Search

The author of the article emphasizes that a viable solution to the Palestine issue is a prerequisite for the long-term security of Israel. She criticizes the one-sided solidarity of Western politicians with Israel and demands that the solution to the Palestine issue also be addressed. The author emphasizes the importance of recognizing the right to exist of Palestine and ending Israel's policy of undermining the two-state solution. She calls for putting the Palestine issue on the international political agenda and achieving an immediate ceasefire to end the killing and not further fuel hatred. The article also describes the domestic impact of the Hamas attack on Israel, which has left the country in a state of war. [Extracted from the article]

Die führenden westlichen Mächte USA, Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland liefern zwar Waffen an die Ukraine, konditionieren aber stark das Ausmaß der Lieferungen sowie das sonstige Niveau ihrer Unterstützung. Hauptsächlich gelte es einen Weltkrieg mit nuklearer Eskalation zu vermeiden. Experten und frühere hochrangige Generäle kritisieren zunehmend diese Restriktionen, die sich an Konzepten der Rüstungskontrolle aus den 60er Jahren orientieren. Sie argumentieren, dass Russland weder die Absicht habe noch die Mittel besitze, den Krieg zu eskalieren – es sei denn, es wolle einen selbstmörderischen Nuklearkrieg beginnen. Außerdem lasse Russland keine Anzeichen von Restriktionen erkennen. Die derzeitige Fokussierung auf das Vermeiden eines Dritten Weltkriegs dürfte die Ukraine in absehbarer Zeit in eine unhaltbare Lage bringen. Dann bliebe den westlichen Staaten nur die sehr kostspielige Option, die Ukraine dauerhaft wirtschaftlich und militärisch über Wasser zu halten oder ihr einen Waffenstillstand aufzuzwingen, der bestenfalls eine militärische Pause bis zum nächsten russischen Angriff darstellen wird. Die Gefahr eines Weltkriegs könnte durch die westliche Politik der Vorsicht eher zu- denn abnehmen. The leading Western powers (USA, United Kingdom, France, and Germany) send substantial amounts of weapons to Ukraine, however these deliveries as well as concomitant military assistance activities are subject to conditions and restrictions. Their purpose is to avoid a direct confrontation with Russian troops and to prevent the danger of an escalation ushering into nuclear confrontation. These restrictions and conditions are based on arms control thinking from the 1960s and are subject to criticism from former Generals and strategic experts. They argue that Russia had neither the intention nor the means to escalate the war – except from a nuclear escalation, which, however, would go along with incalculable risks for Russia itself. The current mix of conditions and restrictions might put Ukraine in an untenable position. As a consequence, the Western states would be left with two unattractive options: either to support Ukraine indefinitely both militarily and economically, or to force the Ukrainian leadership into a cease-fire agreement with Russia, which would only be an interim step towards a new Russian invasion. The Western policy of caution might rather increase than decrease the risk of the outbreak of World War III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Peace Diplomacy instead of War Hysteria!" in the magazine WeltTrends emphasizes the necessity of peace negotiations and a ceasefire in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Politicians like Dietmar Woidke, Mario Voigt, and Michael Kretschmer are calling for a more active diplomatic role for the German government to prevent further bloodshed. It points to Germany's historical role as a mediator under politicians like Helmut Kohl, Willy Brandt, and Hans-Dietrich Genscher. [Extracted from the article]

The European Union and the OSCE are security organizations in Europe that deal with the Ukraine war and the observance of the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine. The OSCE observed the situation on the ground and tried to achieve local ceasefires. The Russian invasion of Ukraine led to the evacuation of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission and a discussion about the future of the organization with or without Russia. The OSCE observer mission at the Gukovo and Donetsk border crossings was not extended by the Russian delegation. The OSCE mission had to be terminated due to Russia's refusal to extend the mandate. [Extracted from the article]

The article describes the plenary sessions of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and its committee meetings, which took place as hybrid sessions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized the important role of local and regional elected officials in addressing challenges such as the energy transition and digital transformation during the plenary session in December 2021. The CoR also discussed the future of Europe and the responses to the war in Ukraine. During the 148th plenary session, the CoR adopted a resolution on the contribution of local and regional authorities to the Conference on the Future of Europe. The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) calls for strengthening the principle of active subsidiarity and further developing the CoR into a co-decision body of the EU. The CoR seeks access to trilogues and related documents and sees the Conference on the Future of Europe as a starting point for a comprehensive strengthening of democratic procedures at the European, national, regional, and local levels. In the context of the war in Ukraine, the CoR condemns the invasion as baseless and unjustified and calls for an immediate ceasefire. The CoR supports Ukraine in obtaining candidate status and provides practical assistance in the integration of Ukrainian refugees. An essential task of the CoR is networking and promoting cooperation between regions and municipalities. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Studia Historica Brunensia is the property of Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts 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.)

