Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2191617
O. Sanchez-Sibony
ABSTRACT Several decades ago, the field of Cold War history banished political economy from its discussions. Political economy had been the main theoretical medium through which the first generation of Cold War historians had made its critique of power. But while subsequent historians banished political economy as an explicit theoretical tool of historical analysis, political economy remained very much present, only it took crude, unreflective neoclassical and even neoliberal forms that echoed the concerns of state and corporate power over efficiency, rather than more analytical concerns of social transformation. This was achieved through the thorough decoupling, indeed the binary reconstitution, of the ‘political’ and the ‘economic’. So, while historically informed political economic analysis thrived elsewhere, from the 1990s, so-called postrevisionist Cold War historians were free to celebrate a heroic United States, and an assumed capitalist dynamism triumphing over sclerotic socialism. Most surprisingly, these historical terms themselves (capitalism and socialism, usually juxtaposed with a ‘vs.’), so central to the analytical core of Cold War narratives, were left unexamined. Three decades hence, as capitalism continues to generate one crisis after another, this motivated ignorance so favourable to the exercise of state and corporate power has reached its limit. Any analysis of capitalism and socialism and the Cold War those social forms generated will need to once again ground itself in some conception of political economy. This article presents some ideas for that task.
{"title":"Towards a political economy of socialist international relations","authors":"O. Sanchez-Sibony","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2191617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2191617","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Several decades ago, the field of Cold War history banished political economy from its discussions. Political economy had been the main theoretical medium through which the first generation of Cold War historians had made its critique of power. But while subsequent historians banished political economy as an explicit theoretical tool of historical analysis, political economy remained very much present, only it took crude, unreflective neoclassical and even neoliberal forms that echoed the concerns of state and corporate power over efficiency, rather than more analytical concerns of social transformation. This was achieved through the thorough decoupling, indeed the binary reconstitution, of the ‘political’ and the ‘economic’. So, while historically informed political economic analysis thrived elsewhere, from the 1990s, so-called postrevisionist Cold War historians were free to celebrate a heroic United States, and an assumed capitalist dynamism triumphing over sclerotic socialism. Most surprisingly, these historical terms themselves (capitalism and socialism, usually juxtaposed with a ‘vs.’), so central to the analytical core of Cold War narratives, were left unexamined. Three decades hence, as capitalism continues to generate one crisis after another, this motivated ignorance so favourable to the exercise of state and corporate power has reached its limit. Any analysis of capitalism and socialism and the Cold War those social forms generated will need to once again ground itself in some conception of political economy. This article presents some ideas for that task.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117090333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2188581
Ylber Marku
ABSTRACT Based mainly on Albanian primary sources, this article explores the implications of Albania’s economic cooperation with China during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It shows that in Albania’s shifting alliances, the role of economic calculations has been as important as that of political convenience. The article argues that China’s emphasis on industrialization, mass mobilization and the principle of self-reliance was appealing to Albanian leaders’ long-term economic plans. This was even more so after the Comecon division of labour left Albania at the margin of the economic integration of the European Soviet bloc, relegating it to an agriculture-based development. The article also argues that although there was no substantial technological transfer between China and Albania during the 1950s, those years served for Albania as a period of study of the Chinese socialist system, which ultimately suited Albanian leaders’ political and economic aims more than the Soviet one. Economic relations with China opened new trade routes for Albania, potentially linking Albania’s economy with new markets and the international flows of goods. These opportunities, however, remained fully unexploited due to Albania’s own economic shortcomings, limited industrial capacity and poor infrastructure.
