Articles de revues sur le sujet « Friendship – Germany – History »

ABSTRACTIn September 1937, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler met in Germany. Millions of ostensibly enthusiastic Germans welcomed the Duce. Here were the world's first two fascist dictators, purportedly united in solidarity, representing the ‘115 million’ Germans and Italians against the Western powers and Bolshevism. Most historians have dismissed the 1937 dictators’ encounter as insignificant because no concrete political decisions were made. In contrast, I explore this meeting in terms of the confluence of culture and politics and argue that the meeting was highly significant. Its choreography combined rituals of traditional state visits with a new emphasis on the personality of both leaders and their alleged ‘friendship’, emblematic of the ‘friendship’ between the Italian and German peoples. Seen through this lens, the meeting pioneered a new style of face-to-face diplomacy, which challenged the culture of liberal internationalism and represented the aim of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to create a New Order in Europe. At the same time, analysis of this meeting reveals some deep-seated tensions between both regimes, an observation that has significant implications for the study of fascist international collaboration.

After the end of the Second World War, when Finland sought to redefine its position vis-à-vis Germany, negotiations were dogged by the fact that Finland had been a close ally of Hitler's Germany in 1941–4 in the war against the USSR. In April 1948 Finland signed a Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance (FCMA) with the USSR, in which the military articles were based on the need to counter a potential German attack on the Soviets via Finland's territory. Finland's international position was so difficult that it became the only country in the world that did not establish full diplomatic relations with either of the German states. It was also the only country in the world to pursue a policy of absolute neutrality vis-à-vis both Germanys. When the Finnish government offered to host the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in May 1969, its main preoccupation was the German question, and it succeeded in fending off Soviet pressure to recognise the GDR. In 1973, with West German Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt's Neue Ostpolitik easing tensions with regard to the German question, Finland was able to establish full diplomatic relations with both German states simultaneously.

The article explores the role of cultural diplomacy in Weimar Germany and France's competing efforts to win the sympathies and support of the United States after the First World War. In the post-war United States, both France and Germany used cultural initiatives to pursue their opposing visions of the new international order: France to maintain and extend wartime cultural alliances beyond the armistice and implement the provisions of the peace treaty; Germany to overturn these very alliances and build a desirable transatlantic ‘friendship’ in line with its efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty. By focusing on the Franco–German rivalry for US affinities, the article calls attention to the transatlantic dynamics of interwar cultural diplomacy. It shows that the emergence of German cultural diplomacy was strongly shaped by French competition for the affections of politically isolationist Americans and that, in general, the rapid expansion of cultural diplomacy in interwar Europe arose from mutual feelings of crisis, starkly competing ambitions as well as the rapid circulation of ideas and practices.

In October 1912, the twenty-four-year-old Hebrew writer Shmuel Yosef Agnon embarked on a ship in the port of Jaffa, then Palestine, the destination of his trip being Germany, or, to be more exact, the city of Berlin. Agnon left for Germany in the company of Dr. Arthur Ruppin, known as the “father of Zionist settlement in Eres Yisra'el.” The friendship between Agnon and Ruppin had developed in Jaffa, where Agnon had tutored both Ruppin and his wife in Hebrew. And it was probably with the support of Dr. Ruppin, himself a native of Germany and a graduate of a German university, that Agnon decided to leave Palestine, where he had resided for more than three years, to see the world, which in those days meant Berlin.

On 27 February 1992, almost 47 years after the end of the Second World War, Chancellor Helmut Kohl of a re-united Germany and President Václav Havel of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic [the ČSFR] signed a Friendship Treaty between their two countries in the Spanish Room of Prague Castle, the residence of the Czechoslovak president. While this treaty could have signalled a new era of Sudeten German-Czech relations, in fact it did not, as some 2,000 protesters who greeted Kohl and Havel with denunciatory placards following the signing made clear. Why not?

The article portrays Wolfgang Steinitz (1905–1967) as an broad-minded linguist, whose life was determined by the political events in Europe between 1924 and 1967 and by his personal fate as a Jewish scientist, as a German communist of middle-class intellectual origin, and as a refugee to the USSR, Estonia and Sweden, who became an influential figure in the humanities in post-war East Germany. The paper focuses on detecting features of an inner biographical coherence in Steinitz’ oeuvre — despite the outer changes he had to experience with respect to political systems (Nazi-Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Sweden, Soviet-occupied East-Germany/GDR) and scientific fields he had to deal with (Finno-Ugristics, Ostyakology, folklore, ethnology, German studies, and other subjects). The paper illustrates features of biographical coherence emerging from a productive connection of personal motivation and philological method. The way in which Steinitz (1934) analyzed the grammatical parallelisms in Finno-Karelian folk poetry as ‘variations under conditions of contrast’ provides the over-all pattern for the range of scientific endeavours he addressed in his subsequent scientific undertakings. With reference to the personal friendship of the two émigré scholars Wolfgang Steinitz and Roman Jakobson, the paper suggests the life-saving role a commitment to scientific work can play as a balancing pole in difficult political times.

Summary The article portrays Wolfgang Steinitz (1905–1967) as an broad-minded linguist, whose life was determined by the political events in Europe between 1924 and 1967 and by his personal fate as a Jewish scientist, as a German communist of middle-class intellectual origin, and as a refugee to the USSR, Estonia and Sweden, who became an influential figure in the humanities in post-war East Germany. The paper focuses on detecting features of an inner biographical coherence in Steinitz’ oeuvre – despite the outer changes he had to experience with respect to political systems (Nazi-Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Sweden, Soviet-occupied East-Germany/GDR) and scientific fields he had to deal with (Finno-Ugristics, Ostyakology, folklore, ethnology, German studies, and other subjects). The paper illustrates features of biographical coherence emerging from a productive connection of personal motivation and philological method. The way in which Steinitz (1934) analyzed the grammatical parallelisms in Finno-Karelian folk poetry as ‘variations under conditions of contrast’ provides the over-all pattern for the range of scientific endeavours he addressed in his subsequent scientific undertakings. With reference to the personal friendship of the two émigré scholars Wolfgang Steinitz and Roman Jakobson, the paper suggests the life-saving role a commitment to scientific work can play as a balancing pole in difficult political times.

The 2011 Libya campaign highlighted the divergence of interests between France and Germany within the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in matters of Middle East and global security. This divergence calls for a reassessment of the meaning of their bilateral cooperation, as defined in the Treaty of Friendship between France and Germany, otherwise known as the Élysée Treaty, signed on 22 January 1963 by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and President Charles de Gaulle. This article focuses on France, which engaged militarily in Libya cooperating with the United Kingdom as its principal European partner. Germany, for reasons explained by its history, political culture, and the nature of its federal system, chose to abstain in the United Nations vote to authorize the campaign. These differences between France and Germany suggest a contrast in their respective security and, particularly defense, policy objectives on the fiftieth anniversary of the Élysée Treaty.

This article centers on the League of People’s Friendship of the German Democratic Republic. The League, composed of a main organization in East Berlin and national partner societies scattered around the globe, served as a tool of nontraditional diplomacy for East Germany’s ruling communist party across much of the Cold War. This article sketches out the activities of the League’s partner organizations in the U.S.—the first analysis to do so—arguing first that given the variety of challenges and problems the League and its partner organizations faced, the limited success of these groups in the U.S. is, in the end, rather remarkable. Second, this essay argues that these organizations offer further evidence that East Germany was not exactly a puppet state.

The histories of Germany and the United States became deeply entangled in the century of total war. After (re)unification on the battlefield in the midnineteenth century, both countries underwent rapid transformations through national programs of industrialization based on new products and technologies and emerged as great powers with global pretensions at the beginning of the twentieth century. An initial, and somewhat hesitant, confrontation in World War I was followed by a period of oscillation and confusion during the 1920s and 1930s, as leading elements in the two economies sought grounds for collaboration even as the political development of the two nations diverged, one moving toward fascism, the other toward a liberal democratic renewal. This produced the deeply ideological collision of the Second World War, which resulted in an equally dramatic turnabout, as the Germans endured what Americans then most feared, a grim (albeit partial) communist takeover, and the United States became the staunch ally of the German west in its faceoff with the east. Recently this close partnership has turned into a more perplexed and occasionally suspicious friendship, as the familiar terrain of the cold war is ploughed up. This is a history of extreme reversals is tied inextricably to war and preparations for war.

The Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 marked the beginning of a definite closeness in Turco-British relations, which were to undergo a long process of development. During the Ethiopian crisis, Turkey followed Britain in defence of the League of Nations Covenant. Firm co-operation between Turkey and Britain during the Montreux Straits Conference of 1936 further accelerated the pace of rapprochement. With King Edward VIII's visit to Turkey, just after the Montreux settlement, the mutual friendship took a step forward. At the Nyon Conference of 1937, Turkey supported Britain in its defence of international shipping against attacks by pirate submarines in the Mediterranean. Nyon drew the Turks and British closer together. In 1938 Britain granted a credit of sixteen million pounds to Turkey which strengthened the growing friendship between Ankara and London and aimed at reducing the necessity of Turkish economy depending on Germany. Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia and Italy's annexation of Albania in the spring of 1939 soon led Turkey and Britain to sign a mutual assistance agreement. This accord combined Turkish and British energies for the protection of peace and paved the way for the conclusion of the Turco-Anglo-French Triple Alliance Treaty in the autumn of the same year.

