Literatura académica sobre el tema "Domestic intelligence – Great Britain – History"

The shift from coal to oil as the developed world’s dominant source of energy was the most significant change in energy-consumption patterns of the twentieth century. It had profound consequences for the global balance of power by limiting the autonomy of Britain, Germany, and other powers lacking domestic sources of oil. Conversely, the shift enhanced the power of the United States and the Soviet Union, both of which possessed extensive supplies. Because of its geopolitical significance, the history of oil is an important chapter in the story of Europe’s decline in the twentieth century, much as the history of coal is central to explaining Europe’s rise a century before....

Abstract We have learned a great deal over the past two decades about the impact of the “intelligence revolution” on World War II strategy.’ That knowledge has led, in turn, to a reassessment of the role of intelligence in earlier periods, and to the emergence of intelligence “studies” as a distinct sub-discipline, complete with its own newsletters, journals, organizations, scholarly meetings, and university courses. But this proliferation of scholarship thins out with the conclusion of the war. It is as if the possibilities for serious research on intelligence end with September, 1945, in a manner almost as decisive as President Harry S. Truman’s when in that same month he abolished with the stroke of a pen the first full-scale intelligence organization the United States had ever had, the Office of Strategic Services. The two phenomena are not, of course, unrelated: the very fact that OSS did not survive into the postwar era has made possible the declassification of most of its records. There is little reason to expect comparable openness anytime soon for the records of the Central Intelligence Group, which Truman created only four months after dismantling OSS, or for those of its more famous successor, the Central Intelligence Agency, whose official existence dates from July, 1947.4 Nor does documentation on code breaking activity in Great Britain and the United States-documentation that for the wartime years has largely sparked scholarly interest in intelligence matters-seem likely to be made available soon for the early postwar era.

Great Britain has been influenced strongly by its history, and its grand strategy is shaped by both this legacy and by shifting geopolitics. Nevertheless, it has adapted to these forces, adjusted to its post-imperial posture, and remains an influential, nuclear-armed global power. While Great Britain promotes multilateralism and collective security, and is staunch in its alignment to the United States, it is—as Brexit demonstrates—less certain with regard to its relationship with Europe. It is a firm advocate of NATO, but—harking back to the nineteenth nentury—seeks to avoid the dominance of the continent by any single country. This chapter addresses the tension in the GB’s grand strategy through the legacy of its history, its close alliance with the United States, and the influence of domestic politics on key strategic choices. It also addresses the proactive British approach to the Global War on Terror, and the constraints that now impose themselves in the early decades of the twenty-first century.

Chapter One examines Labour involvement in the wartime Coalition government and Ministerial access to and use of intelligence. It argues that the Second World War provided an important opportunity for future Ministers in the post-war government to gain knowledge and experience of handling and using intelligence. Within months of the coalition’s formation, Labour Ministers had access to the fruits of British codebreaking. Further, the chapter also suggests that this experience ended any lingering animosity that resulted from the Zinoviev Letter Affair. The chapter places particular emphasis on Attlee’s wartime experiences and provides examples of his use of intelligence and early views on it. It also looks at Labour involvement with the Special Operations Executive (SOE) and Party attempts to add an ideological facet to British special operations in Europe under Hugh Dalton, Minister of Economic Warfare until 1942. Beyond intelligence and special operations, Labour involvement with intelligence and security extended to the domestic front with Herbert Morrison, appointed Home Secretary in November 1940. Already a fierce opponent of British Communists, he received the product of MI5’s surveillance of the Communist Party of Great Britain and provided the Cabinet with information warning of Communist espionage.

