Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2270322
Tommaso Piffer
ABSTRACTThis article discusses the activities of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in Greece during World War II, re-evaluating the stormy relationship between SOE and the Foreign Office (FO) in the light of previously unused SOE records. Although standard accounts of SOE in Greece blame the Foreign Office for its inability to understand the situation and, indirectly, for the outbreak of the Civil War in December 1944, this article argues that both SOE and the Foreign Office were out of touch with what was happening in occupied Greece. It also argues that between September 1942 and the Spring of 1943, SOE intentionally acted behind the back of the Foreign Office, deeply entangling itself in the Greek resistance movement without any real awareness of the political situation in the country. For intelligence studies, this story provides a unique insight into the British approach to the political complexities of occupied Europe during World War II. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. This article is a free-standing piece, which is based but does not overlap with my forthcoming book, ‘The Big Three Allies and the European Resistance. Intelligence, Politics, and the Origins of the Cold War. 1939 –1945’ (Oxford UP, January 2024).2. War Cabinet Home Defense (Security) Executive. Special Operations Executive, 19 July 1941, published in W. Mackenzie, The Secret History of SOE: Special Operations Executive 1940–1945 (London, 2000), 753–55.3. Ibid., 346. See also N. Wylie, “Ungentlemanly Warriors or Unreliable Diplomats? Special Operations Executive and ‘Irregular Political Activities’ in Europe,” Intelligence and National Security 20, no. 1 (2005).4. Memorandum. Relations between SOE and the Foreign Office, published in Mackenzie, The Secret History of SOE, 759–62.5. D. Stafford, Britain and European Resistance, 1940–1945: a Survey of the Special Operations Executive, with Documents (London, 1980), 78.6. C. Goulter‐Zervoudakis, “The Politicization of Intelligence: The British Experience in Greece, 1941–1944,” Intelligence and National Security 13, no. 1 (1998): 165–194, R. Clogg, ‘’Pearls from Swine’: the Foreign Office Papers, SOE and the Greek Resistance’, in R. Clogg (ed.) Anglo-Greek Attitudes: Studies in history (London 2000), 78–107 and Clogg, ‘The Special Operations Executive in Greece’, 6–77.7. E.C.W. Myers, Greek Entanglement (London, 1985), C.M. Woodhouse, Apple of Discord. A Survey of Recent Greek Politics in their International Setting (Reston, VA 1985) and C.M. Woodhouse, The Struggle for Greece, 1941–1949 (Chicago 2003). For a critical review of memoirs of British SOE agents in Greece see O. Smith, ‘The Memoirs and Reports of The British Liaison Officers in Greece, 1942–1944: Problems of Source Value’, Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, 11 (1984): 9–33.8. Clogg, “The Special Operations Executive in Greece,” 61.9. Ibid., 77.10. On this, reference can be made to R. Frazier, Anglo-Am
