The Cold War: History, Memory, Representation

The Cold War: History, Memory, Representation

European Academy Berlin, Bismarckallee 46/48

13-17 juillet 2011

 

Date limite d’inscription : 12 juillet 2011

 

Télécharger le programme

Two decades after the end of the Cold War, the time has come to reflect upon its lingering legacy. This international and interdisciplinary conference will discuss the main features of the East­-West conflict, probe its conflicting memories and analyze its cultural representations.  By presenting the views of participants the public opening session intends to focus on the peaceful way in which the Cold War was concluded in order to contribute to the ongoing reintegration of Europe.

Thursday, July 14th 2011

Opening session of the conference (Berliner Rathaus, Festsaal). The opening session of the conference is funded by the Senate of Berlin.

Overcoming the Cold War: European division, detente and reintegration

7:00 p.m. — Welcome by Konrad H. Jarausch, Chair of the Cold War Museum Association

Welcome by Walter Momper, President of the Berlin State Parliament, Former Lord Mayor of Berlin

Keynote Speech : Markus Meckel, Former GDR Foreign Minister

Panel Discussion :

  • James D. Bindenagel, Former Ambassador of the United States
  • Andrei Grachev, Last advisor and official spokesman of Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev
  • Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference
  • Moderated by Mary Fulbrook, Professor of German History University College London

9:00 p.m. — Reception

 

Friday, 15th of July 2011

European Academy Berlin

9:00 Panel 1 — The Cold War: Master narratives in East and West

Opening by Eckart D. Stratenschulte (Director of the European Academy Berlin Andreas Etges (Professor of North American History, John F. Kennedy Institute, Freie Universität Berlin)

Chair: Christian Ostermann (Director of Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, D.C.)

  • « On the historiography of the Cold War », Odd Arne Westad (Professor of International History, London School of Economics and Political Science)
  • « Western Europe – Probing the Cold War narrative », David Reynolds (Professor of International History Cambridge University)

11:00 a.m. — Coffee break

11:20 a.m. :

  • « The Cold War as metaphor and trope », Anders Stephanson (James P. Shenton Professor of History, Columbia University)
  • « Twenty years of changing interpretations of the Cold War in Russia », Vladimir Pechatnov (Director of the Department of European and American Studies,  Moscow State Institute of International Relations

01:00 p.m. — Lunch

02:00 p.m. — History, memory and the Cold War

Introduction by Andreas Etges

« The Cold War between history and memory », Keynote speech by Jay Winter (Charles J. Stille Professor of History Yale University)

03:15 p.m. — Coffee break

03:45 p.m. — PANEL 2 : Official and biographical memorialization

Chair: Martin Klimke (Research Fellow, German Historical Institute, Washington)

  • « Memorialization or mythologization? A comparative approach to the attitudes of the French and Russian states towards the Cold War », Marie­Pierre Rey (Professor of History University Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris
  • « Painful memories: Russian attitudes towards the end of the Cold War in Europe », Sergej Kudryashov (Research Associate German Historical Institute, Moscow)
  • « Spies which saved the world? The construction of biographies of George Blake and Oleg Penkovsky – New approaches », Matthias Uhl (Research Associate German Historical Institute, Moscow)
  • « ‘The Cold War? I rather have it in my family…’ East -West discrepancies in remembering Cold War times », Thomas Lindenberger (Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for European History and Public Spheres, Vienna)

05:45 p.m.  Film screening of PBS Documentary After the Wall – A World United (2011), Commented by James D. Bindenagel, Introduced by Axel Klausmeier (Director of the Berlin Wall Foundation)

07:00 p.m. — Barbecue in the garden of the European Academy Berlin

 

Saturday, 16th of July 2011

09:00 a.m. — PANEL 3 : Popular culture and school books

Chair: Andreas Etges

  • « Cold War films (East and West) », Tony Shaw (Professor of Contemporary History University of Hertfordshire)
  • « Ian Fleming, British spy fiction and the public profile of the Central Intelligence Agency », Christopher Moran (Postdoctoral Research Scholar University of Warwick)
  • « Pedagogy of history? The Cold War in history and social studies textbooks », Falk Pingel (Former Deputy Directorn of the Georg Eckert Institute for international research on schoolbooks, Braunschweig)

11:00 a.m. — Coffee break

11:15 a.m. — PANEL 4 : Places of memory

Chair: Andreas Gestrich (Director German Historical Institute, London)

  • « Protect and survive: Protecting, preserving and presenting Cold War heritage », Wayne Cocroft (Senior Archaeological Investigator English Heritage)
  • « Cold War memory sites and museums in Central Europe », Csaba Békés (Director Cold War History Research Center, Budapest, Hungary)
  • « The postcolonial Cold War », Heonik Kwon (Reader in anthropology, London School Of Economics and Political Sciences)

