scholarly journals The Academic Career of Nikolai Fedorovich Preobrazhensky (1893–1970)

Monitor ISH ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-150
Author(s):  
Željko Oset

The article presents the efforts of Nikolai Fedorovich Preobrazhensky, a young and little known Russian scholar, for an academic career at the University of Ljubljana. After the First World War Preobrazhensky decided not to return to Russia, where the Bolshevik revolution had broken out. Encouraged by the goodwill of Slovenian scholars, especially Rajko Nahtigal, whom he had met in Graz, he decided to realise his youthful dream of an academic career at the newly founded University of Ljubljana. But despite his efforts and repeated attempts, his intentions never completely materialised. Unsuccessful attempts at habilitation at the University of Ljubljana, where he taught practical Russian language classes, were an enormous blow to his self-esteem. He succeeded as late as 1958, after he had already been habilitated at the School of Arts in Zadar and decided to leave Slovenia, which became after World War I his second homeland.

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 590-604
Author(s):  
Holger H. Herwig

Sir Hew Strachan of the University of St Andrews is the doyen of World War I studies. He approached his work from a serious multinational, multilingual, and comparative perspective. He was never afraid to challenge well-established interpretations and to add fresh analyses of concepts ranging from total war to trench warfare. He was always keen to include diplomacy, politics, imperialism, industrialization, and the sinews of war in his writings. From ‘origins’ to ‘consequences’, Strachan led his readers through the challenging shoals of Great War studies. One can hardly wait for the second instalment of his opus, The First World War: No Quarter.


Author(s):  
Eric Handley

Tom Webster grew up in London and lived there for twenty years in middle and later life, when he was Professor of Greek in the University at University College, the scene of much of his most fruitful work. For seventeen years before that, he was Hulme Professor of Greek at Manchester, taking up his appointment at the age of twenty-six, as the University recalled with pride and affection when it made him, in 1965, an honorary Doctor of Letters. He began his academic career with eight years (mainly) at Oxford, as an undergraduate and then a young don at Christ Church, with a fruitful interlude at Leipzig; he ended it with six years at Stanford, as Professor of Classics and then Emeritus. At and after the end of the First World War he was a schoolboy at Charterhouse; during the Second World War he served as an officer in Military Intelligence.


Belleten ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 68 (253) ◽  
pp. 687-734
Author(s):  
Kemal H. Karpat

This article clarifies several points related to the Ottoman entry into the First World War. First, the Young Turk leaders mistrusted deeply Great Britain which had occupied Egypt in 1882, and appeared disposed to satisfy French and Italian ambitions at the Ottoman expense. Yet, most of the Unionists, not to speak of the public and Parliament, were opposed to war. Indeed, the British and French tacitly agreed to divide the Ottoman state. For this reason, Cemal paşa, a friend of the French, even tried to conclude an alliance with Paris but was unsuccesful. Second, the decision to enter the war came as the consequence of stiff German pressure upon the Unionists leadership and became immediately a fact after the fleet under admiral Souchon's command bombarded the Russian ports. Only four Unionist leaders at most were informed about the German plans to attack Russia. Leading Ottoman officials such as Kazım Karabekir, Hafız Hakkı and many others were against early Ottoman entry into the war. Most of them wanted to wait until spring so as to have time to complete the necessary preparations for the battlefield. Probably, if the Ottoman entry into the war had been postponed for six months or so, Istanbul would have not entered the war at all since by then the hopes for a quick German victory would have vanished. Indeed, after the German offensive in France was stalled at Marne the Unionists seemed to develop second thoughts about the wisdom of fighting on Berlin's side. Consequently, the German diplomatic mission in İstanbul increased its pressures on Enver paşa, who acceded to Kaiser's war demands, still under the illusion that a German victory was imminent. In sum, the Ottoman entry into the war was not the consequence of careful preparation and long debate in the Parliament (which was recessed) and press. It was the result of a hasty decision by a handful of elitist leaders who disregarded democratic procedures and lacked long range political vision and fell easy victim to German machinations and their own utopian expectations of recovering the lost territories in the Balkans. The Ottoman entry into war prolonged it for two years and allowed the Bolshevik revolution to incubate and then explode in 1917 which in turn impacted profoundly the twentieth century world history and the Republican Turkey.


