著者

宮川 真一

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2018, no.47, pp.131-143, 2018 (Released:2019-10-08)

参考文献数

40

---

In 1949, international peace campaign was formed systematically. The Russian Orthodox Church participated in the international peace movement and played a leading role. In the same year, a column “In Defense of Peace” was newly established in the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”. In the “Peace” column, information on the peace campaign and the Russian Orthodox Church's participation in that movement and the most important documents of the World Peace Council began to be published. However, no specialized research on the peace activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century exists in Russia, and this theme has not been reviewed and evaluated academically.In this paper “war and peace” image presented by the Russian Orthodox Church in early postwar years is considered, analyzing the articles published in the “Peace” column in the “Journal”. The followings are observed as features of the “Peace” column. It closely reflects the trend of the peace organizations both inside and outside the Soviet Union, a wide variety of articles are published primarily as editorials, and authors consist mainly of the Orthodox high priests, such as Metropolitan Nikolai. In addition, as character of the “Peace” column, the most articles relate on the Christian Church and the world peace organizations, about half of the articles include direct criticisms directed toward the Western countries and direct praises to Stalin and the Soviet Union.Nikolai was a leader of peace activities in the Russian Orthodox Church. He talked about Christian church. He insisted that the Russian Orthodox Church contributed to peace, and that the Christian world had to cooperate each other. In addition, Nicolai wrote about world peace organizations. He reported favorably the condition of the various peace movements including the World Peace Council and praised Stalin and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Nikolai preached about international relations. While striving for peace activities such as the award of the International Stalin Peace Prize, he condemned fighting acts of the Western countries including the United States of America in the Korean war.In this way, the “Peace” column is filled with the voice of peace as a Christian. However, the Orthodox Churches are praised in the field of Christian church, the Eastern countries are praised in the field of world peace organizations, and the Western countries are criticized in the field of international relations. The "war and peace" image presented by the Russian Orthodox Church in the early postwar period consists of an image of the Orthodox Church which serves peace, an image of the peace-loving Eastern countries, and a militant image of the Western countries. “Journal” actively discussed peace, but it reflected the intention of the Soviet state under the Cold War of those days.

著者

大崎 巌

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2018, no.47, pp.144-162, 2018 (Released:2019-10-08)

参考文献数

31

---

Despite a good deal of research in the field, Japanese scholarship still insufficiently understands the Russian perspective on the territorial dispute between Japan and Russia, known as the Northern Territories problem in Japan and the South Kuril Islands Dispute in Russia, which prevents both countries from realizing the full normalization of the relations by signing a peace treaty and moving beyond Cold War era relations.To overcome these inadequacies, this paper suggests the necessity for the use of a new analytic viewpoint that focuses on the political artificiality of contemporary Russian politics on the above territorial dispute. One reason why Japanese scholarship has not been able to fully understand the political function of the South Kuril Islands Dispute in Russian society, may be due to the lack of such studies that analyze this problem on the basis of this analytical viewpoint.The purpose of this paper is to analyze the character and the structure of Russian logic on this dispute, examining the achievements and problems of the previous studies on the matter in Russia.The content of this paper covers the major contributions by Russian experts on the South Kuril Islands Dispute since the last years of the Soviet Union until today and analyses the major development of their position related to Japan. Such analysis discusses the arguments of Russian experts on Japanese studies, such as former soviet journalists, diplomats and scholars, former high officials in the Russian foreign ministry, and scholars at Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO), the Center for Japanese Studies at the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and so on, revealing the fundaments of the Russian position, which include the importance of the results of the World War Two, generally known in Russian as the Great Patriotic War continuously seen as a renewed symbol of national identity for rebuilding Russian core values since the collapse of the Soviet Union.The above analysis helps to deepen understanding of the essence of Russian stance in this unresolved territorial dispute and thus the connection and continuity between the Soviet and contemporary Russian approach towards the territorial dispute.The resolution of the Northern Territories problem will assist Japan in evolving out of its “postwar era” and will contribute towards removing remnants of World War II and the Cold War in Northeast Asia. Ultimately, resolution of this problem will make a significant contribution to stabilizing the current situation in the Asia-Pacific Region.