01:00 p.m. — Lunch

02:00 p.m. — PANEL 5 : Berlin as a place of memory of the Cold War

Chair: Winfried Heinemann (Colonel in the general staff (Oberst i.G.), Head of Department education, information and studies Military History Research Institute Potsdam

« The resurrection of the Berlin Wall as a site of memory », Hope Harrison (Associate Professor of History and International Affairs, George Washington University Washington, DC)

04:00 p.m. — Coffee break

04:15 p.m. —

  • « Competing of the best wall memorial: The heritage industry at Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin », Sybille Frank (LOEWE research area « Intrinsic Logic of Cities », Technische Universität Darmstadt)
  • « Project for a museum of the Cold War at Checkpint Charlie », Konrad Jarausch (Lurcy Professor of European Civilization University of North Carolina)

07:00 p.m  — « Reading and Dinner », György Dalos (Writer of the biography: « Gorbatschow. Mensch und Macht », Publicist, Leipzig Book Award winner for European Understanding (2010))

Moderated by Andrea Despot (Deputy Director of the European Academy Berlin)

Sunday, 17th of July 2011

Tour of museums and Cold War sites

09:30 a.m. Start of the bus tour
10:00 a.m. Allied Museum
Tempelhof
Checkpoint Charlie
Berlin Wall Museum
Museum Karlshorst (German-­ Russian Museum)

4:00 p.m. finish

Organizers: Europäische Akademie Berlin, Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt Potsdam, Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam, Alliierten Museum, German Historical Institute London, Deutsches Historisches Institut Moskau, German Historical Institute Washington, Museum Berlin Karlshorst, John F. Kennedy-Institut Berlin, FU Berlin, Stiftung Luftbrückendank, Stiftung Berliner Mauer, Cold War International History Project

 

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Journal d’Anatoly Tcherniaiev en ligne

Le Journal d’Anatoly Tcherniaev, qui fournit un témoignage inestimable sur les dernières années de l’URSS, a été progressivement mis en ligne sur le site de la National Security Agency américaine, dans une version PDF traduite. L’année 1991 vient tout juste d’être mis en ligne. Sur la même page, on retrouve également les années précédents du journal, de 1987 à 1990.

Lien : http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB345/index.htm

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Gagarine comme figure de mémoire et objet d’archive

Gagarin als Erinnerungsfigur und Archivkörper.  Workshop und Filmreihe zum 50. Jahrestag von Jurij Gagarins Weltraumflug [Gagarine comme figure de mémoire et objet d’archive. Atelier et cycle de films pour le 50e anniversaire du vol spatial de Iouri Gagarine]

15-16 avril 2011, Berlin

Date limite d’inscription : 7 avril

Konzeption: Kevin Anding, Holt Meyer, Matthias Schwartz

Als erster Mensch im Weltraum umkreiste Jurij Gagarin am 12. April 1961 in seinem Raumschiff Vostok-1 die Erde. Er ist wohl der einzige Held der Sowjetunion, der deren Zusammenbruch weitgehend unbeschadet überstanden hat. Nach wie vor gilt er in Umfragen in Russland als leuchtendes Beispiel für die Errungenschaften der eigenen Vergangenheit. Gagarin wurde auf paradoxe Weise im engen ideologischen Korsett des Ost-West-Konflikts geboren und überdauerte nach dessen Ende im Kontext einer veränderten Geschichtspolitik und Erinnerungskultur in Osteuropa als grenzüberschreitende Erinnerungsfigur. Der Workshop und die Filmreihe fragen in interdisziplinärer Perspektive danach, wie sich das Bild Gagarins im Laufe eines halben Jahrhunderts gewandelt hat.

Für die Teilnahme an dem Workshop wird um eine kurze schriftliche Anmeldung per E-Mail bei Matthias Schwartz (schwartz@zedat.fu-berlin.de) bis Donnerstag, den 7. April 2011, gebeten.

