America, the Pacific and elsewhere in the world] must be rejected – even in the more distant future’.

When, in May 1945, the Allies finally defeated Nazi Germany and began their military occupation, no-one expected that within five years the country would be divided into two political halves, one tied to the West and the other to the Soviet Union. Germany, despite its defeat in 1918, had remained the most powerful state in central Europe and had been an undoubted great power since 1870. If anything, the fear was that Germany would revive quickly and become a menace to the peace again. That it did become divided between East and West was of course due to the start of the ‘Cold War’ after 1945, with the Americans and British on the one side and the Russians on the other seeing, not Germany, but each other as the post-war ‘enemy’. In 1946 Winston Churchill was already able to speak of an ‘iron curtain’ stretching from Trieste, on the Adriatic, to Stettin, on the Baltic. By 1949 each side had established control of its own bloc—the Russians predominating in the Eastern European ‘People's Republics’, the Americans drawing the West Europeans together with the Marshall Aid Programme and the North Atlantic Treaty.

On the basis of the archival papers, the research of the relations of Ukrainian People’s Republic with the allies of The Triple Alliance agreement, in particular with France, has been made. The system of relations of the Ukrainian People’s Republic institutions with the representatives of The Triple Alliance in Kyiv has been researched. However, the analysis of these relations has been made in the context of the events taking place in the entire European system of relations. In particular, the analysis of works of the French representative in Kyiv, General J. Tabouis, aimed at establishing systematic relations with the General Secretariat of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Though, it has been determined that the activity of J. Tabouis in Kyiv had been driven on suppressing the Ukrainian People’s Republic activity and had also been concentrated at creating the situation of political instability at deterring the command of the German-Austrian troops from the movement of the troops from the “Ukrainian” territory from the Eastern front to other areas. General J. Tabouis has also been actively cooperated with the Ukrainian national organizations, among members of which were the prisoners of war of Austrian-Hungarian, German, Polish and Czech and Slovaks armies. After the signing of The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the liberation of Kyiv from the Bolshevik army, the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian People’s Republic clearly expressed the hostile reaction to the mission of the Triple Alliance countries in Kyiv. In particular, some Ukrainian officials expressed the accusation regarding the participation of the French mission in creating chaotic conditions in Ukraine, in their subversive activity and their agreement with the Bolsheviks. Moreover, the Council of Ministers of Ukraine expressed the idea that due to the fact that the participation of Ukraine in the First World War was over, and The Triple Alliance did not accept the Ukrainian People’s Republic, the presence of the representatives of these countries in Kyiv was unsuitable. Thus, the Council of Ministers of Ukrainian People’s Republic and the command of the German troops in Ukraine demanded from the representatives of The Triple Alliance to leave the Ukrainian territory. So, the Ukrainian People’s Republic constrainedly put itself in the position of the actual collaborationist government, which had to withdraw the missions of the countries of The Triple Alliance because of the demand of occupation troops, which was not politically profitable in comparison to the state of the government of the Russian Federation.

The article covers the course of negotiations between the plenipotentiaries of Romania and the leading states of the Entente and the Quadruple Alliance during the First World War. Facing the dilemma of determining its own foreign policy orientation – by joining one of the mentioned military-political blocs, the Romanian government was hesitating for a long time to come to a final decision. At the same time, largely due to this balancing process, official Bucharest managed to preserve its sovereign right to work out and make the most important decisions, while consistently defending Romania's national interests. By taking the side of the Entente and receiving comprehensive military assistance from Russia, Romania at the same time faced enormous military and political problems due to military superiority of the allied Austrian and German forces at the Balkan theater of hostilities. Their occupation of much of Romania forced official Bucharest to seek an alternative, making it sign a separate agreement with the Central Block states. At the same time, its ratification was being delayed in every possible way, which enabled Romania to return to the camp of war winners at the right time. At the same time, official Bucharest made the most of the decline and liquidation of imperial institutions in Russia and Austria-Hungary at the final stage of the First World War, incorporating vast frontier territories into the Kingdom. Taking advantage of the revolutionary events in Russia, the Romanian government succeeded, in particular, in resolving the “Bessarabian problem” in its favor. In addition, Romania included Transylvania, Bukovina and part of Banat. An important foreign policy achievement of Romanian diplomacy was signing of the 1918 Bucharest Peace Treaty, as well as its participation in the Paris Peace Conference.