著者

里上 三保子

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2018, no.47, pp.163-179, 2018 (Released:2019-10-08)

参考文献数

53

---

This paper discusses the issue of German unification costs. After the Unification, German Federal Government facilitated the process of transition from socialist planned economy to social market economy and supported East Germans in their adaptation to the new system. The actions of the government included extensive public transfers from Western to Eastern Germany and these transfers continue until nowadays, thus their accumulated amount is regarded as enormous financial problem. These financial transfers from the German Federal Government are regarded as both one of characteristics and as one of the advantages of the East German transition when compared with other transition countries. Many researchers focused on this public transfer system itself and the breakdown of its expenditures. Previous studies have concluded that these transfer payments increased pressure on the German State Budget and did not always work very efficiently. In particular, expenditures related to social security in the East and other social policies have been criticized because these were often transferred for consumption rather than investment purposes. However, these expenditures supported the lives of Eastern Germans under the turbulent times. In this paper I focus on social costs which have been discussed in the field of transition economics. Social costs include but not limited to the following ones: decline of employment, increase of unemployment, impoverishment, increased inequality, depopulation, decline in fertility rates and so on. Although some of these problems have emerged even in Eastern Germany, they were not recognized as social costs. This paper examines social costs in Eastern Germany and identifies the factors which were accountable for their occurrence. In addition, it explains how these expenditures effectively reduce the escalation of social costs and resulted in many positive outcomes in both Eastern and Western Germany. Finally, I revisit the meaning of unification costs and the effectiveness of social policies.

著者

廣瀬 陽子

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2018, no.47, pp.199-203, 2018 (Released:2019-10-08)

著者

宮川 絹代

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.115-117, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

著者

吉井 昌彦

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.118-120, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

著者

小森 宏美

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.121-125, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

著者

土田 陽介

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.126-128, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

参考文献数

1

著者

山添 博史

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.129-131, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

著者

兵頭 慎治

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.132-134, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

著者

林 忠行

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2018, no.47, pp.1-16, 2018 (Released:2019-10-08)

参考文献数

33

---

This paper outlines the movement for an independent Czechoslovak state during the First World War and examines how it was affected by the Russian revolutions of 1917. After the outbreak of the War, only a limited number of Czech and Slovak leaders took up the cause for an independent state, while the majority remained loyal to the Habsburg Monarchy. In 1916, one of the early independence leaders and the first president of Czechoslovakia, T. G. Masaryk, founded the Czechoslovak National Council (CNC) at Paris with the aim of securing the support of the Allied countries. Yet since Allied governments regarded the Habsburg Monarchy as necessary for keeping the balance of power in Europe, they avoided making any commitment to support the CNC and, instead, sought a separate peace with Austria-Hungary. Consequently, the CNC could not achieve any notable results in their negotiations with the Allied governments until April 1918.Just after the outbreak of the War in 1914, Czech and Slovak settlers and emigrants living in Russia joined the war against the Central Powers as a part of the Russian army. The Russian Imperial Governmdent supported Czechs and Slovaks who were loyal to the Russian Empire, but they made no commitment to the independence of the Czechoslovak state. Meanwhile, the Russian state also barred Masaryk, a vocal critic of Czarism, from entering the country. After the March Revolution of 1917, however, Masaryk gained entry to Russia, and he subsequently established his leadership among the Czechs and Slovaks there. He also mobilized newly-freed Czech and Slovak prisoners of war into what later became known as the “Czechoslovak Legion.”In the Bohemian Lands, the Russian March Revolution promoted the rise of radical nationalists who claimed the independence of the Czechoslovak state from Habsburg Monarchy. Between January to July 1918, they gradually expanded their influence in the Czech political circles. Yet they lacked sufficient power to overthrow the Habsburg regime on their own. This situation eventually changed when, in April 1918, the negotiations for a separate peace between the Allied Powers and Austria-Hungary miscarried, and, subsequently, the French government turned to openly support anti-Hapsburg movements including the CNC.After the Bolshevik November Revolution, Soviet Russia and the Central Powers signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty in March 1918. With the eastern front now closed to the Czechoslovak Legion, Masaryk instead decided to transfer his troops to the western front through Vladivostok. On their way to Vladivostok, however, the Legion revolted against the Bolsheviks. This was followed by the Siberian Expedition by the United States and Japan in August. After the outbreak of the rebellion, the CNC was officially recognized by the Allies, and it was regarded as a de facto government by the end of the War. These favorable circumstances led Czechoslovak leaders to declare the independence of the new state and established a new government with exiled leaders at the end of October of 1918.