摘要本文讨论了二战期间英国特别行动处(SOE)在希腊的活动，根据以前未使用的SOE记录重新评估SOE与外交部(FO)之间的激烈关系。尽管对希腊国有企业的标准描述将其归咎于外交部无法理解形势，并间接地将其归咎于1944年12月内战的爆发，但本文认为，国有企业和外交部都不了解被占领的希腊发生的事情。它还认为，在1942年9月至1943年春期间，SOE故意背着外交部行动，深深卷入希腊抵抗运动，而没有真正意识到该国的政治局势。对于情报研究来说，这个故事提供了一个独特的视角，让我们了解二战期间英国对被占领的欧洲政治复杂性的处理方式。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。这篇文章是一篇独立的文章，与我即将出版的新书《三大盟友与欧洲抵抗》(The Big Three Allies and European Resistance)有关，但不重叠。情报、政治和冷战的起源。1939 -1945”(牛津大学出版社，2024年1月)。战时内阁国土防卫(安全)执行部。《特种作战司令部》，1941年7月19日，发表于W. Mackenzie，《特种作战司令部的秘史:1940-1945》(伦敦，2000)，753-55.3页。出处同上,346年。参见N. Wylie，“没有绅士风度的战士还是不可靠的外交官?”欧洲的特别行动执行和“不正常的政治活动”，《情报与国家安全》，第20期。1(2005)。4。谅解备忘录。国企与外交部的关系，发表于麦肯齐，国企秘史，759-62.5。D.斯塔福德，《英国和欧洲抵抗运动，1940-1945:特种作战执行调查》，附文件(伦敦，1980年)，78.6页。C. Goulter‐Zervoudakis，《情报政治化:1941-1944年英国在希腊的经验》，《情报与国家安全》第13期。1 (1998): 165-194, R. Clogg，“来自猪的珍珠:外交部文件，SOE和希腊抵抗运动”，R. Clogg(主编)，盎格鲁-希腊态度:历史研究(伦敦2000)，78-107和Clogg，“希腊特别行动执行”，6-77.7。E.C.W. Myers，《希腊纠葛》(伦敦，1985)，C.M. Woodhouse，《不和谐的苹果》。《国际背景下的近期希腊政治调查》(Reston, VA, 1985)和C.M. Woodhouse，《为希腊而斗争，1941-1949》(芝加哥，2003)。关于英国驻希腊特务回忆录的评论，见O. Smith，“1942-1944年英国驻希腊联络官的回忆录和报告:来源价值的问题”，《希腊侨民杂志》，11(1984):9-33.8。Clogg，“希腊的特别行动执行官”，61.9。如上,77.10。关于这一点，可以参考R. Frazier的《英美与希腊的关系:冷战的到来，1942-47》(伦敦，1991)、T. Sfikas的《英国工党政府与希腊内战，1945-1949:“不干涉”的帝国主义》(Keele, 1994)、D. Close的《希腊内战的起源》(伦敦，1995)和A. Gerolymatos的《国际内战:希腊，1943-1949》(纽黑文，CT, 2016)。最近关于希腊国有企业活动的具体方面的报道使用了解密的国有企业记录，包括J. Crossland，“从未发生过的叛乱:特别行动执行和“厨房女仆”行动的失败”，《情报与国家安全》28期，第2期。1(2002): 11-28.12。1943年1月至3月，中东和巴尔干半岛，第445页，在NA, HS 7/268和希腊的SOE活动1940-1942年，由伊恩·皮里少校(第1-6章)，第97页，NA, HS 7/150.13。Ian Pirie少校的《1940-1942年希腊的国有企业活动》(第7-18章)，134页，NA, HS 7/151; Mackenzie，《国有企业的秘史》，149.14页。Ian Pirie少校的《1940-1942年希腊的国有企业活动》(第7-18章)，第174-75页，NA, HS 7/151.15。D/HA [Amery]至D/HV [Pearson]， 1942年9月20日，在NA, HS 5/213.16。Gerolymatos，《国际内战》，1977;在希腊。回顾(由迈尔斯准将撰写)，19-20,NA, HS 7/152;Ian Pirie少校的《1940-1942年希腊的国有企业活动》(第7-18章)，第181-84页，NA, HS 7/151.18。Ian Pirie少校的《1940-1942年希腊的国有企业活动》(第7-18章)，139页，NA, HS 7/151.19。Ian Pirie少校的《1940-1942年希腊的国有企业活动》(第7-18章)，第197-200页，NA, HS 7/151.20。Ian Pirie少校的《1940-1942年希腊的国有企业活动》(第7-18章)，第222页，NA, HS 7/151.21。l
{"title":"‘Behind All This façade’. The Special Operations Executive in Greece in the Light of New Documents","authors":"Tommaso Piffer","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2270322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2270322","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis article discusses the activities of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in Greece during World War II, re-evaluating the stormy relationship between SOE and the Foreign Office (FO) in the light of previously unused SOE records. Although standard accounts of SOE in Greece blame the Foreign Office for its inability to understand the situation and, indirectly, for the outbreak of the Civil War in December 1944, this article argues that both SOE and the Foreign Office were out of touch with what was happening in occupied Greece. It also argues that between September 1942 and the Spring of 1943, SOE intentionally acted behind the back of the Foreign Office, deeply entangling itself in the Greek resistance movement without any real awareness of the political situation in the country. For intelligence studies, this story provides a unique insight into the British approach to the political complexities of occupied Europe during World War II. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. This article is a free-standing piece, which is based but does not overlap with my forthcoming book, ‘The Big Three Allies and the European Resistance. Intelligence, Politics, and the Origins of the Cold War. 1939 –1945’ (Oxford UP, January 2024).2. War Cabinet Home Defense (Security) Executive. Special Operations Executive, 19 July 1941, published in W. Mackenzie, The Secret History of SOE: Special Operations Executive 1940–1945 (London, 2000), 753–55.3. Ibid., 346. See also N. Wylie, “Ungentlemanly Warriors or Unreliable