Versailles-Washington system of international relations: formation and character Alignment of forces in the international arena in the first post-war goals. The balance of power in the international arena after the Crimea c) The formation of the world socialist system
60-80s it is a period of "confrontational stability".
« long world”- until the 80s and from the 80s -“ New HB ”: this is how Amer. historians. But without one period, one cannot understand the other.
HV continued, but in a relaxed version. Classic cold war - refusal to negotiate. Softened version - both sides go to negotiations:
1. It was possible to reach important agreements between the 2 systems at this particular time. The 1970s is a period of "détente". These include the limitation of strategic arms and issues of European security. We even agreed to develop economic ties between East and West. After the Caribbean crisis, there were no head-on clashes between 2 powers, but there were regional clashes.
2. But the Cold War continued. Firstly, the ideological war continued, periodically there were tensions in relations. In 1983, Reagan called the USSR an "evil empire." The ideological conflict remained. Secondly, the arms race remained and continued. The peak of spending on armaments was 1987. Third. There were no head-on collisions, and the political and military struggle switched to the third world. Regional conflicts continued to be seen in the conflict between capitalism and socialism.
And the last example of confrontation is the limited role of the UN. Veto. The USSR imposed it when, in its opinion, the outcome is possible in favor of the West. And vice versa.
From 1946 to 1990, only 2 states were called peace breakers - aggressors. These are the DPRK (resolution No. 82) and Argentina (the Falklands crisis of 1982). Non-military sanctions were applied only twice: against Southern Rhodesia and South Africa, and that's all! Although over these 45 years they counted 80 wars and more than 300 military conflicts.
Distribution of forces.
The balance of power between the 2 systems is in 1st place here.
This refers to the correlation of forces in the sphere of 1) economics, 2) social, 3) military, 4) political.
1) Economy.
It is impossible to characterize unambiguously. Major advantages of socialism at the beginning of the period and a serious lag behind the West at the end of this period.
3 periods. 2 of them are short - a period of stagnation, reflected in the balance of power. For the first time in the competition of 2 systems in growth rates, capitalism began to overtake socialism.
1951-1980 1981-85 1986-90
GDP and OECD Growth Rates
7 4 2.5 (Socialist countries)
4 3 3.5 (OECD)
The share of socialist countries in world GDP.
A loss of 2% in the 80s is very serious - this is stagnation.
The level of labor productivity in the industry in the socialist countries.
1938 - did not exceed 10%
The West not only equalized the indicators, but also began to surpass socialism.
Agriculture.
Labor productivity in agriculture in the USSR was 20% of that of the United States. Grain purchases began: in 1965 - for 2.3 billion rubles, in 1985 - for 23 billion rubles.
The USSR in 1980 had 4 times more tractors than the USA. And grain production - 200 (USSR) and 300 (USA) million tons.
In economy sphere the main point is qualitative growth. The West has entered the era of post-industrial society. The USSR continued to develop at the stage of an industrial society. The USSR could not respond to the qualitative growth. Wrong econ. strategy since Khrushchev. Gorbachev tried to equalize. "Acceleration" and "Perestroika", for which he is loved in the West. These 2 things contradict each other. "Acceleration" - due to heavy industry, and "Perestroika" - due to intensification.
The most serious challenge for the West was in the field of science-intensive products, in the field of using the results of scientific and technological revolution. And this was not just a lag.
1980s. The growth of knowledge-intensive industries.
Zap. Europe - 5% per year, USA - 7% per year, Japan - 14%. USSR - 0.4%
Computer Engineering.
USA per year - 28-30%
USSR - 1.3%.
Software.
USA per year - 35%
USSR - 1.8%
The transition to a post-industrial society - attention is paid not to the quantity, but to the quality of products.
Percentage of marriage in the late 80s.
England - 8%
Japan - 1.2%
USSR - one witty economist suggested: 16% of products received a quality mark. The rest - in the West would be considered a marriage.
This is the main area where the lag manifested itself.
Socialism and capitalism were in the 80s at different stages of development. Socialism was at the industrial stage, and capitalism entered the post-industrial stage. Socialism proved its advantages in the era of extensive development, and capitalism - in the era of intensive development.
Who is to blame - the social system itself, which turned out to be flawed, or watered. course, wrong strategy?
Both, but mostly the latter. Indirect evidence: 1) in a number of new technologies (military sphere and space), the USSR was not lagging behind. Every year, the USSR launched hundreds of satellites and rockets, and the USA - about 20. 2) There were attempts to modernize socialism since the 60s (Kosygin's reforms were curtailed). The political elite of the USSR understood that it was necessary to modernize the USSR, but failed, and to a greater extent because of the watered. guides.
2) Social sphere.
Socialism has always been proud of this sphere and has been ahead of capitalism. Socialism was proud of the fact that the care of a person was legalized. The Stalinist constitution was the most democratic - for the first time in history, economics were drawn up. human rights, free medical care, free education. There has been no unemployment in the USSR since 1930.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the West began to catch up and even surpass socialism. And this is extremely important, because this is the power of example. Human welfare is the slogan in both countries. It was at this time that the concept of “quality of life” was developed at the UN, which included hundreds of indicators.
Social structure by the 80s.
The social structure of society was the same as it was in the 50s in the West. The main productive force is the same - the factory proletariat. In the West, the decisive force is the middle class. It was not in the USSR. Blue-collar workers - the factory proletariat - in the West there were less than 20% of them, in the USA - less than 15%. Leading role in social development was played by white-collar workers - persons employed in the service sector. And their social the position was much higher than that of factory workers.
social spending.
In the 50s, the USSR was proud that they were 2-3 times higher than those of the West. And then the state share. spending on social needs remained unchanged - 15-16%. In the 80s in the West - about 30%.
national income.
In the USSR, during these years, the salary was in ND - 37%. That is, 37% of the country's national income went to salaries. In the West - 65% - salary, and 35% - profit. Who will rise to the revolution for the sake of 35%. But for the sake of 63% - still think.
In 1987-88, the average salary in the United States was $1,700; in the USSR, the average salary was 201 rubles, with benefits - 287 rubles. And the dollar was approximately equal to the ruble.
Average life expectancy.
The USSR - 69 years, Japan - 78. According to this indicator, the USSR ranked 51st, now it is even worse. Russia - 65, Japan - 62.5.
Medical care.
In the USSR, free in many ways was better than paid now.
1987 - The Soviet press trumpeted to the whole world that 122 heart surgeries had been performed. In the US that year, 140,000.
Education.
In the 80s, Soviet universities had the latest equipment for 1,200 rubles per student, and Moscow State University - 12,000. If you take all Western universities, then they have an average of $ 80,000.
In terms of the number of students and graduate students per capita in the 50-60s, the USSR ranked 3rd in the world, in the 80s - 50s
3) Military sphere.
It was in this sphere that the USSR achieved its greatest success. All R. In the 1980s, it reached parity. This means that the lag in some classes of weapons was compensated by the fact that there was an advantage in other classes of weapons.
The balance of power changed 27 times, in 23 cases the USSR had to catch up, in 1 there was equality, and in 3 cases the USSR initially had an advantage.
3 cases - 1. First portable bomb. 2. The first ICBM. 3. The first missile defense system.
Eisenhower recognized the ratio of nuclear forces 1 to 12. Kennedy recognized 1 to 5. And Nixon - 1 to 1.
In some, non-nuclear areas, we had an advantage.
By the beginning of the 80s, the USSR had 301 gas turbine ships, and in the West - only 2 (1 in England, 1 in Japan). When in 1971 the Rep. Bangladesh, the 7th American fleet was sent there to the coast of India (always a little, it is sent). The path of the 7th fleet was 1.5 times shorter, but Admiral Sysoev and the squadron sailed there earlier. The Americans were forced to signal "Glad to welcome the Soviet fleet." Sysoev replied: "I am glad to welcome the American fleet away from the shores of free India."
4 categories of nuclear weapons carriers: tactical (560 km), operational-tactical (560-1000 km), medium-range (1000-5000), strategic (from 5500 - the distance from Moscow to Washington).
The USA surpassed the USSR in the medium and shorter range class, they wrote for a long time. In 1987, the INF Treaty was signed. All missiles were reduced according to it: the USA - 859, the USSR - 1852.
Strategic. The triad of carriers - ICBMs, SLBMs (Bal. rocket on submarines), TB (heavy bombers). By the end of the 80s, 2494 from the USSR, 2260 from the USA.
For nuclear weapons. USA - 16,000 and USSR - 10,000 (by the end of the 80s). During this period, the United States overtook the USSR on RBCh (missile with multiple warheads): USA - 1351, USSR - 1272.
Navy. The US boasted about this. Aircraft carriers - 15 to 2, destroyers and cruisers with nuclear weapons 110 to 80, submarines with nuclear weapons 75 - the USA, 265 - the USSR.
The balance of forces of the ATS and NATO. Combat divisions 107 and 101, tanks 52,000 to 22,000, artillery 46,500 to 13,700.
parity results.
1) The USSR in the 70-80s demonstrated a huge military potential.
2) The achievement of parity contributed to the strengthening of international stability.
3) There is no doubt that the achievement of parity has become the material basis for the policy of detente.
4) The significance of achieving parity is the depletion of the forces of the USSR, the undermining of foreign policy resources. Kennan turned out to be right in his time when by the arms race he meant, first of all, the exhaustion of the USSR. He was still alive, lived 102 years.
Funds for parity were withdrawn from the civilian economy, the social sphere, and education. In addition, unequal trade with socialist countries + support for countries of social orientation + war in Afghanistan.
In 2/2 of the 80s, US spending on weapons was 300 billion, and the entire ND was 550-600 billion rubles. It was necessary to spend the same amount, and what was left for other areas.
In this sense, the achievement of parity led to a weakening of the positions of the socialist camp.
4) Political sphere.
The development of all other spheres depended on it.
General character. In the West, politics turned out to be wiser - it corresponded to objective conditions.
1. Development of foreign policy concepts.
John F Kennedy's team in the 60s - the concept of "flexible response". For the first time, the equal vulnerability of the USSR and the USA was recognized.
What is the Doctrine of Rejection? This is the doctrine of unlimited escalation, the active use of even nuclear weapons.
Instead of unlimited escalation, then they began to talk about controlled escalation. Those. it is the use of various methods of influencing socialism. There was no talk of any love cooperation even within the framework of the doctrine of flexible response, the struggle against socialism continued.
