Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 10

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Civil War
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The outbreak of the Nigerian Civil War few years after the attainment of independence from Britain further deepened the interest of the latter in Nigeria’s existence as a nation. Scholars of disciplines such as history, political science and international relations through their works, have examined the nature and dimensions of Nigeria’s relations with Britain as well as the British involvement in the Nigerian Civil War. Foreign policy formulation, colonial legacies, economic ties, are typical examples of the nature of Nigeria’s relations with Britain. Similarly, scholars have interrogated the roles of Britain in the Nigerian Civil War through multilateral efforts at the United Nations and Commonwealth of Nations, propaganda, protection of the British economic interests in Nigeria, British military initiative as well as the pressure of the Cold War as the basis for prompt British intervention in the war. However, comprehensive intellectual attention has not been paid to the British peace initiative outside the multilateral conflict resolution structure. It is against this backdrop that this paper interrogates the nature and dimension of British peace initiative strategy which brought an end to the Nigerian Civil War. The paper argues in its conclusion that the failure of the multilateral approach of the British was salvaged by the unilateral British bureaucratic strategy that was enhanced by their colonial legacies in Nigeria.
EN
The purpose of this study is analysis of Austrian Chancellor Metternich’s approach towards the civil war in Switzerland, which ensued in 1847 between the Catholic and Protestant cantons, and evaluation of the consequences of Metternich’s diplomatic defeat, for him personally and also for Austria and its relationship with the German Confederation. Eruption of the conflict itself, its progress and its consequences will be discussed. Metternich considered the dispute in Switzerland to be an issue for Austria, because he believed that the radical (Protestant) cantons’ efforts to create a unified federal state could act as an impulse for the increased involvement of German nationalists who would finally trigger a revolution in Germany. He made all possible effort to prevent this development, however, his intention this time was not just to use diplomatic means, but also armed intervention by Austria and France and he also considered using military assistance from the states of the German Confederation. But his efforts failed, the Sonderbund, a military defensive alliance of the seven Catholic conservative cantons created for the purpose of protecting the sovereignty of the cantons, was defeated in the civil war and a new federal constitution was adopted in Switzerland. The Prince’s fears were realised when the victory of the Swiss radicals became one of the impulses for a revolution in Germany and Italy in 1848.
EN
Since the beginning of the war in Syria, massive numbers of Syrian citizens have fled their homeland to escape death and secure a better life for themselves and their children overseas. The Syrian refugees have sought asylum in many countries, although Europe was their main destination. These vulnerable families crossed rivers, mountains and plains and faced every danger imaginable to reach Europe; many died along the way. Heading toward the unknown, the refugees had little to no expectation of what they were going to face where they were heading. But for them, going back is not an option. On the other side of the equation, the European countries were also under substantial pressures to receive and deal with the refugees. The European countries’ reaction and response to the refugee movement varied significantly, with some countries, such as Germany, welcoming and receiving large numbers of Syrian refugees, and others, such as France, the Czech Republic and the UK, being more reluctant to openly welcome them. In this article, the European states’ approach to dealing with the Syrian refugee crisis and the challenges they currently face will be discussed and explained in light of the events on the ground. This article deals with the issue of the relationship between the Syrian refugees and the European countries in terms of the efforts that Europe has made to help these refugees, as well as the impact that the refugees have had or will have on various aspects of life in Europe.
EN
In this article author focused on the Diaries and Memoirs of Yevhen Chykalenko. He has tried to reconstruct the process of creating these books and compare them. The author creatively developed the comparative analysis of Memoirs and Diaries, because the first book is characterized by officiality, memory idyll, positive aspects of Ukraine. Th e second one brings bitterness and a critical judgment of his own nation. To emphasize this comparison, the author used the concept of Malgorzata Czermińska’s autobiographical triangle. Reflecting on the passivity of the Ukrainian writer during the Ukrainian People’s Republic, he came to the conclusion that it resulted from the philosophy of „not opposing evil with violence” by Leo Tolstoy. Between him and Chykalenko the author found more converging parallels. Th e author then dealt with the political myths of Chykalenko, among which he distinguished his fascination with Germany. If in Memoirs we deal with an idyllic and positive image of Ukraine and Ukrainians, catastrophic visions prevail in the dairies. It shows the fall of values, as well as the triumph of barbarism that prevailed aft er the revolution of 1917. Memoirs and Diaries by Chykalenko are very important for the study of the history of Ukrainian periodicals, we learn about the realities of the press, problems with censorship, editorial work, repressions.
