The Cold War in South Asia provides the first comprehensive and transnational history of Anglo-American relations with South Asia during a seminal period in the history of the Indian Subcontinent, ...between independence in the late 1940s, and the height of the Cold War in the late 1960s. Drawing upon significant new evidence from British, American, Indian and Eastern bloc archives, the book re-examines how and why the Cold War in South Asia evolved in the way that it did, at a time when the national leaderships, geopolitical outlooks and regional aspirations of India, Pakistan and their superpower suitors were in a state of considerable flux. The book probes the factors which encouraged the governments of Britain and the United States to work so closely together in South Asia during the two decades after independence, and suggests what benefits, if any, Anglo-American intervention in South Asia's affairs delivered, and to whom.
In 1950 the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China signed a Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance to foster cultural and technological cooperation between the Soviet bloc and ...the PRC. While this treaty was intended as a break with the colonial past, Austin Jersild argues that the alliance ultimately failed because the enduring problem of Russian imperialism led to Chinese frustration with the Soviets.Jersild zeros in on the ground-level experiences of the socialist bloc advisers in China, who were involved in everything from the development of university curricula, the exploration for oil, and railway construction to piano lessons. Their goal was to reproduce a Chinese administrative elite in their own image that could serve as a valuable ally in the Soviet bloc's struggle against the United States. Interestingly, the USSR's allies in Central Europe were as frustrated by the "great power chauvinism" of the Soviet Union as was China. By exposing this aspect of the story, Jersild shows how the alliance, and finally the split, had a true international dimension.
It would be wrong to think that the 1950s represented a soft underbelly of French thought, a lacklustre decade caught between the existentialist vogue and the rise of the structuralist paradigm. For, ...if the period lacks visibility, this is not due to the real value of what was produced in philosophy. It's a problem of focus: the 1950s suffer from the perspectives we hold today, and the blind spots these perspectives conceal. The thinkers of the time did not simply prolong their predecessors, nor were they mere precursors of the philosophers to come. If their positions cannot be reduced to the simplicity of an all-encompassing category, it's because they weave a complex tapestry of diverse and original theses.The authors of this book have endeavored to evoke some of the singular conceptions that emerged in the 1950s. They have considered both completed constructions and aborted efforts, transfer phenomena and unexpected filiations, disciplinary as well as interdisciplinary controversies, whether these openings subsequently bore theoretical fruit or came to nothing, all the while deserving to be revisited today.
On aurait tort de croire que les années 1950 représentent un ventre mou de la pensée française, une décennie sans éclat coincée entre la vogue existentialiste et la montée en puissance du paradigme structuraliste. Car, si la période manque de visibilité, ce n’est pas dû à la valeur réelle de ce qui s’est produit en philosophie. Il s’agit d’un problème de focale : les années 1950 souffrent des perspectives qui sont les nôtres, et des angles morts que recèlent ces perspectives. Les penseurs de l’époque ne se sont en effet pas contentés de prolonger leurs prédécesseurs et ils ne sont pas davantage les simples précurseurs des philosophes à venir. Si leurs positions ne se ramènent pas à la simplicité d’une catégorie englobante, c’est qu’elles tissent un ensemble complexe de thèses diverses et originales.Les auteurs réunis dans cet ouvrage ont eu à cœur d’évoquer quelques-unes des conceptions singulières apparues dans les années 1950. Ils ont pris en considération des constructions achevées aussi bien que des efforts avortés, des phénomènes de transferts comme des filiations inattendues, des controverses disciplinaires autant qu’interdisciplinaires, que ces ouvertures aient ultérieurement donné des fruits théoriques ou qu’elles n’aient débouché sur rien, tout en méritant d’être reprises aujourd’hui.
Książka wydana wspólnie z Instytutem Studiów Politycznych PAN
Książka opowiada o kilkuzdaniowym liście 34 intelektualistów do premiera Józefa Cyrankiewicza. Mowa w nim była o ograniczeniach papieru ...na wydawnictwa literackie oraz o rozszerzającej się cenzurze prewencyjnej. Ale te kilka niewinnych zdań wstrząsnęło Polską.
Szczególne znaczenie miała lista 34 sygnatariuszy. Te nazwiska były jak wielki dzwon ostrzegawczy. List 34 był czymś niezwykłym w biografii mojego pokolenia. Był to pierwszy publiczny znak sprzeciwu wobec polityki postępującej zamordyzacji. Rozmawialiśmy o nim z fascynacją i podziwem, ponieważ list był sygnałem, że sprzeciw jest możliwy; że cenzurę i jej niszczycielskie rezultaty można nazywać po imieniu.
