RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      중앙-지방 관점에서 바라본 스탈린 시기 전쟁의 기억 = 레닌그라드와 세바스토폴의 경우

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A99723823

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      This paper focuses two main points. Firstly, the way that Soviet local officials and elites of the front region, especially Leningrad and Sevastopol, commemorated World War II during the postwar Stalin years. Secondly, the way that Stalin regime respo...

      This paper focuses two main points. Firstly, the way that Soviet local officials and elites of the front region, especially Leningrad and Sevastopol, commemorated World War II during the postwar Stalin years. Secondly, the way that Stalin regime responded to the practice of commemorating the war. Both Leningrad and Sevastopol located in the wartime front region, experienced a siege by the Nazi German army from the beginning of World War II. While Leningrad was liberated by the Soviet army in 1944, after the 900-day-siege, Sevastopol, a home port of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet located in the Crimean Peninsula, was occupied by the German army after the 250-day-siege for two years. By the end of the war Leningrad party and governmental officials had a strong sense of local patriotism, because of their own sacrifices and ability to survive without military or material support from Moscow during the siege. Based on the local patriotism, the local elites frequently eulogized the effectiveness of their wartime leadership, however remained silent on the role of Stalin and the central government during the siege of Leningrad. The Stalinist leadership, which could not allow such “anti-party” behavior from the local elites, persecuted them by using coercion, such as imprisonment. In contrast, the Stalinist leadership agreed to Sevastopol officials’ reconstruction plan, which was heavily drawn from history and culture, while it criticized a Moscow officials" reconstruction plan that emphasized socialist ideology and the victory of war. Therefore, it has been shown that the Stalinist leadership controlled war memories of local elites not only by using coercion, but also through accommodation, only when the local memories of the war would not undermine the authority of the Stalinist government.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • Ⅱ. 레닌그라드의 전쟁 경험과 기억 그리고 중앙과의 관계
      • Ⅲ. 세바스토폴의 전쟁 경험과 기억 그리고 중앙과의 관계
      • Ⅳ. 결론
      • 《참고문헌》
      • Ⅰ. 서론
      • Ⅱ. 레닌그라드의 전쟁 경험과 기억 그리고 중앙과의 관계
      • Ⅲ. 세바스토폴의 전쟁 경험과 기억 그리고 중앙과의 관계
      • Ⅳ. 결론
      • 《참고문헌》
      • Abstract
      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