Robert McNamara, Kennedy's secretary of defense, proposed guerrilla warfare.
Lyndon Johnson has already talked about bridging tactics. This is an ideological penetration into the East. Through cultural organizations, radio programs such as the BBC and the Voice of America. Did you listen? Listened. The USSR and the socialist countries lagged behind here. There is nothing wrong with jazz. If Medvedev communicates with Pink Floyd, then it is clear what he did earlier.
But here we are talking about a wise change in US policy - a differentiated approach to socialist countries. The United States provided serious financial assistance on the eve of 1956 - Hungary, 1968 - Czechoslovakia, 70s - Poland. And they achieved the goal - the erosion of ideological foundations.
A little later, in the 1970s, a foundation was created to support democracy in Eastern Europe, and then in the USSR. He spent $ 30 billion a year, providing assistance, incl. and personnel, the opposition of Eastern European countries.
But at the same time, the confrontation continued. It was transferred to another plane, the plane of economic and technical competition, in the sphere of ideology and economics. Here the US could win.
On the other hand, active economic pressure on the USSR. Jackson-Wennig Amendment (1974): do not grant "most favored nation treatment" to those countries that violate human rights, primarily the right to travel abroad (for example, the rights of Jews). This "non-provision" hit me hard. Now it is sometimes suspended, but for Russia it has not been canceled. Although it has long been canceled for Ukraine, Georgia, but not for the Russian Federation.
Unexpectedly for polit. elites of the USSR, the USA moved to tougher policy in Rel. THE USSR. "The Doctrine of Neo-Globalism (Reagan Doctrine)": "The United States renounces self-restraint in foreign policy and will give an immediate rebuff to the spread of communism anywhere in the world." In our literature, this concept was portrayed as a return to the times of the classical 19th century: direct military pressure, an arms race. Phraseology - yes, but this new challenge from the US was thrown by the USSR in the new conditions: Reagan counted on 1) the weakness of the USSR civil economy 2) on the erosion of the ideological foundations of the Eastern European countries. The Americans felt that it was possible to switch again to leverage.
The Americans are right: the USSR at that time switched to a defensive strategy. The turn of the 70-80s: the USSR abandoned the concept of self-destruction of capitalism: 1) in fact, capitalism became different, it was a mixed society. Therefore, the Stalinist-Leninist formulations did not work 2) Capitalism began to overtake socialism 3) The leaders of a number of Western communist parties took the position of "Eurosocialism" and did not agree with the course of the USSR. "New Thinking" (1986, 27th Party Congress), and announced this to the world in 1988 at the UN Congress. And he wrote a book with the immodest title "New political thinking for our country and for the whole world":
1 thesis, for this he was praised in the West and in our country - "the priority of universal human interests and values over class ones." There is nothing wrong here, Gorbachev wrote it off from the West. From the point of view of the Defense Ministry, this was a transition to defensive tactics - this is the thesis of "de-ideologization" (this is what the West has been striving for since the 60s). Even at the XX Congress there were 3 principles: watered. dialogue, economy cooperation and uncompromising ideological struggle. And Gorbachev left only the first 2 theses for peaceful coexistence. In the West, this theory was called "the ideological disarmament of the USSR."
Hence other theses as a practical direction in external. half of the USSR - 2. normalization of relations with the United States, 3. concessions on the German issue, 4. "restructuring relations with socialist countries, subject to the implementation of Gorbachev's reforms there." 5. Recognition of human rights.
The significance of these reforms: 1) New watered. thinking really contributed to the détente of the MO. 2) It really contributed to the collapse of the social system, and then the collapse of the USSR. Indirect evidence - in 1999 in Turkey at the American University, he said: "the main goal of his whole life was the destruction of communism." It is amazing. This is clear evidence in favor of a change in the balance of power in favor of capitalism.
2. Intra-system relations - centrifugal or centripetal tendencies.
This is extremely important, also an indicator of the collapse of socialism.
West - the same tendencies, but intensified: 1) the predominance of centripetal forces over centrifugal, both in economic and political relations. Development of transnational corporations, European integration. The predominance was reflected in the history of NATO.
During this period, he faced serious difficulties, but this union not only survived, but also strengthened its position.
1) In 1962, a very heated discussion in the West about the creation of a multilateral nuclear force (Kim Rask, US Secretary of State, outlined at a meeting of the NATO Council): in practice, it could mean that the FRG was gaining access to the nuclear button; Britain and France handed over their nuclear forces to the Americans. It was a crisis. For De Gaulle, this was completely unacceptable (in 1960 they detonated a bomb). Macmillan met with Kennedy (they agree to the proposal, but the British nuclear forces can come under the control of Parliament when it sees fit). In the same 1966, De Gaulle announced his withdrawal from NATO. But this was not the end of NATO, as our literature wrote - France, having left the military organization, did not leave the political one. De Gaulle supported Kennedy during the Caribbean crisis, and on a number of other issues.
2) Not accepting the proposal on multilateral nuclear forces, all other proposals were accepted. Early 80s - about the deployment of 572 Pershing-2 cruise missiles in Western Europe. There was a "problem of 6 minutes" - a rocket launched from the USSR to the USA flies for half an hour. And these rockets - 6 minutes. Those. it was no longer easy to prepare for their destruction, despite the missile defense.
NATO is expanding. By the time of the collapse of the USSR - 19 countries; 5th NATO enlargement (2009) - 28 countries.
1966 - the formation of the World Anti-Communist League. And there was no corresponding socialist organization. And it was a serious League, 98 countries of the world participated, newspapers and radio were printed.
1967 - Creation of the OECD (organization of economic cooperation and development). All developed countries are included - 24 (19 Western European, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand). They do not write about it, but meetings and sessions were held annually: a unified policy in the field of ek-ki was discussed, 10-year plans were adopted. After the oil shock of 1973, a unified energy program was adopted: to limit the consumption of oil and gas and to develop the development of new energy sources.
1973 - the Trilateral Commission was created with the money of Rockefeller and the owner of Fiat Agnelli: 3 centers of power (USA, Japan, Western Europe): first director - Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is an informal body for the training of senior leaders. They recruited and trained young people, many politicians came out of there. The scheme worked great. Chirac, for example, went through the commission. People listened to lectures, although you won't turn out to be Shiraks. Conducted seminars. There was, of course, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, but this is a religious organization. There was no purposeful body for the training of managers in the socialist camp.
Since 1975, meetings of the "7" - the leading Western powers and Japan - have been held annually. Population - 12%, share in world GDP - 52%.
1989 - adoption at the meeting of the Political Declaration: on the need to support reforms in the Eastern European socialist countries; about assistance to Hungary and Poland; about writing off debts to countries of the 3rd world, about strengthening the dollar.
The most striking indicator of centripetal forces is Western European integration. several stages.
Stage 1 (1951-1957) - preparatory. Prologue - 1951 - the creation of the European Coal and Steel Association according to the plan of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France Schuman. Since 1953, the ECSC has been functioning, it is the basis of the common market.
Stage 2 (1957-1968). March 25, 1957 - Treaty of Rome, 6 countries. In fact, this year marks the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC). Soviet political scientists and the press laughed. Goals of the organization: a) creation of a common market - a single trade space, a single trade area of 6 countries. To do this, we need to reduce and reduce customs duties to 0 for 12 years. It provided for a unified economic policy for 12 countries. In fact, the decision was revolutionary, such associations have never existed in the world.
Stage 3 (since the end of the 60s): unification of the UES, ECSC, Euratom. The EU appeared (without the "e") and one body. They announced that a single trade zone and a common tariff have been introduced. The main thing is that in 12 years they planned to create and created.
Then the EU began to expand. In the 1960s, Great Britain really wanted to join. De Gaulle did not let him in (England will enter, but while maintaining special relationship in the British Commonwealth of Nations + she was categorically against the creation of a single polit. alliance with the leader - France). The United States asked very much for England. This annoyed De Gaulle, so he called England in the EU a "Trojan horse." In 1973, De Gaulle resigned - England was accepted, along with it - Denmark, Ireland, Norway (but the referendum was refused).
In the 1970s there was a debate, what should be the community as a political body? There were 2 points of view. And this conflict was bright and visible in the 1970s. There were supporters of the federation, ie. the allocation of supranational bodies that would govern the entire community, regardless of national bodies. France and the small countries were especially active in this, because in a federation the small countries would play a more active role.
Two other powerful powers - the Federal Republic of Germany and Great Britain - were in favor of a confederation, for the unification of independent states. The main governing bodies would remain national.
The debate went on for about 10 years, even more. But it is important that in the 1970s working bodies were created - Council of Ministers(min ek-ki and MFA); Commission of the European Communities(expert assessments, control over contracts, over the council of ministers); European Parliament.
An even more serious role is played by the European Community Conference, which still exists today. Representatives of each country were included there according to the principle of competence. Well, there was no such thing in the socialist camp. But no more than 2 people from each country. These people controlled the implementation of decisions.
European Parliament. Until 1979 there were no direct party elections, just each country delegated a certain number of deputies.
1972 - At the Paris meeting of the leaders of the European Community, Georges Pompidou, President of France, proposed measures to transform the EEC into a political union.
1974 on the initiative of France, the European Council was created. It replaced regular or irregular summits by becoming a regular body that included heads of state and government. In fact, it did not depend on the decisions of national governments, it was, as it were, above the EU, but at the same time it was a key instrument in determining its policy.
1976 - discussion of the report of the Belgian Prime Minister Tindemans (1966 was instructed to develop ideas for further development). He supported the idea of transformation European Union to the European Community. He proposed to form a 4th component (there were 3 bodies) of the union - European political cooperation - that is, to deal not only with the economy, but also develop a common foreign policy. That would be the first step towards political unification in the EU.
At the same time, the integration processes continued. 1970s - 1/2 of the 1980s - in fact, not just a single market, but a single economic space was created.
4 stage of integration (1985-1992)
1985 - The Single European Act is adopted in Luxembourg. The main results of the economic development of the European community were summed up.
1) The “4th Pillar” was legalized – European political cooperation: the European Council, which was not previously a permanent body, was legalized. 2) Strengthened the powers of all central, supranational bodies - the Council of Ministers, the Commission of the European Communities and the European Parliament. They were elected on party lists. 3) The next steps were outlined - the formation of the European Union (scheduled for 1992), coordination in the monetary sphere.