5
63%
Tematy i Konteksty
|
2023
|
vol. 18
|
issue 13
370-377
PL
Artykuł dotyczy powieści Mary E. Wilkins Freeman Pembroke (1894). Powieść jest interpretowana w kontekście wielopłaszczyznowego kryzysu Nowej Anglii po wojnie secesyjnej, obejmującego nie tylko demografię (straty wojenne w populacji męskiej) czy gospodarkę (bankructwo fabryk tekstylnych w regionie, przejęcie handlu morskiego przez Nowy Jork), lecz także kultury opartej na tradycji purytanskiej sięgającej XVII wieku. Autorka umieściła wprawdzie akcję w latach 1830-tych, jednak zarówno data publikacji książki, jak i realia miasteczka na nowoangielskiej prowincji wskazują na okres znacznie późniejszy. Wilkins Freeman kontynuuje w Pembroke realistyczną konwencję przedstawieniową tzw. "powieści domowej", sięgającą roku 1822, łącząc ją zarazem z elementami gotyckimi bliskimi romantycznej prozie Nathaniela Hawthorne'a. Konkluzja opiera się na rozumieniu kultury przez Jacquesa Lacana (Realne - Wyobrażeniowe - Symboliczne). Porządek symboliczny ufundowany na patriarchalnie zdefiniowanym "Imieniu Ojca" ulega w Pembroke rozpadowi poprzez regresję do wyobrażeniowej relacji dziecka z matką, kwestionujacej tradycyjną pozycję ojca. Innym kluczowym symptomem upadku spuścizny purytańskiej jest utrata zdolności komunikowania się przez postaci męskie i kobiece, co stawia pod znakiem zapytania przyszłość wspólnoty.
EN
The article is an interpretation of Mary E. Wilkins Freeman’s novel Pembroke (1994). Even though it is set in the third decade of the 19th century, the year of publication suggests that it just as well refers to the condition of New England after the Civil War. Hit by a complex crisis, concerning demography, economy, and mores, after 1865 the region entered a stage of decadence. Wilkins Freeman diagnosed its symptoms, such as the collapse of interpersonal communication and the hypertrophy of individual will, showing that the portents of the decline of Puritan heritage had its roots in the first half of the century. With time, the symbolic system of New England culture collapsed and gave way to a new social order.
EN
In 1917–1922 the Russians and their neighbors experienced a very painful period of their history – the Civil War. This conflict in Russia had also some impact on the Czechoslovak Army Corps that got trapped in that country in the years 1917– 1920 when the Bolsheviks had signed a peace treaty with the Central Powers. Previous historiography of the Soviet era in Russia and that of the socialist era in Czechoslovakia considered those events from the class- and party-based point of view, and Czechoslovak historians, under the pressure of Communist ideology and censorship reproduced the views of Bolshevist leaders, namely V. I. Lenin. Since 1990 new approaches to this period of Russian and our history have appeared. Confidential materials stored in archives as well as prohibited literature and journals have become available to the public and their study provides a better balanced view of the Civil War in Russia. A great contribution to both Czech and Slovak historiography is the large work done by Russian scientists who study the relevant archival materials and present the results of their work at conferences devoted to the First World War and/or the Civil War in Russia. Owing to several scientific institutions in the Perm Region a number of scientific conferences and exhibitions devoted to the Civil War in the Urals have been organized and the very first Civil War Museum has been opened in the village of Kyn containing an exhibition dedicated to the Czechoslovak legions.
PL
W okresie poprzedzającym wybuch wojny secesyjnej teoretycy i politycy Starego Południa Stanów Zjednoczonych (Calhoun, Hayne, Tucker, Taylor of Caroline) wypracowali teoretyczne instrumenty oporu wobec ich zdaniem tyrańskim praktykom rządu federalnego. Obok interpozycji i nullifikacji najbardziej radykalnym środkiem było prawo do secesji. Autor w artykule dokonuje rozróżnienia argumentacji na argumentację konstytucyjną i metaprawną. Pierwsza odwołuje się do myśli Founding Fathers, ducha roku ’98 i koncepcji praw stanowych. Głównymi jej elementami są: kontraktowy charakter Unii, pierwotna suwerenność stanów oraz interpretacja użytego w konstytucji zwrotu „My, Naród”. Uzasadnienie filozoficzne odwołuje się natomiast do prawa oporu wobec tyrańskiego rządu zawarte w Deklaracji Niepodległości. Oba te uzasadnienia występowały wspólnie i autor poszukuje ich w aktach secesji Karoliny Południowej i Konstytucji Skonfederowanych Stanów.