Diplomats? Special Operations Executive and ‘Irregular Political Activities’ in Europe,” Intelligence and National Security 20, no. 1 (2005).4. Memorandum. Relations between SOE and the Foreign Office, published in Mackenzie, The Secret History of SOE, 759–62.5. D. Stafford, Britain and European Resistance, 1940–1945: a Survey of the Special Operations Executive, with Documents (London, 1980), 78.6. C. Goulter‐Zervoudakis, “The Politicization of Intelligence: The British Experience in Greece, 1941–1944,” Intelligence and National Security 13, no. 1 (1998): 165–194, R. Clogg, ‘’Pearls from Swine’: the Foreign Office Papers, SOE and the Greek Resistance’, in R. Clogg (ed.) Anglo-Greek Attitudes: Studies in history (London 2000), 78–107 and Clogg, ‘The Special Operations Executive in Greece’, 6–77.7. E.C.W. Myers, Greek Entanglement (London, 1985), C.M. Woodhouse, Apple of Discord. A Survey of Recent Greek Politics in their International Setting (Reston, VA 1985) and C.M. Woodhouse, The Struggle for Greece, 1941–1949 (Chicago 2003). For a critical review of memoirs of British SOE agents in Greece see O. Smith, ‘The Memoirs and Reports of The British Liaison Officers in Greece, 1942–1944: Problems of Source Value’, Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, 11 (1984): 9–33.8. Clogg, “The Special Operations Executive in Greece,” 61.9. Ibid., 77.10. On this, reference can be made to R. Frazier, Anglo-Am","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135948511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2270316
G. R. Berridge
{"title":"They Call It Diplomacy: Forty Years of Representing Britain Abroad <b>They Call It Diplomacy: Forty Years of Representing Britain Abroad</b> , by Peter Westmacott, London, Head of Zeus, 2022, 368 pp., £8.99, ISBN: 9781800240988 <b>The Back Channel: American Diplomacy in a Disordered World</b> , by William J. Burns, Hurst, London, Hurst & Company, 2021, 520 pp., 8pp illus. £14.99 (paperback), ISBN:9781787385528 (first publ. by Random House in 2019 as <i>The Back Channel: A Memoir of American…","authors":"G. R. Berridge","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2270316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2270316","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135948253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2270324
David Tal
Americans from various walks of life support Israel for religious reasons. This support comes from premillennialists, fundamentalists, and proponents of the covenant brotherhood, who base their advocacy for Israel on specific religious doctrines that demand tangible religio-political action. Additionally, Americans have employed the Judeo-Christian discourse to justify their backing of Israel. However, this term is neither an eschatology nor a doctrine, and its broad scope results in a degree of ambiguity. Consequently, it remains unclear how Americans deduced that this discourse should yield a unique relationship between the two nations. This article aims to explore the historical evolution of the Judeo-Christian discourse in the United States, arguing that Americans have adopted the term as a representation of the religious underpinnings of American democracy, freedom, and the Constitution, which originate from both the Old and New Testaments. As a result, when comparing their political institutions and values with those of Israel, Americans affirm that the connection between the two nations rests on a divinely ordained foundation.
