破碎的国家:俄罗斯和希腊内战后政治权威的重建

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY Journal of Modern European History Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1177/16118944221130221
Yiannis Kokosalakis
{"title":"破碎的国家:俄罗斯和希腊内战后政治权威的重建","authors":"Yiannis Kokosalakis","doi":"10.1177/16118944221130221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the process of disintegration and reconstitution of political authority in civil war with reference to the Russian (1918–1921) and Greek (1946–1949) civil wars. These conflicts bracket the post-World War I period of revolutionary and counterrevolutionary conflicts that has been the core subject of historical scholarship on European civil strife. Both cases were highly polarised clashes between establishment and revolutionary forces, and much of the relevant historiography has been naturally coloured by this aspect of the conflicts. I argue that the interpretative focus on polarisation obscures a different dynamic that is equally important for our understanding of civil war as a type of military conflict and, crucially, its political aftermath. Civil war in Russia and Greece did not emerge as a result of functioning states splitting into two or more competing authorities. It was rather the product of a multifaceted fragmentation of political power as a result of war and revolution; a shattering of the state into an array of asymmetrical actors competing for control over both its territory and its administrative resources. Polarisation followed this fragmentation, as these disparate actors manoeuvred to form the camps of the civil wars. This form of coalition building was a dynamic process in which armed violence was not only the chief means of resolution of the competing claims to power but also an essential factor in the formation of the sides themselves. A corollary of this is that the process of political reconstruction that follows civil war is determined as much by the imperative to work out a functioning relationship between the various elements of the victors’ camp as by securing victory through the permanent exclusion or reintegration of the vanquished.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shattered States: Reconstituting Political Authority in the Aftermath of Civil War in Russia and Greece\",\"authors\":\"Yiannis Kokosalakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16118944221130221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the process of disintegration and reconstitution of political authority in civil war with reference to the Russian (1918–1921) and Greek (1946–1949) civil wars. These conflicts bracket the post-World War I period of revolutionary and counterrevolutionary conflicts that has been the core subject of historical scholarship on European civil strife. Both cases were highly polarised clashes between establishment and revolutionary forces, and much of the relevant historiography has been naturally coloured by this aspect of the conflicts. I argue that the interpretative focus on polarisation obscures a different dynamic that is equally important for our understanding of civil war as a type of military conflict and, crucially, its political aftermath. Civil war in Russia and Greece did not emerge as a result of functioning states splitting into two or more competing authorities. It was rather the product of a multifaceted fragmentation of political power as a result of war and revolution; a shattering of the state into an array of asymmetrical actors competing for control over both its territory and its administrative resources. Polarisation followed this fragmentation, as these disparate actors manoeuvred to form the camps of the civil wars. This form of coalition building was a dynamic process in which armed violence was not only the chief means of resolution of the competing claims to power but also an essential factor in the formation of the sides themselves. A corollary of this is that the process of political reconstruction that follows civil war is determined as much by the imperative to work out a functioning relationship between the various elements of the victors’ camp as by securing victory through the permanent exclusion or reintegration of the vanquished.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221130221\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern European History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221130221","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以俄罗斯(1918–1921)和希腊(1946–1949)内战为参照,考察了内战中政治权威的解体和重建过程。这些冲突涵盖了第一次世界大战后的革命和反革命冲突时期,这一直是欧洲内乱历史研究的核心主题。这两起案件都是建制派和革命力量之间的高度两极分化的冲突,许多相关的史学都自然地受到了这方面冲突的影响。我认为,对两极分化的解释性关注掩盖了一种不同的动态,这种动态对我们理解内战是一种军事冲突,至关重要的是,它的政治后果同样重要。俄罗斯和希腊的内战并不是由两个或两个以上相互竞争的国家分裂而来的。它是战争和革命导致政治权力多方面分裂的产物;国家分裂成一系列不对称的行动者,争夺对其领土和行政资源的控制权。随着这些不同的行动者组成内战的阵营,这种分裂之后出现了两极分化。这种形式的联盟建设是一个动态的过程,在这个过程中,武装暴力不仅是解决相互竞争的权力主张的主要手段,也是双方组建的一个重要因素。由此产生的一个必然结果是,内战后的政治重建进程在很大程度上取决于必须在胜利者阵营的各个组成部分之间建立一种有效的关系,也取决于通过永久排斥或重新融入战败者来确保胜利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Shattered States: Reconstituting Political Authority in the Aftermath of Civil War in Russia and Greece
This article examines the process of disintegration and reconstitution of political authority in civil war with reference to the Russian (1918–1921) and Greek (1946–1949) civil wars. These conflicts bracket the post-World War I period of revolutionary and counterrevolutionary conflicts that has been the core subject of historical scholarship on European civil strife. Both cases were highly polarised clashes between establishment and revolutionary forces, and much of the relevant historiography has been naturally coloured by this aspect of the conflicts. I argue that the interpretative focus on polarisation obscures a different dynamic that is equally important for our understanding of civil war as a type of military conflict and, crucially, its political aftermath. Civil war in Russia and Greece did not emerge as a result of functioning states splitting into two or more competing authorities. It was rather the product of a multifaceted fragmentation of political power as a result of war and revolution; a shattering of the state into an array of asymmetrical actors competing for control over both its territory and its administrative resources. Polarisation followed this fragmentation, as these disparate actors manoeuvred to form the camps of the civil wars. This form of coalition building was a dynamic process in which armed violence was not only the chief means of resolution of the competing claims to power but also an essential factor in the formation of the sides themselves. A corollary of this is that the process of political reconstruction that follows civil war is determined as much by the imperative to work out a functioning relationship between the various elements of the victors’ camp as by securing victory through the permanent exclusion or reintegration of the vanquished.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
Forum: Theoretical Concepts of Shaping the Memory, edited by Sabina Ferhadbegović and Katerina Králová Responding to Mass Atrocities in Southeast Europe: History and Memory of World War II and Its Aftermath in European Perspective. Introduction Xhafer Deva: Nationalism, Collaboration and Mass Murder in Pursuit of a ‘Greater Albanian’ State Nazi Crimes, Max Merten and his Prosecution as Reflected in Greece and beyond To their Credit: The Aristocracy and Commercial Credit in Europe, c.1750–1820
×
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