Nicolaus Caussin's Eloquentia sacrae et humaneae parellela (1619) forges a distinctly modern history of rhetoric that ties discourse to culture. What were the conditions that made this new history of rhetoric possible? Marc Fumaroli has argued that political exigency in Cardinal Richelieu's France demanded a reconciliation of divergent religious and secular forms of eloquence that implicated, in turn, a newly "eclectic" history of rhetoric. But political exigency alone does not account for this nascent pluralism; we also need to look at the internal dynamics of rhetorical theory as it moved across literate cultures in Europe. With this goal in mind, I first demonstrate in this article how textbooks after the heady days of Protestant Reformation in Germany tried in vain to systematize the passions of art, friendship, and politics. Partially in response to this failure, I then argue, there emerged in France a new rhetoric sensitive to the historical contingency of passionate situations. My claim is not simply that rhetoric is bound to be temporal and situational, but more precisely that Caussin initiates historical rhetorics: the capacity to theorize how discourse is bound to culture in its plurality and historical contingency.

This essay explores how an international project between socialist nations unraveled transnationally. I explain the cultural shift toward taboo topics in the 1970s and argue that the shift was forced by two factors: first, the rise of a new generation of youngsters unaffected by World War II, and second the relative ease of transnational mobility. Starting in 1972, Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia allowed citizens to travel more freely in a project called the “borders of friendship.” Exploring changes in the representations of World War II and what was later to be called the Holocaust in literature; in the celebration of rock music and film; and at international happenings, I argue that teenagers starting in the 1970s were raised with an increased sense of acceptance not only of their history but also their state. Critically, however, they also gained a greater sense of ideological irony: just as it became more acceptable to discuss taboo topics like Stalinization or the expulsion of Germans, so too was their understanding that deviations from strict ideology were more accepted.

In the summer of 1535 Anglo-German relatios assumed a new dimension. Faced with the prospect of a Catholic alliance on the continent and the possibility of a general council in the near future, Henry VIII was forced to consider more seriously than ever before a defensive alliance with the German Protestants. In August of that year, while Robert Barnes was approaching Wittenberg via Hamburg, commissioned by Henry both to prevent Melanchthon's rumoured visit to France and to make preparations for a full diplomatic mission to the princes of Lutheran Germany, Philip Melanchthon sent copies of the latest edition of his Loci Communes to the king of England, to whom they had been dedicated. The envoy on this mission was the Scottish Augustinian, Alexander Alesius, who was lecturing at the University of Wittenberg at that time. Alesius had received his own university education in St Andrews. Upon his graduation in 1515, he had entered the Augustinian priory there and subsequently proceeded to the study of theology. As a successful student of scholastic theology he had felt himself called to refute Lutheran theology as soon as it began to be debated in Scotland. In February 1528 he was commissioned to bring about the recantation of Patrick Hamilton, but the discussions with this first martyr of the Scottish Reformation as well as the latter's steadfast death at the stake led to a profound questioning of his own convictions. In the following year Alesius emerged as a severe critic ofthe old Church, for which he paid dearly by persecution and imprisonment. After an adventurous escape from St Andrews and months of travelling he finally reached Wittenburg, where he was inscribed in the faculty of arts in October 1532. So far very litde is known about Alesius' activities in Wittenberg. Yet there are two reasons why some elucidation of his academic activities and theological development during his three years at Wittenberg is highly desirable. First, it would be surprising indeed if his first experiences at this university, and especially the direct contact with Luther and Melanchthon, had not left a mark on his thought and career as a reformer. Second, his close friendship with the English reformers and his involvement in the doctrinal debates in England during the late 1530s suggests that Alesius formed an important link between the Reformation in England and in Germany.

Polish comic books from the Polish People’s Republic period After years of fighting with comics book the authorities of the Polish People’s Repulic started using it for its own objectives. Propaganda was the basic target of the comic book narration and interference in history was the main element of it. In my publication I will present images of war created by authorities in the main comic books from the Polish People’s Republic period.Propaganda used by authorities helped to show friendship between Poland and Soviet Union. What is more, using comic books in a political game allowed to create a demonic image of the so-called enemies; Germany especially, but also everything what was connected to the west politics and culture was considered hostile.Comic books became a great tool in governments’ hands for propaganda objectives. Simpifications and contrasts which are used in comics were a great way of ideological speech.Key words: comic book; war; propaganda;

AbstractBetween Erich Auerbach and Walter Benjamin, there existed a remarkable friendship, which on the one hand manifested itself as an unobtrusive disputation, and yet which on the other hand could be considered an unintended collaboration toward an old-new ideal of philology. Auerbach claims that with the Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri, Western European literature reached the climax of the figuralism that Auerbach, if belatedly, wants to bring to the fore. Benjamin, in contrast, finds energy for the revolution in the surrealistic love that traces back not to Dante, but to the Provençal poetry which Auerbach regards merely as preliminary to Danteʼs literary achievement. In his The Origin of German Tragic Drama, Benjamin highlights the concept of creatureliness, whose significance for his philosophy of history is no less than that of justice. Auerbach, for his part, does not find its expression in the Germany of the 17th century, but in the France of the 16th century, namely in the work of Michel de Montaigne. However, Montaigneʼs creatureliness is rooted in sermo humilis, which is best embodied in the story of Peter who denied his Lord Jesus Christ three times. By contrast, German creatureliness detects its dissolution in the idea of natural theatre that Benjamin locates in the work of Franz Kafka. Sermo humilis is the perfection of figuralism, whereas the idea of natural theatre means reversal of allegory. The perfected figuralism and the reversed allegory cooperate in the idea of the philology of instead (Philologie des Stattdessen), whose task it is to make bygone the futility of worldly things.

Introduction. One of the problems for a multiethnic society (including that of the Russian Federation) in the context of the current globalization and the falsification of fateful events of the past (especially those of World War II) is a growing the need to update trends that ensure integration of a multiethnic national state. In the history of each society there are politically significant and value-semantic consolidating events that strengthen interethnic ties and relations. The memory of the Great Patriotic War occupies a special place in the national consciousness of Russian society. Goals. The paper aims to conduct a discourse analysis of scientific articles dealing with the Great Patriotic War published by journals of leading universities across the North Caucasus Federal District, and to determine how the memory of events of that war can be considered as a consolidating factor, a means of preserving and strengthening interethnic peace and harmony in the North Caucasus as a polyethnic region. Materials and Methods. The article uses the methodology of discourse analysis, focuses on studying mental models and determining the integrating properties of mental goal-setting. Discourse analysis of scientific articles investigating the Great Patriotic War is employed as a methodological toolkit. Results. The study of scientific publications about the Great Patriotic War concludes the consolidating message does prove a priority therein. All the articles emphasize the friendship and cohesion of the numerous peoples of the North Caucasus in the struggle against the common enemy — Nazi Germany. In addition, the publications draw attention to modern attempts to falsify the history of the Great Patriotic War. In this regard, the work stresses the necessity to preserve the memory of those who ensured Victory in this war and the demand to intensify patriotic education of Russian citizens, especially that of the younger generation.

The conceptualization of the role of informal relationships, including patron-client relations, in the development of Early Modern state institutions in modern European historiography is usually associated with the names of R. Munier, S. Kettering and A. Maczak, whose works have long since become classics. Less well known in this context is the Verflechtungstheorie (lit. theory of entanglement), developed in the 1970s by the Freiburg historian W. Reinhard. The aim of this article is to examine the Verflechtungstheorie in historical perspective and its theoretical foundations, as well as the history of its reception in the context of the development of social history in Germany. In doing so, the author explains the reasons why Reinhard's approach occurred less influential in comparison with the works of the historians mentioned above. The article is based on a detailed study of Reinhard's works dedicated to the Verflechtungstheorie (since the 1990s micropolitics), starting from his 1979 monograph Freunde und Kreaturen (“Friends and Creatures”) and ending with the most recent publications in the 2010s. The beginning of the article is devoted to the formation of the conceptual apparatus of Reinhard's theory. He understands the term Verflechtungen as the result and foundation of social interaction based on four relationship types - kinship, compatriot, friendship and patronage, playing, according to Reinhard, a key role in premodern times. The theoretical basis of Reinhard's explanatory model is formed by the sociometry of the American sociologist J. L. Moreno, and Reinhard viewed his concept of elite relations as a kind of network analysis. Further on the article moves on analyzing the reception problem of the presented theory. According to Reinhard, the Verflechtungstheorie experienced reception difficulties within historical scholarship mostly for being technically ahead of its time. However, as the article shows, the main reason was that the concept failed to meet the zeitgeist prevailing in postwar German historiography. While social history developing under the influence of the Bielefeld school focused on the study of microhistorical subjects, Reinhards's approach was mainly a political one. Abandoning the term Verflechtungen in the mid-1990s and replacing it with the term micropolitics, Reinhard did not solve the problem. This change was a merely linguistic one, and Reinhard continued to argue that informal relations mark a negotiable stage, which is characteristic for societies with a high level of mobility and an underdeveloped statehood. In conclusion, the article shows that the results of Reinhard's scholarly work should not be considered a failure. The main merit is its continuity: some of Reinhard's former students proved that informal relationships are by no means a parasitic atavism associated solely with corruption.