{"title":"The Judeo - Christian Tradition and the US-Israel Special Relationship","authors":"David Tal","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2270324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2270324","url":null,"abstract":"Americans from various walks of life support Israel for religious reasons. This support comes from premillennialists, fundamentalists, and proponents of the covenant brotherhood, who base their advocacy for Israel on specific religious doctrines that demand tangible religio-political action. Additionally, Americans have employed the Judeo-Christian discourse to justify their backing of Israel. However, this term is neither an eschatology nor a doctrine, and its broad scope results in a degree of ambiguity. Consequently, it remains unclear how Americans deduced that this discourse should yield a unique relationship between the two nations. This article aims to explore the historical evolution of the Judeo-Christian discourse in the United States, arguing that Americans have adopted the term as a representation of the religious underpinnings of American democracy, freedom, and the Constitution, which originate from both the Old and New Testaments. As a result, when comparing their political institutions and values with those of Israel, Americans affirm that the connection between the two nations rests on a divinely ordained foundation.","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135948264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2239644
F. Carroll
{"title":"Kennan: A Life between Worlds","authors":"F. Carroll","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2239644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2239644","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"34 1","pages":"608 - 610"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42919451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2239647
Miklos Lojko
{"title":"The Spectre of War: International Communism and the Origins of World War II","authors":"Miklos Lojko","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2239647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2239647","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"34 1","pages":"615 - 616"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49581123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2239645
M. Ó. Cathain
{"title":"America and the Making of an Independent Ireland","authors":"M. Ó. Cathain","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2239645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2239645","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"34 1","pages":"610 - 612"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44483017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2239643
Kelly A. McHugh
ABSTRACT During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump made clear that he loathed the nation-building missions that previous administrations had initiated and continued; chief among them was the then 15-year-old war in Afghanistan. Despite his oft-stated desire to end the war, during his first year in office, Trump decided to maintain the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and added thousands more soldiers to the conflict. Later in his term, the U.S. signed a peace agreement with the Taliban and began a phased withdrawal in 2020. However, when Trump left office in January 2021, 2,500 U.S. soldiers remained in Afghanistan. To explain the gap between the President’s clearly stated preferences and U.S. policy, I employ the bureaucratic politics model of foreign policy analysis. I examine two crucial intra-administration debates over the future of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. The first occurred in 2017 when the new President ordered a comprehensive review of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. The second covers the period from 2018–2020, when the Administration pivoted to seeking a diplomatic solution to the conflict and debated the pace of U.S. withdrawals. In both instances, I find that members of the President’s national security team successfully persuaded the President that the political and strategic risks of a total withdrawal from Afghanistan were prohibitively high.
{"title":"A Long War and a Short Temper: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Trump Administration’s Policy in Afghanistan","authors":"Kelly A. McHugh","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2239643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2239643","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump made clear that he loathed the nation-building missions that previous administrations had initiated and continued; chief among them was the then 15-year-old war in Afghanistan. Despite his oft-stated desire to end the war, during his first year in office, Trump decided to maintain the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and added thousands more soldiers to the conflict. Later in his term, the U.S. signed a peace agreement with the Taliban and began a phased withdrawal in 2020. However, when Trump left office in January 2021, 2,500 U.S. soldiers remained in Afghanistan. To explain the gap between the President’s clearly stated preferences and U.S. policy, I employ the bureaucratic politics model of foreign policy analysis. I examine two crucial intra-administration debates over the future of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. The first occurred in 2017 when the new President ordered a comprehensive review of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. The second covers the period from 2018–2020, when the Administration pivoted to seeking a diplomatic solution to the conflict and debated the pace of U.S. withdrawals. In both instances, I find that members of the President’s national security team successfully persuaded the President that the political and strategic risks of a total withdrawal from Afghanistan were prohibitively high.","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"34 1","pages":"566 - 607"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49004844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2239639
Seunghyun Kang
ABSTRACT This paper revisits the formulation of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between South Korea (ROK) and the United States. It situates the treaty’s development in a more international and greater historical context by tracing how certain preceding developments, especially the existing security arrangements, could have impacted the shaping of the ROK-US MDT. The aim is to better understand the origins of this momentous agreement and what it stands for. A thorough examination of how the alliance was first forged suggests that the “bilateral” ROK-US alliance is more international in character than hitherto thought in a sense that developments in the Americas, Europe and the wider Pacific impacted the shaping of the ROK-US MDT. It seems fair to say this was an early indication that the ROK-US alliance could not be isolated from major unfolding of events elsewhere around the world. This has important implications for Seoul, as the future of ROK-US alliance recently came to the fore as the US continues to wrestle with the developments in the Indo-Pacific. In addition to this contemporary significance, this study also has academic significance as it seeks to fill certain gaps in the existing historiography, such as Washington’s experience negotiating the North Atlantic alliance and its bearing on the ROK-US MDT, and thereby offer a more balanced understanding of the ROK-US alliance. This article represents the author’s own opinion and in no way reflects the views of the Institute for Military History.