1990 in Schengen (a castle in Luxembourg) an agreement was signed. We opened borders for each other (6 countries initially). It was an important ideological and psychological moment.
1992 in Maastricht (Netherlands) the formation of the European Union was announced. Those. All plans and programs were carried out and completed on time. It was discussed in 10 years to create a new European currency (2002 - created).
These are all proofs of the predominance of centripetal forces.
By the end of the 1980s, world capitalism came as a single entity. This strengthened the position of the West in its competition/struggle with the East.
Socialism.
Centrifugal countries prevailed over centripetal countries. Despite fraternal assistance, a planned economy and a planned solution of all issues.
Common reasons:
1) Forgetting by the Soviet elite that the socialist camp included countries of the same type (“people's democracy”), but far from the same. There were various national interests and traditions.
2) In the unification of these countries, the main method was the method of planting a model from the USSR (Stalinist, neo-Stalinist, Gorbachev).
3) Policy inconsistency. Gorbachev offered what he initially denied: reforms, decentralization, capitalist elements. And especially when he announced the unprofitability of maintaining a zone of influence in Eastern Europe.
4) Influence of the West.
A. Direct: differentiation of relationships, economic assistance. Not just forceful pressure on the entire camp, but work with each individual country. Americans in the 1960s began to support the demand of Albania, a communist hermit, to create an ethnically pure Kosovo. The United States supported Enver Hoxha without even having diplomatic relations with Albania.
b. Indirect: the power of example - in the 1950s the USSR had a positive power of example, since the 60s it has become largely negative due to lagging behind the West, except for military power).
The processes were gradual.
Economy.
There were also successes in the development of centripetal forces.
For the first time, such a form of economic cooperation as the coordination of national economic plans began to prevail. Previously, everyone adopted five-year plans, but did not coordinate them, and everyone, following the example of the USSR, tried to develop industries for which there were no conditions, and no need either. And then they began to listen to each other. The center of gravity of economic cooperation was shifted from the sphere of trade to the sphere of production. Another indicator is the creation of joint ventures. Mir energy system, Druzhba oil pipeline, Soyuz gas pipeline. The main goal is in the field of economics. ties - the creation of socialist economic integration. The goal is correct, but it didn't happen. And this is evidence of the predominance of centrifugal forces over centripetal:
1) Economy integration was built on the basis of extensive development. The program on scientific and technological progress was adopted only in 1985, on the eve of the collapse of the social system (in Europe - since 1957 => it was too late).
2) Economy. cooperation was based primarily on the economy. help from the USSR. 600 enterprises were built free of charge in Europe, 800 in Asia and Cuba. In addition, energy resources are actually free. What did it lead to? Well, the USSR was relatively loved, but its forces were depleted.
By the end of the 1980s, it became obvious, although theoretically it could not be, that socialist integration lags behind capitalist. Within the framework of the CMEA, it was not possible to achieve elementary things - a single trade zone, duty-free space. And in the West, this was more difficult to achieve, because. private property and interests. So it was not possible to implement the program of scientific and technological progress. The socialist countries began to abandon the division of labor proposed by the CMEA bodies. Ceausescu was offered to supply potatoes and vegetables, he replied that he was not going to turn Romania into a garden of the socialist camp.
Political sphere.
Successes in the development of centripetal forces amounted to strengthening the positions of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Pact. A number of changes in the organizational structure of the PKK - in 1969 a committee of defense ministers was created, in 1972 a committee of ministers of foreign affairs. Major initiatives, such as the creation of a European security system, were initiated by the PKK.
But here, too, there are centrifugal forces.
Soviet-Chinese relations are the most striking example.
They escalated in the 2/2 50s - early. 60s. And at this stage, it is conditionally possible to distinguish 3 periods: 1960, 1970, 1980s.
2 main areas of controversy:
1) The field of ideology and theory.
Several contentious issues. The main ones are the ways of building socialism, the attitude towards the cult of personality, the problem of exporting the revolution.
Ways of building socialism.
In the USSR, in the CIS - reforms. China called it all revisionism and a departure from Marxism-Leninism. And in China, the economy has also changed. well. Before that, there was a "great leap". In the 60s: "the final victory of socialism is possible in 5-10 generations or even after a longer period." We switched to the evolutionary path, but by administrative and economic methods.
attitude towards the cult of personality.
In the 60s in all socialist. countries - the cult of personality.
Since 1956 (XX Congress): exposure of the cult. This was welcomed in Eastern European countries.
In China, after the death of Mao, they came up with the formula "3 and 7". 3 Mao mistakes, 7 correct decisions. Those. they approached very wisely and carefully.
In China, the 22nd Congress was called revisionist, and for the first time a delegation was not sent to the 23rd Congress at all.
2) The sphere of interstate relationships.
Foreign policy concepts were different.
In the USSR they spoke loudly and often about peaceful coexistence. And indeed there was a series of initiatives.
In China: the creation of a unified anti-imperialist. front. Received distribution. 3 worlds theory. 1 - two superpowers with a hegemonic policy, 2 - medium and underdeveloped countries. 3 - the "third world" is the main revolutionary force that China should lead, i.e. fight for the establishment of socialism with the help of national liberation movements (NOD).
"Theory of 3 A": Asia, Africa, Latin America - it was supposed to be led by China.
The approach to a possible nuclear war was different. In China, it was called "paper tiger". Therefore, all the initiatives of the USSR are the fight against the paper tiger. In China, it was argued that in the aftermath of a nuclear war, not human beings would die, but decaying capitalism.
Those. there was a significant difference in foreign policy. concepts.
In 1959 Khrushchev proposed the creation of a "nuclear-free zone" in the Far East. I did not want to compete with China, because feared that China would be drawn into a nuclear war. The Chinese called it betrayal.
During the Caribbean Crisis, the Chinese criticized the USSR. The deployment of missiles was called adventurism, and the removal of missiles was called capitulation.
In the same 1962, Chinese troops crossed the McMahon border with India, invaded 100 km. The USSR proposed a peaceful settlement. China called it a departure from the principles of internationalism. Formally, they were right, because. 1950 - Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance.
In the 60s, China began to actively lay claim to Soviet territories. Moreover, now it was done by high officials. It was said that tsarist Russia and the USSR snatched 1.7 million square meters from China. km. The most controversial territories were along the Ussuri and Amur rivers. Motivation - the border, if it runs along the rivers, according to international law, should pass in the middle of the main fairway. Along the Ussuri-Amur, it has been carried out since tsarist times along the Chinese coast. Formally, China was right, but this is the seizure of 600 islands!
It came to military clashes 1969 - Fr. Damansky (31 border guards), Fr. Gordinsky.
Relations with China reached their peak during the Cultural Revolution. Newspaper headlines - "The Soviet Union - our mortal enemy."
Relations changed in the 1970s. You can call them confrontational stability.
In China, 2 major eg. ext. gender: 1) normalization of relations with the West and 2) the struggle for the "third world" (to lead the NOD). Both directions were carried out with the subtext of "struggle against hegemonism"
1) Have been successful. By the end of the 70s, somewhere around 78% of trade was with the West, and not with the socialist countries. In 1971, China took its seat in the UN Security Council. Since that time, the main clashes in the Security Council took place between the USSR and China.
In 1978, China signed an agreement on peace and friendship with Japan. Specialist. article - "joint struggle against hegemonism."
January 1, 1979 - The United States establishes relations with China. In the same year, China annulled the 1950 treaty with the USSR.
2) The struggle for the "third world" led to a clash with Vietnam over Cambodia. China supported the Khmer Rouge. 1979 - "the first inter-socialist war". In the PRC, Vietnam was called a regional hegemon in the service of a global hegemon. The war lasted only 1 month, Vietnam won, defeated 3 Chinese regiments (70 thousand people).
The changes are related to internal changes in the PRC.
December 1978- The 3rd Plenum of the 11th CPC Central Committee was held. On it, the Chinese Communists abandoned the policy of "cultural revolution" and advocated reforms. Deng Xiaoping's reforms: the development of a planned commodity economy, the use of market regulators, decentralization of the management of eq-ki, open external economy. policy. One country, two systems. Unprecedented reforms. Created 4 special economy. zone, 14 ports opened. The results are unique. 80s annual GDP growth - 10.5%, in special. GDP zones increased by 45 times! In the USSR, these reforms were called revisionism, before Gorbachev they were called that. Gorbachev began to pursue a similar course, but with a delay of 10 years and big mistakes.
China was ready to normalize relations with the USSR, but "there are 3 obstacles": 1. cessation of assistance to Vietnam. 2. Reduction or withdrawal of Soviet troops from the territories that adjoined the borders of China (primarily Mongolia). 3. Conclusion of owls. troops from Afghanistan.
The United States stood in solidarity with these "3 obstacles".
Only in 1989-1990 was it possible to normalize relations. Causes:
1. Two countries tried to conduct more or less similar courses.
2. By 1989, the USSR actually fulfilled those “3 obstacles”: they were withdrawn from Afghanistan, most of the islands on the Ussuri and Amur were transferred to China, and an agreement was signed on the normalization of relations.
The Soviet press and historians then and now write about the "tremendous success." But the concessions were unilateral on the part of the USSR + normalization occurred when the social system collapsed and on the eve of the collapse of the USSR itself.
Relations between the Eastern European socialist countries.
Albania took a special position.
Enver Hoxha began to oppose Albania to the entire socialist camp: 1) criticism of the cult of personality in the USSR, 2) normalization of relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia.
Albania had a slogan: "ethnically pure Kosovo" (actually Albanian Kosovo) + the idea of "Great Albania".
1961 - breakup of Albania's relations with the USSR, 1969 - exit from the Department of Internal Affairs. After Mao's death, Albania broke off relations with the PRC. Hoxha writes a book "Reflections on China". In it, he divides all countries into 3 camps: imperialism, social-imperialism, national-imperialism. Camp 4, a truly socialist one, was occupied by Albania.
Romania began to occupy a special position at the turn of 60-70.
In 1972, Ceausescu, unexpectedly for Moscow, declared Romania a "developing country." She was immediately included in the IMF, IBRD, and investments started. Romania was the only socialist country that did not break off relations with Israel during the next Arab-Israeli war of 1973.
Czechoslovakia 1968.