2006 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1253-1271
Author(s):  
TALBOT C. IMLAY

Anticipating total war: the German and American experiences, 1871–1914. By Manfred Boemeke, Roger Chickering, and Stig Förster. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. ix+506. ISBN 0-521-62294-8. £55.00.German strategy and the path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the development of attrition, 1870–1916. By Robert T. Foley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. xiv+316. ISBN 0-521-84193-3. £45.00.Europe's last summer: who started the Great War in 1914? By David Fromkin. New York: Knopf, 2004. Pp. xiii+368. ISBN 0-375-41156-9. £26.95.The origins of World War I. Edited by Richard F. Hamilton and Holger H. Herwig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pp. xiii+552. ISBN 0-521-81735-8. £35.00.Geheime Diplomatie und öffentliche Meinung: Die Parlamente in Frankreich, Deutschland und Grossbritanien und die erste Marokkokrise, 1904–1906. By Martin Mayer. Düsseldorf: Droste, 2002. Pp. 382. ISBN 3-7700-5242-0. £44.80.Helmuth von Moltke and the origins of the First World War. By Annika Mombauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pp. xvi+344. ISBN 0-521-79101-4. £48.00.The origins of the First World War: controversies and consensus. By Annika Mombauer. London: Pearson Education, 2002. Pp. ix+256. ISBN 0-582-41872-0. £15.99.Inventing the Schlieffen plan: German war planning, 1871–1914. By Terence Zuber. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Pp. xi+340. ISBN 0-19-925016-2. £52.50.As Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig remark in the introduction to their edited collection of essays on the origins of the First World War, thousands of books (and countless articles) have been written on the subject, a veritable flood that began with the outbreak of the conflict in 1914 and continues to this day. This enduring interest is understandable: the First World War was, in George Kennan’s still apt phrase, the ‘great seminal catastrophe’ of the twentieth century. Marking the end of the long nineteenth century and the beginning of the short twentieth century, the war amounted to an earthquake whose seismic shocks and after-shocks resonated decades afterwards both inside and outside of the belligerent countries. The Bolshevik Revolution, the growth of fascist and Nazi movements, the accelerated emergence of the United States as a leading great power, the economic depression of the 1930s – these and other developments all have their roots in the tempest of war during 1914–18. Given the momentous nature of the conflict, it is little wonder that scholars continue to investigate – and to argue about – its origins. At the same time, as Hamilton and Herwig suggest, the sheer number of existing studies places the onus on scholars themselves to justify their decision to add to this historiographical mountain. This being so, in assessing the need for a new work on the origins of the war, one might usefully ask whether it fulfills one of several functions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (08) ◽  
pp. 7-14
Author(s):  
Джамиля Яшар гызы Рустамова ◽  

The article is dedicated to the matter of Turkish prisoners on the Nargin Island in the Caspian Sea during the First World War. According to approximate computations, there were about 50-60 thousand people of Turkish captives in Russia. Some of them were sent to Baku because of the close location to the Caucasus Front and from there they were sent to the Nargin Island in the Caspian Sea. As time showed it was not the right choise. The Island had no decent conditions for living and turned the life of prisoners into the hell camp. Hastily built barracks contravene meet elementary standards, were poorly heated and by the end of the war they were not heated at all, water supply was unsatisfactory, sometimes water was not brought to the prisoner's several days. Bread was given in 100 grams per person per day, and then this rate redused by half. Knowing the plight of the prisoners, many citizens of Baku as well as the Baku Muslim Charitable Society and other charitable societies provided moral and material support to prisoners, they often went to the camp, brought food, clothes, medicines Key words: World War I, prisoners of war, Nargin Island, refugees, incarceration conditions, starvation, charity


Author(s):  
S. S. Shchevelev

The article examines the initial period of the mandate administration of Iraq by Great Britain, the anti-British uprising of 1920. The chronological framework covers the period from May 1916 to October 1921 and includes an analysis of events in the Middle East from May 1916, when the secret agreement on the division of the territories of the Ottoman Empire after the end of World War I (the Sykes-Picot agreement) was concluded before the proclamation of Faisal as king of Iraq and from the formation of the country՚s government. This period is a key one in the Iraqi-British relations at the turn of the 10-20s of the ХХ century. The author focuses on the Anglo-French negotiations during the First World War, on the eve and during the Paris Peace Conference on the division of the territory of the Ottoman Empire and the ownership of the territories in the Arab zone. During these negotiations, it was decided to transfer the mandates for Syria (with Lebanon) to the France, and Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq) to Great Britain. The British in Iraq immediately faced strong opposition from both Sunnis and Shiites, resulting in an anti-English uprising in 1920. The author describes the causes, course and consequences of this uprising.