EN
Before the outbreak of the Civil War, the theorists and politicians of the South of the US developed the theoretical instruments of resistance to what they considered tyrannical practices of the federal government. Just next to interposition and nullification, the most radical measure was the right of secession. In the article, the author distinguishes between constitutional and meta-legal arguments. The first ones refer to the thought of the Founding Fathers, the spirit of ‘98 and the concept of states’ rights. Its main elements are: the contractual nature of the Union, the original sovereignty of the states and the interpretation of the phrase: “We the People” used in the Constitution. In turn the philosophical justification refers to the right of resistance to tyrannical government contained in the Declaration of Independence. The two group of justifications appeared together, and the author searches for them in the acts of secession of South Carolina and the CS Constitution
EN
What do the Civil War battles of Fredericksburg and Gettysburg have to do with the Art of War, the military strategy treatise written by ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu (ca. 544 – ca. 496 BC)? Very much, in fact. The Art of War’s timeless advice and principles can explain the results of battles and entire wars in every historical period, including the 19th century. The unorthodox way of war advocated therein allowed Sun Tzu, the commander of the army of Wu, to defeat a much larger army of the neighboring state of Chu, but due to a lack of English translation until 1910 was unknown to the English-speaking world, including Generals Ambrose Burnside and Robert Lee, who, ignorant of its sage advice, made catastrophic blunders at Fredericksburg and Gettysburg, respectively. Burnside attempted a rapid crossing of the Rappahannock river at Fredericksburg, but pontoon bridges did not arrive in time, so the element of surprise was lost, and even when they did, he hesitated to cross until December 1862 when Confederates had already dug themselves in at Marye’s Heights; he sent his men like swarming ants towards the Confederate trenches on the heights, losing thousands of them. Lee evidently didn’t learn from his enemy’s mistakes and repeated them at Gettysburg in July 1863. Although no river crossing was involved, Lee wrongly abandoned his original plan to capture Harrisburg and Camp Curtin (which would have been a huge prestigeous blow to President Lincoln and might have encouraged a European recognition of the Confederacy) and, upon hearing that Union divisions were at Gettysburg, he moved his entire army there. At Gettysburg, he first issued unclear orders to subordinate Gen. Richard Ewell, then, the next day, clarified these by ordering multiple suicidal assaults on fortified Union positions on Cemetery Ridge. Sun Tzu counseled against attacking an enemy’s strong positions and especially against charging uphill to attack. He also stressed the importance of clarity of orders and of not trying the same type of attack over and over again. As Burnside’s and Lee’s examples show, generals who ignore Sun Tzu’s advice do so at their own peril.
PL
Można zadać pytanie, co bitwy wojny secesyjnej pod Gettysburgiem i Fredericksburgiem mają wspólnego z traktatem strategii wojskowej napisanym przez starożytnego chińskiego generała Sun Tzu (ca. 544 – ca. 496 p.n.e.). Okazuje się, że bardzo dużo. Dzieło to zawiera ponadczasowe porady, dzięki którym można wyjaśnić wyniki bitew i wojen w każdym okresie historycznym, łącznie z XIX w. Ze względu na brak tłumaczenia na język angielski do 1910 r. traktat ten był nieznany dla świata zachodniego, w tym dla generałów Ambrose’a Burnside’a i Roberta Lee. Dowódcy ci, nie znając jego porad, doświadczyli katastrofalnych porażek militarnych. Burnside próbował szybkiego przekraczania rzeki Rappahannock pod Fredericksburgiem, ponieważ we właściwym czasie nie zostały dostarczone dla armii mosty pontonowe. Zamiar się nie powiódł i element zaskoczenia został utracony. Generał Lee niewiele się nauczył na błędach przeciwnika i powtórzył je pod Gettysburgiem w lipcu 1863 r.