One of the most striking presence of centrifugal forces was the events in Czechoslovakia, the Prague Spring of 1968. Briefly, the background is as follows. In the mid-1960s, reforms began to be carried out in both the USSR and Eastern Europe to change the face of socialism. They were most active in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. In Czechoslovakia, they went further than Moscow demanded. Novotny resigned as first secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, representatives of " younger generation"Headed by Alexander Dubcek. He was 47 years old, however. The slogans of the renewal of socialism turned into a slogan of changing the political system. In August 1968, the police forces were introduced into Czechoslovakia, mainly the USSR. The GDR and some others actively participated.
In the USSR, this was called proletarian internationalism. In the West, the concept of the Brezhnev Doctrine arose - the doctrine of limited sovereignty. The small socialist countries of Europe had to show independence only to a limited extent. Our propagandists - what would the United States do if one of the Western European countries opposed their policy?
In short, 1968 played a special role in the development of socialism.
First, the conservative forces defeated the "liberal" forces. Then liberals could modernize socialism.
Economic reforms were named as the source of all troubles. And it was a terrible historical miscalculation. Economic reforms were cited as the source of the ferment that began in Czechoslovakia, and this is the foreign policy reason that they were curtailed. As historical practice has shown, it was then that reforms had to be carried out in order for socialism to survive, and they were curtailed. Thirdly, the events shook the world of socialism, because the contradictions were not removed, they went deeper. The desire to modernize socialism remained, to a lesser extent in the USSR, to a greater extent in small European countries.
And finally, Poland in the early 1980s, centrifugal forces. Reforms were also carried out in Poland, actively in the late 1960s - 1/1 of the 1970s. Poles, that's why they are Poles, unlike Czechoslovakia and Hungary, they began to take a lot of loans, not only from the USSR, but also from international Western organizations. When the recession began in the mid-1970s, a debt crisis and food problems began in Poland. The center was KOS-KO - "The Committee for Social Protection and the Committee for Protection ("?")". They wanted to change social systems. In 1980, a meeting between the strike movement and the Polish government took place in Gdansk. This was unique: the government recognized the right to strike and free trade unions, and itself called the strike movement in opposition to socialism. The strikers recognized the leading role of the PZPR and the international obligations of Poland, incl. within the ATS. After that, the Solidarity movement took shape, and somewhere in a year its number exceeded 8 million people - the majority of the economically active population of Poland. This is seven times more than the members of the Polish United Workers' Party. Lech Walesa was already nominated among the leaders at that time. A simple man, an electrician, 7 children. His fate reflected what kind of assistance the West provided to opposition movements, how wise his policy was. For 2 years he received 52 honorary titles, Doctor of Science from Harvard. Although he read only one book in his entire life. He received the Nobel Peace Prize, it is not clear why. Financial assistance from the USA and their friends.
In 1981 in Gdansk "Solidarity" adopted the "Program". There were interesting points, in Moscow they did not know how to react to them, shock.
The first point is the creation of a new socio-economic order, which would include a planned economy, self-government and a market mechanism.
The second point is the provision of freedom for enterprises in their activities in the domestic and foreign markets.
The third point is the complete freedom of the private sector, small and medium businesses.
The fourth point is a multi-party system, political pluralism. But this scared Moscow. Who dealt with this period, the Soviet press raged that it was complete revisionism, a return to capitalism. Six years have passed, and the slogans of perestroika were practically the same. The fact that Solidarity sought to destroy the social system was openly declared in 1981-83 by its leaders. Lech Walesa said that "we are quite aware that we are destroying the system." His right-hand man, Jacek Kure, has declared that our main goal is to hasten the agony of the empire. Certainly not the US, not China. In 1981 new president Poland, General Jaruzelski introduced martial law in 1983, a certain compromise was - with this introduction he prevented another introduction - of the ATS troops.
On the example of Poland, it is clear what role non-economic factors played.
In Poland, the religious factor played an important role. In 1978, Karol Wojtyla was elected as the new Pope under the name of John Paul II. He paid his first visit to Poland. The second time he came in 1983. The Western and our press wrote about what dad was talking about. On the occasion of the 600th anniversary of the Czestochowa icon of the Mother of God, miraculous, etc., the pope announced on the Polish radio about the need political pluralism, about the beatification of three Poles, two of whom participated in the 1863 uprising against Russia. Place of Poland - between West and East, Papa said. He finished the sermon with the words - do not be afraid of Siberia. In Poland it had a huge impact. So indirectly, cunningly and wisely, he influenced domestic politics. In Poland, 98% of the adult population are Catholics.
By the mid-1980s, the situation inside the socialist camp was extremely unstable. By the beginning of the 1990s, centrifugal forces really prevailed over centripetal ones.
There are also subjective factors: Gorbachev's "new thinking".
In 1986 he wrote a memo to the Politburo on some issues of cooperation with the socialist countries. It was printed by the Soviet press, and then by Western newspapers. Gorbachev spoke frankly about the shortcomings, about the backwardness of integration, about the presence of centrifugal forces. The leadership of the USSR recognized it as unprofitable to maintain a zone of influence in Eastern Europe and maintain communist regimes there. It was a serious mistake. "Either you reform or we don't cooperate with you."
In the West, his attitude to the socialist countries was called the doctrine of non-intervention.
In Helsinki, Gorbachev was asked that the population hated Honecker's rule. Gorbachev said that we would not interfere in the internal affairs of the socialist countries.
It's all the same that Reagan would have abandoned Latin America as a zone of special US influence.
Gorbachev stated at the American University in Turkey that the goal of his life was the destruction of communism. This is a unique hypocrisy, in essence. M.S. He was General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. On the occasion of his 80th birthday, the modern leadership presented him with the highest order of the Russian Federation.
Now the media are calling Yeltsin, Chernomyrdin and Gaidar great figures, and Chubais was awarded shortly after the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station .... no, not the Iron Cross with oak leaves, but the Order of Merit for the Fatherland. At the turn of 1989-90, after the velvet revolutions, it became obvious that the Cold War was won by the West. Then came the collapse of the USSR.
The Second World War led to fundamental changes in the world and international relations. Fascist Germany and Italy, militarist Japan were defeated, war criminals were punished, and an international organization, the United Nations, was created. All this demonstrated the relative unity of the victorious powers.
The war led to drastic changes on the world map. First of all, the United States has grown enormously in economic, military and political terms. The US has become the leader of the Western world.
The military and political influence of the USSR increased significantly. The economic devastation caused by the war was offset by military and political advantages. On the whole, the position of the USSR has changed: it has emerged from international isolation and has become a recognized great power.
However, with the disappearance of the fascist threat, more and more contradictions began to appear between the former allies. The clash of their geopolitical interests soon led to the collapse of the coalition and the creation of hostile blocs. Allied relations persisted until approximately 1947. However, already in 1945, serious contradictions were revealed, primarily in the struggle for influence in Europe.
W. Churchill March 5, 1946 in the city of Fulton (USA), in the presence of President G. Truman, for the first time openly accused the USSR of having fenced off Eastern Europe with an "Iron Curtain", called for organizing pressure on Russia in order to obtain from it both foreign policy concessions and changes in internal politics. It was a call for an open and tough confrontation with the Soviet Union. A year later, Truman officially announced US commitments in Europe to curb Soviet expansion and led the West's fight against the Soviet Union.
The main attention of the Soviet leadership was focused on putting together a socialist bloc in Europe. The formation of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe went hand in hand with the intensification of confrontation with the West. The turning point was 1947, when the Soviet leadership refused to participate in the "Marshall Plan" (which concerned the economic recovery of Europe) and forced other Eastern European countries to do the same.
In 1949, Germany split into two states - the GDR and the FRG. In the same year, a NATO bloc was created under the auspices of the United States. The USSR responded to this with an alternative to the "Marshall Plan" - the creation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), which operated in Eastern Europe, and the creation of the Warsaw Pact Organization (OVD).
The confrontation between the two blocs unfolded both in Europe (the Berlin Crisis of 1948) and in Asia (the victory of the Communists in China in 1949, Korean War 1950-1953, beginning of decolonization).
43. "Cold War": concept, causes, stages
The term "cold war" belonged to the American diplomat D.F. Dulles and was mentioned in 1947. He defined the Cold War as the art of brinkmanship. There are different points of view regarding the date of its beginning (the death of F. Roosevelt, the use of atomic weapons, the speech of W. Churchill in Fulton in March 1946). The Cold War was largely the result of a misunderstanding of the plans of the parties. I.V. Stalin believed that imperialism breeds wars. Since it persists, a third world war is inevitable. At the same time, the Cold War suited both sides: the USSR consolidated its dominance in Eastern Europe, and the United States asserted its leadership in Western Europe, investing money in it to restore it.
1946 - 1953 Relations between the USSR and the USA became tense already in the spring and summer of 1947, during the beginning of the implementation of the Marshall Plan. Under pressure from the USSR, the Eastern European countries refused to participate in this plan. In 1948-1949. The Berlin crisis broke out, caused by the unwillingness of both sides to agree on the German question. Ultimately, this led to the creation of two German states, and then to the formation of the military-political blocs of NATO (1949) and the Warsaw Pact (1955). In parallel, the formation of people's democracy regimes was going on in the Eastern European countries.
1953 - 1962 During this period of the Cold War, the world was on the brink of nuclear conflict. Despite some improvement in relations between the USSR and the USA in the mid-1950s, it was at this stage that the anti-communist uprising in Hungary (1956), unrest in the GDR (1953) and Poland (1956), as well as the Suez Crisis (1956) took place. ). This period of relations between the superpowers ended with the Berlin and Caribbean crises of 1961 and 1962, respectively.
1962 - 1979 The period was marked by an arms race that undermined the economies of rival countries. Despite the presence of tension in relations between the USSR and the USA, agreements on the limitation of strategic weapons are signed. A joint space program "Soyuz-Apollo" is being developed. However, by the beginning of the 80s, the USSR began to lose in the arms race.
1979 - 1987 Relations between the USSR and the USA are again aggravated after the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. In 1983 the United States deployed ballistic missiles at bases in Italy, Denmark, England, the FRG, and Belgium. An anti-space defense system is being developed.
