The discussed book by Stephen Tanner is not the author’s debut. He has been analyzing various issues of military history for a long time. He is the author of works on the great retreats of armies during various periods of history, the fortunes of American airmen operating in Switzerland during World War II and the history of Afghanistan. Tanner’s book can be considered as the author’s personal opinion on the military policy of the United States a! er the Cold War.

The main field of my study concerns the role of the Supreme Court in American legal and political system. My research frequently focuses on the case law, especially on some of the most important cases in the Court’s history, and on their in#uence on the whole of political, economic, and social relations of the country. I personally believe that American federal judges – among whom the most in#uential are the Justices of the Supreme Court – have gained more power than the Framers of the Constitution agreed to give them. Such situation occurred mostly because of the creation of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court, which allowed the judiciary to determine the contitutionality of acts created by the other branches of government.

World War II marked the beginning of the forty-five years long period of tense peace, described as the Cold War. Two superpowers that emerged from World War II started to compete for hegemony over the world, representing two diametrically different political and economic systems. In any other historical period, such situation would lead to an inevitable great war, but after 1945 the competition was threatened by the possibility of using nuclear weapon whose capability of destruction was so enormous that neither of parties ventured direct confrontation. World War II contributed to scientific advancement that played a crucial role in the military progress of these states. The development of technologies assisting nuclear weapon resulted in a revolutionary change in military capability provided by the parties of the conflict. Rocket projectiles were the symbol of the 20th century, due to the fact that they carried humans into space, but also because they carried deadly weapon capable of killing hundreds thousands people. This combination of nuclear weapon with medium-range and intercontinental missiles caused that the world had to face permanent threat.

The Sino-Indonesian relationship is an important research topic in Cold War studies. Since the 1960s, a number of scholarly works have been published on the subject. The declassification of diplomatic documents in various countries, and particularly the opening of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Archives following the end of the Cold War, has led to new developments in the studies on Sino-Indonesian relations. Much of this research, however, has been focused on the period from 1949 to 1965, because soon after the Indonesian military coup of September 1965, Sino-Indonesian diplomatic relations was suspended and was not restored until 1990. This article is a historiographical overview of the more controversial topics in Sino-Indonesian relations between 1949 through 1965 in scholarly publications that have came out over the past half decade. These topics include, among others, the establishment and evolution of Sino-Indonesian diplomatic relations; the standpoint of the Indonesian Communist Party (Partai Komunis Indonesia –PKI) toward the Sino-Soviet split; China’s reactions to the anti-Chinese movements that occurred in Indonesia between 1959 through 1961; and the cultural relations between Indonesia and China. The discussion here is limited to publications in the English and Chinese languages; this paper does not make any attempt to include relevant scholarly works that may have been published in Bahasa Indonesia or other languages.

The role of PPR in International Control Commisson in Vietnam

In July 1954 by virtue of Geneva Accords International Control Commission was established. This control body functioned in three countries: Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Delegations from Poland, Canada and India participated in the works of ICC in Vietnam. Its main task was supervising compliance with the bequest about Vietnam, which were enunciated in Geneva Accords.
PPR delegation in ICC in Vietnam functioned according to guidelines created in Moscow. The process started in May 1955. On 25th of May that year Ministry of Foreign Affairs PPR Stanisław Skrzeszewski held a conversation with ambassador of the USSR in Warsaw Pantelejmon Ponomarenka. Diplomatic representative of the USSR passed on „request” from Wiaczesław Mołotow for the PPR’s delegation in ICC in Vietnam to hand over information about development communist’s guerrillas acted in South Vietnam. PPR also tried supporting North Vietnam on the ICC forum through accusing South Vietnam for non-compliance with resolutions of Geneva Agreements. PPR’s delegates based their accusations on 14c article of Geneva Agreements. Additionally they tried to prove that Republic of Vietnam belonged to SEATO and actions of US military mission MAAG, TREM was contrary to Geneva Agreements.
Moreover, PPR defended NVN against allegations formulated by South Vietnam. Those were mainly cases related with leading espionage and subversive activity in South. An important activity of the PPR delegation in ICC was slowing down the works of commission when it was about to make some decisions that were unfavorable for the North Vietnam.
PPR played a role designated by the USSR in ICC, its activity was quite monotonous and the subsequent ministers of foreign affairs of PPR fulfilled it in unchanged form.

Turkey forever balances between East and West

When looking at contemporary Turkish politics, an incorrect notion is often circulated that Turkey has only in recent years, as far back as under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, begun a policy of balancing between East and West. The purpose of this article is to analyze Turkey’s posture – in terms of balancing between spheres of influence – after the end of World War II until Turkey joined NATO and then compare it with Turkey’s stance during the Justice and Development Party government in the context of relations with the United States and Russia. This will help answer the question: to what extent is Ankara’s current balkanizing attitude something surprising? Aren’t specific patterns of the 1945–1952 period similar to those of the 21st century, and the differences are the attitudes of Washington and Moscow rather than Ankara?