著者

溝端 佐登史

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.1-4, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

著者

下斗米 伸夫

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.5-6, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

著者

上垣 彰

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.7-26, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

参考文献数

51

---

The present study discusses the two problems in Putin’s Russia, namely that of protective trade measures and that of social disparities, both of which have been attracting attention from a lot of researchers and journalists under the circumstance of the Trump phenomenon. Therefore it examines the problems in comparison with the situation of the two problems in the USA under the Trump administration. For the first problem, it argues that Russia is rather faithful to the rule of the game of international system, while the Trump administration has an inclination to destroy it. However, there is a kind of deception in this attitude of Russia because it applies double standards when it treats trade problems with the USA, Western Europe and Japan on the one hand and the problems with the former Soviet states on the other. It emphasizes that Trump’s trade policies would play a role that gives an indulgence to the double standards of Russia. For the second problem, we argue that the residents in Russia are divided into small interest groups as a result of the survival of the “Soviet social system”. What ties together the people there is the patriotism of the citizens surrounded by “enemies”. Also in the United States, a specific income group does not support Trump’s regime, but a wider cross-hierarchical ideology, “anti-intellectualism” supports it. According to our view it is important to pay an attention to the relationship between the hierarchical structure and the patriotism or ideology in order to estimate the sustainability of the both regimes in the future.

著者

本村 眞澄

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.27-41, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

被引用文献数

1 1

---

The appointment of Mr. Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of the State by Mr. Trump prior to the inauguration of his administration at the end of 2016 was thought a strong message that the No. 1 businessman of USA in the Russian business community is going to manage the USA diplomacy. However, Mr. Michael Flynn, a presidential assistant, was prosecuted for his close contact with the Russian agent, and the “Russia Gate” is under investigation by FBI which is a serious issue for the administration. So, Mr. Tillerson had to correct his political stand to cope with the parliament, since the US diplomatic policy concerning Russia was virtually run by the parliament not by the President. In addition to that, “Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act”, which was drafted by the parliament members and became effective on August 2nd, 2017, provides for further sanction against Russia and at the same time restrains the construction of the Nord Stream 2, a direct gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, for the reason of avoidance of too much concentration of one gas source, i.e. Russia, in the EU market. This issue created a splitting in Europe, since leading EU countries like Germany, France and Austria put a premium of the commercial value and would like to purchase cheap and stable gas from anywhere, while Ukraine and Poland wary about too much reliance on the Russian gas, which sometimes works, they believe, as a political weapon to control the consuming countries. The United States is in the position to check the influence of Russia in the European energy market and has same opinion with Ukraine and Poland. However, this is not all the points of confrontation among European countries. Ukraine and Poland have been enjoying benefits as transit countries of the Russian gas pipelines. The Nord Stream 2 was designed to detour these countries to avoid any disorder of transportation of gas, which means Ukraine and Poland will not be able to receive transit fees. These two countries are superficially warning the risk of too much dependence on Russian gas, but the fact is that their economy depend heavily on the transit fees of gas from Russia and these countries don’t want to lose them.

著者

秋月 準也

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.90-99, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