Adam Michnik
Jedną z konsekwencji wystosowania Listu 34 były procesy Melchiora Wańkowicza i Jana Nepomucena Millera, a także wszczęcie śledztwa przeciwko Januaremu Grzędzińskiemu oraz Stanisławowi Catowi-Mackiewiczowi. Właśnie te procesy oraz towarzyszący im kontekst polityczny stały się głównym tematem książki Macieja Łuczaka. Umiejętne połączenie w niej perspektywy historycznej, politologicznej i prawnej (...) umożliwiło kompleksowe i wszechstronne zaprezentowanie zakresu podporządkowania wymiaru sprawiedliwości PRL centralnemu ośrodkowi dyspozycji politycznej, tworzonemu przez I sekretarza KC PZPR Władysława Gomułkę i jego najbliższe otoczenie.
Prof. dr hab. Antoni Dudek
Maciej Łuczak odkrywa nowe, nieznane szerzej fakty, zarazem umieszcza całą sprawę w szerokim kontekście wewnętrznym i międzynarodowym. Za ważne uznałbym i to, że jego książka ma w znacznym stopniu charakter interdyscyplinarny, jest interesująca i pożyteczna zarówno dla historyków, jak i prawników, politologów, socjologów.
Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Eisler
A captivating time, the 60s and 70s now draw more attention than ever. The first substantial work by historians has appeared only in the last few years, and this volume offers an important ...contribution. These meticulously researched essays offer new perspectives on the Cold War and global relations in the 1960s and 70s through the perspective of the youth movements that shook the U.S., Western Europe, and beyond. These movements led to the transformation of diplomatic relations and domestic political cultures, as well as ideas about democracy and who best understood and promoted it. Bringing together scholars of several countries and many disciplines, this volume also uniquely features the reflections of former activists.
Forty years after the fact, 1960s counterculture—personified by hippies, protest, and the Summer of Love—basks in a nostalgic glow in the popular imagination as a turning point in modern American ...history and the end of the age of innocence. Yet, while the era has come to be synonymous with rebellion and opposition, its truth is much more complex. In a bold reconsideration of the late sixties San Francisco counterculture movement, Counterculture Kaleidoscope takes a close look at the cultural and musical practices of that era. Addressing the conventional wisdom that the movement was grounded in rebellion and opposition, the book exposes two myths: first, that the counterculture was an organized social and political movement of progressives with a shared agenda who opposed the mainstream (dubbed "hippies"); and second, that the counterculture was an innocent entity hijacked by commercialism and transformed over time into a vehicle of so-called "hip consumerism." Seeking an alternative to the now common narrative, Nadya Zimmerman examines primary source material including music, artwork, popular literature, personal narratives, and firsthand historical accounts. She reveals that the San Francisco counterculture wasn't interested in commitments to causes and made no association with divisive issues—that it embraced everything in general and nothing in particular.
An incisive, comparative study of the development of Post-World War II progressive politics in the United States, Britain, and FranceAfter the end of World War II, Britain, France, and the United ...States were faced with two very different choices: return to the civic order of pre-war normalcy or embark instead on a path of progressive transformation. In this ambitious and original work, Isser Woloch assesses the progressive agendas that crystalized in each of the three allied democracies, tracing their roots in the interwar decades, their development during wartime, the struggles to establish them after the war's end, and the mixed outcome in each country.A fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Woloch is a highly regarded scholar who adds the United States to a discussion that is usually focused solely on Europe. His enlightening work successfully argues that the postwar moment deserves a more prominent place in the history of progressive politics.
Focusing on one of the most dramatic and controversial periods in modern Greek history and in the history of the Cold War, James Edward Miller provides the first study to employ a wide range of ...international archives--American, Greek, English, and French--together with foreign language publications to shed light on the role the United States played in Greece between the termination of its civil war in 1949 and Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus.Miller demonstrates how U.S. officials sought, over a period of twenty-five years, to cultivate Greece as a strategic Cold War ally in order to check the spread of Soviet influence. The United States supported Greece's government through large-scale military aid, major investment of capital, and intermittent efforts to reform the political system. Miller examines the ways in which American and Greek officials cooperated in--and struggled over--the political future and the modernization of the country. Throughout, he evaluates the actions of the key figures involved, from George Papandreou and his son Andreas, to King Constantine, and from John Foster Dulles and Dwight D. Eisenhower to Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.Miller's engaging study offers a nuanced and well-balanced assessment of events that still influence Mediterranean politics today.
PDF
