Search

Adolf Hitler’s rule between 1933 and 1945 is still seen by many as the embodiment of total, all-encompassing, unrestrained, yet madly pursued power. This paper examines the factors that underpinned Hitler’s power. Among them, his own abilities, his will to power, his rhetorical talents, his program-making habits, his organizational skills, his ability to restrain his subordinates and his cult. It becomes evident how the Nazi party efficiently structured itself into one of the most organized and distinguishable political entities in Germany, offering a credible alternative in a time of economic crisis, and, amid the intrigues of the Weimar elite, finally seizing power in 1933, consolidating and securing it through well thought-out measures implemented in stages. Hitler’s power thus became unchallengeable and rested on a foundation so solid that, though eroded, it remained firm to the end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Every country in the world is characterised by a heterogeneous spatial structure and the existence of regional disparities, and the aim of regional policy is to moderate these inequalities in the spatial development of economic activities. There are certain countries where spatial disparities are extremely large and areas lagging behind belong to one specific geographic area which feature a dual economic structure. There are, specifically, two large areas amongst the developed countries of the European Union whose economic performance lags behind the EU average and whose development paths are unique in many ways. An investigation into the unique development specifics of these two large, but coherent, territories - the regions of Southern Italy (the Mezzogiorno) and Eastern Germany - has attracted the interest of regional scientists for a long time. Today, the name "Mezzogiorno" is synonymous with long-term underdevelopment, whilst the other large area in question was reintegrated into the "mother country" after half a century of separation. Underdevelopment can be detected in almost all elements of the economy, the infrastructure and living conditions. Post-WW2, political constraints forced the German states to strike out along new paths. Five East German Länder and East Berlin were under Soviet occupation, and the planned economy of the German Democratic Republic created in 1949 gave rise to specific patterns of socio-economic development. The development rate of the previously advanced German provinces was considerably lower in the newly formed state than in West German Länder, and in the year of German reunification, labour productivity indices of East German areas were one-third of the West German average. Nevertheless, in the first years of the 2000s, the East German states showed more rapid convergence with the developed regions' average values than did the Southern Italian regions. The present paper aims to explore how various eras have left their mark on the recent regional development of East German states (Länder), what kinds of spatial transformation have occurred, what factors can be detected behind these changes and how spatial disparities have evolved in this vast, but backward, area in the developed Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Sozialreform is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Economists' Forum / Közgazdász Fórum is the property of Hungarian Economists' Society of Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper is devoted to the private and criminal law position of slaves, as part of that, examining some issues of terminology in relation to medieval servitus and then getting to slaves as the subject of legal transactions, transactions entered into by slaves and the nature of peculium, damage caused to alien slaves and the problems of sanctioning crimes committed by slaves. In terms of the view of society depicted in early medieval German laws it is a highly interesting issue, widely disputed in literature, how the position of slaves is reflected in the text of the codes. It is a generally asserted view in literature that in the strict sense of the word slavery (servitus) as an institution can be hardly found among the Germans tribes. This standpoint goes back primarily to the interpretation, or misinterpretation, as the case may be, of Tacitus's Germania. The phrases servus and mancipium are translated in literature consistently by the words Knecht, Höriger or Leibeigener and not by Sklave, that is, by terms that suggest some kind of-and compared to the content of the Antique meaning quite significant-improvement in the position, status of persons in this social standing, a tendency pointing towards acknowledge-ment of their personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]