1987 - 1991 M. Gorbachev's coming to power in the USSR in 1985 entailed not only global changes within the country, but also radical changes in foreign policy, called "new political thinking". A number of disarmament agreements are being concluded between the USSR and the USA. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 meant the end of the Cold War.
| " |
SECTION I
VERSAILLES-WASHINGTON SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: FORMATION. CHARACTER, ELEMENTARY PERIOD DEVELOPMENT
Results of the First World War. The alignment of forces in the international arena in the first post-war years
On November 11, 1918, in the French city of Compiègne, in the staff car of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, Marshal Ferdinand Fot, representatives of the Entente states and defeated Germany signed the Armistice Agreement. The conclusion of the Compiègne truce meant the end of the first and the history of human civilization of the world war, which lasted four years, three months and eleven days. 101 gun volleys heralded the onset of peacetime -
The development of international relations in the postwar period was most directly and directly connected with the results of the First World War. What were these results, what was their impact on world politics, on the formation of a qualitatively new system of international relations?
The most important military-political result of the world conflict was the triumphant victory of the Entente states and the crushing defeat of the countries of the Quadruple Union , which included Germany. Austria-Hungary. Turkey and Bulgaria,
This main result of the war was legally formalized in the Compiègne Armistice Agreement - in essence, with the exception of a few minor concessions to the German side. it can be equated with the act of unconditional surrender of Germany. Eloquent proof of this were the negotiations on the terms of the armistice. When the head of the German delegation, Reichsminister M. Erzberger, asked Marshal Foch what conditions the Allied Powers would propose for their subsequent discussion, he, with his characteristic directness of a military man, said: "There are no conditions. But there is one demand - Germany must kneel." This ended the discussion.
The demand to "kneel" was specified in the 34 articles of the Compiègne truce, which entered into force at 11 am on November 2, 191J. The text of the agreement, dictated to Germany by the victorious powers, included the following main provisions: the cessation of hostilities from the moment the armistice was signed: transfers; France, Alsace and Lorraine; the withdrawal of the German armed forces from the territories of the Entente countries occupied by them, and also from Austria-Hungary, Romania and Turkey; Germany undertook to clear the left bank of the Rhine, which was occupied by the Allied forces, from its military presence, while demilitarizing a 50-kilometer strip on its right bank; it was planned to return the trophies captured by Germany (including Russian, Belgian and Romanian gold ) and its immediate release of all prisoners of war; a significant part of German weapons and vehicles were transferred to the Entente powers, which actually deprived Germany of its military and military-technical potential: German troops in East Africa were disarmed and evacuated; Germany forcibly renounced very benefits of the other for her the Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest treaties with Soviet Russia and Romania, concluded on March 3 and May 7, 1918, respectively. The said conditions of the Compiègne Agreement already spoke of this in themselves. what peace treaties will be dictated to the countries of the Quadruple Alliance-
Thus, the victory of the Entente in the First World War, legally enshrined in the Armistice of Compiègne, had its most important international consequence a radical change in the balance of forces in favor of the victorious powers. and to the detriment the defeated powers.
The most tragic outcome of the war was unprecedented human losses, huge material damage and destruction. This there were four years of unprecedented exertion of strength, human sacrifice and suffering. That is why the contemporaries of the First World War rightly called it "the greatest crime against humanity."
In the war of 1914-1918. 32 states from five continents took part. Military operations took place on the territory of 14 countries. About 74 million people were mobilized into the armed forces. During the war, vast areas of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, northern France and Belgium were devastated. The damage from military destruction was estimated at $33 billion, which corresponded to the 10th part of the pre-war national income of all European countries. Total irretrievable losses are not walked in any comparison with the past. As the historical statistics, in wars XVII V. died 3.3 million .. in the XVIII century - - 5.2 million in the 19th century - 3.2 million people. For four goals First world war, the number of dead soldiers and civil persons amounted to 9 million. 442thousand. At the same time losses winners(5.4 million) exceeded the losses of the defeated (4 million) Over the same period of time in the rear of the warring states from hunger and diseases about 10 million died, were injured and crippled 21 million soldiers and officers, 6.5 million people were captured.
The direct result of the war was negative processes in the economic and especially in the socio-political sphere. The mobilization of industry for the production of weapons and military materials has led to the breakdown of the economy of all the warring countries. The production of civilian products was sharply reduced. primarily consumer goods. This gave rise to a commodity hunger, price increases, speculation. Agriculture also fell into disrepair. The number of livestock has decreased, grain harvest in European countries has decreased by 30-60%. Prices have risen two to four times while real wages have fallen by 15-20%. World economic crisis of 1920-1921 further worsened the situation.
All of the above allows us to draw the following conclusion: the most bloody and destructive war in the history of mankind has brought the peoples of the world, social movements and the political elite to the realization of the need to prevent such world conflicts, create a new, more just and safe system of international relations.
On the development of post-war international relationship could not not have a serious impact and another outcome of the First World War of fundamental importance - a sharp aggravation of social tension, the assimilation of the role of social-democratic and communist parties and organizations, a powerful upsurge of the revival movement.
Revolutionary upsurge 191U-1923 manifested itself in the most diverse forms: from workers' strikes and peasant unrest before armed uprisings and social revolutions,
Peak strike movement came in 1919. This year in In the developed capitalist countries, more than 15 million people went on strike. ra- Eyuchih - compared with the usual pre-war "norm" of 2-3 million- Human. There are two quality working features movements of that time, touching on the pressing issues of international life. First, workers' organizations besides galiion requirements for improving working conditions more and more often put forward slogans of combating reactionary politics both inside countries and in the international arena. Secondly, at their rallies and demonstrations, “the proletarians of all countries* expressed class support for the Soviet state. The demand "Hands off Soviet Russia!" met everywhere and became the slogan of the day.
It was these features that brought the labor movement closer to the general democratic, anti-war and pacifist movement, which had a broad social base: from workers and the petty bourgeoisie to well-known politicians and capitalist magnates. And although pacifism in the period under review did not take on a clear organizational shape in any country, more and more mass protests against war and aggression became an effective factor in world politics. The most impressive example is the manifestation of the solidarity of the democratic public in the West with the struggle of Soviet Russia against foreign intervention: from collecting funds and providing material assistance to sending volunteers to the Red Army.
The emergence of a new phenomenon in public life, the international communist movement, was connected with the results of the war and the revolutionary upsurge. In March 1919 in Moscow held the Constituent Congress III Communist international. In the early postwar years, the number communist parties grew at a rate threatening for Western democracies. If representatives of 35 communist parties and organizations were present at any 1st Congress of the Comintern, 11 Congress in 1920. - 67 then III congress, held in the summer 1921, collected plenipotentiaries of 103 communist parties. In 1922 there were 1 million 700 thousand communists in the world - 7 times more, than in 1917
During this period, the influence of the international communist movement on world politics, in accordance with its guiding principle of "democratic centralism", was built according to the scheme: Soviet Russia - Comintern - national communist parties. At the same time, the general foreign policy line of the Third International was formulated extremely simply and clearly: all-round assistance to the world proletarian revolution and all-round support for the world's first socialist state.
Other an influential factor in international life was the revival and development of the social democratic movement. On conference of social democratic parties in Bern in February 1919. was restored II International. As a result his associations with II"/g the International in 1923 arose the Socialist Workers' International. To that time in the world was
To about 60 social democratic and socialist parties
uniting more than 8 million members.
The special role of social democracy in solving major international problems was determined not only by the growing size of the movement, but also by the main provisions of its foreign policy program: a firm adherence to the ideology of pacifism and extremely negative attitude to the idea of world revolution and the principles of proletarian internationalism. promoted by the communists.
The social crisis that engulfed at the end of the war all over Europe, resulted in a series of revolutionary upheavals. February and October 1917 revolution in Russia. November 1918 revolution in Germany, revolutionary events in Finland. Austria. Czechoslovakia, the Baltic countries, education in 1919. the Bavarian and Hungarian Soviet Republics - this is far from complete list acute revolutionary conflicts. In the context of the problems under consideration, it is important to note that the leaders of the European revolutions K. Liebknecht, R. Luxembourg. O. Levine. B. Kuhn, T. Samueli and others, along with demands for a radical reorganization of society, put forward slogans of a revolutionary-democratic transformation of international relations, the struggle against imperialist wars and aggression, freedom and equality of all countries and peoples, and all-round support for communist Russia.
Great social storm. caused by the First World War, became the most important component of the formation of a new world order and a new international system for at least two reasons: as a powerful factor in the democratization of international relations and as a serious obstacle to aggressive, imperialist foreign policy due to the involvement of government circles in internal socio-political problems, the fight against revolutionary danger *.
The epicenter of revolutionary upheavals and the result of a war of historical significance was the victory of the October Revolution in Russia; the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and the formation of the Soviet state.
Modern detractors and critics October, exactly the same his violent opponents in the past, are trying to reduce the Russian revolution to the level of a "Bolshevik coup", a historical accident caused by "clouding of the people's consciousness.". This approach seems to be overly ideologized and. more importantly, unprofessional - enough to understand the terminology. A revolution, unlike a coup, is a historical phenomenon of a much more fundamental and global nature. First, it not only leads to the replacement of power structures, but also introduces radical changes in the political and socio-economic system. toy country where it happened. Secondly, it has an enormous impact on the entire course of the world process, including the development of international relations. In accordance with these criteria, the October events of 1917. represented in Russia not"local" coup d'état and even not just a revolution. but the Great Revolution.
What was the international significance of October?
First of all, the victory of the Russian revolution meant Whatthe world is rasko.yu."1sya into two opposing socio-political systems. IN AND. In this connection, Lenin said: "Now the two camps, in full consciousness, stand against each other on a world scale." A new era has begun - the era of struggle, confrontation between the two systems. Or. in other words, in international relations a qualitatively new contradiction arose - a class contradiction. "inter-formation", ideological-
It should be noted, however, that the split peace happened in all spheres of public life: economic (nationalization of foreign property by the Bolsheviks and the annulment of foreign loans; economic blockade by Western powers Soviet Russia), diplomatic (non-recognition of Soviet power by the West), military (preparation and organization of armed intervention in the “country of Soviets”), ideological (“incompatibility”, mutual rejection of two ideologies, deployment of agitation and propaganda war on both sides).
Direct influence on the theory and practice of international relations was put forward by the Bolshevik leadership new principles of foreign policy activity, which can be divided into two main groups.
One of them was the general democratic principles declared in the first foreign policy acts of the Soviet government (Decree on Peace, adopted by the II Congress of Soviets on October 26, 1917; Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia from November 15, 1917;
Appeal to all working Muslims of Russia and the East dated December 3, 1917): “a just democratic world without annexations and indemnities”, openness and openness of diplomacy, the right of the nation “to free self-determination up to secession and formation of an independent state”, “equality and confidence” large and small peoples, "the abolition of all and any national and national-religious privileges and restrictions." development of economic relations on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, etc.