This thesis is an analysis of the development of new music in occupied Germany from the end of World War Two, on 8 May 1945, until the end of 1946, in terms of the creation of institutions for the propagation of new music, in the form of festivals, concert series, radio stations, educational institutions and journals focusing on such a field, alongside an investigation into technical and aesthetic aspects of music being composed during this period. I argue that a large number of the key decisions which would affect quite fundamentally the later trajectory of new music in West Germany for some decades were made during this period of a little over eighteen months. I also argue that subsequent developments up to the year 1951, by which time the infrastructure was essentially complete, were primarily an extension and expansion of the early period, when many of the key appointments were made, and institutions created. I also consider the role of new music in mainstream programming of orchestras, opera houses, chamber music societies, and consider all of these factors in terms of the occupation policies of the three Western powers – the USA, the UK and France. Furthermore, I compare these developments to those which occurred in during the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, of which I give an overview, and argue as a result that the post-war developments, rather than being radically new, constituted in many ways a continuation and sometimes distillation of what was in place especially in the Weimar years. I conclude that the short period at the centre of my thesis is of fundamental importance not only for the course of German new music, but that in Europe in general.

Abstract This book connects the political history of German-speaking provinces of the Habsburg Empire before 1914 (Vienna and the Alpine Lands) with the history of the Austrian Republic that emerged in 1918. It presents the case of modern Austria as a fascinating example of democratic nation-building. The construction of an Austrian political nation began in 1867 under Habsburg Imperial auspices, with the German-speaking bourgeois Liberals defining the concept of a political people (Volk) and giving that Volk a constitution and a liberal legal and parliamentary order to protect their rights against the Crown. The decades that followed saw the administrative and judicial institutions of the Liberal state solidified, but in the 1880s and 1890s the membership of the Volk exploded to include new social and economic strata from the lower bourgeoisie and the working classes. The war crisis of 1914/1918 exploded the Empire and also accelerated the emergence of new structures of democratic self-governance in the Austrian lands, enshrined in the republican Constitution of 1920. The catastrophe of 1938 resulting in the Nazi occupation closed off the temptation to view Austria as having a vague attachment to a larger German nation. After 1945 the surviving legatees of the Revolution of 1918 reassembled under the four-power Allied occupation. They then fashioned a shared political culture which proved sufficiently flexible to accommodate intense partisanship, but a partisanship in which each side claimed resources within the given democratic legal order, rather than seeking to dominate the general political system solely for their own purposes.