{"title":"Preparing for an alliance: China’s socialist model and Albania’s economic path in the Early Cold War","authors":"Ylber Marku","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2188581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2188581","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Based mainly on Albanian primary sources, this article explores the implications of Albania’s economic cooperation with China during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It shows that in Albania’s shifting alliances, the role of economic calculations has been as important as that of political convenience. The article argues that China’s emphasis on industrialization, mass mobilization and the principle of self-reliance was appealing to Albanian leaders’ long-term economic plans. This was even more so after the Comecon division of labour left Albania at the margin of the economic integration of the European Soviet bloc, relegating it to an agriculture-based development. The article also argues that although there was no substantial technological transfer between China and Albania during the 1950s, those years served for Albania as a period of study of the Chinese socialist system, which ultimately suited Albanian leaders’ political and economic aims more than the Soviet one. Economic relations with China opened new trade routes for Albania, potentially linking Albania’s economy with new markets and the international flows of goods. These opportunities, however, remained fully unexploited due to Albania’s own economic shortcomings, limited industrial capacity and poor infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"38 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131931114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2187534
Jan Rybak
{"title":"Stepchildren of the shtetl: the destitute, disabled, and mad of Jewish Eastern Europe, 1800–1939","authors":"Jan Rybak","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2187534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2187534","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"68 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132579885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2187763
Valeria Zanier
ABSTRACT The Sino–Soviet alliance paved the way for the implementation of a vast and systematic programme of industrial and military construction, as well as one of technology transfer. One of the earliest projects regarded a car-production complex in Changchun, situated in Northeast China’s Jilin province. While this factory was built following the highly verticalized model that the Soviets had derived from Fordism, car component clusters proliferated in other areas of China, cooperating with the big industrial complex and eventually surviving as an alternative model until Deng Xiaoping’s reforms. Scholars have so far identified the inventive indigenous use of technology during the Great Leap Forward (1958–60) as the main reason for the success of China’s dualistic industrialization process. The present article contends that the case of the car industry should be predated and better contextualized. Multi-archival research shows that from 1950 Chinese leaders had already seen the need to keep a foot in the global developments of technology and placed a bet on the pre-1949 Western European, Japanese and Republican legacy. These findings also add to the narrative of the Soviet-led industrialization process by integrating into the picture a strong transnational dimension and by recasting the debate on the Sino–Soviet alliance by placing high-quality technology, materials and human resources centre stage.
{"title":"Counterbalancing low expectations with high hopes: Integrating global technology and pre-1949 legacy in China’s motor vehicle industry in the 1950s","authors":"Valeria Zanier","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2187763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2187763","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Sino–Soviet alliance paved the way for the implementation of a vast and systematic programme of industrial and military construction, as well as one of technology transfer. One of the earliest projects regarded a car-production complex in Changchun, situated in Northeast China’s Jilin province. While this factory was built following the highly verticalized model that the Soviets had derived from Fordism, car component clusters proliferated in other areas of China, cooperating with the big industrial complex and eventually surviving as an alternative model until Deng Xiaoping’s reforms. Scholars have so far identified the inventive indigenous use of technology during the Great Leap Forward (1958–60) as the main reason for the success of China’s dualistic industrialization process. The present article contends that the case of the car industry should be predated and better contextualized. Multi-archival research shows that from 1950 Chinese leaders had already seen the need to keep a foot in the global developments of technology and placed a bet on the pre-1949 Western European, Japanese and Republican legacy. These findings also add to the narrative of the Soviet-led industrialization process by integrating into the picture a strong transnational dimension and by recasting the debate on the Sino–Soviet alliance by placing high-quality technology, materials and human resources centre stage.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132620122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2209107
J. Ẑofka, Tao Chen
ABSTRACT In recent years, the Sino–Soviet Alliance of the 1950s and the subsequent split have received increasing attention in research. Most studies, however, focus on (geo)political questions, with the economic side of alliance and split regarded as an appendix. Thus, this special issue turns to the economic dimensions of the Sino–Soviet Alliance and split. The introduction puts the topics of the special issue into the larger context of global post-war economic expansion and the moving international order. It highlights how the contributions to the special issue show that economic dimensions of East–East interactions are misunderstood if seen only through a narrative of failure or as secondary to Cold War geopolitics. Sino–Soviet exchanges were part of global circulations of knowledge, commodities and resources. The economic residues of the Sino–Soviet Alliance lasted longer than the dozen years before the split. The participation of the Eastern European countries in the technology transfer was considerable, as were the repercussions of these transfers on the Eastern European societies. The different economic bureaucracies’ varying reactions to the Sino–Soviet split are also an important point in the contributions. These actors’ rationales went beyond geopolitics, security and autarky, and did include economic considerations, blurring the clarity of a socialist, Stalinist or Soviet development model.