These principles, later transformed into the concept of peaceful coexistence, could not but evoke a response from the government circles of the Western powers, which was reflected in their plans for a post-war peace settlement (for example, in the "Fourteen Points" of US President W. Wilson). Moreover, at the end of 1917, the Soviet government began (or, rather, was forced "to put into practice its foreign policy program. Recognizing the independence of Finland, Poland, the Baltic countries, which previously were integral parts of
Russian Empire.
The second group included rigid class attitudes associated with the doctrine of the world revolution and called the principles of proletarian internationalism. They assumed unconditional support for the struggle against "world capital": from moral encouragement and material assistance to the revolutionaries. About the organization of the "red intervention", since, according to the leader of the "left communists" N.I. Bukharin, "the spread of the Red Army is the spread of socialism, proletarian power, revolution."
These revolutionary attitudes and attempts to put them into practice also evoked a response from Western leaders, but already, for obvious reasons, extremely negative and militant. It is no coincidence that I. Lloyd George, very cautious in his assessments, declared; "The Bolsheviks are fanatical revolutionaries who dream of conquering the whole world by force of arms."
The contradictory nature of the principles of peaceful coexistence and proletarian internationalism determined their dual role in the formation of the post-war system of international relations: if the former could contribute to its democratization and strengthening, the latter were a destabilizing factor.
October Revolution and the establishment of Soviet power in Russia influenced the development of international relations and indirectly, being the real embodied goal of the labor, communist and revolutionary movement, which, in its
Turn, as mentioned above, has become an important component of world politics and international life Speaking about the results of the First World War. needs to be highlighted unprecedented scope of the national and national liberation movement.
The last years of the wars were marked by the collapse of four once mighty empires: Russian. German. Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman- In Europe, without waiting for international legal registration, Austria and Hungary proclaimed their independence. Poland, Finland. Czechoslovakia. Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Lithuania. Latvia. Estonia.
Such a radical breakdown of the international structure required the pacifier powers to make significant adjustments to their approach to the problems of a peaceful settlement, taking into account the new political realities, the national interests of the newly formed European states.
Almost the entire colonial world was engulfed in the national liberation struggle. This was explained both by the growth of national self-consciousness and by the weakening of the metropolitan powers during the World War. In 1918-1921. major anti-colonial and anti-imperialist actions - from mass demonstrations to armed uprisings and liberation wars - took place in India. China, Mongolia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya. Morocco, Afghanistan and other colonial and dependent countries.
The first significant successes were achieved on the path to national liberation. In November 1918, the leaders of the Libyan tribes proclaimed the creation of the Tripolitan Republic, which, in a fierce struggle against the Italian colonialists, defended its independence until the 1930s. As a result of the third Anglo-Afghan war, in August 1919, the Rawalpinda Peace Treaty was signed, according to which England recognized the independence of Afghanistan. troops in 1926. In February 1922 The British government published a Declaration on the abolition of the English protectorate and the recognition of Egypt as an independent state.
The national liberation movement in the first post-war years nominated from its ranks the largest political and state figures, such as Sun Yat-sen in China, Mo-handas Karamchand Gandhi India, Mustafa KemalAtaturk in Turkey, Amanullah Khan in Afghanistan. Their program requirements, despite differences in the question of the means to achieve goals, had a pronounced anti-imperialist and democratic character; independence and sovereignty; abolition of foreign political and financial control, mode capitulations; recognition of ethnic boundaries; freedom and equality:your all peoples. Many country leaders East emphasized the importance of rapprochement with Soviet Russia, what they were striving for practice.
Assessing the role and significance of the national liberation movement in the colonial world during this period of time, Can come to the following conclusion.
Firstly, the most important consequence of the liberation Zorba in this political region was a change in the tactics of the colonial powers: from carrying out transformations in the management of the colonies while expanding the rights of the local population (one of the examples is the “Montagu-Chelmsford reform”, which the British government carried out in 1919 in India) until the recognition of political independence while maintaining economic and financial dominance over the liberated country (one of the examples is the granting of independence by England to Egypt while maintaining full control over the Suez Canal, the rights to "protect the interests of foreigners" and other conditions that made the proclaimed independence in largely fictitious). In essence, these were the first attempts to move from classical colonial policy to neo-colonialist methods. However, new methods have so far been an exception to the general rule: the leading metropolitan powers built their relations with their subordinate im t territories based on direct political and military domination. On the whole, the colonial and semi-colonial countries (even those that had declared their independence) continued to be the object of the policy of the great powers, to be in a position subordinate and dependent on them.
Secondly, just like the revolutionary upsurge in Europe, the national liberation movement in the colonial world contributed to the democratization of international relations. many Representatives of the Western political elite started talking seriously about the "right of nations to self-determination" and about resolving the colonial issue "taking into account the interests of the local population."
These were the main results of the First World War and the cardinal changes associated with them in the post-war international situation.
Should. however, note that character new system international relations and its legal registration in decide- degree depended on alignment and balance of power between the great powers - the main subjects of world politics. For obvious reasons, we are talking primarily about the powers-
winners who, by the right of the strong, were to determine the principles and conditions for a peaceful settlement and the post-war organization of the world. What changes have taken place in the international situation these states after the end First world war?
The United States benefited the most from it. States of America: the war turned this country into a first-class world power. It created favorable conditions for rapid economic growth and a significant improvement in the financial position of the United States.
As is known. United States entered the war only in April 1917, and active hostilities began in July 1918 i.e. shortly before completion. Losses USA were relatively small: 50 thousand people were killed (0.5% of the total losses in the war) and 230 thousand were wounded. From senior officers, one colonel died: being drunk, he fell off his horse and crashed to death. The territory of the United States itself, due to its remoteness from Europe, was not affected by military operations and, therefore, unlike the European countries, the United States managed to avoid any material damage and destruction.
Another and much more significant condition for strengthening the economic positions of the United States was their "participation of a supplier" of military materials, food and raw materials for the warring countries of Europe. As a result, the net profits of the US corporations that made these deliveries amounted to $33.5 billion, a figure that exceeded the estimated cost of all the material destruction on the European continent. New large investments significantly increased the production possibilities of the American economy and ensured its rapid growth. In 1920 The US share in world industrial production exceeded 33%. In individual branches of industry that determine economic power, it ranged from 50% (coal mining) to 60% (iron and steel production) and even V5% (automobile production). The value of American exports from 1914 to 1919 increased by Zraza: from 2.4 to 7.9 billion dollars. Thus, the most important consequence of the war was a sharp strengthening of the US position in the world economy, consolidation behind them the role of the most economically powerful power in the world.
Another significant metamorphosis was a radical change in the international financial status of the United States. The payment of military orders by the allies and the associated transfer of securities from European banks to American banks reduced Europe's investment in the United States during the 4 years of the war from 5 to 3 billion dollars.
On the other hand, over the same period, American investment behind abroad increased and 6 times; from 3 to 18 billion dollars. If before the war the United States owed Europe 3.7 billion dollars, then after the war Europe already owed the United States 11 billion dollars, which was 55% of the mutual debt of the allied states, which was estimated at n 20 billion. dollars. This meant that the United States turned from a debtor country into the largest international creditor. In the early 1920s. The United States owned half of the world's gold reserves (4.5 out of 9 billion dollars: 1.5 billion - accounted for by England and France, the remaining 3 - by 40 states). Along with London, New York became the universally recognized* financial capital of the world.
The strengthening of the financial position of the United States, combined with economic leadership, created the material basis for the transformation of the country from a regional to a great world power. In a broader international aspect, this meant the transfer of the industrial and financial center of the capitalist world from Europe to North America.
These were the reasons that led to the intensification of US foreign policy. Becoming the leading power in the world in terms of economic and financial indicators. The United States is beginning to lay claim to a leading role in world politics as well. And if earlier ideas "Rah Atepsapa". While the slogans of establishing "world leadership" of the United States, put forward by American politicians, were only an illusion, after the end of the war they seemed to have acquired real meaning. Already in April 1917. President Woodrow Wilson publicly proclaimed:
“We are faced with the task of financing the whole world. A That. whoever gives money must learn to rule the world.”
At the same time, as the example of the United States shows, a sharp increase in economic and financial power is not always adequate for such same a sharp strengthening of political positions in the international arena. The change in the balance of power between the great powers in favor of the United States during this period did not lead to its transformation into a political leader on a global scale. And there were reasons for this, which limited the influence of the United States on the development of post-war international relations.
Firstly. American business has not yet been enough prepared” for the role of trendsetter in the global economy. Partly this was due to the fact that the development of the vast domestic market was far from being completed. In the early 1920s 85-90% of industrial output in the US was consumed domestically. As for excess capital, then. except for an emergency situation during the war years, it was exported to a limited number countries of the Western Hemisphere. In other sectors of the world market, where European capital has retained its dominant position. USA faced fierce competition.
Secondly. An even more significant obstacle to "world leadership" was the ideology and practice of American isolationism. The main meaning of this foreign policy course, which starts demolition from< Про шального послания» первою президента США Джорджа Вашингтон;!, сводился к отказу от каких-or obligations and agreements with the states of the Old World, which could draw the United States into European military-political conflicts and, thereby, undermine their independence both in domestic and foreign policy. "Internationalists", seeking to overcome this age-old tradition, without which active participation in world politics And, Moreover, the achievement of political leadership in the world remained would well-wishes, were losing the battle to the isolationists. The serious advantages of being an isolationist were explained primarily topics. that they enjoyed the support of the population, among whom were widely the ideas of so-called democratic isolationism are widespread - the ideas of the struggle to establish and maintain a just social order within the country with a complete rejection of external military adventures and colonial conquests. As far as isolationist politicians are concerned, they have never challenged the right USA on economic expansion and the role of international arbiter, but strongly opposed the participation of the United States in any unions and agreements with European states. The paradox of the situation was in, that attempts by government circles USA pursue a policy consistent with the economic and financial power of the great North American power, could be blocked (as happened in practice) within the United States itself States.
Third. Foreign policy any power in solving global world problems should rely on Not only on a powerful economic potential, but also on an equally significant military potential. In this area, the United States significantly lagged behind the European powers - Land Army USA was, as ironically noted in Europe, "an indeterminate value." Large-scale programs to build a modern navy in those goals were only an application for the future. Overall military strength USA was more than compensated by the naval superiority of England, the strength of the ground forces of France - and after a while, by high level war machine organization Germany and Japan.