Filmreihe: Freier Eintritt

Freitag, 15. April 2011

Deutsch-Russisches Museum Berlin-Karlshorst, Zwieseler Str. 4, 10318 Berlin

10.15-10.45 Begrüßung durch die Organisatoren, Grußworte

10.45-13.00 Sektion 1: Gagarin als utopische Figur

Moderation: Matthias Schwartz (Berlin)

  • Holt Meyer (Erfurt): Gagarin im « Volk » – Erfurt 1961 und 1963
  • Thomas Tetzner (Chemnitz): Der Kosmonaut als « neuer Mensch ». Zur utopischen Vorgeschichte der sowjetischen Raumfahrt
  • Kevin Anding (Erfurt): Gagarins pädagogische Funktion in der Kinder- und Jugendliteratur

13.00-14.00 Mittagspause

14.00-16.15 Sektion 2: Gagarin als Archivkörper

Moderation: Kevin Anding (Erfurt)

  • Iina Kohonen (Helsinki): Picturing Gagarin – Visual strategies for representing a Khrushchevian hero
  • Julia Fertig (Berlin): Das TOTALE ARCHIV oder der Mann, der in den Kosmos flog und als Archiv zurückkehrte
  • Francis Hunger (Leipzig): Chor der toten Raumfahrer und die Frau, die nie ins Weltall flog

16.00-16.45 Kaffeepause

16.45-19.00 Sektion 3: Gagarin als akustisches Signal

Moderation: Holt Meyer (Erfurt)

  • Nikita Braguinski (Berlin). Gagarin als universelles musikalisches Zeichen. Von Aleksandra Pachmutovas Liederzyklus « Sozvezd’e Gagarina » bis zum Dance-Track
  • Larissa Medvedeva-Türk (Darmstadt): Gagarin als Lieder-Held. Sowjetische und russische Lieder über Gagarin vor und nach 1991
  • Tom Jürgens (München): Gagarin – das Rauschen als Ikone

20.00-22.00 Podiumsdiskussion: Gagarin als Erinnerungsfigur

unter Teilnahme von Gerhard Kowalski und Dieter B. Herrmann (angefragt)

Filmreihe (Freier Eintritt, mit Einführungen und Diskussion)

Samstag, 16. April 2011

Russisches Haus der Wissenschaft und Kultur, Friedrichstr. 176-179, 10117 Berlin

16.00

  • Der Mensch zurück aus dem Kosmos (Sowjetunion 1961, OmenglU)
  • Unser Gagarin (Sowjetunion 1971, OmenglU)
  • Gagarin, ich habe Sie geliebt (Deutschland/Ukraine 1991, OmU)

18:15

Always remember Juri Gagarin (Österreich 2010, OmenglU). Deutschlandpremiere anschließend Publikumsdiskussion mit dem Regisseur Christian Reiser

20:00

  • Das Lächeln Gagarins (Russland 2009, OF)
  • So begann die Legende (Sowjetunion 1976, OF) Deutsche Erstaufführung

Anmeldung bei: Matthias Schwartz (schwartz@zedat.fu-berlin.de), Institut für Slawistik der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin / Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin

Weitere Ansprechpartner:

Informationen zu Konzept, Abstracts, Filmen und anderes : http://www.oei.fu-berlin.de/kultur/dates/gagarin.html

Organisateurs : Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin; Institut für Slawistik der Humboldt-Universität Berlin; Slawistische Literaturwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt; in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Deutsch-Russischen Museum Berlin-Karlshorst und dem Russischen Haus der Wissenschaft und Kultur, Berlin

Lieux : Deutsch-Russisches Museum Berlin-Karlshorst (Workshop) / Russisches Haus der Wissenschaft und Kultur (Filmreihe)

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Anti-communist resistance in Central and Eastern Europe

Anti-communist resistance in Central and Eastern Europe

14-16 novembre 2011, Bratislava

Date limite de réponse : 30 juin 2011

The Slovak Nation’s Memory Institute in cooperation with their foreign partners (The Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, Czech Republic; The Institute of National Remembrance, Poland and The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Hungary) organizes an international scientific conference called Anti-communist resistance in Central and Eastern Europe. Three days conference will take place in Bratislava on November 14–16, 2011.

The conference aims to present the latest results of historical (scientific) research in the area of anti-communist activities including revolts, exodus of people and persecutions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, which were ruled by communists regimes after the end of the World War II. The conference intends to bring the broadest context of civil actions against the totalitarian regime, including open rebellions against communists government. It will also analyze various forms of persecutions against the opponents of communism. The presence of researchers from several countries of the former soviet bloc will give a comparative view on the common features as well as the particularities of development of the anti-communist resistance in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

Conference languages will be Slovak and English, simultaneous translation will be provided.