Else Roesdahl reaches 60l first met Else Roesdahl in 1969, when, newly graduated, she was working as an assistant in the National Museum. This was the foun­dation of a friendship which spans her professional career.Else was born on Als and her sense of history and her fierce in dependence is based in the background of her family, which was deeply involved in the politics of Sønderjylland after 1864. Although she studied in Copenhagen, she returned to Jutl and with her husband, Erich Lange, in 1970, and soon became firmly established in Aarhus University.As a student (and later as a postgraduate) she took par t in P.V. Glob’s Bahrain expedi­tions .The three seasons she spent there deep­ly influenced her development as an archae­ologist and scholar. The dig excited her sense of adventure and stimulated her to travel in India, Afghanistan, Iran and Egypt, develop­ing an interest in pottery and glass originally in stilled by her father, a learned collector. At home she took part in many other excavations. She is, for example, proud of the fact that at Skuldelev she found the beautiful stem of Wreck 3.Concentrating on the Viking Age she became, through such outlets as the Viking Congress, party to an innovative critical interdisciplin ary approach to the period. Nowhere is this better expressed than in the annual and successful tværfaglige Vikingesymposium, of which she is one of the most influential organisers, or in the foundation of the Aarhus Centre for Viking and Medieval Studies. She excavated with Olaf Olsen at all the Trelleborg fortresses, and in 1970 joined him in the newly- founded department of medieval archaeology at Moesgård. Succeeding as head of department in 1981, she was promoted professor in 1996.Although engaged with the whole of the Middle Ages, her first enthusiasm was for the Viking Age. With Olaf Olsen and Holger Schmidt, she published the Fyrkat excava­tions in 1977, and it is a tribute to the academic integrity of both Olaf and Else that, though differing in their conclusions, they did not fall out – disproving the adage, ‘archaeology is not a discipline, it’s a vendetta’.Much in demand internationally, she was deeply in volved in the organisation of the Vikings in England exhibition in 1981-2, and was the coordinator of the magnificent exhibition Viking og Hvidechrist in 1992-3. The catalogue which she edited for this exhibition, together with her books Danmarks Vikingetid and Vikingernes Verden, are now central to any stud y of the Viking Age and have been translated into many languages. She has edited many other books, most recently Dagligliv i Danmarks middelalder, and,with Mogens Bencard, wrote the pionering Dansk middel­alderlertøj.She has many honours – among them the Dannebrog, a LittD from Dublin, a special professorship at Nottingham, and corresponding fellowships of learned bodies in Germany and England – but it is her friendship, scholarship and wit that we celebrate on her sixtieth birthday.David M .WilsonCastletown Isle of ManOversat til dansk af Annette Lerche Trolle

The great German poet and playwright Friedrich Schiller was deeply involved in justice, medicine, aesthetics, history, logic, metaphysics, history of philosophy, and psychology, in addition to drama, because of his deep knowledge of Latin and Greek. With this research, Schiller tries to know human life on a materialistic basis. While Schiller studied dramaturgy from Shakespeare’s work, the works of Voltaire, Diderot, Russo, Lessing, Goethe served to shape his worldview. His friendship with Goethe in particular had a profound effect on his creative potential.

This article discusses the close relationship that developed during the 1850s and 1860s between Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–94), one of the leading German scientists during the second half of the nineteenth century, and the British scientific elite generally. It focuses especially on the importance of the law of conservation of energy to both sides of that relationship as the law emerged and became popularized. In presenting this Anglo-German relationship, the article relates Helmholtz's friendships or acquaintanceships with numerous members of the British elite, including William Thomson, John Tyndall, Henry Enfield Roscoe, Michael Faraday, Edward Sabine, Henry Bence Jones, George Gabriel Stokes, James Clerk Maxwell, Peter Guthrie Tait, George Biddell Airy and James Thomson. It suggests that the building of these social relationships helped create a sense of trust between Helmholtz and the British elite that, in turn, eased the revision of the understanding of the law of conservation of force into that of energy and consolidated its acceptance, and that laid the personal groundwork for Helmholtz's future promotion of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory in Germany and for Anglo-German agreements in electrical metrology.

Dimitrije Matic (1821-1884) was a philosopher, jurist, professor of public law at the Belgrade Lyceum and politician. He served as Serbia?s Minister of Education and Church Affairs, acting Foreign Minister, Speaker of the Parliament, and member of the State Council. He was president of the Serbian Society of Letters and member of the Serbian Learned Society. Matic belonged to Serbian liberal-minded intellectual circles. He believed that the rule of force was unacceptable and that governments should promote and support popular education. Matic studied philosophy and law in Serbia (Kragujevac, Belgrade), Germany (Berlin, Heidelberg) and France (Paris), and received his doctorial degree in philosophy in Leipzig. In Berlin Matic embraced Hegel?s speculative philosophy and theory of state (philosophy of law). Among his professors were Georg Andreas Gabler (Hegel`s immediate successor), Otto Friedrich Gruppe, Wilhelm Vatke etc. In Halle he listened to another Hegelian, Johann Eduard Erdmann. He had the opportunity to attend Friedrich Schelling?s lectures on the philosophy of mythology. If the Right Hegelians developed Hegel?s philosophy along the lines they considered to be in accordance with Christian theology, and the Left Hegelians laid the emphasis on the anti-Christian tendencies of Hegel?s system and pushed it in the direction of materialism and socialism, Matic would be closer to the first. Actually, he was mostly influenced by his professor Karl Ludwig Michelet, with whom he established a lifelong friendship. Matic?s doctorial thesis (Dissertatio de via qua Fichtii, Schellingii, Hegeliique philosophia e speculativa investigatione Kantiana exculta sit) addressed the question of how the philosophy of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel developed from Kantian speculative thought. The paper deals with the question whether Matic took a shift from Hegelianism to Positivism (Naturalism) in the 1860s, which is a claim that was taken for granted in the Yugoslav (Serbian) Marxist histories of Serbian philosophy after the Second World War and Communist revolution. In fact, it is rooted in Milan Kujundzic-Aberdar?s (1842-1893) periodization of the Serbian philosophical literature. Kujundzic, professor of Philosophy at the Belgrade Great School, classified Matic?s Science of Education into the latest period of natural philosophy. In order to answer the question, the paper looks into the evolution of Matic?s philosophical, legal and political views. Matic followed Hegelian philosophy in his: Short Review (according to Hegel?s ? Psychology in Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences); Principles of Rational [Vernunftrecht] State Law [Staatslehre] according to Heinrich Zepfel?s book on the philosophy of law (Grunds?tze des allgemeinen und des konstitutionell-monarchischen Staatsrechts and Hegel?s Philosophy of Law) and History of Philosophy (according to Albert Schwegler?s History of Philosophy). There is nothing in Matic?s Science of Education that would corroborate the claim that he shifted from Hegelianism to Positivism. Though he had to attune his views to the changed, anti- Hegelian, intellectual climate and influences on academic life, he remained a Hegelian. The paper deals with the reasons why the Marxist histories of Serbian philosophy insisted on his alleged conversion.

For six generations, members of the Wesselhoeft family have practiced medicine in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada and/or the USA. In the early decades of the 19th century, two Wesselhoeft brothers left Europe to eventually settle in New England, where they and their progeny gave rise to a regional medical dynasty. The Wesselhoeft doctors became well-known practitioners of homeopathy, hydropathy, conventional medicine and surgery, in academic and general clinical settings. An additional connection was established to the literary worlds of Germany and the USA, either through friendships or as personal physicians.

Focusing on the time span from the 1960s to the late 1980s, that is, on the period during which Airbus established itself as a serious competitor on the world market, this article analyses the German aircraft industry’s interests, its representation within the transnational Airbus project, and the relevance of what might be called ‘Europeanness’. Occasionally also touching upon the situation in its partner countries, the central question is whether the respective political strategies of collaboration in the German aircraft industry were motivated by self-serving national interests or broader European ones. The article is divided into three sections. It begins by scrutinizing the motivations of German politics in the establishment and promotion of the Airbus project. Second, it deals with the representation of national interests in the allocation of production shares and the organization of cooperation, and, finally, with the European aspects of the massive subsidization of national manufacturers. It comes to the conclusion that the German case in particular illustrates that European collaboration in the aircraft sector was appreciated as an instrument to facilitate the survival of national industries pursuing their own business interests. The establishment of Airbus was supported as a European project to ensure the survival of the German aircraft industry and sometimes even as an instrument of business concentration. Nevertheless, notions about European integration or Franco-German friendship certainly increased the willingness to spend a lot of money on the Airbus project as the flagship of entanglement and interconnectedness in a ‘future industry’.