参考文献数

15

被引用文献数

1

---

This paper examines Mikhail Bulgakov’s letter to the Soviet government, sent on March 28, 1930, and explores how Bulgakov expressed his purpose, or, rather, his creative creed as a playwright. Bulgakov’s self-orientation, as discerned from the letter, is also discussed. The three major audience members Bulgakov had in mind for this letter were Stalin, Kalinin, Maxim Gorky, which we can deduce from the fact that he had sent a nearly identical letter as a petition to these three in June 1929. The 1930 letter has two aspects: petitionary and artistic. First, Bulgakov protested the banning of his plays “The Days of the Turbins”, “Flight” and “The Crimson Island”, as well as the repeated refusal of his requests for a short trip abroad with his wife to escape a series of critical campaigns against his personality and his work. He asked the Soviet government to immediately grant his request of leaving with his wife, Lubov, or, failing that, to give him a job in the Moscow Art Theatre, to work under the guidance of Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko either as an assistant director or an extra or even as a member of the stage crew. Additionally, Bulgakov flatly denied that he was trying to curry favor with the Soviet government by writing a letter full of falsehoods about his plays and thoughts. He declared that he would never create a communist drama or even try to do so, simply because he fully understood that such a drama from his pen would never be a success. He confessed that “The Crimson Island” was a satire of the Glavrepertkom, a Soviet censorship agency, and he called for freedom of the press and the playwright’s imagination in the Soviet Union. Bulgakov severely criticized the censorship system in effect in Soviet Union as a writer in the satiric tradition of Nikolai Gogol and Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, he defended the Russian intelligentsia and claimed that he had tried to portray the intelligentsia as the finest class of society in “The Days of the Turbins” and “Flight” following the tradition of Lev Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”. This letter shows Bulgakov, sometimes directly and sometimes with indirect intent, putting on radical anti-communist plays under his own direction for an audience of the Soviet government, or rather Stalin alone, which obviously increased the risk to his life. This was, however, a bet that partially paid off: on April 18, 1930, Stalin personally telephoned Bulgakov and informed him that the Moscow Art Theatre would accept him onto their staff.

著者

林 由貴

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.46, pp.100-114, 2017 (Released:2019-02-01)

参考文献数

40

被引用文献数

1

---

The main objective of this paper is to analyze the construction process of the historical studies on nationalism of Nicholas Hans, Russian émigré educationist. In general, the scholar’s comparative theory is known in the field of education; however, this article concentrates on Hans’ keen interest in various aspects of ethnic questions, which widely vary between the humanitarian questions of the Enlightenment and the post-colonial problems after the Second World War. It is almost impossible to survey these numerous issues entirely at a time. However, a theoretical outline of Hans will be investigated using archival materials on him. Thus, the analysis will be made in the following order. First, the article interprets the basic term “nationalism” and its academic contexts where it is specially used by Hans. In the draft “Ethnic Questions in Ukraine,” no clear definition of the term is yet adopted. Though Hans obviously questioned the definition mainly after the Second World War, the evolution of the construction process of studies on nationalism should be investigated along with his historical interest in ethnic questions in Russia’s western frontier, where Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Poles, Ruthenians, and other minorities live altogether. Thus, the nationalism in the draft “Russia’s Western Frontier” and in other articles written at the beginning of the Cold War should be interpreted as a creation process of ethnic consciousness on the one hand; a negative usage also exists, which is equivalent to xenophobic movements, on the other. The former definition evaluates the ethnic movements to attain cultural independence and political transition, but the latter chiefly aims criticism at the utterly ignorant attitudes of the imperial bureaucracies towards non-Russian inhabitants. Second, the untapped notes “Ethnic Questions in Ukraine,” which are witness to Hans’ political practice in Odessa and the regional disorders after the October Revolution, are taken into consideration. An on-the-spot inquiry, which Hans personally attempted in Odessa, shows that neither the newly founded ethnic schools nor the Bolshevik ones satisfied regional educational demands. The author focuses on the historical coincidence of Hans’ inquiry with the educational circumstances in Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which shows the fact that the exclusiveness of nationalism is rather fictional, and that the genuine nationalist movement, as Hans puts it, is often confused with the former. Finally, the last part contains an analysis of the unpublished draft “Russia’s Western Frontier.” After the failure of its publication, Hans obviously changed his research direction. Whilst the purpose of the work was first defined as a single mission by a Russian émigré scholar to speak of the historical details of ethnic varieties in his motherland, unknown to a European readership, the purpose was corrected after the Second World War to a more universal framework. So-called teamwork in comparative study, an ultimate end of Hans’ theory, enables a wider scope to analyze ethnic questions interculturally.

