Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1983. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 349-389).

Thesis (M.S. in Defense Analysis)--Naval Postgraduate School, December 2008. / Thesis Advisor(s): O'Connell, Robert. "December 2008." Description based on title screen as viewed on January 30, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (p. 155-170). Also available in print.

L’objectif de notre thèse de doctorat est d’analyser les commissions d’historiens dans les processus de rapprochement en Pologne. Deux cas d’étude sont privilégiés : la commission polono-allemande sur les manuels scolaires et le groupe polono-russe sur les questions difficiles. Ce travail se base sur deux sources principales : une série d’entretiens et des recherches dans les archives. A ce corpuss’ajoutent des sources complémentaires : observations participantes et analyse de discours politiques, de sondages et de la presse.Les points de vue de part et d’autre divergent, voire s’opposent. Les historiens cherchent alors, selon Ricoeur, un récit qui peut favoriser le rapprochement. Ce dialogue sur l’histoire correspond tout à fait à ce qui est demandé aux commissions d’historiens. Dès lors, pourquoi ces commissions ont-elles été créées ? Comment fonctionnent-elles et pourquoi continuent-elles de fonctionner ? Nous formons les hypothèses que, premièrement, ces commissions ont été créées dans un objectif de rapprochement, voire de réconciliation. Deuxièmement, leur fonctionnement — et sa prolongation— dépend de trois variables : le contexte, les mandats, les acteurs.Notre thèse s’articule en cinq points. Les trois premières parties portent sur chacune des trois variables évoquées : contexte, mandats, acteurs. La quatrième partie porte sur les sphères d’influence de ces commissions et les débats qu’elles engendrent : politique et religion, débats publics, débats scientifiques. La dernière partie se concentre sur les projets de ces commissions :l’ouvrage commun ou les centres de dialogue du côté polono-russe, le manuel commun d’histoire du côté polono-allemand. / The objective of my PhD thesis is to analyse historical commissions in the processes of rapprochement in Poland. Two cases studies are selected: the Polish-German school book commission and the Polish-Russian group for difficult matters. This work relies on two main sources:a series of interviews and research conducted in the archives. Other sources are complementary to this main corpus: participatory observations, analysis of political discourses, opinion polls and themedia.From one part to another, the points of view differ, or even oppose themselves. Historians then lookfor, according to Ricoeur, a narrative which could favour rapprochement. This dialogue on history matches exactly with what is asked for the historical commissions. Then, why are these commissions created ? how do they work and why do they continue to function ? The first hypothesis assumes that these commissions are created in an objective of rapprochement, or even reconciliation. The second one assumes that their functioning – and its continuation – depends on three variables:context, mandates, actors. My thesis is structured on five points. The first three parts concern each of the three variables cited:context, mandates, actors. The fourth part relates to the spheres of influence of the commissions and the debates they induce: politics and religion, public debate, scientific debate. The last partfocuses on the projects of the commissions: the common book or the centres for dialogue on the Polish-Russian side, the common historical schoolbook on the Polish-German one.

The thesis addresses the puzzle of the differential integration of former communist states in the Euro-Atlantic community of nations between 1989 and 2000. Notwithstanding the predominant universalist-rationalist assumption that the adoption of an institutional-administrative blueprint for reform could lead to convergence between East and West, countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Russia did not converge similarly (or at all) on the West European normative model and framework of international relations. To account for this divergence, the thesis examines the impact of the culturally-historically informed, Polish, Bulgarian and Russian identities and conceptions of 'Europe' (as opposed to the formal-institutional transition from one system to another) on the process of foreign policy transformation. The doctoral research employs Constructivism, Social Psychological insights and an interpretivist methodology, drawing on 75 elite interviews. The main argument states that differential Europeanisation can be understood on the basis of differentiated levels of inclusion and establishment of relations of mutual recognition and belongingness - substantiated by a differentiated extent of ideational affinity (i.e., normative compatibility), which are (re)enacted in the interactive, mutually constitutive process of identification between Self and Other (i.e., between Poland, Bulgaria and Russia and (Western) Europe). Three propositions of 'thick', 'ambivalent' and 'thin' Europeanisation are derived from the argument (whereby the comparative benchmark of Europeanisation is an ideal-typical model of European-ness). Key contributions focus on the development of a refined Constructivist theory and a systematic empirical comparison of Polish, Bulgarian and Russian foreign policy identities. Also, the study's conclusions reinvigorate and reconfirm the importance of the continuity (rather than just constant flux) of culturally-historically shaped patterns of group self-understandings and sub-regional identifications as well as Constructivism's greater plausibility in accounting for the research puzzle than (Neoclassical) Realism through the stipulation of a mutually constitutive relationship between international and domestic factors and between ideational and interest-based considerations.

The thesis introduces the comparison of political approaches of Karel Kramář and Roman Dmowski towards Russia or rather towards the Russian factor. At the beginning of the 20th century these two politicians from the national-democratic circles decided independently of each other to look for a help in order to achieve independence of their nations within Russia. They were not lead only by objective reasons because Russia seemed to be the most acceptable and the most appropriate variant but also by subjective feelings, like for example their antagonism towards Germans and Germany itself or in case of Karel Kramář his affection for anything Russian. The Russian factor did not disappear from their conceptions even after the creation of an independent Czechoslovakia and Poland and it continued to be a permanent part of these conceptions. Kramář was faithful to his idea of future democratic Russia and the Slavic federation headed by this new Russia and even the Bolshevik Revolution could change his mind. Kramář assumed that Czechoslovakia could only be permanently safe by the union with democratic Russia. Although Kramář laid more emphasis on the Russian factor than Dmowski, Russia did not lose its importance for Dmowski. However, the importance gradually declined after the creation of independent...