In style and in substance, Theodore Roosevelt, who occupied the White House from 1901 to 1909, was the first modern American president. A gifted and courageous politician and a natural leader with an intuitive grasp of the value of public relations, Roosevelt employed the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to great effect as he pursued pathbreaking, transformative programs in both domestic and foreign affairs. Roosevelt’s various initiatives pertaining to workers’ rights, consumer protection, and restrictions on corporate behavior in the public interest were labeled the Square Deal, and they launched the process of progressive reform that was to become a central feature of American life in the twentieth century. Roosevelt also was the first— and remains the most ambitious and the most significant— environmentalist president in U.S. history. Regarding foreign policy, Roosevelt determinedly built up the U.S. Navy (particularly its battleship fleet) and brought America into the center of global diplomacy by establishing U.S. hegemony in the Caribbean, upholding U.S. interests in the western Pacific, constructing a strong partnership between the United States and Great Britain, and employing personal mediation to end one great power war and to prevent another. In the process, Roosevelt greatly enhanced the international image and stature of the United States.

The article is devoted to the source features of a unique documentary complex – the correspondence of two major Russian historians S.F. Platonov (1860–1933) and M.M. Bogoslovsky (1867–1929). The epistolary dialogue of scientists is of considerable interest not only in terms of studying their life and work. The confidential correspondence reflects significant events in the scientific and social life of Russia, Moscow, Petersburg-Petrograd-Leningrad. Correspondence is a valuable historical and historiographic source not only for understanding the development of historical science in Russia, the formation of Moscow and St. Petersburg historical schools, but also for studying the public consciousness of the Russian humanitarian intelligentsia at the end of the 19th — first third of the 20th centuries, in-depth knowledge of the culture of a turning point in the history of Russia. The letters contain valuable information about the everyday life and life of the professors, the organization of scientific life at the Academy of Sciences, the Archaeographic commission, at Moscow university and the Moscow theological academy, at the Moscow higher courses for women, at the Institute of history of the RANION, the Historical Museum, other higher educational institutions and scientific societies two capitals, they reflect the international ties of domestic historical science with scientists from Great Britain, Germany, France, USA, Czech Republic.

Several lessons emerge from these defectors’ revelations. First, the motivations of defectors changed based on the circumstances around them, which reflected Soviet policy changes. Those policy changes, such as purges and increased domestic repression, were often at the foundation of defector’s motivations. Second, vetting standards for Soviet personnel assigned to sensitive national security positions fluctuated, depending on the stability in the Soviet government and the level of urgency for hiring new personnel. When the Soviet Union was stable, it had the luxury of enforcing strict standards. When the Soviet Union needed a lot of people fast—such as during purges or wartime—it did not vet them as thoroughly. Finally, the Soviet perception of threat evolved, beginning with Great Britain as the primary threat in the early Soviet era, and joined by Germany after 1933, although Stalin never abandoned hope for an accommodation with Hitler. However, even before Germany was defeated in 1945, Soviet intelligence began targeting its wartime allies. By the late 1940s, when the United States assumed the role of the leader of the democratic world, the label “main enemy” was coined and applied to the United States, which stuck for the rest of the Soviet era.