Fourth. Another factor that limited the foreign policy possibilities of the United States. lay in the realm of practical diplomacy. Even the first attempts by the American administration to play a leading role in international affairs met with a resolute rebuff from the governments of England and France, experienced in diplomacy. And in this area the advantage was not on the side of the United States.
These were the real contours of international US positions in the first post-war period. Their Influence at development international relations, no matter how contradictory sounds. became more and more clear and at the same time remained very limited.
International position Great Britain after graduation wars are extremely difficult to characterize clearly.
On the one hand, one can state the well-known weakening its position in the world, which was due to the following reasons, the victory went to England expensive yen. Her human losses amounted to 744 thousand killed and about 1.700 thousand wounded - Such the history of this country did not know military losses. The war has done a lot significant damage to the British economy. United Kingdom lost about 20% of the national wealth. How in the years war. So And V the first post-war years continued shrink industrial production. As a result, the pre-war level was reached only in 1929. (the worst figure among all Western powers). Significantly inferior USA. England finally lost of its former industrial leadership in the world. Her share in world industrial production progressively decreased. compiled in 1920. 9% (in comparison from 13.6% in 1913) Huge military spending sharply worsened the financial UK position, For the first time in long goals of financial prosperity she evolved from the most influential international creditor in debtor country. Her post-war external debt rated 5 billion dollars, of which 3.7 billion were share of the US-Wo during the war were undermined and foreign trade positions England- The country has lost 40% of its trade front- Traditional foreign economic relations were interrupted. Eventually English foreign trade decreased by almost 2 times. A her foreign investments - by 25%. powerful rise national liberation movement became another "blow of fate *, from which in England suffered the most occupied leading place among the colonial powers.
Together However, the above-mentioned negative UK consequences First no world war absolutize. There were other factors that allowed this country Not only maintain its position as a great world power, But in some areas to strengthen them. , -.
First, despite the first signs of the crisis of the British Empire, England managed to defend itself as a result of the war. my colonial monopoly. Moreover. her colonial possessions were expanded in July ^ by obtaining a mandate on administration of territories formerly belonging to Germany and Turkey. If before the war, England accounted for 44.9% of the colonial possessions of the world, then after the war - 5R%,
Secondly, in the first post-war years, the priority of the strongest British navy in the world remained unshakable. British government circles strove to strictly adhere to them the same developed formula: the British fleet should be larger than the combined fleet of the other two powers.
Thirdly, the deterioration of England's financial position could be considered temporary and relative. Her debt to the United States was largely offset by England's debt from continental European states, which exceeded $4.3 billion.
Fourthly, and the asset of England, of course, should be attributed to the defeat of Germany's main pre-war competitor and the change in the European balance forces in favor of the United Kingdom, the high international prestige of the winner in the war, traditionally a major role in world diplomacy and vast experience in resolving complex international problems a realistic and sufficiently far-sighted foreign policy of the British government.
World War brought significant changes to the international status French Republic.
The triumph of victory could only for a time obscure the extremely grave consequences of the war. First of all, the huge material damage and numerous human casualties. In terms of military losses, France was second only to Germany and Russia: 1327 thousand killed and 2800 thousand wounded. The northeastern departments of France were almost completely devastated, more than 10 thousand industrial enterprises and about 1 million residential buildings were destroyed. The total amount of material losses was estimated at 15 billion dollars, which was 31% of the pre-war national wealth. The deplorable state of the French economy was explained not only by the material damage and destruction caused by the war, but also by the deep crisis associated with the post-war reconversion, i.e. the transfer of industry to the production of peaceful products. The crisis lasted from 1918 to 1921. The index of industrial production dropped to 55% of the 1913 level. Even more serious losses awaited France in the financial area. The war deprived her of her role as "world usurer". putting them on a par with other debtor states. French debt USA and England exceeded 7 billion dollars. A powerful blow to the financial positions of France was inflicted by the October Revolution: 71 * ^ of all the debts of the tsarist and Provisional rulers ^ ti. canceled by the Soviet government, fell to the share of the French Republic. Not could not have had a negative impact on the international position of France and such consequences of the war as a sharp reduction in foreign trade turnover (almost 2 times) and foreign investment (by 30%), as well as the aggravation of the national liberation struggle in the French colonies.
However, as in the case of England, the positive outcomes of the war for France prevailed over the negative ones, which allowed her not only to maintain, but also to strengthen her position as a great world power.
First, through the acquisition of the so-called mandated territories, France managed to significantly increase its colonial empire. Its share in the colonial possessions of the world increased from 15.1% in 1913 to 15.1%. up to 29% after the end of the war. Following Great Britain, France remained the most powerful metropolitan country.
Secondly, in the first post-war period, the French Republic had the most powerful land army in the world.
Thirdly, the socio-economic instability caused by huge material losses in the war seemed to be a temporary factor. The transformation of France from from an agrarian-industrial country to an industrial-agrarian power in the future should have significantly improved the economic situation of the republic. As for the financial damage, it was supposed to compensate for it with reparations levied from Germany.
Fourth. military defeat of the German empire and post-war policy of the French government aimed at on maximum attenuation of the traditional and the most formidable enemy, created favorable conditions for statements France's leading role on the European continent.
Another winning country Italy- before the war By law was considered one of the weak links among the great European powers.
The World War did not contribute to This position no matter how serious positive changes. Rather, on the contrary, she demonstrated economic and military failure of Italy, becoming an unbearable burden for her. During the war, Italy lost 5JOtys. soldiers and officers. After a crushing defeat in the first major battle for the Italians at Caporet- then in In October 1917, the Italian troops were completely demoralized and remained in this state until the very end of the war. A record number of deserters and voluntarily surrendered to captured (more than 1 million people) allowed military experts to call the Italian army "the most captive army in the world." The Italian economy could not withstand the military stress. All the main branches of Italian industry fell into decay. 1 public debts exceeded the country's national wealth by 70%. Economic recession. social tension and financial chaos was accompanied by a deep political crisis, which manifested itself in the extreme instability of power structures.All this testified that, despite the victory in the war, Italy continued to play a subordinate, in a sense, a secondary role in post-war international relations in comparison with other victorious powers.
Together with that in the early 1920s. in the economic and political development of Italy, new trends appeared that were supposed to increase the influence of this country on world politics.
First, the process of revival of Italian industry that began immediately after the war led to this. that already in 1920. in terms of industrial output, Italy reached the pre-war level. This laid the foundation for fairly rapid economic growth in Italy in subsequent years.
Secondly, Yeshe more important had political processes. As a result of the infamous "campaign on Rome" in 1922 Fascism came to power in Italy. The leader of the Italian fascists, Benito Mussolini, in his policy statements openly preached the idea of a sharp intensification of Italy's foreign policy. Slogans of expansion, new colonial conquests. "reconstruction of the Great Roman Empire", as well as practical preparation for their implementation, could not but affect the foreign policy situation Italy and on the international situation as a whole.
Japan, entered the war on the side of the Entente in August 1914, but did not take an active part in it. Her military operations were mainly reduced to the hunt for German cruisers in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Japan's contribution to the overall victory over the enemy can be indirectly estimated by its military losses, which amounted to about 300 people. But the results of the war turned out to be Japan over than favorable.
First, by lightning fast already in at the very beginning wars German possessions in the Far East and quiet ocean. Japan significantly strengthened its position in that region peace. She mastered the strategically and economically important districts:
Marshall. the Caroline and Mariana Islands, the territory of Guangzhou leased by Germany in China, as well as the Chinese province of Shanlong with a population of 36 million people.
Secondly, taking advantage of the preoccupation of the European powers with the war, Japan made the first attempt to establish control over all of China. In January 1915 She presented the interim President of the Republic of China Yuan Shikai with an ultimatum, which went down in history under the name * 21 demands. This document actually turned China into a Japanese semi-colony (recognition of the occupation regime in Shandong, Japan's "control rights" in South Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, preventing any other powers from managing Chinese territories, appointing Japanese advisers to the armed forces and state bodies of China. It is no coincidence that on May 9, 1915, the day of the signing of this agreement by the democratic public of China, was declared a “day of national shame.” However, Japan was not completely satisfied with what had been achieved and achieved more: in 1915-1917, it managed to conclude with the allies ~ England, France and Russia - secret treaties by which the latter recognized her special rights and interests" in China.
Thirdly, another extremely beneficial result of the war for Japan was the ousting of the Western powers engaged in the war in Europe from the Asian markets. This largely explained the extremely rapid growth of the Japanese economy. In 1920, the volume of industrial production exceeded the pre-war level by 70% (an annual increase of 10%). Over the same period, exports of Japanese goods increased by 330%.
This was how the material basis for the new external policy of Japan, which has begun the practical implementation of its own developed concept of "Asia for Asians" (read:
"Asia for Japan"). All the above testified About, that during the war years and in the first post-war period Japan fast transformed from a leading regional into a great world power.
From defeated Quadruple states union before war status"great powers" were Germany and Austria-Hungary. Ottoman Empire, formally called "great" only the size of the territories included in it, in fact it was a semi-colonial and dependent country. As for Bulgaria, it could be considered "great" only among small Balkan peoples.
The main striking force of the German Quadruple Alliance empire, as mentioned above. suffered a crushing defeat in the war.
Germany excelled by number irretrievable military losses - 2 million 37 thousand German soldiers and officers died. The direct result of the war was the catastrophic state of the economy. The release of industrial products in 1920. compared with the pre-war level was 58%. The production of agricultural products was reduced by 3 times. An acute social and political crisis resulted in the November Revolution. the overthrow of the Hohenpollern monarchy and the proclamation of the Weimar Republic. Already by the Armistice of Compiegne, Germany lost its navy, a significant part of its weapons and all colonial possessions.
Assessing the post-war international state of the country an unambiguous conclusion, which then seemed undeniable, suggested itself: Germany had lost its great power status, it had left the international arena as a great world power for decades to come.
In a certain sense, the world war dealt an even more crushing blow to international positions. Austria-Hungary.
By analogy with Germany, Austria-Hungary, as a defeated state, experienced all the devastating consequences of the war:
great material damage and human losses (1 million 100 thousand people);
economic and financial collapse; revolutionary crisis, the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy and the establishment of the Austrian Republic. However, in the context of the development of international relations, more a significant outcome of the war was the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The wave of the national liberation movement already in the autumn of 1918. swallowed up the "patchwork monarchy", in the place of which four independent states were formed.