Conference domains:

  1. The illegal groups and dissidents in the anti-communist resistance
  2. Opposition activities in the official and semi-official organizations (students, churches, armed forces etc.)
  3. Open rebellions and insurrections against the communist regime
  4. Political emigration in the battle against the communist regime
  5. The forms of judicial and extrajudicial persecutions of anti-communist resistance activists
  6. The role of media and propaganda in the struggle against the communist regime

Provided that the presented conference agenda strikes your interest, please fill this ONLINE FORMULÁR or forward your PRIHLÁŠKU and an abstract of your paper (max. 1 page) by 30 June 2011 via email to peter.jasek@upn.gov.sk or by post to:

Ústav pamäti národa
Nám. slobody 6
817 83 Bratislava 15

Contact person: Peter Jašek
tel.: 00421 2 593 00 338

Site Web : http://www.upn.gov.sk/ine/anti-communist-resistance-in-central-and-eastern-europe

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

« Trust, but Verify » – Confidence and Distrust from Détente to the End of the Cold War

« Trust, but Verify » – Confidence and Distrust from Détente to the End of the Cold War

7-9 novembre 2011, Washington (États-Unis)

Date limite de réponse : 1er mars 2011

U.S. President Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, « Nations do not mistrust each other because they are armed. They are armed because they mistrust each other. » To transcend this quagmire, Reagan employed the strategy « Trust, but Verify, » one of his signature phrases, during the second half of the Cold War. Presenting this maxim as a translation of a Russian proverb, Reagan predominantly used it when describing U.S.-Soviet relations – for example, when the two countries signed the groundbreaking INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty in December 1987.

The landmark INF treaty, accompanied by reservations among U.S. and Soviet allies about the increasingly cordial relations between the former opponents, exemplifies the significance of trust and trustworthiness in international relations during the Cold War. Recent historiography of this conflict has begun to explore the crucial role of emotions such as fear and insecurity, which permeated both foreign policy strategy and large segments of society. It has not yet, however, explicitly made trust either an independent analytical category or an object of historical analysis, despite its wide application in the fields of sociology, economics, media studies, and political science.

Yet although Cold War angst (e.g., of nuclear annihilation) shaped the relationship between the ideological blocs, the final two decades of the era – from the period of détente starting in the late 1960s to the gradual rapprochement between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s – saw Cold War policy grow more flexible and diverse as each side sought to escape the orthodoxy of mutual assured destruction and deterrence. Because these transformations affected relations between the two superpowers and caused uncertainties within both blocs, the second half of the Cold War was characterized by a complex mixture of fear and trust, which manifested itself, among other things, in confidence-building and risk-taking, both on an international and domestic level.

As a construct, trust is transient and can be actively built or destroyed. It is the result of a process of risk assessment based on interactions and perceptions, strategic self-interest, shared values, and goodwill, and can be regarded as a form of social and political capital. Trust regimes, symbolic actions, and the effective staging of trust, trustworthiness, distrust, and other such qualities influence attention, rationality, and decision-making. Thus, they are major factors in international relations. The idea of trust or distrust is, furthermore, interrelated with concepts of the past and future. Past experiences color estimates of someone’s trustworthiness and affect expectations of future developments. They also shape historical and ideological notions about countries and their interactions with one another, for example, ideas about so-called archenemies or special relationships in international relations.

This conference will use the categories of trust and distrust to explore and reevaluate the final two decades of the Cold War, beginning in the late 1960s. The temporal dimension will receive special emphasis, because trust among competing powers is limited and reversible and can be monitored or reinforced through checks and regulations. Within this framework, the conference seeks to analyze the conditions for the presence or absence of trust in the following areas:

  • the dynamics of the relationship between the two superpowers, that is, their foreign policy and diplomatic relations on various levels (official, cultural, and public) as well as their military and security objectives and negotiation strategies;
  • the dynamics within each ideological bloc, i.e., the internal cohesion of NATO and the Warsaw Pact as well as the loyalty of their members vis-à-vis their respective ideological hegemons (including extra-bloc interactions with non-aligned countries, ideas of transcending the bloc system, and tensions such as the Sino-Soviet split), alliance policies, ideological agendas, and the eventual transcendence of the bipolar system after the Cold War;
  • the dynamics inside the individual countries concerning domestic politics and society, debates about national leadership, the ideological enemy, and the legitimacy of the Cold War order as well as their representations, for example, in media and (popular) culture.

The conference will examine the dynamic entanglements between the international and domestic spheres, thus following an « intermestic » approach, and draw on an integrated perspective of political and cultural history. More specifically, it seeks to extend the recent historiographical emphasis on the role of emotions in contemporary politics, history, and international relations

Possible themes that we would like to pursue from this perspective in this conference include:

  • building versus the destruction of trust
  • maintaining and managing trust (trust regimes)
  • possessing trustworthiness and a propensity to trust
  • structures that foster trust and reliability (checks, regulations, consequences, and so on)
  • predictability, community, and cooperation
  • reciprocation of trust
  • trust as social and political capital
  • public trust
  • narratives and memories of trust and betrayal
  • representations of trust in (popular) culture
  • linguistic, performative, and symbolic expressions of trust, trustworthiness, and distrust (e.g., in diplomatic rituals and performances such as official visits, signing ceremonies, « private » meetings, and joint media activities)
  • interpersonal (mis-)trust, loyalty, and disappointment (personal political friendships and enmities among decision makers on all levels)
  • perceptions and imaginings of trustworthiness (e.g. with regard to specific policies, political leaders or allies, technological or military developments, or abstract notions of progress and modernity)

Focusing on trust as an analytical category, researchers from all disciplines are therefore invited to discuss the Cold War from this perspective for the period from the late 1960s to 1990/91. Particular emphasis will be laid on the intersection of diplomatic, political, cultural, and media history.

Please send a paper proposal of no more than 500 words and a brief CV via e-mail to Bärbel Thomas (b.thomas@ghi-dc.org).

The deadline for submission is March 1, 2011. Participants will be notified by the end of March.

The conference, held in English, will focus on the discussion of 5,000-6,000-words, pre-circulated papers (due September 1, 2011).

Expenses for travel (economy class) and accommodation will be covered, though you may defray organizing costs by soliciting funds from your home institution.

Convenors: Martin Klimke (German Historical Institute, Washington, DC); Reinhild Kreis (History Department, University of Augsburg); Sonya Michel (United States Studies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC); Christian Ostermann (Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC), Washington, DC

For more information, please contact Dr. Martin Klimke, German Historical Institute(1607 New Hampshire Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009-2562, USA) :  klimke@ghi-dc.org

Pour en savoir plus : http://www.ghi-dc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1138&Itemid=1004

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Legacies of the Cold War

Legacies of the Cold War. Eighth international conference in the series « Between ‘Total War’ and ‘Small Wars’: Studies in the Societal History of the Cold War »

Hambourg, 24-26 août 2011

Date limite : 15 janvier 2011

Since it began in 2003, the conference series « Between ‘Total War’ and ‘Small Wars’: Studies in the Societal History of the Cold War » has successfully re-charted the historical coordinates of the Cold War, surveyed recent international research, and introduced new approaches and issues in Cold War studies to German discussions. This eighth and final conference will bring together retrospective and prospective analysis of the political, social, economic, and cultural continuities that persist after the end of the Cold War, the legacies and aftereffects that continue to shape the world of the twenty-first century, whether directly or in a different guise. Which of these aftereffects are genuine products of the Cold War; which are related to longer-term continuities but were altered or reconstituted in decisive ways during the Cold War? Our aim is, first, to identify significant legacies of the Cold War at the level of a « holistic » societal history and, second, pay equal attention to examining such phenomena in the West, the East, and the Third World.

We would like to suggest the following questions and conjectures as a basis for investigating the societal history of the legacies of the Cold War.

1. Political cultures

a. Has a key characteristic of the Cold War, namely, the global polarization of political models, simply disappeared? What has become of the ideological energies of the period? Is global capitalism now the dominant political model; that is, is the West the undisputed « victor »?  Or can we retrace the transformation of Cold War ideological energies into a variety of ideological concepts-the « end of history » and « democratic peace », the « battle of cultures », Islamo-fascism and « rogue states », or political concepts promoted by the anti-globalization movement or by political forces rooted in protest movements denouncing the Cold War order (such as opposition to nuclear testing and weapons, to the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Prague, or NATO missile deployment in Europe in the 1980s)?

b. The culture of security: The discourses and rhetoric of security became the centerpiece of political debate during the Cold War. Security was a promise that extended far beyond the realm of the military. In an age marked by the greatest military threat in history, the aim was to use planning and regulation to ensure the highest possible degree of security. A variety of different processes converged in the context of the Cold War: responses to the economic crisis and the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s and to National Socialism; the projects pursued by technocratic elites; the widespread conviction, in the East as well as the West and the Third World, that unharnessed capitalism was failing; and finally and most importantly, the competition between the two systems and their rival paths to achieving modernization and social security. The Cold War fused these processes to form a comprehensive (military, societal, political, and economic) culture of security and allocate huge resources to create and maintain it. What remains of this culture of security, which, according to Eric Hobsbawm, coincided with a « golden age »? Was this a historic « state of emergency »? Or did it constitute the most successful framework for modern political action ever created, as demonstrated most clearly in times of crisis? Are state interventions and state regulation now, after the end of the Cold War, delegitimated, or do security regimes continue to prove their usefulness? How did the promise of security influence mentalities and political cultures that have emerged since the end of the Cold War? How did the concept of security change during and after the Cold War? How is security functionalized politically? These questions reveal the ambivalent aspects of the culture of security: to what extent did this culture have a lasting effect on political modalities, especially by confirming the logic of inherent necessity and the dominant position of technocratic elites? Does the legacy of the security mindset mean that perceived threats to security are still confronted within the conceptual framework of the Cold War? Is the logic of suspicion that has shaped policy-making in diverse societies and contexts after 9/11 in fact a legacy of this promise of security?