In the Middle Eastern geostrategic complex Syria [the Syrian Arab Republic] occupies a special place. The first state formations on the territory of modern Syria dates back to the 2nd millennium BC. Assyria, the Hittite and Babylonian kingdoms, the era of Alexander the Great, the times as part of the Roman and Ottoman empires left a significant cultural and historical mark on the Syrians in the world’s cultural heritage, and the large Syrian ethnic community is an example of peaceful coexistence. However, as history shows, the greatest dangers came to Syria from outside. Throughout the 20th century, Syria actually found itself in a regime of permanent upheavals. By the end of the 1950s, France and Great Britain which professed [and profess] a policy of “spheres of influence” in the Middle East, tried to reshape the country, and since the 1960s Damascus has been embroiled in the contradictions of an endless peace-war process which was marked by the era of regional Arab-Israeli wars. Syria still feels the force of the consequences of the wars of 1967 and 1973 [Israel’s occupation of the Dutch Heights]. The 21st century brought Syria the “Arab Spring” [2011], civil war, the overthrow of the B. Assad regime [2024] and a time of new uncertainty. Since then, we have been observing another attempt by Syrians to build a peaceful Syria based on mutual understanding and respect for the diversity of forms of spiritual and cultural traditions of the peoples living on its territory. For the political force “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” which is in power in Syria today the complexity of this task is dictated by harsh reality. Internal humanitarian problems, which are caused by the long-term civil conflict, are exacerbated by the powerlessness of the authorities in the cities, the lack of control over the entire territory of the country, membership in the terrorist international and the contradictory strategies regarding the fate of Syria of its main allies, partners and opponents. Therefore, the Syrian political reality dictates support and resources from outside, and the politics of the “circle of friends”, according to the laws of the genre, requires concessions and obtaining one’s own benefit. Such a retrospective picture of the Syrian issue requires a more thorough analysis of Syrian realities in the context of rapid changes in the international order of the 21st century and the military-political situation in the region. The author’s novelty is determined by the purpose, structure and logic of the study which covers time, space and country-specific reactions to the Syrian events of both the countries of the region and other players in world politics. This made it possible to unravel the tangle of events, the content of which is hidden by informational noise and the art of politicians to hide their true goals in the environment of mass consciousness. The purpose. The purpose of the study is to resolve the Syrian knot in the Middle Eastern geostrategic complex as a result of the relentless projection of “soft” and “hard” power by the main players of world and regional politics which has been going on for the past 70 years. The combination of theoretical and methodological, political and applied, and informational tools made it possible to clarify the most controversial events and facts of Syrian history and the strategy of the struggle for influence in the region of Syria’s neighboring countries and countries that seek to maintain good relations with it due to their common spiritual and cultural affiliation and common history. The achievement of the goal was facilitated by the tasks, the content of which is disclosed in three sections of the study. The sections are organically interconnected and reflect the mechanism for revealing the problem posed. Methodology. The research has been carried out using comparative, dialectical, historical and systemic methods. This has allowed us to consider the phenomenon of the Syrian “knot” on the Middle Eastern map as a holistic picture of the contradictions between the main players, to identify its features and retrospective. Results. The foreign policy goals and strategies of the main Middle Eastern players in the new round of the game around post-Assad Syria have been revealed. Their views on the Syrian historical perspective and the modern practice of the already declared priorities have been clarified. It has been stated that Turkey, the USA and Russia as geopolitical competitors in the region seek to maintain and expand their military presence, and Israel, in order to ensure security from the north, has “preventively” expanded the occupation zone of the Golan Heights [January 2025]. It has been noted that in the views of the European community – the EU, the new leadership of Syria must first of all ensure human rights and freedoms and the functioning of democratic institutions, among which free elections have been in the first place throughout the country. Practical implications. The results of the study can be used in the block of humanitarian disciplines that consider issues of international politics and regional security. Value/originality. The scientific novelty of the study lies in revealing the ontological foundations of the Middle East conflict, the permanent force of which is given by the contradictions of the history of Syria and the competition of national interests of the main players. The Syrian node is considered in three aspects: domestic political, border security and regional political. It is proved that with the coming to power in the country of the political force “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham”, the game for the Syrian heritage enters a new stage of struggle, in which the policy of “forceful decisions” will dominate, and not compromises. In this game, the new government in Syria, due to its dependence on external influences, has been assigned the role of a figurant. Conclusions. The events surrounding Syria in the last 15 years have convincingly proven a simple thing of big politics: “if you want peace, prepare for war”. This in no way means creating a conflict environment with neighbors on the borders, or entering into competing alliances. Rather, it is a synthesis of the competencies and art of politicians in using the resources of “soft” and “hard” power of society and the state in achieving national harmony and the stability of the social system to possible shocks both inside and outside the country. Over the past 30 years, Syria has proven to be the most unstable state formation in the Middle Eastern geostrategic complex, which external forces have taken advantage of, and the country’s politicians and elite have demonstrated their inability to resist these threats. Today, in post-Assad Syria, we are witnessing a new phase of the formation of another, but already pro-Turkish “Syrian node”, which may develop into a new escalation of violence in the region and a radical reformatting of the security space.