{"title":"From San Francisco to Seoul: Re-Examining the Conception of the Mutual Defense Treaty Between South Korea and the United States","authors":"Seunghyun Kang","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2239639","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2239639","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper revisits the formulation of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between South Korea (ROK) and the United States. It situates the treaty’s development in a more international and greater historical context by tracing how certain preceding developments, especially the existing security arrangements, could have impacted the shaping of the ROK-US MDT. The aim is to better understand the origins of this momentous agreement and what it stands for. A thorough examination of how the alliance was first forged suggests that the “bilateral” ROK-US alliance is more international in character than hitherto thought in a sense that developments in the Americas, Europe and the wider Pacific impacted the shaping of the ROK-US MDT. It seems fair to say this was an early indication that the ROK-US alliance could not be isolated from major unfolding of events elsewhere around the world. This has important implications for Seoul, as the future of ROK-US alliance recently came to the fore as the US continues to wrestle with the developments in the Indo-Pacific. In addition to this contemporary significance, this study also has academic significance as it seeks to fill certain gaps in the existing historiography, such as Washington’s experience negotiating the North Atlantic alliance and its bearing on the ROK-US MDT, and thereby offer a more balanced understanding of the ROK-US alliance. This article represents the author’s own opinion and in no way reflects the views of the Institute for Military History.","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"34 1","pages":"464 - 490"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42773339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2023.2239636
Simon Graham
ABSTRACT This article characterises the influence of English ‘Ecclesiastical Diplomacy’ on notions of heresy and treason in the United Provinces of the Dutch Republic. It works backwards from the stage of the Globe Theatre in London to the trial of Dutch statesman Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and finally the Synod of Dort in order to explore how cross-channel diplomatic networks were leveraged to reconcile theological and ecclesiastical transnationalism with the formation of a state church. This creates an unlikely but intriguing dialogue between high politics, predestinarian thought, pamphlet culture, mercantilism and even foreign intelligence gathering. The dialogue exposes interconnection between the courts of James I and Maurice of Orange and the English and Dutch churches, which leads to a reassessment of the significance of Synod of Dort in early modern diplomatic history and the magisterial reformation.
{"title":"Heresy as Treason: English ‘Ecclesiastical Diplomacy’ in the United Provinces, 1610–19","authors":"Simon Graham","doi":"10.1080/09592296.2023.2239636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2023.2239636","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article characterises the influence of English ‘Ecclesiastical Diplomacy’ on notions of heresy and treason in the United Provinces of the Dutch Republic. It works backwards from the stage of the Globe Theatre in London to the trial of Dutch statesman Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and finally the Synod of Dort in order to explore how cross-channel diplomatic networks were leveraged to reconcile theological and ecclesiastical transnationalism with the formation of a state church. This creates an unlikely but intriguing dialogue between high politics, predestinarian thought, pamphlet culture, mercantilism and even foreign intelligence gathering. The dialogue exposes interconnection between the courts of James I and Maurice of Orange and the English and Dutch churches, which leads to a reassessment of the significance of Synod of Dort in early modern diplomatic history and the magisterial reformation.","PeriodicalId":44804,"journal":{"name":"Diplomacy & Statecraft","volume":"34 1","pages":"367 - 398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45873968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：