Why do third-party interventions in civil wars sometimes positively contribute to fast conflict resolutions and post-war development and sometimes backfire? To solve this puzzle, I present a conceptual framework that links the motives and methods of intervention to civil war outcomes and post-war development. Two contrasting motives, self-interest and humanitarian concerns, lead to different intervention types. Self-interest prompts states to undertake unilateral and biased intervention. Humanitarian concerns encourage states to engage in multilateral intervention through the UN with a biased position. Interveners are more prudent in the use of force. They resort to violent methods only when critical security interests are at stake or when extreme humanitarian disasters occur. The method of intervention reflects interveners' motives and significantly influences civil war processes and post-war development. The effects of intervention on civil war duration and outcome, however, tend to be inconsistent with interveners' intentions. I find no empirical evidence that external intervention is likely to make civil war shorter. Whether interveners are motivated by humanitarian concerns or self-interest, they tend to fail to achieve their best outcome: a faster victory for their protégé or a faster negotiated settlement. Instead, biased interveners succeed in retarding military victory by their protégé's rival. Neutral interveners play a role in delaying time until government victory, regardless of their intention. The effects of intervention on post-war development are somewhat consistent with interveners' intention. Multilateral intervention motivated by humanitarian concerns tends to promote post-war well-being by increasing resources available for post-war reconstruction. On the other hand, unilateral intervention tends to impede the improvement of post-war quality of life. The use of force also has negative impacts on post-war development. The reason is that those interventions pursing self-interest produce a less-respondent government and reduce available resources. Military victory is more likely to improve post-war quality of life than is a negotiated settlement. However, the positive effects of military victory are realized only when a group wins a victory without biased support from foreign powers. I find that multilateral intervention using nonviolent methods and having an unbiased stance may be the best way for the international community to help post-war development.

This thesis uses archive materials to map the post-war situation of German population in a Czechoslovak district of Teplice-Šanov. Before the war, the German population made for more than 70% of the total population of this borderline area. In 1947 it was only about 7%. In the first months after the end of the war, 27,000 - 34,000 of German nationals were banished from the area. In the following transfers 29,487 were forced out between February and August of 1946. More Germans continued to leave the country after the regular transfers in additional transports up until 1950. Only some specific groups of German speaking inhabitants were permitted to stay in Czechoslovakia - antifascists, Austrians, German experts, people living in mixed marriages, some of the German clergy, and those who were pardoned. In Teplice-Šanov it was a considerably large group of specialists (especially in the field of mining) who remained. The issue of repopulating the regions affected by the expulsion of Germans is also addressed. Settlers from inland, other borderline areas, Slovakia and from abroad came to the Teplice-Šanov district. The total number of newcomers in May 1947 was 47,402. This thesis uses an actual example of one district to illustrate the complexity of post-war situation. The analysis of the stance of...

Master's thesis called How Did Sports Journalism Change in Czechoslovakian Press after 1948? Comparing Periods 1945-1948 and 1953-1958 deals with the development and comparison of sports journalism in post-war Czechoslovakia and through the qualitative content analysis of three selected sports periodicals (Ruch v tělesné výchově/Ruch v tělovýchově a sportu, Stadion, Československý sport). Research focuses on media reports, graphic and language changes and organizational development of the periodicals. Secondary subjects are the fate of selected editors, the post-war development of the Sports Journalists Society and the unification of physical education movement. The author used the rich archive material of individual editions of sports periodicals and sources from the National Archives. Secondarily he used the review literature on media development and journalism after World War II, using historical monographs to analyze the historical context that is absolutely crucial to understanding post-war developments in Czechoslovakia and the press.