c. Security institutions: The culture of security has also left its mark on political institutions. Among the most conspicuous legacies are the creation of huge security bureaucracies; the concept of national security; the « national security state »; the « politics of secrecy », the linkage of party apparatuses, intelligence services, and the armament complex; and a psychology of power that is underpinned by the mass media. What are the ongoing effects of these institutional structures, and what transformations are they subject to? Have they caused long-term changes in policymaking and political practices? Have they promoted or impeded learning processes in society, for example, in dealing with new threats? Does the institutional framework contribute to creating monolithic concepts of the enemy that proved to be an inadequate basis for policy making? How are security institutions influenced by the public and by domestic controversies, and to what extent can they avoid these pressures and develop schemes for managing threat scenarios professionally?

d. Autocratic tendencies within the executive branches of government are one result of the politics of security during and after the Cold War; an important examples is the imperial presidency in the U.S., which was generally legitimated by security discourses and determined structurally by the inner dynamics of security institutions. Did the Cold War conserve and revitalize preexisting traditions of autocracy and extra-legality or did it contribute significantly to creating such tendencies? Are these specific answers to challenges that did not surface until after the end of the Cold War but drew on ways of thinking and political styles typical of that era? Did the global East-West confrontation delay political and social liberalization processes or accelerate them?

e. These tendencies correspond to political rituals, old and new forms of ruler cults. Among the phenomena that may deserve further attention in this context are the position of the Communist Party in China and the heritage of Stalin in Russia.

f. The ambivalence of the relationship between violence and politics as a legacy of the Cold War also warrants study. Did the Cold War pave the way to a pacification of politics in Europe? While war has been discredited in parts of the Western world, in many areas of the Third World-now often called the Global South-violence is an accepted and established means of political confrontation. This is best understood as the result of a shift promoted by the Cold War, in which specific forms of violence that were not only tolerated in the geostrategic wake of the bloc confrontation, from Indonesia to Colombia, but indeed fueled by the East and the West, to the point where they could escalate almost unchecked. Have autochthonal potentials for violence been ignited and multiplied by Cold War energies? In what ways do societies continue to suffer from the Cold War’s dynamic of violence, and what are the political consequences of these phenomena?

2. Military Resources

a. Prominent legacies of the Cold War are the economies of armament and the political, military, and academic complexes to which they are linked. The « militarization of the economy » with its structures, self-mobilization, internal dynamics, and self-interests played a significant role in perpetuating the Cold War and, in particular, the nuclear stand-off as the unique manifestation of the bloc confrontation.  Do these structures continue to exist under changing geostrategic conditions? Why has the « peace dividend » never been cashed in?

b. Is there a link between today’s global arms trade and the armament economy generated by the Cold War? Other factors to be considered are global terrorism and how states are dealing with the existing nuclear weapons arsenal, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the risk of nuclear terrorism.

c. Armed forces and strategies: Has a military revolution that has overcome the Cold War really occurred? Or do Cold War concepts continue to determine the military’s strategic horizon as well as, for all practical purposes, its practices and armament priorities ? Is there evidence of a disarmament process that goes beyond the logic of the Cold War? Has the doctrine of « permanent preparedness » ever really been abandoned?

d. Are there indications of a shift in images of the military marked by enhanced recognition of what was formerly deprecated? What images of soldiers, of masculinity, and of the war of the future predominate in the military itself and in the mass media? Do these images reflect concepts that perpetuate Cold War military traditions-clandestine commando operations and « counterinsurgency », which occur within a framework marked by a minimum of institutional legitimacy or democratic control?

e. Military rituals: Can we enhance our understanding of the aftereffects of the Cold War-as opposed to and at the same time drawing on pre-dated traditions of military symbolism-by investigating rituals such as memorial services for soldiers killed in action or military salutes? What do such practices reveal about how a specific society relates to the military? What lines of continuity and discontinuity, what transformations and reconfigurations emerge?