The main milestones of the formation and development of astronomical science in Kharkiv during 1883–1945 are reconstructed on the example of the activities of the astronomical observatory of Kharkiv University. During this period, the outstanding worldview science in Kharkiv has achieved significant success: the works of Kharkiv astronomers have received world recognition; a well-known scientific planetary school has been established at the Observatory; the scientific community highly appreciated the research on the physics and chemistry of the Moon, the giant and small planets of the Solar System. The primary goal of the research is to inscribe the history of the university Observatory into the European and world context. Its purpose is to summarize the results of a comprehensive historical ad scientific study of the development of astronomical research in Kharkiv at the end of the 19th century – the first half of the 20th century and identification of ways of further scientific research. The completed research, which continues the problems of works devoted to the study of the history of astronomical science in Ukraine, focuses on expanding the well-known source base by attracting new retro-information resources. In particular, the monograph used a significant array of archival primary sources from almost twenty archival and library institutions of different countries. Most of them were introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, which allowed to determine and specify the sequence of stages of development of astronomical science in Kharkiv during the research period, to clarify and identify the little-known circumstances of the observatory life. The methodological basis of the study is the principles of historism, objectivity and a systematic approach to studying the problem. To solve specific problematic tasks in the monograph, general scientific and specially historical methods were used which allowed to study, analyze and summarize the presented factual material in a complex manner. The main sections of the monograph represent the dynamics of replenishment of the instrumental base of the university observatory, the chronology of the construction of the observatory complex of buildings at the location of the modern Scientific Research Institute of Astronomy of the V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. According to the author’s periodization, the stages of formation of subjects and directions of scientific work of university astronomers have been analyzed, including: seismic observations with the help of horizontal Rebeur-Paschwitz pendulums, research of the activity of the Sun, astrometric observations on the Repsold meridian circle of for the purpose of compiling a catalog of zodiac stars, studying lunar eclipses and meteor showers. The participation of university astronomers in the creation of the plan of the city of Kharkiv and its connection with the general network of precise geometric leveling of the Military Topographic Department of the General Staff; the organization of observations by an expedition of Kharkiv astronomers of the total Solar eclipse of 1914 in Henichesk; the creation of the School-workshop of precision mechanics at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Kharkiv University were considered; information on the participation of Kharkiv astronomers in the events of the civil war during the Ukrainian Revolution was documented. The scientific research activity of Kharkiv astronomers during 1920-1930-s which was devoted to carrying out important astrometric works on meridian observations of star declinations by absolute methods and observations of Kopf-Rentz stars according to the programs of the International Astronomical Union; the initiation of the creation of the Catalog of faint stars; research in astrophysics aimed at studying the physical conditions on the Moon and the Sun, planets and the interstellar environment; performing long series of spectrophotometric observations of the Moon, Jupiter, Mars and Saturn under different conditions of observation; study of the kinematics of stellar systems of different order, the physical parameters and evolution of stars, the morphology of the Galaxy, the nature of the stellar subsurfaces and atmospheres, dust and gas nebulae, new stars and the variability of stars have been considered; the directions of solid works carried out in the field of celestial mechanics, devoted to the dynamics of the minor planets of the Jupiter group, the definition and improvement of the orbits of minor planets have been clarified. The development of amateur astronomy in Kharkiv, in particular, the functioning of circles and societies that directed their activities to the dissemination of astronomical knowledge, was highlighted; the participation of their representatives in astronomical observations at the Kharkiv Astronomical Observatory was emphasized. Reconstructed the development of historical events in the 1930s related to the involvement of Soviet and Western astronomers in the processes of political confrontation between the USSR and the Western world; investigated the course of circumstances that prevented the implementation of the project of creating a new modern astronomical center of national importance – the central Ukrainian observatory in Kharkiv; the participation of an expedition of Kharkiv astronomers in the observation of the «great Soviet eclipse» – the total solar eclipse of 1936 – in the North Caucasus is highlighted; established the facts of political «purges» and repressions by the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs ( the NKVD) in the Kharkiv Astronomical Observatory. The activity of the Kharkiv Astronomical Observatory has been documented and authentic biographical information about its representatives during the Nazi occupation of 1941–1943, the period of the German-Soviet war, has been presented; the unpopular facts of the forced collaboration of some scientists are highlighted; the process of recovery and reconstruction of the Kharkiv Astronomical Observatory after the liberation of the city is characterized. With the aim of researching the personal history of Kharkiv astronomy of the studied period, the monograph presents the results of a historical and biographical study of facts of life and scientific heritage of scientists who fully devoted themselves to Science, laid the foundations for the future development of many directions of modern astronomical research, made a significant contribution to the treasury of the national and European astronomical science, whose activities were connected with the Kharkiv Astronomical Observatory, in particular: Grigory Levytsky, Ludwig Struve, Mykola Evdokymov, Otto Struve, Mykola Barabashov, Boris Gerasimovich, Vasil Fesenkov, Oleksiy Razdolsky, Boris Ostashchenko-Kudryavtsev, Nicholas Bobrovnikov, Paraskovia Parkhomenko, Mstislav Savron, Boris Semeykin, Kostyantyn Savchenko and others (25 biographical essays are presented). A significant part of the mentioned factual material was also introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. A separate section of the monograph provides chronologically structured information that reflects the sequence of research work of the Kharkiv Astronomical Observatory employees during the period under study: from astrometric observations of stars and seismic research to spectrohelioscopic and spectroheliographic observations of the Sun and the initiation of the Kharkiv school of planetary science. It is assumed that the materials of the monograph will be used in research work devoted to the study of the process of institutionalization of astronomical research in Kharkiv at the end of the 19th century – the first half of the 20th century.

"The First World War took place on 28 June 1914, when the Austro-Hungarian Prince and his wife were killed in Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist. However, the main reason of the war was the struggle of industrialized countries to capture economic and political dominance. The First World War, which caused great destruction, ended with the defeat of the Central Powers. The offensive launched by the Allied Powers against Bulgaria in Macedonia on September 15, 1918, resulted in the occupation of Skopje on September 29. As a result of this situation, Bulgaria withdrew from the war by signing an armistice with the Allied Powers. Thus, the interruption of transportation and communication between the Ottoman Empire and Germany forced the Ottoman Empire to request an armistice, and the Armistice of Mudros was signed on 30 October 1918. The Armistice of Mondros took place in the press organs of the period for a certain period. One of them is the Ottoman Armenian press organs. Various news and comments appeared in the newspapers. The study aims to shed light on how the armistice, which played a major role in history, took place in the Ottoman Armenian press. The newspapers that will be used in the study are Jamanak [Zaman], Joğovurt [People], and Hayrenik [Vatan]. Based on the aforementioned newspapers, the situation of the Armenian public will be discussed during this period. Resources related to the subject will be consulted where necessary to better examine the issues in the Armenian press."