On September 15th 1922, a young Jesuit, Father S. Bednarski, enrolled at the Jagiellonian University, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, with specialization in modern history, history of culture and history of art. One of his college professors was a well-known historian, Prof. Stanisław Kot. The Jesuit and Prof. S. Kot shared historical interests and ties of friendship. Prof. S. Kot became the mentor and professor adviser of the Jesuit’s doctoral dissertation, Collapse and rebirth of Jesuit schools in Poland (Kraków, 1933), which on June 15th1934 was awarded a prize by the PAU General Assembly and was considered the best historical work in 1933. During his research in archives and libraries in Poland and abroad, the Jesuit had in mind not only his own plans but also his mentor’s interests. The student was loyal to his mentor, who was associated with the anti-Piłsudski faction and politically engaged in activities of the Polish Peasant Party. For this reason, Prof. S. Kot did not enjoy the trust of the state authorities. In 1933, as a result of Jędrzejewicz reform, the Chair of Cultural History headed by him was abolished. Fr. S. Bednarski bravely stood in its defence. The friendship of the mentor and student’s ended in World War II. Prof. S. Kot survived the War and emigrated, where he remained active in politics, while his student died on July 16, 1942 in the German Nazi concentration camp in Dachau near Munich.

AbstractThis article examines the unexpected behind-the-scenes relationship between the conservative Catholic chancellor Heinrich Brüning and Marxist theorist Rudolf Hilferding. This relationship is the starting point to understand both the politics of toleration and the political and cultural ecosystem in which this friendship came about. The German Social Democratic Party's policy of tolerating Brüning's conservative minority cabinet was hotly contested and has been viewed skeptically by political historians ever since. This article analyzes the mechanics of toleration through Brüning and Hilferding's relationship and demonstrates how Hilferding became the indispensable intermediary between the German cabinet and the socialist party. Toleration was a replacement political process in a polarized climate. A behind-the-scenes informal coalition that included the socialists, as well as the conservative cabinet, muddled through governing and policymaking with backroom negotiations instead of parliamentary debate. Although it failed, toleration was a last-ditch political strategy trying to preserve the Weimar Republic.

Xavier Tilliette, a French Jesuit, recognized for his expertise in the history of German idealism – Schelling in particular – taught in both Paris and Rome. He is also known for his studies in philosophical Christology. These two dimensions of his thought, both philosophical and theological, are united in a spiritual attitude that existentialist concern brought to philosophy. Schelling’s texts on evil offer him arguments to develop his thinking. This is born in the mentality of French reflexive analysis (Lequier). It is developed in France when Schelling’s studies multiplied there (Bruaire). It energizes his philosophical friendships with Italian philosophers such as Luigi Pareyson.

Abstract This article concentrates on Prince von Bismarck's relationship with England, with particular reference to his friendship with the British diplomat Sir Alexander Malet in the eighteen‐fifties, when Bismarck was Prussian representative to the German confederation at Frankfurt. Bismarck's love–hate relationship with England has been frequently described. He complained repeatedly about British Liberalism, the Reform Bill of 1832 and the parliamentary system. Thus, it is rather surprising that one of his closest and most intimate friends in this decade was Malet, a fact which is overlooked by most of Bismarck's biographers.

On 4 April 1917 the British steamship SS City of Paris was torpedoed by a German submarine in the Gulf of Lions, and sank with considerable loss of life. Among the passengers was the Wesleyan Methodist scholar James Hope Moulton.’ Paying tribute to his friend and colleague,Arthur Samuel Peake recorded the ‘tragic irony’ of the death under such circumstances of an eloquent advocate of peace and of a scholar whose international reputation in New Testament studies was signalled by plaudits from Harnack, a doctorate from the University of Berlin and a longstanding academic friendship with Adolf Deissmann. Moulton, however, was more than a New Testament scholar. His presence in the Mediterranean in the spring of 1917 came about through his expertise in the history and thought of Zoroastrianism, which had taken him to India for eighteen months’ work with the Parsee community under the auspices of the Indian YMCA.

This article examines the history of the German Fürstenbund prior to the Prussian take-over of the scheme in 1785. In charting the union's initial conception as a small-state alliance designed to resist both Prussian and Austrian expansionism, the article reveals the cultural dimension of imperial diplomacy. Exclusive concentration on the straightforward diplomatic sources produced by Prussian-style bureaucracies has led historians to underrate the contribution of smaller German principalities, which typically employed more indirect, metaphorical means of political communication. A prominent example of such ‘cultural politics’ is the process by which Prince Franz of Anhalt-Dessau drew on English precedents in shaping the Fürstenbund. Its participants were to be united not just by formal agreements, but by a shared spirit. Under the leadership of a ‘Patriot king’, they were to act as champions of ancient regional liberties, thus resembling the English aristocrats of the anti-Walpole opposition whom Franz admired. At the same time, an English-inspired rhetoric of sentimentalism was employed to suggest that this political union would function in analogy with sentimental friendships, creating a firmer bond whilst preserving that small-state ‘individualism’ which was the source of so many reform initiatives in the late eighteenth-century German Empire.

In order to facilitate cross-border railway transport between socialist countries in Eastern Europe, the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance and later the Organisation for Cooperation of Railways were established in 1949 and 1956. Joint planning, standardisation and tariff policy were the main fields of cooperation. The paper focuses on the struggles between Council of Mutual Economic Assistance and Organisation for Cooperation of Railways member countries regarding transit tariffs for cross-border freight shipments. These struggles, dragging on for more than three decades, reveal the economic interests of individual member countries and the limitations of socialist foreign trade (and alleged friendship). This study argues that despite of political declarations and the establishment of socialist international organisations, the East European railways became a major bottleneck in intrabloc trade.

AbstractProfessor Bill Cornish was a legal scholar of vision, who was well ahead of his time in two widely disparate areas, and in both he became a recognised leader and authority: legal history and intellectual property law. In the former he applied what was then the novel approach of stressing the contemporary social conditions to which the extant law had to apply - something that modern commentators could well ponder, but which he was honest enough to acknowledge was also criticised by some of his peers at the time. As for intellectual property law, his place as the ‘father of intellectual property teaching and scholarship in the UK’ was acclaimed by his admission as a Fellow of the British Academy in 1984, and his place as the inaugural occupant of the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, at Cambridge (1995–2004). Both these activities had their origins in Bill's long stay (1970–1990) as professor of law at the London School of Economics, where he was influenced by their emphasis on societal tertiary education, and his friendship with the renowned Anglo-German scholar Otto Kahn-Freund, respectively. In reality, though, Bill's upbringing in the unique milieu of immediate post-War South Australia, which he describes as a backwater of tranquility, and his urge to see Europe were the roots of his expansive vision of the law. Lesley Dingle interviewed Bill for the Eminent Scholars Archive (ESA) in 2015, nine years after his retirement, and these observations of this remarkable scholar are based on those conversations, and her readings of his works.

In the year of the 80th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War beginning, the experience of modern reading of one of the bloodiest events in the history of the country is of current interest. From the author’s point of view, at present there is a tendency towards pathos patriotism and romanticization of the feat in the use of military issues for educational purposes. This, like any deviation, can lead to dangerous consequences, in this particular case, to militarization of consciousness. The article uses the example of one of the largest villages in the Almetyevsk district of the Republic of Tatarstan to demostrate a wide range of different aspects of the history of the war, which show not only the greatness of the victory and the heroes who won it. Considerable attention is given to the coverage of war as the most severe inhumane form of manifesting social relations that require people to make excessive efforts to survive and preserve human dignity. The article includes recollections of the villagers about the first day of the war, about the front-line everyday life, severe hardships, and tragic details of the military battles in which the Novonadyrovtsy participated. The article depicts domestic disorder, extreme stress, psychological overload, constant physical fatigue on the verge of human capabilities. It also tells about remarkable encounters in the war and close front-line friendship. The paper also highlights the extreme conditions in which peasants survived in the rear, women's labor to the point of exhaustion, the unity of people in the harsh realities of the war years, and at the same time ambiguous manifestation of patriotism. The uneasy fates of the soldiers who were in German captivity are also depicted.

The First World War that caused the collapse of four Empires: the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, is being remembered today as a pitiless conflict that caused the death of 8.700.000 soldiers and civilians and the rendering destitute of at least quite as many. Those who study the WWI tend to focus their attention upon the large battles that took place during the 1914-18 period but few realise the enormous struggle for influence over Ethiopia - the then only independent country, other than Liberia, on the African Continent - that took place between the Entente and the Central Powers and the intensity of diplomatic efforts made to draw Ethiopia into one camp or the other. The appointment of Ahmed Mazhar Bey, a previous director of the Translation Department at the Bâb-ı Ali (Sublime Porte) as Consul General of the Ottoman Empire in the eastern Ethiopian city of Harar and the subsequent transfer of the Consulate General to the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa in 1914, led to important developments in the history of Ethiopia. Mazhar Bey who would demonstrate soon his skills of visionary in his position, was quick to realise the strategic advantages that would accrue from the alignment of Ethiopia to the ranks of the Central Empires. The Turkish Consul General's efforts towards this end were met favourably by Lidj Iyassou, the young de facto Emperor of Ethiopia, who, besides his sympathy for Islam, had developed a personal friendship with Mazhar Bey. The possible entry of Ethiopia to the war on the side of the Central Powers caused the Ambassadors of the Entente Powers (Great Britain, France and Italy) in Addis Ababa to take action and on September 10th 1916, the British, French and Italian Ministers made a joint "demarche" vis-avis the Ethiopian Government. The fruits of the Entente Powers' undertaking were soon to be harvested. The Archbishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Abouna Matheos would, on the 27th September 1916, declare Prince Lidj Iyassou both deposed and excommunicated. Thus, the Addis Ababa "Coup d'Etat" of 27th September 1916, was going to change the course of the history of modern Ethiopia.