3. Ecology and economy

a. Some of the most enduring effects of the Cold War can be discerned in the environmental realm. To what extent are environmental disasters, famine, the destruction of people’s livelihood, or the impacts of climate change consequences of the Cold War? What are the social and economic effects of the dissemination of weapons such as land mines?

b. How is the ongoing proliferation of poverty connected to the dynamics of the East-West conflict, either directly or indirectly, by virtue of the way it shapes public perception and thus, for example, marginalizes problems like poverty or the environment? And what are the long-term demographic effects of the Cold War in the Third World?

c. Is the emergence of elites in the Third World connected to the Cold War? To what extent did new patterns in the formation of elites appear after the Cold War ended? What are the structural impacts on societies when Cold War armament aid is discontinued?

d. In what ways is the Cold War linked to the emergence of transnational advocacy networks that bridged the East-West and North-South divides of the Cold War? What is their legacy for the post-Cold War world? Has it resulted in the formation of a global civil society?

e. Can we find evidence of the ongoing existence of dominant developmental models that are adhered to by various actors? Does the Cold War still have an impact on today’s relations between Third World countries and the states of the former Western and Eastern blocs? Are new cooperative relations or new strategic rivalries (such as the role of China on the African continent) manifestations of such continuities?  Has the end of the Cold War brought a loss of self-regulation among economic actors, because capitalism’s opponent has disappeared? Does global market liberalism now believe that it must no longer fear the consequences of excesses and crises, because it does not have to take the political limits into account that were once set by its global competitor? Despite the deregulation tendencies that surfaced in the 1970s and 1980s, risk-adverse economic behavior remained a key characteristic of the Cold War. If the radical abandonment of economic restraint was therefore only possible after the bloc confrontation ended, what does this imply for our understanding of the relationship between economic activities and the competition between the two political systems? If it is true that the combination of « consumer capitalism », « welfare democracy », and « socially-committed markets »-and not the radical market model-was the winning formula in the Cold War, as Melvyn Leffler, a leading historian of the Cold War has argued, then what are the global consequences if the « victor » forgets that formula and loses his allure?

The conference language is English. The Hamburg Institute for Social Research will reimburse travel expenses (second-class train fare or economy-class air fare for long-distance travel) and provide accommodations during the conference for all invited participants.

Please send proposals (one to two pages) and a brief c.v. by 15 January 2011 to the Hamburg Institute for Social Research at coldwar@his-online.de

Organizer: Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung, Bernd Greiner, Tim B.  Müller, Dierk Walter, Claudia Weber, Hamburg

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

1956, une date européenne

MINK, Georges, LAZAR, Marc, et SIELSKI, Mariuzs J. (dir.), 1956, une date européenne, Paris : éditions Noir sur Blanc, 2010, 480 p.

Présentation de l’éditeur : «Il y a plus d’un demi-siècle les deux Europe ont été traversées par une formidable onde de choc d’Est en Ouest. Le rapport Khrouchtchev au XXe Congrès du PCUS, l’Octobre polonais et l’intervention soviétique en Hongrie, ont été le plus souvent analysés et commémorés comme un premier schisme dans le système totalitaire soviétique. Rares étaient ceux qui établissaient des corrélations à l’échelle européenne, entre l’évolution du communisme au pouvoir et l’évolution politique dans les démocraties occidentales. On constatait certes un lien entre le conflit de Suez et l’écrasement de l’insurrection hongroise, mais l’effet « boule de neige » de la décomposition du communisme était moins perceptible. Le mur de la guerre froide séparait aussi les récits et les analyses de 1956.

Par les textes qui le composent, cet ouvrage insiste sur le caractère organiquement européen de l’héritage de 1956. Il s’inscrit dans les efforts pour niveler l’asymétrie entre les mémoires des anciens et des nouveaux membres de l’Union européenne. 1956 n’a pas toujours était perçu comme une date qui relie tout notre continent – tantôt cantonnée au cadre national, polonais ou hongrois, tantôt exportée ailleurs, pour être mise en musique dans les enjeux internes occidentaux, notamment dans les tentatives d’affaiblissement des partis communistes encore relativement puissants en France ou en Italie. L’hypothèse du grand troc diplomatique « à vous le Suez, à nous Budapest » ne faisait que creuser la séparation en deux réalités en apparence distinctes. L’européanisation de l’événement est venue bien plus tard. Et pour qu’elle s’accomplisse pleinement il a fallu deux tournants de l’histoire : la fin du communisme est-européen en 1989 et l’adhésion des pays de l’Europe centrale à l’Union Européenne en 2004.»