Author(s):  
Benjamin Ziemann

It is a commonplace to see the First World War as a major caesura in German and European history. This article records the war years from 1914–1918 in Germany. Not least, such an interpretation can rely on the perceptions of influential contemporary observers. In Germany, as in other belligerent countries, many artists, intellectuals, and academics experienced the outbreak of the war as a cathartic moment. While it is straightforward to see the mobilization for war and violence as a major caesura for any of the belligerent countries, it is much more complicated to account for causalities and for German peculiarities. Difficult methodological questions arise, which have not always been properly addressed. While Germany was facing a ‘world of enemies’, as a popular slogan suggested, the semantics of the political shifted to an articulation of emotions, excitements, and promises, contributing to a dramatized narrative centered around the notions of sacrifice and fate. The effect of World War I concludes the article.


2006 ◽  
Vol 134 (Suppl. 2) ◽  
pp. 162-166
Author(s):  
Vukasin Antic ◽  
Zarko Vukovic

Disputes, divisions and even conflicts, so frequent in Serbia, have not bypassed physicians-members of the Serbian Medical Society; ones of the most important occurred at the crossroad of the 19th and 20th centuries related to foundation of the School of Medicine in Belgrade. The most prominent and persistent advocate of foundation of the School of Medicine was Dr. Milan Jovanovic Batut. In 1899, he presented the paper ?The Medical School of the Serbian University?. Batut`s effort was worth serious attention but did not produce fruit. On the contrary, Dr. Mihailo Petrovic criticized Batut by opening the discussion ?Is the Medical School in Serbia the most acute sanitary necessity or not?? in the Serbian Archives, in 1900. However, such an attitude led to intervention of Dr. Djoka Nikolic, who defended Batut`s views. He published his article in Janko Veselinovic`s magazine ?The Star?. Since then up to 1904, all discussions about Medical School had stopped. It was not even mentioned during the First Congress of Serbian Physicians and Scientists. Nevertheless, at the very end of the gathering, a professor from Prague, Dr. Jaromil Hvala claimed that ?the First Serbian Congress had prepared the material for the future Medical School?, thus sending a message to the attendants of what importance for Serbia its foundation would have been. But the President of both the Congress and the Serbian Medical Society, as well as the editor of the Serbian Archives, Dr. Jovan Danic announced that ?the First Congress of Serbian Physicians and Scientists had finished its work?. It was evident that Danic belonged to those medical circles which jealously guarded special privileges of doctors and other eminent persons who had very serious doctrinal disagreements on the foundation of the Medical School. All that seemed to have grown into clash, which finally resulted in the fact that Serbia got Higher Medical School within the University of Belgrade with a great delay, only after the First World War.


2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-116
Author(s):  
Paul Solomon

War frames our lives. We live, as Billy Bragg (1985) put it, “Between the Wars”; or we live during wars, or after wars; or we live in terror of the threat of war; or get passionately aroused into war. We may watch helplessly as TV news shows us events of horror and violence overseas; on 19th June this year New Zealanders watched video on TV3 News of Kiwi troops under fire in Afghanistan, recorded on a soldier’s helmet-cam. Recent events unfolded once more on TVNZ with gut-wrenching inevitability: I watched as two soldiers were killed, and four injured. The survivors probably will return home traumatised. My interest in reviewing The War Hotel was personal: my grandfather fought in the First World War, my father in the Second World War. I served in the Israeli Defense Force, 1965-1967, and soon felt appalled by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Some of my Jewish extended family perished in Poland during the Shoah. All humanity is touched by war, in varying degrees of separation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document