The article focuses on the conclusion of the armistice in the Villa Giusti on November 3, 1918, which allowed the Allied troops full freedom of movement on the territory of the entire monarchy as well as the necessary occupation of "strategic points", political action was determined by the question of the supply with Fuels and food as well as the fear of an impending anarchist overthrow.

Information on the Das lange Ende des Ersten Weltkriegs. Europa zwischen gewaltsamer Neuordnung und Nationalstaatsbildung, a conference organized by Landeszentrale für politische Bildung in Germany on April 21, 2018 is presented. Topics discussed include Europe in World War I, ceasefire in 1918 and history of military conflict.

The individual treaties and agreements concluded between Germany and its allies, the various successor states of the Russian Empire and Romania as well as between the Central Powers in 1917/18 are doubtlessly all connected to each other. There is much to be said for considering all of them together as one standardised system for the international relations, which had to be regulated after the start of the armistice negotiations in Brest-Litovsk. The development of this system was characterised by the partly chaotic shifts in the balance of powers in the territory of the former Russian Empire as well as the ever-changing course of the First World War and the ongoing crisis resulting from it. The use of the term „Brest System“ has not been established in historical science for the time being, just as the entire Brest order has only rarely been analysed as a coherent system. Even though it may seem that the Brest System had only a regional impact limited to Eastern Europe, it did however bear the seed for a future global order. Significantly, it was not only Germany and Soviet Russia as the hegemon and the second key player respectively, but also the other important actors, who were interested in its development and made efforts in that respect (at least subject to the condition of achieving corrections in their own interest). It makes sense to establish an order in the hierarchy of the individual players, based on which the structure of the Brest System can be traced. Even a record of all the inherent flaws of the Brest System and the detailed explanation for its lack of stability should not obscure the fact that the Brest System remained anything but without consequences and that it was certainly more than just the mere expression of temporary strength and weakness on part of Germany and Soviet Russia respectively. The system was dismantled due to the breakdown of the Central Powers, the continued war activities under new conditions after the end of the First World War and a series of revolutions in European countries with even more chaotic circumstances. The most obvious sign of the breakdown of the Brest System was that the intervention powers, defeated during the war, withdrew from the occupied territories between the end of 1918 and the summer of 1919 and as a result the countries of the Entente increasingly interfered in the war which continued in the area of the former Russian Empire. During the years 1920 to 1922 the Brest System still had an indirect impact particularly in Eastern Europe, until the German-Russian relations were put on a fundamentally new footing within the framework of the Rapallo Treaty of 16. April 1922. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Ludendorffs Waffenstillstandsforderung vom 29. September 1918" by Eberhard Kessel on the September 29, 1918 ceasefire agreement obtained by German general Erich Ludendorff originally published in the fourth 1968 issue of the military history periodical "Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen" is examined.

The article discusses the lack of coverage in the PRAWDA newspaper regarding Austria's humanitarian initiative. It emphasizes Austria's historical role in maintaining order and culture in the Danube region and its importance for future developments, and suggests that calm has been restored in Budapest, leading to a ceasefire order and a radio address by the Hungarian Prime Minister.

The article offers a review of a December 1-3, 2011 conference in Prague, Czech Republic on communications in war during the late Middle Ages. Topics of presentations given included the methodology of declaring war, the history of cease-fire agreements in Bohemia, and official communications during the war for Dalmatia.

The article discusses the September 8, 1943 armistice by which Italy capitulated to the Allies as a signal date in the history of South Tyrol. The date is said to mark the end of native German Tyrolean suffering under Italian Fascism since 1922 and, until Germany's surrender in 1945, relative recognition of German speakers Tyrol under the German National Socialist (Nazi) regime. The relative consequences of the armistice for the German-speaking versus Italian-speaking populations of South Tyrol are investigated, particularly under the regime of the Gauleiter Franz Hofer.

The article examines the consequences for the French Alpine region of the armistice of September 8, 1943, by which Italy capitulated to the Allies. Particularly consequential were the effects on Italian anti-Fascist resistance forces and the Jewish residents of the French Alps, which came under German occupation following previous Italian occupation from November 1942 to September 1943. The armistice is described as imperiling the resistance, forcing it into open warfare and armed conflict, and inciting large refugee movements.

An introduction is presented to this June 2009 issue, whose articles deal with the capitulation of Italy to the Allies in September 1943, the end of the Italian Fascist government, and the internment of Italian soldiers in German camps.