Abstract The two main issues that continue to be in the focus of hot public discussions in Russian society are the Great Patriotic War (the German–Soviet war of 1941–1945, as part of World War II) and the tragedy of Stalinism. While the Great Patriotic War was widely reflected in Soviet literature and cinema, the Stalinist issue was seldom represented in Soviet art. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a period when Soviet and post-Soviet art contributed much to the debates on the Soviet past, and several significant anti-Stalinist films and literary works were created. Since the early 2000s, the cultural situation in Russian society has changed and nostalgia of the Soviet past has spread in the mass consciousness. The purpose of this research is to analyze how the Stalinist past is reconstructed in public memory in contemporary cinema narratives. We arrive at the conclusion that since the 2000s, public interest has drifted from images of war heroism to ordinary people’ lives under Stalin; the contemporary public interest is not the war heroes and famous victims of repressions, but the everydayness of ordinary Soviet citizens who tried to build their private lives, careers, friendships, and family relations under the conditions of pressure from the authorities, spreading fear in the society, shortage of goods, and loss of loved ones. We concentrate on several representative Russian TV serials, such as “Liquidation” (2007), “Maryina Roscha” (2012), and “Leningrad, 46” (2014–2015), because all of them are devoted to the first year of the Soviet peaceful life in different Soviet cities, such as Odessa, Moscow, and Leningrad.

Hermann Cohen and the Other: The Triumph and Fall of “Pure Reason”The article poses the question of the contemporary validity and meaning of Hermann Cohen’s philosophical thought. It is argued that in order to understand its phenomenon one has to go beyond the epistemological and methodological perspectives in which Cohen’s work has usually been analyzed and probe into the philosopher’s deepest spiritual and intellectual formation — that of Judaism. The author claims that Cohen, otherwise a celebrated academic scholar, was first of all a rabbi, i.e. a teacher in the Judaist tradition. This is the context in which we can weigh his friendship with young Franz Rosenzweig — it was Rosenzweig who first recognized the revolutionary significance of Cohen’s philosophy of religion and utilized the latter in his seminal work The Star of Redemption Der Stern der Erlosung where he emphasized the late stage of Cohen’s intellectual evolution, especially the one associated with Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums 1919. This book is viewed as essentially a reinterpretation of Kant’s moral theory and philosophy of religion in terms of Judaism and the Bible, which in itself marks Cohen’s departure from critical idealism and his shift towards the dialogic philosophy. In this context one can see Cohen as a teacher of the German nation, someone who could accurately examine the dangers of the Romantic theory of the nation as well as the Romantic especially Fichtean version of Kant’s moral theory, dangers corroborated by 20th-century history. While stressing Cohen’s positive contribution to our understanding of the contemporary world, it should be added that the philosopher’s belief in the liberating potential of “pure reason” was heavily damaged in the face of the totalitarian ideas in modern Europe. It does not mean, however, that his thought has lost its potency. On the contrary, in the age of the crisis of rationality Cohen’s work may be seen as a vital testament. Its effectiveness, though, lies not in the power of “pure reason” but in the power of dialogue and the imperative to love one’s neighbor, a rational and free act which surpasses all religious and speculative constraints. Accordingly, the article concludes by pointing to the timeliness and validity of Cohen’s spiritual and intellectual legacy.

I remember so clearly when I first became a member of the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society in the early 1980s. I knew everyone. It was a small organization that facilitated friendships, collegiality as well as academic and professional interaction. Now as then, these incredible friendships that we have all established over the decades define our professional life. For those of you who have been involved in the education of residents and fellows you will understand how relevant this is to your own personal growth. I have always felt strongly that you cannot be an educator unless you’re prepared to listen to your students. In the earlier years of training fellows, it was not much of an age differential, and while there was always a matter of the difference in knowledge and experience, I did not yet have the “seniority”. However, over the decades I’ve learned that some of our closest relationships emanate from these mentoring experiences. Here is a quote from Dr George Quill, a fellow in 1989: “In hindsight, I was doubly fortunate to be only the second surgeon in the world to matriculate with Mark Myerson because, in doing so, I gained a generous mentor and a dear friend for life!” Remember this: as an educator you inevitably give of yourself, but you will also receive something in return. When we share compassion with others, we are all tremendously enriched. Teaching of residents and fellows is a responsibility that we all share. During the formative training particularly of fellows, I want them “to lose their GPS”. Residents learn by repetition, but this encourages sterility without analysis. And by following the acquisition of knowledge blindly without questioning and analyzing the process does not help one grow. This is what I mean about losing your GPS, since sooner or later our fellows need to break away from the mentality of being guided by their mentor’s thinking and develop strategies of their own. I have never been afraid to push the envelope of experiences, and I have always embraced intellectual, personal, academic, and professional challenges. Many of you may have heard me saying that life begins at the edge of your comfort zone. In my practice of medicine, I’ve never felt any room for complacency. To accept everything as given, whether we read it in a prominent journal, or hear it from a colleague is meaningless until we can prove it for ourselves. This I learned from my mentor, Dr. Melvin Jahss who insisted in the early 1980’s that very few things were actually new ideas. He maintained that if one read the literature in depth, particularly in other languages, it was all there. I was reminded this many years later when I “rediscovered” what we knowas today as the Ludloff osteotomy. I was sure that I had performed a new procedure. However, sure enough, my fellow at the time Dr. Hans Trnka found this technique referred to in the German literature, and although my technique was completely different since Ludloff did not use any fixation, the rest is history. Where do new ideas come from? I’m sure that all of you have said to yourselves at one point in time or another “oh, why did I not think of that?” As long as I can remember I have derived immense satisfaction and enrichment from research and investigation, and this passion has never diminished. It has been part of my life and continues to be an integral source of stimulation for me. Many of you do not have the resources nor access to research, but I am sure that all of you wonder about outcomes and results pertaining to your own innovative thinking. Try to share these ideas with others and find like-minded individuals who want to explore new ideas. Some of the most productive times for me have been when I am sitting quietly listening to music. When I go to the symphony orchestra, I scribble research notes and ideas onto the program. Multitasking it’s something that for surgeons comes naturally. Find a quiet time for yourselves and just think, don’t do! As many of you know, I’ve devoted these past years to humanitarian service through an organization which I founded, Steps2Walk (www.steps2walk.org). This has been an extraordinary journey, and I and the others who have supported us either on our medical advisory board, or as surgeon volunteers have all been touched and blessed by this opportunity. The spectrum of deformities which we treat is indeed challenging, but when by performing humanitarian service, one experiences the deep fulfillment that can only come from improving the lives of others. I truly believe that you cannot experience your practice of orthopedic surgery nor reach your potential until you do something for someone who can never repay you. Steve Jobs said that “the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world are the ones who do”.

Ethnic distance has a great importance for social dynamics, as the source of possible social conflicts, but also the potential source of social cohesion. Therefore, there is a need for constant research. Results of the research carried out among the students of the University in Pristine with temporary head office at Kosovska Mitrovica (May 2009) and the University in Belgrade (May 2010), with implementation of representative quota sample and questionnaire technique, with using Bogardus scale as the instrument modified for the needs of researching student population, have shown that the ethnic distance in average is considerably bigger among the questioned students in Kosovska Mitrovica, comparing to the students questioned in Belgrade. Considering the fact that Kosovska Mitrovica is a city divided on ethnic principle, at the edge of ethnic contact every day, this bigger ethnic distance in average is understandable then, the same that is understandable the smaller ethnic distance among the students in Belgrade, who have more cosmopolitan attitude regarding the case of nation, which can be explained by the size and the spirit of the city, but also with the fact that ethnic conflict is not taking place here - just in front their eyes. Regardless the difference in the result of ethnic distance, they both have the greatest distance towards Albanians, which can be explained by the fact that members of this nation are those who disintegrate the present state of Serbia, creating on its territory so called "independent Kosovo". Considering ethnic distance of students in Kosovska Mitrovica regarding those nations that live in the area of Autonomous Province Kosovo and Metohija, conclusion is imposed that Serbs and Montenegrins there are sufficient for themselves! This fact actually illustrates how much the society of Kosovo and Metohija is actually divided society, while the religion has an important influence in those divisions. Actually, it may be said that obtained results regarding the scale of ethnic distance indicate the results of confessional distance. In case of students from both Universities, it is evident that significantly bigger ethnic distance is to those ex-Yugoslav nations with which wars were waged (except Albanians, these are also Croatians, Muslims/Bosnians and little less Slovenians) and to those non-Yugoslav nations which had an unfriendly relationship with our country during the whole Yugoslav crisis, including the contemporary phase regarding Kosovo and Metohija (Americans, Germans, Englishmen, Dutchmen), while ethnic distance is considerably lower to those non-Yugoslav nations with friendly relationship, with which there is a high level of identification (Russians, Greeks). It is interesting that regardless not so friendly attitude of France to our country recently, ethnic distance to Frenchmen is lower than to the other mentioned western nations, which is probably the relict of the "traditional friendship". It is interesting to observe that in general the ethnic distance of students from both Universities is lower to those nations that have never lived in Yugoslavia, regarding those former Yugoslav nations, from which one may conclude that the joint living actually has deepened the ethnic distance. Great ethnic distance has been recorded with students of both Universities to Gypsies and Chinese. Regarding Gypsies, it can be explained by many negative stereotypes that exist regarding this nation, and it is really the time that Serbs part with them finally, since during the history they have mostly share the faith of Serbian nation, including the ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Gypsies from Kosovo and Metohija in 1999. Regarding the ethnic distance to Chinese, the nation that has friendly and protective relationship with Serbia, it is probably insufficient knowledge on cultures, manner of life, habits and similar that contributed to such a great ethnic distance, which surely should be the subject of further researches.