著者

黒木 英充 小泉 直美 宇山 智彦 小森田 秋夫

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2016, no.45, pp.62-88, 2016 (Released:2018-06-02)

著者

服部 倫卓

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2016, no.45, pp.135-155, 2016 (Released:2018-06-02)

参考文献数

36

被引用文献数

2

---

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) was established in 2015 and so far consists of five nations (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan). One cannot deny that the EAEU has several defects such as too much dominance of Russia among the member states, an imbalanced network of intra-EAEU trade, relatively low importance of intra-EAEU trade for the member states, tendency to postpone market integration of crucial sectors like oil & gas and differences of import tariffs as a result of Kazakhstan’s accession to the WTO.We should, however, evaluate true merits of the EAEU for Russia in the context of its actual political and economic developments, not of the classic economic integration theory. It is noteworthy that the concept of the EAEU was proposed by Vladimir Putin on the eve of 2012 Presidential elections of Russia. Meanwhile Putin, who put ‘modernization’ of Russia on the top of the agenda, pursued innovation and new industrialization of Russian economy. Putin argued that so as to achieve these goals Russia should improve investment climate and enhance investment merits and that the creation of the EAEU was one of the efforts in that direction.Russian automotive industry is an important touchstone in this regard. Manufacturers of passenger cars in Russia used to concentrate on Russian domestic market, paying almost no attention to foreign markets because of high production costs within Russia. The creation of the Customs Union, a predecessor of the EAEU, however, lead to a unification of import tariff on passenger cars among Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, resulting in a rapid expansion of Russia’s new cars exports to the two partner countries, which used to be occupied by used cars. Thus, the EAEU plays a positive role in developing Russian automotive industry, a pivotal sector for new industrialization of Russian economy.It is true that the markets of Belarus and Kazakhstan are not sizable enough for Russian manufactures to secure profitability. Still the EAEU could be instrumental in converting some industrial sectors of Russia more export-oriented and in this sense could contribute to modernization of Russia to a certain extent.

著者

青木 國彦

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2016, no.45, pp.156-169, 2016 (Released:2018-06-02)

参考文献数

75

---

This paper studies the significance of Rosa Luxemburg’s famous words “Freedom for people who think differently” in her manuscript “The Russian Revolution” (1918) as a background of the event of January 17, 1988 in East Berlin.On 17 January 1988, a group tried to join the “fighting demonstration in honor of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg” in East Berlin with their own banners. The banners carried Rosa Luxemburg’s words: “Freedom is always the freedom for people who think differently” etc. quoted from her manuscript.The MfS (East German security forces, so-called “Stasi”) arrested more than 100 people on the day. The Stasi named this operation “Troublemakers”. Hundreds, or thousands of people protested against this operation in churches every night. Western media reported the event every day. East German authorities showed some mysterious actions for the control of the event.As for the initiator of the event there have been often misunderstandings since then. There has been a controversy also on the manuscript for a long time.The president of the East German PEN Club H. Kamnitzer (he was also an IM (spy) of the Stasi) contributed an article to the party organ “Neues Deutschland” of January 28, 1988. He emphasized that the group had taken the quotation out of context for their banners and that Rosa Luxemburg canceled these words right before her death (January 15, 1919). This idea is a rehash.For the first time Clara Zetkin’s book (1922) affirmed that Rosa Luxemburg canceled the contents of the manuscript. During the same period, Georg Lukács criticized Rosa Luxemburg theoretically. Since then there has been a heated controversy on the manuscript “The Russian Revolution”.In this paper, after having explained the event briefly, I will show who was the real initiator of the event. Then I will examine the criticism of Rosa Luxemburg by Zetkin and Lukács, and I will show the influences of the event on the fate of East Germany.My main conclusions are as follows: 1) the initiator of the event of January 17, 1988 in East Berlin was not a group of human rights activists, but the applicants for exit from the GDR, especially the working group “GDR Nationality Law”, 2) Rosa Luxemburg did not cancel her theory about and belief in the freedom, 3) Lukács studied Rosa Luxemburg’s theory about the freedom academically and understood it very well, though he attacked her, 4) Rosa Luxemburg thought that “Freedom for people who think differently” was essential not only for the socialist revolution, but also for the social development in general, and 5) the event of January 17, 1988 became the beginning of the last stage of the exit movement.