The study gives a historical outline of the Chechen-Russian war. This war – in contrast to public opinion and mainstream literature – has been fought for economic, political-territorial and social purposes, and as regards its origin, it is the result of the postsocialist transition. Raw materials – especially oil – and the control of the trading routes have caused great excitement for the different groups of oligarchs in Chechnya up to now, while people may think that they are experiencing an ethnic war.

What would happen if a more equitable global distribution system came into force and the wealthier countries were pressed to put more money into the common hat, that is the poorer region of the world got more money? The result is surprising, says the author. The living standards of rich countries would not decrease drastically – the resulting infrastructural developments would create new job opportunities for them, as well – however the living conditions and possibilities of the poor would increase by a lot.

The study gives a critical analysis of the America and Russia concept of two authors of the same period and social background – Tocqueville and Custine. While the former – although his class background and mentality attached him to the ancien regime – recognizes the progressive features of the American society, the latter condemns not only the barbarism of tsarism, but he also thinks that the whole Russian nation is barbaric. The study uses two different time dimensions; and also investigates to what extent these authors may be regarded as timely today.

Going beyond the eurocentric way of seeing Asian societies requires the rejection of the essentialist and expansionist logic deeply rooted in European thinking. We can understand Asian modernity as the result of the interaction of civilizations only if we uncover its real historical preconditions and movements.

The attack of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union is interpreted, both in Russia and in Hungary, along the lines of Goebbels's propaganda, by several historians as a preventive war. The article presents the misinterpretations, disprovals and misapprehensions of historians citing recently uncovered documents. The fate of the plan of Marshall Zhukov mentioned in the title also demonstrates the state of the historian's profession dealing with the World War II.