{"title":"Economic dimensions of the Sino–Soviet alliance and split: introduction to the special issue","authors":"J. Ẑofka, Tao Chen","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2209107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2209107","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years, the Sino–Soviet Alliance of the 1950s and the subsequent split have received increasing attention in research. Most studies, however, focus on (geo)political questions, with the economic side of alliance and split regarded as an appendix. Thus, this special issue turns to the economic dimensions of the Sino–Soviet Alliance and split. The introduction puts the topics of the special issue into the larger context of global post-war economic expansion and the moving international order. It highlights how the contributions to the special issue show that economic dimensions of East–East interactions are misunderstood if seen only through a narrative of failure or as secondary to Cold War geopolitics. Sino–Soviet exchanges were part of global circulations of knowledge, commodities and resources. The economic residues of the Sino–Soviet Alliance lasted longer than the dozen years before the split. The participation of the Eastern European countries in the technology transfer was considerable, as were the repercussions of these transfers on the Eastern European societies. The different economic bureaucracies’ varying reactions to the Sino–Soviet split are also an important point in the contributions. These actors’ rationales went beyond geopolitics, security and autarky, and did include economic considerations, blurring the clarity of a socialist, Stalinist or Soviet development model.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129515874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2200439
P. Vámos
ABSTRACT Using the case of a 1962 incident involving Hungarian railway experts in China, this article examines the relationship between political disputes and economic cooperation. It seeks to answer the questions of why, how and for how long could economic, and scientific and technological cooperation be maintained between Hungary, a country belonging to the Soviet sphere of interest, and China, which increasingly regarded the Soviet Union as an enemy, in a period of political disputes and deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations. Relying mainly on Hungarian archival documents, including minutes of HSWP Central Committee and Politburo meetings, Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports and analyses, and Ganz-MÁVAG files, the article argues that while the deterioration of Sino-Hungarian political relations went hand in hand with the worsening of Sino-Soviet relations, the break in trade, and scientific and technological cooperation, happened slower. Although, as political disputes escalated, the Chinese made interstate relations with the Soviet bloc countries increasingly difficult, the Beijing leadership sought to maintain partnerships in areas that it found beneficial for China’s economy. As the Sino-Hungarian economic and technological disputes fit into a larger Sino-Soviet political conflict, the article puts the case of Ganz-MÁVAG Locomotive and Railway Carriage Manufacturers and Mechanical Engineers Hungary in context by reviewing the process of deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations and its influence on Sino-Hungarian relations.
{"title":"‘Our Chinese comrades are determined to split and struggle’. The influence of the Sino-Soviet split on technological cooperation between Hungary and China","authors":"P. Vámos","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2200439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2200439","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Using the case of a 1962 incident involving Hungarian railway experts in China, this article examines the relationship between political disputes and economic cooperation. It seeks to answer the questions of why, how and for how long could economic, and scientific and technological cooperation be maintained between Hungary, a country belonging to the Soviet sphere of interest, and China, which increasingly regarded the Soviet Union as an enemy, in a period of political disputes and deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations. Relying mainly on Hungarian archival documents, including minutes of HSWP Central Committee and Politburo meetings, Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports and analyses, and Ganz-MÁVAG files, the article argues that while the deterioration of Sino-Hungarian political relations went hand in hand with the worsening of Sino-Soviet relations, the break in trade, and scientific and technological cooperation, happened slower. Although, as political disputes escalated, the Chinese made interstate relations with the Soviet bloc countries increasingly difficult, the Beijing leadership sought to maintain partnerships in areas that it found beneficial for China’s economy. As the Sino-Hungarian economic and technological disputes fit into a larger Sino-Soviet political conflict, the article puts the case of Ganz-MÁVAG Locomotive and Railway Carriage Manufacturers and Mechanical Engineers Hungary in context by reviewing the process of deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations and its influence on Sino-Hungarian relations.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123603672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2194333
J. Ẑofka
ABSTRACT Alongside the Soviet Union, partner countries on the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) substantially contributed to a decade of industrialization in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) during the 1950s. This article looks at East German and Bulgarian industrial projects in China in the realm of the extraction and refinement of basic materials. What was the impact of such exchanges on small CMEA economies as suppliers of industrial goods? What were the rationales of the participating institutions and protagonists in promoting industrial exports to China? All differences between the industrialized German Democratic Republic and the still mostly agrarian People’s Republic of Bulgaria (NRB) notwithstanding, economic officials in both countries saw the PRC as a crucial market for utilizing industrial capacities and increasing export opportunities. The immense significance that was ascribed to industrial exports to China also left its imprint on the structure of the economic bureaucracy, with the foundation of special bureaus and new foreign trade enterprises. Arguing that the Soviet Union’s CMEA partners had their own interests to pursue relations with China, this article aims to nuance a discussion where the alliance’s limits and eventual failure dominate the scene.
