| Summary: | Thesis (Ph.D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Political Science, 2001. === Includes bibliographical references (p. [405]-409). === Can pernicious views about history exacerbate conflict among states, and if so, how? How can we prevent such ideas from emerging, or dampen their more malevolent effects? Despite a long history of scholarly writing on nationalism that assumes that distorted, mythologized history can be dangerous, we still know little about how pernicious historical ideas lead to interstate conflict, if at all. This study clarifies that relationship by identifying a number of hypotheses on the malevolent effects of pernicious ideas that are empirically grounded in the recent experiences of post-Soviet Russia. It examines popular Russian historical ideas widely purveyed through mass public education, assesses their perniciousness, and details the mechanisms by which they have precipitated or exacerbated recent conflicts in Russian foreign policy. Pernicious historical ideas precipitate or exacerbate conflict in two general ways: First, through "emotional" mechanisms, whereby pernicious myths instill resentment and animosity, and manifest grievances over real or perceived injustices. These feelings then lead to violent retaliation or demands for apologies, restitution, reparations or other symbolic gestures that raise tensions, or lead to confrontational or antagonistic policy choices. Second, there are "cognitive" mechanisms. Pernicious myths foster ethnic and nationalist stereotypes and negative or false images about others, or create false assumptions and beliefs about the nature of international politics, the causes of war and peace, and one's own and other's national interests. These images and assumptions reflected in distorted and pernicious views of history-can cause significant national misperceptions that lead to conflictual policies. The study identifies popular views of history by systematically analyzing Soviet and all post-Soviet Russian history textbooks. It examines three cases of wars, conflicts and interventions that have been especially prone to Russian historical mythmaking: The Soviet-German War of 1939-45; Soviet western interventions in 1939-40; and the Russo-Turkish wars of the 19th century. Russia's portrayal of these wars and interventions is dominated by self glorifying, self-exculpating, other-denigrating and victimization myths. An examination of recent Russian foreign policy conflicts in two regions-the Baltic and the Balkans-illustrates how these historical ideas have shaped Russian images and assumptions, and fostered emotional antagonisms and misperceptions that have precipitated or exacerbated conflict.in those regions. === by David A. Mendeloff. === Ph.D.
|
|---|