We can observe signs of development of civilization processes in Ukraine everywhere on a daily basis. Such achievements of mankind as computers, smart phones, digital photography, tablets, etc. are becoming common and natural. Along with the positive signs of the development of civilization, we see many achievements that are difficult to grasp by the mind of an ordinary person. In particular, along with the positive achievements of mankind, we must learn to recognize and counter the new inventions used by some states to wage aggression in time.The article highlights the visible aspects of a new type of modern war, which the state of Russia, is waging against its neighbors, including Ukraine, whenever it is convenient to them. These are the so-called «hybrid wars», which Russia is testing on the neighboring countries.In the article it is pointed out, that Russia never starts aggression openly; it always covers its intentions with «peaceful» rhetoric. As usual, Russia’s victims are those neighboring countries that are unable to show power and information confrontation. It has become a tendency that when the time comes, the Russian leaders begin aggression, and their armed forces act according to a motto deduced by Machiavelli and later applied by the Bolsheviks in the 1920s: «You’re either with us, or against us». Starting aggression, Russia continues to declare tales about friendship and peace to the whole world.In the main part of the article, the author emphasizes that all the wars that Russia is embarking on with neighboring countries have a common feature - the geographic location of these states, easily accessible to the Russian armed forces. The author of the article implicitly emphasizes the aggressive features of the historical path of Russia, in particular, the period when it began to transform from Muscovy to Russia. In the article, the author emphasizes that Russia by its behavior, in fact, convinces many prescient people that it is the heir to the robbery mind, which it adopted back in the XIII century from the Golden Horde. Actually, the Russian leadership inherited the habit of stealing another’s living space and another’s territory from Batu Khan’s Horde. This habit gradually gained importance of the national feature of the Russians.One of the most dangerous methods that precedes Russia’s use of firearms is intensification of the war in the information space. As usual, Russia’s aggression against the nations it has sacrificed is a sign of interference with the humanitarian sphere of these peoples’ lives. In other words, in the Russian version, information war is a mandatory prelude to the start of an actual war.An example of one of the anti-Ukrainian special operations of information war against Ukraine is given in an article by a famous historian from Ukraine, Serhii Terno, in which he reveals the purpose of an information war, which became quite evident after analyzing the content of a class book for fifth grade students recently published in Ukraine. Serhiy Terno convincingly, by demonstrating examples and evidence, proves that the information war that Russia is imposing on Ukraine has a final goal - the complete assimilation of the Ukrainian ethnos and the transformation of the Ukrainian living space into a «Russian dimension». Usually, such behavior in Russia precedes an armed attack, and it always happens if the victim of Russian aggression refuses to obey Russia’s orders.In the article, the author indirectly helps the reader to recognize that there are new and improved old methods of waging war in the modern evolutionary development of world civilization processes.Experts specializing in the study of the development of interethnic relations, only after the open military aggression of Russia, which began in 2014, acknowledged that Russia is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine, which political scientists called «hybrid». One of the aspects of “hybrid” war is the war in the information space, and the battle for historical memory is at the forefront of information battles. Revealing this aspect, it would be appropriate to clarify the explanation of the term «historical memory» with an expanded explanation of the right to interpret national history, which we understand with the help of historical knowledge.By way of conclusion, the author cites vivid examples of participation in the information war of the representatives of the aggressor state to emphasize the importance of so called «battles» in the information space. The Ukrainian intellectuals’ struggle for the right of young people for historical memory and justice is described in a convincing and successful way. Much attention is given to the Ukrainian historians’ assessment of the value of research and study of historical memory. The article provides incontrovertible evidence that historical knowledge is a type of information weapon, which in many cases is more effective than a firearm. If we treat «historical memory» as one of the modern information weapons, the article covers examples of the use of these weapons in the context of the information war.Finally, quotes of influential scholars on how they assessed the importance of informational influence on the well-known historical figures are stated in the article: the queen of the Russian Empire, Catherine II and the German propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.