EN
It is not without reason that the Civil War is considered to be a turning point in US history. One of them was the mass participation of African Americans, who, for the first time since the War of Independence, were allowed to serve in the army (total ca.180,000). Even though many U.S. Colored Troops were not frontal units, nevertheless some of them did actively participate in military operations. As a consequence an issue of black prisoners of war occurred. Obviously, in this case, they had to be captured by Southern troops first. Unfortunately, much oftener, there were instances of mistreatment or even brutal slaughter of POWs from U.S. Colored Troops (i.e. Olustee – Feb. 20, 1864; Plymouth – April 20, 1864, etc.). Did such behavior of Confederate soldiers fit in in wide definition of war atrocities, understood as a will to take revenge at enemy’s troops, which plunder mother country, to avenge your family and friends, killed by the enemy, etc. Or it is a much deeper problem, having its conditioning in the culture of the South, whose ideological foundation was existence of so called Herrenvolk democracy, deeply rooted belief about superiority of white race over black (known also in the North), which was reflected not only in speeches of Southern, and later Confederate, politicians but also in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
PL
Wojna secesyjna nie bez powodu jest uważana za przełomowy konflikt w historii USA. Jednym z takich powodów jest masowy udział Afroamerykanów, którzy po raz pierwszy od czasów wojny o niepodległość Stanów Zjednoczonych mogli służyć w armii (łącznie ok. 180 tys.). Choć wiele oddziałów U.S. Colored Troops nie było jednostkami frontowymi, to jednak część wojsk kolorowych brała czynny udział w operacjach wojskowych. Konsekwencją tego faktu było zaistnienie kwestii czarnoskórych jeńców. Oczywiście w tym wypadku warunkiem koniecznym było wzięcie ich do niewoli przez oddziały Południa. Niestety znacznie częściej zdarzały się przypadki znęcania się czy wręcz bestialskiego mordowania jeńców z U.S. Colored Troops (np. Olustee – 20 lutego 1864 r., Plymouth – 20 kwietnia 1864 r. itp.). Czy takie zachowanie żołnierzy konfederackich mieściło się w szeroko pojętych okrucieństwach wojny, rozumianych jako chęć wzięcia odwetu na oddziałach wroga, który plądruje ojczystą ziemię, chęć pomszczenia bliskich lub przyjaciół, którzy zginęli od kul przeciwnika itd. Czy jest to problem głębszy, mający swoje uwarunkowania w kulturze Południa, którego podstawą ideową było istnienie tzw. demokracji panów (Herrenvolk democracy), głęboko zakorzenione przekonanie o wyższości rasy białej nad czarną (nieobce także na Północy), które znalazło swoje odzwierciedlenie nie tylko w przemowach polityków Południa, a później Skonfederowanych Stanów Ameryki, ale także w konstytucji tego kraju.
PL
Ważnym elementem w obecnych badaniach historycznych jest analiza relacji dyplomatycznych dotyczących dawnej Rzeczypospolitej w tym Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Ukazują one dzieje państwa oraz jego politykę wewnętrzną i zagraniczna z innej perspektywy historycznej. W 1700 r. wybuchła Wielka Wojna Północna, która zmieniła układ sił politycznych w Europie Środkowo Wschodniej na kolejne dziesięciolecia. Dyplomaci obcych dworów byli zainteresowani tą wojną, w tym Philipp Plantamour, sekretarz ambasadora angielskiego w Berlinie. Przesyłał on do Londynu swoje relacje, w których umieszczał nie tylko informacje dotyczące działań militarnych w czasie wojny, ale także te dotyczące najważniejszych rodzin na Litwie i ich rywalizacji politycznej. Analiza tych raportów dyplomatycznych da odpowiedź na pytanie w jaki sposób widziano wielką wojnę północną oraz sytuację wewnętrzną w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim na zachodzie Europy. Interesujące będzie także czy relacje Philippa Plantamoura w sposób rzetelny przedstawiały opisywane w raportach wydarzenia, czy były prawdziwe i zawierały do tej pory nieznane informacje.
EN
An important element in current historical research is the analysis of diplomatic relations regarding the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, including the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They show the history of the state and its internal and foreign policy from a different historical perspective. In 1700 the Great Northern War broke out, which changed the balance of political forces in Central and Eastern Europe for the next decades. Foreign court diplomats were interested in this war, including Philipp Plantamour, secretary of the British ambassador in Berlin. He sent to London his reports, in which he placed not only information about military operations during the war, but also about the most important families in Lithuania and their political rivalry. An analysis of these diplomatic reports will answer the question of how the Great Northern War and the internal situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Western Europe was seen. It will also be interesting if the reports of Philipp Plantamour reliably presented the events described in the reports, were they true and contained unknown information so far.
RU
Важным элементом современных исторических исследований является анализ дипломатических отчетов касающихся Речи Посполитой. Они показывают историю государства, его внутреннюю и внешнюю политику с другой исторической точки зрения. В 1700 году вспыхнула Северная война, и в последующие десятилетия политическая система в Центральной и Восточной Европе изменилась. Дипломаты из иностранных дворов, в том числе Филипп Плантамур, секретарь посла Джорджа Степни в Берлине, заинтересовались войной. Свои отчеты он отправлял на Британию. В них он размещал информации о военных и политических операциях в Литве. Анализ этих дипломатических отчетов дает ответ на вопрос, как этот воспринимался в 1700- 1703 гг. этот конфликт а также Литва и ее социальные элиты. Также будет интересно ответить на вопрос о том, содержали ли отчеты Филиппа Плантамура правдивую и ранее неизвестную информацию.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.