Security Empire: The Secret Police in Communist Eastern Europe

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Cold War Studies Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1162/jcws_r_01099
Sławomir Łukasiewicz
{"title":"Security Empire: The Secret Police in Communist Eastern Europe","authors":"Sławomir Łukasiewicz","doi":"10.1162/jcws_r_01099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When John Connelly was writing his excellent book on captive universities some 30 years ago, he decided to take a closer look at three countries dominated by the Soviet Union after the Second World War: Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. This comparative approach was a fruitful way of studying the modern history of the region. Molly Pucci uses a similar approach in her book on Communist states’ internal security organs, focusing on the institutionalization and anthropology of the repressive agencies. By tracing the history of these agencies’ rank-and-file, she seeks “to place the early history of communist secret police institutions back into the entangled and violent history of Europe and Russia in the twentieth century” (p. 284). Pucci’s well-written book offers a great narrative and is a pleasure to read. She goes further and wider than have other historians who focused only on single countries. The book offers an illuminating comparative analysis of the repressive organs’ early formative years, roughly 1945–1956. However, Pucci does not simply present three pictures of the countries one by one. She shows how the Soviet model of state security agencies and a certain organizational culture were adopted in the countries that came under Soviet domination. At the same time, she emphasizes that Soviet patterns were not perfectly transplanted and implemented; rather, they were “imperfectly translated” into the Central European languages. The book reveals that although the general approach in the three countries was the same with the introduction of the Soviet model, the implementation differed significantly depending on the circumstances and the people who were responsible for such processes. An interesting example is the presence of so-called Soviet advisers in the agencies overseeing the East European secret police. In the case of Poland and East Germany, Soviet personnel were installed almost immediately because it was clear that supreme power in both countries was held by the Communist party, which exercised control over the state security forces. In the case of Czechoslovakia, the situation was more complex. Edvard Beneš’s return from exile to Prague and the emergence of a relatively pluralist party system excluded the presence of Soviet advisers during the initial years after the Second World War. They were not brought in until 1949. Thus,","PeriodicalId":45551,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cold War Studies","volume":"24 1","pages":"252-254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cold War Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_r_01099","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When John Connelly was writing his excellent book on captive universities some 30 years ago, he decided to take a closer look at three countries dominated by the Soviet Union after the Second World War: Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. This comparative approach was a fruitful way of studying the modern history of the region. Molly Pucci uses a similar approach in her book on Communist states’ internal security organs, focusing on the institutionalization and anthropology of the repressive agencies. By tracing the history of these agencies’ rank-and-file, she seeks “to place the early history of communist secret police institutions back into the entangled and violent history of Europe and Russia in the twentieth century” (p. 284). Pucci’s well-written book offers a great narrative and is a pleasure to read. She goes further and wider than have other historians who focused only on single countries. The book offers an illuminating comparative analysis of the repressive organs’ early formative years, roughly 1945–1956. However, Pucci does not simply present three pictures of the countries one by one. She shows how the Soviet model of state security agencies and a certain organizational culture were adopted in the countries that came under Soviet domination. At the same time, she emphasizes that Soviet patterns were not perfectly transplanted and implemented; rather, they were “imperfectly translated” into the Central European languages. The book reveals that although the general approach in the three countries was the same with the introduction of the Soviet model, the implementation differed significantly depending on the circumstances and the people who were responsible for such processes. An interesting example is the presence of so-called Soviet advisers in the agencies overseeing the East European secret police. In the case of Poland and East Germany, Soviet personnel were installed almost immediately because it was clear that supreme power in both countries was held by the Communist party, which exercised control over the state security forces. In the case of Czechoslovakia, the situation was more complex. Edvard Beneš’s return from exile to Prague and the emergence of a relatively pluralist party system excluded the presence of Soviet advisers during the initial years after the Second World War. They were not brought in until 1949. Thus,
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安全帝国:共产主义东欧的秘密警察
大约30年前,约翰•康纳利(John Connelly)在撰写关于被囚禁大学的优秀著作时,决定仔细研究二战后被苏联统治的三个国家:波兰、捷克斯洛伐克和东德。这种比较的方法是研究该地区近代史的一种卓有成效的方法。莫莉·普奇(Molly Pucci)在她关于共产主义国家内部安全机构的书中使用了类似的方法,重点关注镇压机构的制度化和人类学。通过追溯这些机构的历史,她试图“将共产主义秘密警察机构的早期历史置于二十世纪欧洲和俄罗斯的纠缠和暴力历史中”(第284页)。普奇的书写得很好,叙述很好,读起来很愉快。她比其他只关注单个国家的历史学家走得更远、更广。这本书提供了一个启发性的比较分析镇压机关的早期形成时期,大约1945-1956年。然而,普奇并不是简单地一个接一个地展示三个国家的照片。她展示了苏联模式的国家安全机构和某种组织文化是如何在苏联统治下的国家被采用的。与此同时,她强调苏联模式并没有被完美地移植和实施;相反,它们被“不完美地翻译”成中欧语言。这本书揭示,虽然这三个国家的一般做法与引进苏联模式是一样的,但执行情况因情况和负责这些过程的人而有很大不同。一个有趣的例子是在监督东欧秘密警察的机构中存在所谓的苏联顾问。在波兰和东德的情况下,苏联人员几乎是立即被任命的,因为很明显,这两个国家的最高权力都掌握在共产党手中,共产党控制着国家安全部队。就捷克斯洛伐克而言,情况更为复杂。爱德华·贝内什结束流亡回到布拉格,以及一个相对多元化的政党体系的出现,在二战后的最初几年里,排除了苏联顾问的存在。他们直到1949年才被引进。因此,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
The Liar: How a Double Agent in the CIA Became the Cold War's Last Honest Man by Benjamin Cunningham Beatriz Allende: A Revolutionary Life in Cold War Latin America by Tanya Harmer The Nonconformists: American and Czech Writers across the Iron Curtain by Brian K. Goodman Beginning of Winter: The George H.W. Bush Administration, the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, and the Emergence of the Post–Cold War World The Autobahn Crises of 1963: The U.S. Military and the Last Major Cold War Showdowns over Berlin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1