Dr. Akira Mizuta Lippit, author of Electric Animal: Toward a Rhetoric of Wildlife, explores, in the context of the development of cinema, how the concept of “the animal” has become central to modern understandings of human subjectivity. Lippit considers the disappearance of real animals and their concurrent appearance in various conceptual and material uses, particularly noting the ways in which the conjoined notions of humanity and animality figure into and through cinema. The animal, he argues, haunts the foundation of western logical systems. Yet, despite the fact that humans and animals suffer under the discursive weight of the signifier, Lippit is careful to note the increasing instability of the human-animal boundary and what might be done to realize more just relationships among both humans and other animals. On February 12, 2008, Lauren Corman spoke with Lippit as part of the “Animal Voices” radio program, a weekly show dedicated to animal advocacy and cultural critique. They discussed how Lippit developed his thesis and the ramifications of his theoretical work. Electric Animal: Toward a Rhetoric of Wildlife was published in 2000 by the University of Minnesota Press. “Animal Voices” can be heard weekly on CIUT 89.5 FM in Toronto, or online at animalvoices.ca.Full TextLauren Corman: How have questions regarding animals and animality figured into your film scholarship? When did you bring these themes into your work, and why? Akira Mizuta Lippit: That is its own story in a way. The book that you refer to, Electric Animal, was written initially as my doctoral dissertation, and at the time, I was thinking in particular about the moment at which cinema appeared in the late 19th century. There are all kinds of phantasmatic and imaginary birthdays of cinema, but generally people agree that 1895, or thereabouts, was when cinema appeared as a set of technological, aesthetic, and cultural features, and as an economic mode of exchange. People sold and bought tickets and attended screenings. And I was thinking about what it must have felt like at that moment to experience this uncanny medium. There are various reports of early film performances and screenings, some of them apocryphal and inventive and embellished and so forth, but I think the fascination, the kind of wonder that cinema evoked among many early viewers had to do with this uncanny reproduction of life, of living movement, and the strange tension that it created between this new technology (and we are in the middle of the industrial revolution and seeing the advent of all sorts of technologies and devices and apparatuses), and its proximity to, in a simple way, life: the movements of bodies. And I began to think that the principle of animation, here was critical. To make something move, and in thinking about the term animation and all of its roots, to make something breathe, to make something live. What struck me, in this Frankensteinian moment was the sense that something had come to life, and the key seemed to be about how people understood, conceived of, and practiced this notion of animating life through a technology. I started to hear a resonance between animals and animation. I started to think about the way in which animals also played a role, not only in early cinema and in animation and the practice of the genre but leading up to it in the famous photographs of Edward Muybridge and Étienne-Jules Marey, the moving images of animals that were produced serially, as well as the “chronophotographs” that rendered animal motion. And it occurred to me that there was a reason to pause and think about what role animals were playing at that moment in history. As I began to read, and as I began to collect materials and to think through this question of the status and function of the animal, what animality meant, it took on its own set of values, and essentially Electric Animal ended up being a kind of preamble, or an introduction to a book that I haven’t yet written, because I only reach at the end of the book, and in a very perfunctory manner, the advent of cinema. So in a sense, this book, and this question, about what an animal meant for generations before, at that moment and in successive generations, became its own subject, one I still think is critically linked to the question of cinema, and the arrival of cinema, and the force of cinema throughout the 20th century. LC: Let’s return to that piece that you mentioned about life, and that cinema could show or play this Frankensteinian role; of course, a parallel stream is around death, and some of the work that I have read about early cinema shows that people were quite afraid, initially, of what it meant. Could you comment on that theme of death and the animal in cinema? AML: This emerged as a major issue during the course of my study. The discourse on death and the uncanny, the idea that something appears to be there, in the form of a ghost or a phantom, already existed in discussions of photography throughout the 19th century. The sense that photography forges a material connection to the object, that the photograph establishes a material connection to the photographed object, and as such when you look at a photograph you are not simply looking at a rendering, like an artist’s interpretation in a painting or sculpture, but you are actually looking at, experiencing a kind of carnal, physical contact with the persons themselves, or with an object, reappears frequently in the discourses on photography. This creates a real excitement, and also fear. I think that effect, the photographic effect of somehow being in the presence of the thing itself, is enhanced by the addition of movement, because with movement you have the feeling that this being is not just there, looking at you perhaps, but also moving in its element, in its time, whether (and this is very important to the discussions of photography) that person is still alive or not. I think that gap is produced at the moment of any photograph and perhaps in any film: the person who appears before you, who appears to be alive, who at that moment is alive, may or may not still be alive. So it produces, among those who have thought in this way, a sense of uncanniness, something is there and isn’t there at once. Where I think that this is particularly important in this discussion of “the animal,” and as I began to discover in doing the reading (I should add that I am not a philosopher, I don’t teach philosophy, but I am a reader of philosophy; I read it sporadically, I read here and there wherever my interests are) is that with very few but important exceptions, there is a line of western philosophy that says animals are incapable of dying. On the most intuitive level this seems nonsensical. Of course animals die. We know that animals die. We kill animals; we kill them andwe see them die. No question that animals die. But the philosophical axiom here—which begins with Epicurus, but is repeated over and over, by Descartes perhaps most forcefully, and in the 20th century by Martin Heidegger—is that death is not simply a perishing, the end of life, but it is a experience that one has within life, a relationship with one’s own end. The claim that is made over and over again, which has been disputed by many people – and it is certainly not my claim – but the claim that one finds repeatedly in philosophy is that animals don’t die – they don’t have death in the way human beings have, and carry with them, death. Animals know fear, they know things like instinctual preservation, they seek to survive, but they don’t have death as an experience. Heidegger will say in the most callous way, they simply perish. It struck me that this problem was not a problem of animals, but rather a problem for human beings. If human beings don’t concede the capacity of animals to die, then what does it mean that animals are disappearing at this very moment, in the various developments of industry, in human population, in urbanization, environmental destruction, that animals are increasingly disappearing from the material and everyday world? And where do they go, if we don’t, as human beings, concede or allow them death? (Of course this is only in a very specific, and one might argue, very small, discursive space in western philosophy. Many people have pointed out that this is not the case in religious discourses, in a variety of cultural practices, and in various ethnic and cultural communities. This is a certain kind of western ideology that has been produced through a long history of western philosophy.) So the question of death, the particular form of suspended death that photography and cinema introduced appeared in response to perhaps a crisis in western critical and philosophical discourse that denied to the animal, to animals, the same kind of death that human beings experience. You have this convergence of two death-related, life-anddeath related, problems at a time when I think that these issues were particularly important. LC: So from there, the question that comes to mind is what purpose does it serve and the word that is coming to mind is identity, and the idea of human identity and subjectivity. There must be some reason that western thought keeps going back to this denial of animal death. You tie it in, as others have, to language. AML: Two key features of human subjectivity, in the tradition of western philosophy, have been language and death, and the relationship between language and death. This goes back to Plato, to Socrates, and before. The point at which I was writing Electric Animal, at the end of the 20th century, gave me the ability to look back at developments in critical theory, philosophy, and the history of ideas throughout the 20th century, and it became clear with the significant interventions of the late 1960s that from at least one century earlier, the question of human subjectivity, its stability, its absoluteness, had already been in question. This question is slowly working its way toward a radical re-evaluation of the status of, the value of, and ultimately the confidence that human beings place in their own subjectivity, and there are many, many influences: around questions of gender and sexuality, questions of race and identity, and in crimes like genocide, for example, during World War II, but before and after as well. All of these developments contribute to this reevaluation, but one could argue that at this moment, in the late 19th century already, there was a certain sense that what had been insisted upon as absolutely unique, as an absolute form in itself – the human subject – required a whole series of constant exclusions and negations for it to survive. One such exclusion is to claim as properly human, language; what makes the human being human, is the capacity for language, and through this capacity, the capacity for death. As many philosophers argue, only human beings can name death as such, because language gives us the capacity to names those things, not just objects around us, but to name those things that do not appear before us, and these would be the traditional philosophical objects: love, death, fear, life, forgiveness, friendship, and so on. And it will be assumed that animals have communication, they communicate various things within their own groups and between groups, they signal of course, but that animals don’t have language as such, which means they can’t name those things that are not before them or around them. And it is very clear that there is an effort among human beings to maintain the survival of this precious concept of human subjectivity, as absolutely distinct and absolutely unique. So you find in those long discourses on human subjectivity, this return to questions of language and death. I would suggest that at this time, with the appearance of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, and with other disruptive thinkers like Sigmund Freud and the advent of psychoanalysis, there is a great sense of uncertainty regarding these edifices of human subjectivity, language and death. In Electric Animal this moment is particularly rich with such shifts and instabilities, and the sense that language is not exclusive to human beings, as many people thought, but also that language is not as self-assured in human beings as people thought. Here psychoanalysis plays an important role in indicating, at least speculatively, that we are not as in control of the language that we use to the extent that we would like to believe. LC: What are the consequences of this process in western thought, where the subject is conceived through an exclusion or a negation of the animal? What are the implications for humans, and also what are the implications for animals? I know that is a huge question. AML: It is a huge question; It is a very important question. One could argue that the consequences of a certain practice, let’s say, of the politics of the subject have been disastrous, certainly for animals, but also for human beings. If you take one of the places where the form of the human subject is created, it would be Descartes’ Discourse on Method, his attempt to figure out what, when everything that can be doubted and has been doubted, is left to form the core. And this is his famous quote: “Je pense donc je suis”, I think therefore I am, I am thinking therefore I am. If you read the Discourse on Method, this is a process of exclusion: I exclude everything that I am not to arrive at the central core of what I am. The process he follows leads him to believe that it is his consciousness, it is his presence, his selfpresence with his own consciousness that establishes for him, beyond any doubt, his existence. This is somewhat heretical, it is a break from theological discourses of the soul; it represents a form of self-creation through one’s consciousness. But consciousness is a very complicated thing, a very deceptive thing, because what I believe, what I feel, is not always exactly the way things are. Looking at a series of important shifts that have taken place during what we might call generally the modern period, which extends further back than the recent past, one finds a number of assaults on the primacy of consciousness. Freud names one as the Copernican revolution, which suggested that the earth was not the centre of the universe and that human beings were not at the centre of the universe; the Darwinian revolution, which suggested that humans beings were not created apart from other forms, all other forms of organic life, and that human beings shared with other animate beings, organic beings a common history, a pre-history. And Freud (he names himself as the third of these revolutionaries), is the one who suggested that consciousness itself is not a given at any moment, or available at any moment, to us as human beings. What constitutes our sense of self, our consciousness, is drawn from experiences that we no longer have access to—interactions with others, the desires of others, the kinds of influences and wishes that were passed into us through others, our parents, other influential figures early in our life— and that what we believe to be our conscious state, our wishes, desires, dreams and so forth, are not always known to us, and in fact can’t be known because they might be devastating and horrifying, in some cases. They will tell us things about ourselves that we couldn’t properly accept or continue to live with. I think that what is happening, certainly by the time that we enter the 20th century, around this discourse of the subject is that it is no longer holding, it is no longer serving its original purpose; it is generating more anxiety than comfort. Key historical events, World War I, for example, are producing enormous blows to the idea of western progress, humanism, and Enlightenment values, to the cultural achievements of the West— Hegel, for example, a 19th century philosopher, is very explicit about this—to those values that helped to shape the world, and ultimately were supposed to have created a better world for human beings: the Enlightenment, the pursuit of knowledge, science, medicine, religion and so forth. And yet, by the mid-twentieth century many of these beliefs were exposed as illusions, especially after the advent of death camps, camps created for the sole purpose of producing, as Heidegger himself says, producing corpses, a factory for corpses. It’s not a place where people happen to die. This is an entire apparatus designed in order to expeditiously, efficiently, and economically, create corpses out of living human beings. Similarly, with the first use of the atomic bomb, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, on human beings. This was a machine, a science, a technology, a weapon devised for maximizing, efficiently and economically, the destruction of human beings. I think what this created for many thinkers, philosophers, writers, artists, activists, citizens around the world was a sense that in fact what had helped to create this situation and these catastrophic results was not a matter of totalitarian regimes and bad politics, but something more fundamental: a certain belief that I have the right to destroy or take life from others. And how is that achieved? By first denying that those others are like me. So the discourse on Jews practiced throughout Nazi Germany is in fact even more extreme than that of the discourse on animals; in fact, as many people have pointed out, that many Nazis were famous for their love of animal, some were practicing vegetarians; they outlawed animal experimentation. In a sense animals were more like Aryan Germans, than Jews were. You have a series here of rhetorics that allow you to cast the enemy, the Other, at a distance from your own subjectivity, and in order to achieve this you have to deny them any form of subjectivity. Not just that they are just culturally different, or that they engage in different practices: They are radically and absolutely unlike me. And I believe that as many people began to think about this condition (Adorno has a very famous passage in which he talks about this), it became clear that one of the sources of this, is in fact the very ideology of the subject, which insists on an absolute autonomy, singularity, and distinct mode of existence from that which is not the subject, not any subject, the Other. Adorno, in a passage he wrote in a book titled Minima Moralia, which is a collection of aphorisms and observations he wrote during and after World War II, offers an observation I quote in Electric Animal. He titles it “People are looking at you”, and he says there is a moment in a typical scene of hunting where a wounded animal looks into the eyes of the hunter, or the killer as it dies. It produces at that moment, an effect that is undeniable: This thing, that is alive, that I have wounded and which is now dying, is looking at me. How can I deny that it is alive, that it is there, that it exists in the world, with its own consciousness, its own life, its own dreams, and desires? Adorno says the way you shake this off is you say to yourself, “It’s only an animal.” He will then link that gesture to the history of racism, and what he calls the pogrom, or genocide, against other human beings. You transfer this logic. So the ability to say to an animal, toward an animal that you have killed, whose death you’ve brought about, “It’s only an animal”, becomes the same logic you apply to other human beings when you harm or kill them. It’s a very profound observation because it suggests that in fact there is no line that separates the killing of animals from the killing of human beings. And in fact already at the moment when we kill an animal, we recognize something immediately that we have to erase from our consciousness with this phrase, “It’s only an animal.” LC: It seems to me then, too, that it’s this kind of perpetual haunting, because in that erasure, in that statement, “It’s only an animal,” there’s the animal itself that you had to assert yourself against and its living beingness. Do you think in that moment that he’s talking about—because it seems like kind of a struggle, or a narrative that you have to tell yourself—do you think that is also a moment potentially of agency, or resistance, in terms of an assertion of an animal subjectivity, or umwelt, or however you want to describe it? AML: Absolutely, and I think that Adorno’s phrase and that passage in which he is writing about this scene, an arbitrary, perhaps imaginary but typical scene of the hunt written shortly after the end of World War II, as well as all of Adorno’s pessimistic observations about the state of human culture, are written in a state of deep anguish. As he says in this very brief aphorism, we never believe this, even of the animal. When we tell ourselves, “It’s only an animal”, we in fact never believe it. Why? Because we are there and we see in the presence of an Other, a life that is there. For him it is important that the gaze, as he says, of the wounded animal, falls on the person who has perpetrated the crime. You seek to exclude it, to erase it, to dismiss it by saying that it is only an animal, but it allows you to transfer that very logic into the destruction of other human beings. Your phrase “haunting” is really important because I think that it suggests that a phantom animal becomes the crucial site not only for an animal rights, but for human ethics as well. The ability to kill another, is something in fact we—we, human beings—never properly achieve; we never truly believe this, “It’s only an animal” at that moment, Adorno says. We tell ourselves this, we insist upon it, try to protect ourselves through this mantric repetition of a phrase, “It’s only an animal,” “It’s only an animal,” yet we never believe it. And as such, we are haunted by it. I think the crisis in human subjectivity, in discourses on the human subject that arrive in the late 1950s, has everything to do with this kind of haunted presence. Human subjectivity is now a haunted subjectivity, haunted by animals, by everyone that has been excluded, by women, by people of different races, different ethnicities, different sexual preferences. And in fact the convergence of civil rights, critical theory, animal rights, feminism, the gay and lesbian movements, all of these things really shape—to use Foucault’s term—the episteme in which the primary political focus for many philosophers and theorists erupts in a critique of the subject. LC: Without getting you to offer something prescriptive [both laugh] about where to go from here, I do, I guess, want to ask about where to go from here. Because our audience is sort of the average person, turning on their car radio, or the animal rights activist, what does this mean then for… It just seems like a huge juggernaut, this huge weight, of Western history for people who want to shift, or people talk about blurring the boundaries between humans and animals (and this, of course, is very anxiety-provoking considering the legacy of Western thought), where is the turn now? Or where do you think there are potentials for (I think your phrase is) “remembering animals”? Is that the best can we can do? AML: Again, it’s an important question in so many ways. There are so many things I would like to speak to in response to that question. I would say that I don’t know if I am, by nature, an optimist or a pessimist. I do think, however, that a lot of things have been turning away from this condition, let’s say, or a certain kind of assumption, about the longevity of the human subject. I think that human subjectivity practiced honestly and ethically will continue to re-evaluate the terms of its own existence in relationship to Others, defined in the modern sense. And I do think that a certain ability to exist with an Other—an Other that may not share the same language that I speak, but certainly exists in a world that is as valuable, authentic, legitimate, as my own—will be the goal. I’ll introduce a phrase by Jacques Derrida. Somebody asked him, what does justice mean? What would justice be? He says justice is speaking to the Other in the language of the Other. I find this to be a very beautiful and very optimistic expression. It is not my task to exclude from my world those that I don’t understand; but it is my responsibility, or it is the practice or task of justice, to learn the Other’s language, which is to give the Other that capacity for language, to assume that there is in the Other, language. Language is, according to that earlier part of our conversation, language is that which is traditionally denied to the Other. “I don’t know what you mean when you speak”;, “women speak emotionally”; “ animals don’t have any language”; “the language that less developed cultures speak is not as articulate or precise as the language that I speak”, and so on and so forth. I think this pursuit of justice, defined as Derrida does, is very important. The other thing I will add is that the development of a field that some have called, perhaps temporarily, provisionally “Animal Studies”, is absolutely critical. I think there was a time when Animal Studies would have meant zoology, or in a very focused and direct manner, the pursuit of animal rights. What has been really been exciting for me to observe in this field of animal studies— and it’s not merely a community of scholars and academics; they are artists and performers, who engage in expressive and creative actions, activists who are committed politically, activists who are engaged in their daily lives and daily practices, and also a wide range of scholars in a variety of fields (feminists, literary scholars, historians, historians of ideas, philosophers, and so forth)—there is a certain understanding that “the question of the animal”, as it’s been called, or “of animals” or “of animality”, is not something that is restricted in the end just to the well-being of animals: it affects everybody in fact in ways that are obvious and perhaps less obvious. I think this kind of realization and this kind of community, let’s say, ex-community of people, who are in the field but also outside of their fields but in contact with one another is another way in which, much of what has been established can being critiqued, rethought, unthought, reformulated, toward a viable existence for all forms of life on this earth, and elsewhere. LC: It seems to me that it’s a difficult but important place to be, working in Animal Studies, in these divergent fields. My own experience was coming from Women’s Studies. It’s interesting how you point to these different groups, marginalized groups, and I think that one of the saddest things for me has been also that there’s this incredible moment of optimism, and potential to be thinking about “the animal” in different ways, (and thus us in different ways) but also in those moments of marginalization there has been a scrambling, a push towards a reinforcement of that human subject to say, “Ah, we are just like that, though. We are not like animals.” I think that this is very classic, in terms of an older feminism: liberation is about inclusion into a human culture that is necessarily exclusionary of animals. I think that’s still happening, that while there’s a kind of opening up of what this question means, “the question of the animal”, there’s also a concern, my concern anyway, that a simultaneous reinforcement as marginalized groups fight, using language, using the discourse of rights, etc., to become a part of what they were always excluded from. AML: That’s right. That’s a very difficult situation that traditionally marginalized groups have had to address. When you have been denied very basic civil rights, for example, one of the immediate and legitimate goals of any movement is to make sure that one secures those rights for one’s constituencies, for one’s members, and at the same time to make sure that the pursuit or achievement of that right does not reproduce the exclusion of others that one was fighting against initially. That’s why I think the role of animal rights is so important, because the animal is perhaps the place where life as such has been most excluded in the history of human cultures. And as such it is the place, perhaps, where this rethinking has to begin. There will be all sorts of differences, and all sorts of different objectives and agendas, but when this discussion is practiced rigorously and in good faith, I think ultimately it will be productive. Remember that most of those whom we now think of as the great thinkers were often marginalized in their time; many endured this marginalization, ridicule, hostility. It’s part of the task, and I think one of the comforts we can draw in these situations is that the process is ongoing and one makes a contribution where one can, one engages where one can, and it continues forward hopefully toward some better formulation of life for all beings. LC: Thank you very much. I hope you can join us again on the program sometime. It was really a great honour, and a great pleasure, to speak with you today. AML: It was a great pleasure for me today. And I really appreciate the work you’re doing. The questions were just fantastic. I enjoyed every moment of it. LC: Thank you so much. Today we’ve been speaking with Dr. Akira Mizuta Lippit.

