“MY VISIT DID NOT REASSURE ME”: FROM THE HISTORY OF VISIT LESTER PEARSON’S TO THE SOVIET UNION (OCTOBER 5–12, 1955)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The article examines the political background, organization and course of the official visit of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Canada Lester Pearson to the Soviet Union in October 1955. It is established that after ten years of mutual mistrust caused by the “Gouzenko case” (exposing the Soviet spy network in Canada), each side pursued its own goal of establishing contacts. Diplomatic searches for common ground between the two countries were made possible by a change of top leadership in the Soviet Union and a brief reduction in international tensions following the 1955 Geneva Summit, which expressed readiness to discuss acute international conflicts. Significantly, Pearson was destined to become the first high-ranking Western official to visit the Soviet Union since NATO’s founding. Pearson tended to be flexible in relations with the USSR, in particular, sought to take advantage of bilateral relations. Despite criticism of Soviet expansionist policies in the international arena and contempt for human rights within the country, he believed that it was in the West’s interest to maintain contacts with the USSR through trade in non-strategic goods and cooperation within the UN. For this he was sometimes accused of being too lenient with communism. At the same time, in the Soviet Union, Pearson was perceived as a cautious politician, “hostile” to their country. The visit of the Canadian official delegation led by L. Pearson to the Soviet Union was organized by the newly appointed Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada John Watkins (1954–1956). Watkins earned the support of the Soviet leadership, but fell victim to the newly formed KGB: they tried to turn him into an “agent of influence” by blackmailing him with leaked spicy information about the diplomat’s homosexual relations. In addition to Moscow, part of the Canadian delegation – only four people – visited Stalingrad, from where in the afternoon of October 11, 1955 arrived in Sevastopol. In addition to two hours of Soviet-Canadian talks with Khrushchev’s expressive behavior, the Crimean part of the Canadian delegation’s visit went down in history with its “drinking session”. The Crimean part of L. Pearson’s visit to the Soviet leadership and Khrushchev personally was an attempt to show that the Soviet Union was a sincere and reliable partner with whom it was profitable to deal. Unaware of common approaches to international issues, the parties focused on economic cooperation, which resulted in a mutually beneficial Canadian-Soviet trade agreement in 1956. The Soviet Union became a regular buyer of Canadian wheat for many years. It was found that conversations during the so-called the “Crimean party” (banquet) became for the Canadian delegation an indicator of the mood and intentions of the new Soviet leadership, which differed little from those that took place in the Stalinist era. Despite slight liberalization, the Soviet regime of the “Khrushchev thaw” period remained expansionist, hostile to human rights and freedoms. Nikita Khrushchev’s anti-Western (primarily anti-American) rhetoric, diluted by reflections on war and peace, allowed Canadian visitors to acknowledge the longevity of Soviet foreign policy and the inevitable continuation of the Cold War.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».