Friedens und Konfliktforschung
Refine
Year of publication
- 2005 (17) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal Article (17)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
This article discusses key aspects of the symbolic politics of the British and West German anti-nuclear-weapons movements in the late 1950s and early 1960s. More specifically, it examines the interaction between protest, politics, the media and the public sphere. It proposes two analyses of the protests: first, as the creation of a public sphere by means of "street politics" and, second, as a key to establishing an emotional community of protesters both in a national and transnational context. The media played a crucial role by enabling isolated protests to be perceived as parts of broader movements. The article argues that protests in both countries by and large adhered to, rather than transcended, the dominant national cultural codes. These movements thus exemplify the ways in which international relations, transnational links and national protest traditions interact.
Der Irak-Krieg des Jahres 2003 wurde von zwei Bildern eingerahmt: Eines zeigt die Bombardements am Anfang und eines den Fall der Saddam-Statue auf dem Firdos-Platz am Ende. Lange vor dem Beginn des Krieges war bereits viel über die Taktik des amerikanischen Militärs geschrieben worden. Ein Militärschlag, wie es ihn noch nie gegeben hatte, sollte ihn eröffnen. „Shock and Awe“ wurde von der Bush-Administration als Bezeichnung ausgegeben, und noch Anfang März wurde die „MOAB“ getestet, die „Mother of all Bombs“. Schon der Name ließ sich leicht mit dem geplanten Irak-Krieg in Verbindung bringen, hatte Saddam Hussein den Zweiten Golfkrieg 1991 doch als „Mother of all Battles“ bezeichnet.
While most Europeans lived through an exceptionally peaceful period of history, termed ‘The Long Peace’ by John Lewis Gaddis,2 the populations of other continents were decidedly less fortunate. What was a ‘Cold War’ for the Europeans was anything but ‘cold’ for the Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians, for most Arab peoples, the Afghans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Indians, the populations of the Congo, Kenya, Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea, and of most of Latin America. How, then, can one be so sanguine as to characterise this period as that of a ‘Cold War’ or a ‘long peace’? The reason is that the long-expected Third World War has not (yet?) taken place. It was the prospect of such a Third World War, a ‘total’ and in all probability nuclear war, that attracted the attention of concerned minds in Europe and North America, the cultures that over centuries produced most publications on the subjects of war, strategy, military affairs and international relations.
“Silent Dust”, released in February 1949, was one of a group of films that explored the problems of the returning Second World War veteran. Although the maladjusted veteran is a feature of all major wars, it assumes an added significance in this instance because the Second World War, in Britain and America at least, is conventionally understood “almost universally as honourable and noble, fought with right and justice exclusively on the Allied side”. Angus Calder has argued that the dominant narrative constructed about the Second World War in Britain was what he terms the “myth of the Blitz”, a heroic myth of courage, endurance and pulling together. This myth, through its perpetuation in an enormous array of cultural practices - notably a cycle of combat films in the 1950s such as “The Dam Busters” (1955) and “Reach for the Sky” (1956) - became the accepted view and was almost impossible to dislodge. It was a myth that was officially ratified in the British state’s commemoration of the war and, like all dominant discourses, served to marginalise alternative constructions of the conflict, particularly those that represent it as a traumatic and possibly brutalising experience. By analysing “Silent Dust” in detail and in relation to its social and cultural context, I hope to recover this repressed narrative and restore it to its rightful place as an important discourse about the Second World War.
Auch gut zehn Jahre nach dem militärgeschichtlichen Paradigmenwechsel, den John Keegan 1993 eingeleitet hatte, fällt es schwer, Chancen und Fallstricke des schwerbewaffneten „cultural turn“ gegeneinander abzuwägen. In seinem Werk „A History of Warfare“ - das zwei Jahre später ebenso programmatisch wie problematisch unter dem deutschen Titel „Die Kultur des Krieges“ erschien - hatte Keegan zu einer radikalen Abkehr von den traditionellen Perspektiven der Militärgeschichtsschreibung aufgerufen. In der Nachfolge von Clausewitz habe die Forschung das Phänomen Krieg falsch kontextualisiert und irrtümlich dem Beziehungsgeflecht von Staat und Politik zugeordnet. Anstatt den Krieg als „Fortführung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln“ zu definieren, sei es angebrachter, ihn als „Fortführung der Kultur mit ihren eigenen Mitteln“ zu analysieren.