Table des matières :

Georges Mink : «1956 : une date européenne», p. 7

Première partie : URSS – Craquements du Centre, échos en périphérie

Le XXe Congrès

  • Nicolas Werth : «Le `Rapport secret’ en perspective», p. 35
  • Marc Élie : «Quelques aspects de la recherche récente», p. 59
  • Léonid Trous : «Comment cela fut-il vécu dans les camps et à l’extérieur», p. 73
  • Témoignages d’Elena Bonner, Sergueï Kovaliov, Georges Nivat

Périphérie

  • Elena Zoubkova : «L’année 1956 et l’`autre URSS’: le phénomène balte dans le contexte du `dégel’», p. 107
  • Olaf Mertelsmann : «1956, un tournant dans l’histoire de l’Estonie soviétique?», p. 136

Deuxième partie : La Pologne comme aiguillon

  • Leszek Kotakowski : «Cinquante ans plus tard», p. 145
  • Andrzej Paczkowski : «La Pologne après le XXe Congrès : enjeux et rapports de force», p. 152
  • Konrad Bialeski et Stanislaw Jankowiak : «`De la liberté et du pain!’ Le soulèvement de Poznán de juin 1956», p. 168
  • Pawel Machcewicz : «Crise politique ou mobilisation sociale?», p. 197
  • Paulina Codogni : «La différenciation du communisme – Le cas de la Pologne», p. 217
  • Stefan Meller : «Dédoublement : les jeux intérieurs du parti et les courants dnas la société populaire», p. 224
  • Adam Michnik : «La leçon de 1956 – cinquante après. Les rivages de l’anticommunisme», p. 229
  • Agnieszka Grudzińska : «Le XXe Congrès et la culture en Pologne», p. 233
  • Marcin Frybes : «L’Octobre polonais et ses conséquences pour les relations franco-polonaises», p. 253

Troisième partie : Hongrie : au-delà du tolérable

  • George Gömöri : «Deux octobres : la Pologne et la Hongrie en 1956», p.  265
  • Árpád Fasang : «Trois dimensions de la révoution hongoise», p. 275
  • Gusztáv D. Kecskés : «Les démocraties occidentales face à la révolution hongroise (1956 à partir des documents d’archives de l’OTAN», p. 281
  • Témoignage : Thomas Schreiber

Quatrième partie : La Tchécoslovaquie à la traîne? Contexte de la spécificité tchèque

  • Antoine Marès : «Les prolégomènes de 1956», p. 317
  • Jacques Rupnik : «La Tchécoslovaquie face à la crise de 1956», p. 333
  • Antonin J. Liehm : «La Tchécoslovaquie entre 1956 et 1968», p. 341

Cinquième partie : interdépendances et effets sur l’espace européen

  • René Rémond : «La rencontre des deux Europe – octobre 1956», p. 351
  • Norman Davies : «Interdépendances des développements. De Suez à Budapest», p. 353
  • Gérard Grunberg : «1956 dans l’opinion publique en France et en Italie.  Les communistes et les autres», p. 356
  • Marc Lazar : «Les partis communistes français et italien et l’année 1956. Entre crise et fidélité», p. 364
  • Alain Besançon : «Les voies du communisme européen après 1956», p. 374
  • Bronislaw Geremek : «Le chemin de la liberté européenne», p. 378
  • Gergely Fejérdy : «Action diplomatique de Paul-Henri Spaak», p. 385
  • Mariusz J. Sielski : «La nouvelle image de la Russie en Pologne à la suite des événements de 1956», p. 392

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts

Border communities: microstudies on everyday life, politics and memory in European societies from 1945 to the present

« Border communities: microstudies on everyday life, politics and memory in European societies from 1945 to the present »
Vienna, 14-15 October 2010

The purpose of the workshop is to create a network of researchers working on border studies in Central and Eastern Europe with a view of a common publication project that would go to print by late 2011. The publication(s) will bring together the research findings generated within the project « Border Communities » conducted at LBI EHP since 2006 and other similarly focused projects conducted at other institutions.

The research on « Border Communities » at LBI EHP has produced material covering a broad scope of issues: from memories of WW2 to EU-accession, through perceptions of political events to the minutiae of everyday life at the border, the material and abstract significance of the border, to religious, ethnic, generational and gendered divisions and fusions. This workshop intends to zoom in on some of the issues and develop thematically focused articles/book chapters covering particular aspects of borders and border regimes within local communities. Although an historical perspective is central to the overall direction of the envisioned publication project, approaches from political science, anthropology, sociology, and cultural and gender studies are encouraged.

Venue:

Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for European History and Public Spheres (LBI EHP)

Nussdorfer Strasse 64, 4th floor.

A-1090 Vienna, Austria

Program: http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/sites/ihtp/IMG/pdf/Progr_BordCom_wrkshop.pdf

Website: http://ehp.lbg.ac.at

guerre-froide

Le carnet de recherches «Autour du système de guerre froide» accompagne le séminaire du même nom organisé dans le cadre de l'UMR IRICE par Jenny Raflik et Émilia Robin Hivert.

More Posts