Japan has always been fascinating for foreign observers. This volume will show, how its military has been perceived abroad and what image about the Japanese Army existed between 1853 and 1945 in the minds of those who read and heard stories from the Far East.
When forcefully opened by a US mission in 1853, Japan was transformed by its ruling elites into a strong nation state, whose military and political forces wanted to avoid a colonization by foreign powers. Therefore, Japan’s military capacities were of special interest and the army and navy were westernized very fast. Japanese soldiers became known as “Asia’s Prussians,“ and were often described as “gallant enemies“. This image, however, should rapidly change after the First World War. During the battles in China since 1937, and the Pacific since 1941, the Japanese soldiers were often referred to as “devils.“ This volume will take a closer look at the images of Japan’s military abroad to show how these images were created, how they changed and what stimulated the differences with regard to the foreign perception of Japan and its military between 1853 and 1945.
Grenzüberschreitende Liebesbeziehungen im Wandel der Zeit; Heiraten über nationale und kulturelle Grenzen hinweg: Solche Liebesbeziehungen, die heute immer häufiger vorkommen, waren in der Vergangenheit aus unterschiedlichen Gründen umstritten.
Das Buch erzählt erstmals die Geschichte der (erfolgten und verhinderten) Eheschließungen Deutscher mit Nichtdeutschen. Dabei konzentriert sich das Buch auf die Zeit zwischen Kaiserreich und dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges. Deutlich wird für diesen Zeitraum, wie umstritten solche intimen Grenzüberschreitungen immer wieder waren. Bürokratische Hürden und ausländerrechtliche Regelungen, zunehmend aber auch eugenisch-rassistische und stark ethnozentristische Ordnungsvorstellungen haben die Chancen solcher Ehevorhaben stark beeinflusst. Deutlich wird aber auch: Solche Eheschließungen veränderten die Wirklichkeit und Wahrnehmung der Aufnahmegesellschaften, sie führen zu neuen gesellschaftlichen Dynamiken und stellen Gewesenes vor neue Herausforderungen.
The present volume provides a critical insight into the relationship of art and war. It shows how artists perceive war and how they depict it, to warn the spectator but to cure their own trauma at the same time.
War causes destruction, loss, and trauma. Many artists have used their art to express feelings and memories related to these losses and their own traumatic experiences. The artwork that came into existence due to such processes reflects on events of our past, but should be considered a warning at the same time. To deal with human suffering means to fully engage with the artist remains of human war experiences. The present volume aims to provide a first critical insight into the relationship between art and war, showing how artists dealt with human losses, destruction, and personal trauma.
This book aims to create an integral picture of the social, economic and cultural history of the Jews in Lithuania during the course of more than six hundred years – from the Middle Ages to the 1990s. It is a translation of the study “Lietuvos žydai. Istorinė studija” (Engl. “Lithuanian Jews. Historical study”), published in Lithuanian in 2012. The Book was written by an interna-tional group of scholars from Lithuania, Israel, the United States of America and Germany.
The world of Lithuanian Jewry is reconstructed through different aspects of the development of community and society: demography, social and economic activity, self-government institutions of the community, cultural and religious movements, literature and the press, education, discriminative policy of the authorities and relations with the dominant church, segregation, assimilation and changes of identity, anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust.
A crucial collection of new insights into a topic too often ignored in military history: the close interrelationship between cities and warfare throughout modern history. Scenes of Aleppo’s war-torn streets may be shocking to the world’s majority urban population, but such destruction would be familiar to urban dwellers as early as the third millennium BCE. While war is often narrated as a clash of empires, nation-states, and ‘civilizations’, cities have been the strategic targets of military campaigns, to be conquered, destroyed, or occupied. Cities have likewise been shaped by war, whether transformed for the purposes of military production, reconstructed after bombardment, or renewed as sites for remembering the costs of war. This conference volume draws on the latest research in military and urban history to understand the critical intersection between war and cities.
The article discusses the activities during the period of late Stalinism of Justas Paleckis, the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Soviet Lithuania. The paper puts forward the premise that from 1944 to 1953, Paleckis balanced between indigenous (local) communism and attitudes characteristic of some Central European national communists. To be more precise, he tried to emphasise the specifics of the historical development of Lithuania, and its differences from other Soviet republics, in which the formation of the Soviet regime started earlier. According to him, its tradition of statehood made Lithuania a unique republic, and this circumstance should be taken into account when making Lithuania Soviet. Paleckis was convinced that in order to make Soviet rule more attractive to the Lithuanians, it was necessary to cooperate with the nation’s cultural elite, that is, with the interwar Lithuanian intelligentsia. In his writings and speeches, he tried to merge organically the liberation of the Lithuanian nation from the ‘yoke’ of the exploiters, with the no less important liberation from the ‘national yoke’ or national revival of the Lithuanians. Social and national ‘liberation’, according to him, was crowned with the establishment of the socialist order in Lithuania. This ‘organic’ understanding of history was characteristic of other national communists in Central Europe. Finally, Paleckis tried to incorporate national elements into the system of symbols in Soviet Lithuania. The Lithuanianisation of symbols of Soviet rule was meant to strengthen the legitimacy of the authorities. However, this analysis shows that the Lithuanian Party leadership did not support Paleckis’ ideas and efforts. He was often strongly criticised in communist forums. It can be argued that in the period of late Stalinism, the ‘window of opportunity’ for national communism in Lithuania was finally closed. Tendencies towards unification and Russification became increasingly prevalent in politics. Thus, in this political-cultural context, Paleckis represented the type of communist that could be called an indigenous Lithuanian communist.