How can we understand German-Russian relations since German reunification? Both the geopolitical positions of the two states and the political and economic ties between them have been transformed over the past twentyfive years. This paper will argue, however, that the role of the two countries’ leaders in shaping these relations has been surprisingly important. Building on the tradition of “first image” analysis in international relations, this paper shows that, along with larger political and economic trends, personal relations between these leaders have helped to set the tenor of bilateral ties. When the leaders were able to build trust and personal friendships, relations improved. Yet more recently, since 2012, relations have soured sharply. While there are obviously larger reasons for this, more negative personal ties between leaders have also played an important role. In short, just as issues of trust and friendship matter in personal ties, they also matter in International Relations.

Abstract In April 1848, a proclamation of friendship to the Germans sent by the Provisional Government of Milan to the Fünfzigerausschuss (Committee of Fifty) in Frankfurt was rejected by the latter, creating widespread outrage in Italy. Concurrently, a parallel controversy over the possession of South Tyrol arose between the two revolutions. This article provides an exploratory analysis of these two episodes, examining the role they played in shaping relations between the two revolutions, and in influencing the image Italians had of the revolution in Germany. Shedding light on an episode until now overlooked by historiography, this article seeks to contribute to the salient debate on the peculiar relationship between internationalist ideals and nationalist claims during the 1848 revolution. It argues that the disillusioning impact on revolutionary audiences of specific ‘episodes of friction’, such as those examined in this article,was greater than the ‘natural convergence of goals’ of the various national revolutions in 1848.