Georgia and the International Treaties of 1918â1921 by Andersen Andrew (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIEWS 373 Throughout his study, Lorman returns time and again to a key and significant term, namely, ‘ambiguity’, in describing the objectives and platforms of the SLS movement and party, especially after 1918. Lorman identifies two factors which held the party together: the cult of the leader Hlinka, and an ambiguous ideology which could reach both supporters of autonomy within the Czechoslovak state or dissolution of the republic (pp. 179–85). Finally in chapter six, Lorman thoughtfully and carefully dissects the question of clerical fascism and the fascistic policies of the SLS, again using the ambiguity of platform versus the actions of individual leaders who were oriented in that direction. These voices placed the party ‘on a path to fascism even though it never reached that destination’ (p. 188). The diversity of sources and the balanced analysis makes this work an interesting and valuable contribution to the study of Slovak history. Department of History Susan Mikula Benedictine University, Lisle, IL Andersen, Andrew. Georgia and the International Treaties of 1918–1921. Asteroid Publishing Inc., Toronto, 2018. 472 pp. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Appendix. Glossary. Bibliography. Index. $86.95 (paperback). History can often become political, while politics can be driven by historical perceptions. This is true especially with both modern and contemporary histories, which are open to manipulation by political regimes which, in their turn, can instrumentalize history for manipulating their people. The history of the Caucasus has become a highly contested and debated topic both across the region and in Putin’s Russia. For example, on 16 July 2019, Putin lectured journalists on the historic legitimacy of Abkhazia and South Ossetia having been forcibly torn away from Georgia (https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Z6kLp8FktlY), and on 16 February 2020 the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev, met for the first time ever at a public debate at the Security Conference in Munich, where they shocked the audience by debating remote historical facts for over 30 of the 45 minutes of the discussion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ VXEhG6hmQ). The political use and abuse of the history of the Caucasus has caused considerable confusion, making it hard for the general public, and even experienced scholars to distinguish between truth and politicized propaganda. Against this background, Andrew Andersen’s book, Georgia and the International Treaties of 1918–1921, is refreshing, providing a concise, well- SEER, 99, 2, APRIL 2021 374 documented and visual overview of three decisive years in the history of the South Caucasus in general, and of Georgia in particular. This short period of Georgian independence, as well as that of her two South Caucasian neighbours, Armenia and Azerbaijan, has been largely understudied, if not ignored and forgotten by Western scholars and politicians, despite the fact that the three current nations of the South Caucasus are not only the heirs of their recent past but also its hostages, keeping in mind that they still face many similar challenges to which they respond very much in the same way as they did a century ago. Andrew Andersen’s book presents the original texts of eleven key treaties that shaped the political map of the region, from the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 3 March 1918 to the Treaty of Kars of 13 October 1921, and which were to determine the very existence of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (DRG). Based on both the treaties themselves and the political and military events that preceded the conclusion of each of them, Andersen, in cooperation with his colleague, George Partskhaladze, has created fifty-three high-quality full-colour maps that cover not only the subtle local entanglements of the Transcaucasian republics, but also global geopolitical considerations, the economic life of the region and demographical developments. Andersen’s book can therefore claim to be the first atlas of the DRG. In his commentary, Andersen smoothly navigates from one treaty to the next, assembling the pieces of a complex puzzle of Transcaucasian geopolitics between 1918 and 1921, setting his narrative against the historical and geographical backdrops to the numerous conflicts which the treaties were intended to resolve. In the first half of the book, he critically, but at the same time...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".