{"title":"The China market: East German and Bulgarian industrial facility export to the PRC in the 1950s","authors":"J. Ẑofka","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2194333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2194333","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Alongside the Soviet Union, partner countries on the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) substantially contributed to a decade of industrialization in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) during the 1950s. This article looks at East German and Bulgarian industrial projects in China in the realm of the extraction and refinement of basic materials. What was the impact of such exchanges on small CMEA economies as suppliers of industrial goods? What were the rationales of the participating institutions and protagonists in promoting industrial exports to China? All differences between the industrialized German Democratic Republic and the still mostly agrarian People’s Republic of Bulgaria (NRB) notwithstanding, economic officials in both countries saw the PRC as a crucial market for utilizing industrial capacities and increasing export opportunities. The immense significance that was ascribed to industrial exports to China also left its imprint on the structure of the economic bureaucracy, with the foundation of special bureaus and new foreign trade enterprises. Arguing that the Soviet Union’s CMEA partners had their own interests to pursue relations with China, this article aims to nuance a discussion where the alliance’s limits and eventual failure dominate the scene.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121109027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2200806
Tao Chen
ABSTRACT The Leipzig Trade Fair was the first multilateral international exhibition the People’s Republic of China (PRC) attended since 1949. The fair was a venue for the People’s Republic of China to trade with both the West and the East and demonstrated China’s industrial development and ideology to the rest of the world. Until the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, the PRC and German Democratic Republic (GDR) both reaped economic and political benefits from their participation in the Leipzig fair. This study frames the history of China and the Leipzig Trade Fair mainly from the Chinese perspective by focusing on the decision-making and contention of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policy elites, as well as the efforts of middle-ranking Chinese trade officials to promote trade. It also examines the role of the Leipzig fair in China’s trade relations with both the West and the East.
{"title":"Between economy and politics: China and the Leipzig Trade Fair (1950–1966)","authors":"Tao Chen","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2200806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2200806","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Leipzig Trade Fair was the first multilateral international exhibition the People’s Republic of China (PRC) attended since 1949. The fair was a venue for the People’s Republic of China to trade with both the West and the East and demonstrated China’s industrial development and ideology to the rest of the world. Until the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, the PRC and German Democratic Republic (GDR) both reaped economic and political benefits from their participation in the Leipzig fair. This study frames the history of China and the Leipzig Trade Fair mainly from the Chinese perspective by focusing on the decision-making and contention of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policy elites, as well as the efforts of middle-ranking Chinese trade officials to promote trade. It also examines the role of the Leipzig fair in China’s trade relations with both the West and the East.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134357472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2187762
Austin Jersild
ABSTRACT The dilemmas and tensions of the Sino-Soviet relationship in the 1950s were reproduced in Guinea-Conakry in the 1960s in the era of Decolonization. Socialist advisers brought their ‘Agreements on Scientific and Technical Collaboration’ as well as their socialist assumptions and activities to both China in the 1950s and Guinea-Conakry after 1958. By examining the socialist advisers’ activities, this article reveals that in both cases the advisers were inordinately interested in raw materials and consumer products in a way reminiscent of the colonial heritage. In both China and Guinea-Conakry, advisers were often domineering, generally privileged and sometimes even chauvinist. Instead of taking responsibility for the weaknesses of the socialist system, in both China and West Africa the advisers blamed their southern partners for the deteriorating relationship, and associated them with planning failures, inefficiency, incompetence, ‘demagoguery’ and authoritarian tendencies.
{"title":"Socialist advisers and the dilemmas of the ‘socialist world system’: Sino-Soviet exchange as a model for failure in Guinea-Conakry, 1950–64","authors":"Austin Jersild","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2187762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2187762","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The dilemmas and tensions of the Sino-Soviet relationship in the 1950s were reproduced in Guinea-Conakry in the 1960s in the era of Decolonization. Socialist advisers brought their ‘Agreements on Scientific and Technical Collaboration’ as well as their socialist assumptions and activities to both China in the 1950s and Guinea-Conakry after 1958. By examining the socialist advisers’ activities, this article reveals that in both cases the advisers were inordinately interested in raw materials and consumer products in a way reminiscent of the colonial heritage. In both China and Guinea-Conakry, advisers were often domineering, generally privileged and sometimes even chauvinist. Instead of taking responsibility for the weaknesses of the socialist system, in both China and West Africa the advisers blamed their southern partners for the deteriorating relationship, and associated them with planning failures, inefficiency, incompetence, ‘demagoguery’ and authoritarian tendencies.","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130463351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-04DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2023.2169108
Brecht Deseure
{"title":"The Bastille as a transnational symbol of despotism: translations and editions of Remarques historiques et anecdotes sur le château de la Bastille (1774–98)","authors":"Brecht Deseure","doi":"10.1080/13507486.2023.2169108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2023.2169108","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":151994,"journal":{"name":"European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123766161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：