Thus, unlike Germany, Austria-Hungary did not simply and not temporarily lose its great power status, it lost it forever; in the recent past, a powerful empire ceased to exist not only as a great power, but also as a state.
Particular attention should be paid to the characterization of the international situation Soviet Russia.
Despite significant territorial losses in the European part of the former Russian Empire - Finland, Poland. Estonia. Latvia and Lithuania became sovereign states. the western parts of Ukraine and Belarus went to Poland. and Bessarabia was annexed by Romania - Russia in its new incarnation continued to be an important factor in international life. The main thing is that it has retained the status of a great power with all its obvious signs.
First of all, it is a vast territory and a huge internal potential. “Socialism within one country* occupied 17% of the territory and accounted for 8% of the world's population. Another indicator of "great power" was the complete independence of the political course of Soviet Russia. There could be no talk of any dependence on the West either in the foreign policy of the RSFSR (expectation and encouragement of a world revolution), or in domestic policy (an experiment in building a new society). A major role in strengthening the international position of the Land of Soviets was played by "class solidarity" and assistance from the workers', communist and national liberation movements. The Soviet-Bolshevik regime demonstrated its viability and viability in the civil war and in the struggle against foreign intervention. He leaned on support of the vast majority of the population, and this. according to V.I. Lenin, this is the main and irrefutable "proof of the true strength of the state."
However, the victory of the October revolution and conservation Soviet Russia's great power status at all Not meant strengthening its international positions. On the contrary, one can speak of their extreme weakening compared to pre-war imperial Russia.
The reasons are well known; unprecedented material damage and many millions of human victims caused by the imperialist and civil wars, foreign intervention, white and red terror, during the World War, Russia lost 1 million! 1 thousand people (the second largest number of irretrievable losses after Germany). In civil war 800 thousand people died on both sides. The famine of 1921 claimed 3 million human lives. Hundreds of thousands of people became victims of terror, an exact count of which is impossible. In general, the population of Russia decreased in the period from 1918 to 1922. by 15.1 million people. The total material damage inflicted on the Russian economy during the two wars was estimated at 76.5 billion gold rubles.. which accounted for 51% of the pre-war national wealth. The volume of industrial production by 1921 decreased by 7 times (15% of the level of 1913), foreign trade turnover - by 33 times (3% of the pre-war level). Already these figures and facts testified to the catastrophic deterioration of Russia's international economic positions. Its share in the world gross product fell from 6% in 1913 to 2% in 1921. The per capita national income, amounting to $120 by the end of the civil war, was 20 times less than in the United States and $10 less than in semi-colonial China.
In addition to the critical state of the economy and the aggravation of the internal political struggle, another very unfavorable factor for Soviet Russia was its complete international isolation. Diplomatic non-recognition, economic blockade, direct military-political pressure - all this allowed V.I. Lenin when characterizing the international position of Soviet Russia, compare it with a "besieged fortress", "a socialist island in the ocean of raging imperialist elements",
Thus, in the first post-war years, the international positions of the Soviet state were extremely fragile and unstable. Her material possibilities did not go neither in what comparison with the economic and military might of the great Western powers. The balance of forces in the confrontation between the two socio-political systems undoubtedly developed in favor of the capitalist West. Therefore, the main directions of development of international relations were determined by the policies and contradictions of the Western powers, and Not struggle and relations "capitalism-socialism".
Such was the general picture of the alignment of forces and international positions of the great powers after the end of the First World War. It was this new alignment of forces that became the basis of the post-war system of international relations. Its main contours were outlined in the plans of the victorious powers.
Plans of the great powers for a peaceful settlement and post-war organization of the world
The plans for the post-war order of the world, with which the victorious powers came to the peace conference, reflected three initial points: 1) the main results of the world war; 2) a new alignment of forces between the great powers; 3) the international position of the country and her national-state goals and interests.
The most ambitious plan was U.S.A. It was stated by President Woodrow Wilson in a message to the US Congress on January 8, 191 I r- in the form of fourteen points, or "basic principles." The content of the program peace" Wilson boiled down to the following.
Point 1 declared the rejection of secret diplomacy, publicity in peace negotiations. "open peace treaties". Paragraph The 2nd solemnly declared freedom of navigation in peacetime and wartime, or "freedom of the seas". Paragraph 3 spoke of yet another freedom - freedom of trade, the elimination of all customs barriers, i.e. on the international recognition of the principles of "open doors" and "equal opportunities". Point 4 demanded the establishment of firm guarantees to ensure the reduction of national armaments "to the utmost minimum." Paragraph 5 proclaimed a “completely independent, impartial solution to the colonial question” with equal consideration of the interests of not only the mother countries, but also the population of the colonies (despite the vague wording, it was about recognizing the right of colonial peoples to self-determination and independence). Item 6, on Russia, asserted its right to "freely determine" its national policy and the path of political development (although in the comments on this item, stored in the "Archive" of Wilson's chief adviser, Colonel E. M. House, emphasized the need to support "democratic forces" of Russia, to which the US administration did not include the Bolsheviks:
moreover, as one of the options for resolving the Russian question, it was proposed to dismember the former Russian empire to a number of independent states and territories controlled by Western powers). Points 7 to 13 contained American proposals for settling the most important territorial and state problems: the restoration of the sovereignty and borders of Belgium; the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France: the establishment of the borders of Italy "on clearly expressed national lines"; granting the peoples of Austria-Hungary the rights of autonomy and independent development: restoration of the sovereignty of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, preservation of access to the sea for Serbia: independent existence of the Turkish nation, autonomy and independence of other nationalities that are part of the Ottoman Empire, international guarantees of free passage through the Black Sea straits for ships of all countries; the creation of an independent Poland, including the undisputed Polish territories and having access to the sea. The 14th and last point provided for the establishment of an international, supranational organization for the preservation and maintenance of peace - in order to "provide mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to countries equally large and small." The President of the United States called the projected organization the "League of Nations".
Thus, in Wilson's program, democratic and even radical slogans, unusual for that time, were put forward. A massive publicity campaign was launched in the American and European press to praise The Fourteen Points, which was translated into many languages and distributed worldwide in over 6 million copies. The propaganda emphasis was placed on Wilson's allegedly completely disinterested desire to establish a new international order based on the principles of freedom, democracy and justice. Admiring Americans called Wilson "the great peacemaker" and "the apostle of peace." Enthusiastic Europeans greeted the US President who arrived at the peace conference with banners: "Glory to Wilson the Right" - *. Streets and squares in the cities of Italy, France and other European countries were named after him. the plan is the real content of the United States' program proposals for the creation of a new world order.
How can one characterize Wilson's "Peace Program" - at that time, indeed, the largest American foreign policy initiative in the history of the United States? What were the aims behind the pompous democratic and pacifist phraseology?
This question is far from being idle, since in the historical literature there has been a long discussion about the meaning and meaning of the US "Peace Program": from panegyric assessments in Western, primarily in American historiography, to derogatory criticism in Soviet historiography.
An unbiased analysis of the document rejects these extreme views. The Fourteen Points is a complex and contradictory foreign policy act that took into account both the peculiarities of the post-war international position of the United States itself and the new trends in world development. Therefore, it contained demands of both an imperialist and a democratic nature.
First. Wilson's program was the first official declaration by the American government of US claims to be the world's political leader, the "ultimate arbiter" in international affairs. It was a bid to lead the post-war world.
The material basis of globalist aspirations USA was their transformation into a leading industrial and financial power of the world. The ideological justification was developed in detail by American expansionists at the end of the 19th century. Not surprisingly, after the end of World War I wars in the USA
the ideas and slogans of "destiny" and "divine destiny", "democratic expansion"* and the establishment of "American peace" again became widespread. wilson only gave these ideas an international legal sound. An indirect confirmation of the new trends in American foreign policy was the solemnity and pomposity that accompanied the first trip of an incumbent president to Europe in the history of America (the number of the American delegation exceeded 1,300 people). Wilson, who went to the Old World on the George Washington, broke a long tradition, since the solution of such important tasks and the realization of such great goals required his personal presence at the conference.
About what is the main thing in the program Wilson had claims to leading role in the world, testifies the content itself"Fourteen Points" and comments on them from the side the president and his advisers.
It is significant that the central idea American plan became the idea creation of the League nations, wherein USA was "booked" place of the world "superarbiter". In other words. League Nations was considered by government circles United States as the main instrument of political leadership. tool for "extending the Monroe Doctrine to the entire world". IN Europe the background of this initiative of Wilson well understood. calling the projected organization a firm "Yankee & Co". Explaining to his compatriots the meaning of the League of Nations, President of the U.S.A. proving himself a worthy son of a Presbyterian pastor preached; "America became the first world power... We need solve the only question: do we have the right give up moral guidance that is offered us. accept whether we or reject the trust of the world... Us God is leading. We Not Can retreat - We can only follow forward with gaze fixed on to heaven, and cheerful in spirit. By demonstrating enough high level of oratory. Wilson has shown How you can combine "heavenly forces" and "divine providence" with a more obvious earthly goal of establishing American hegemony in the world.
In this context, other democratic-pacifist points put forward in the US President's program also acquire a more real meaning.
Stirring up the public opinion slogan of openness negotiations and the rejection of secret diplomacy in specific conditions post-war period meant the abolition of secret contracts Entente countries on the division of spheres of influence and a new redistribution of the world. Not participating in their compilation. The United States rightly feared that American interests were not taken into account in these agreements. The conclusion suggested itself: it was necessary to annul all previous secret treaties in order to create a new treaty system in which the Mr.
The rather pacifist-sounding clause on the reduction and limitation of armaments was explained not only by the military backwardness of the United States from the European powers and the completely inhumane desire for general disarmament. The main thing was different: the principle of "maximum reduction in armaments" provided the United States with the most favorable conditions in the struggle for political predominance in the world, since the determining factor of rivalry was not military, but economic power, i.e. an area where the United States unquestionably led the way.
Thus, Wilson's Fourteen Points was a kind of manifesto, in which, under the guise of pacifist slogans, one could trace the desire of the American administration to bring the United States to the forefront of world politics, to secure for them the position of a leading power not only in the economic, but also in the political sphere.
Second. The US "Peace Program" not only proclaimed a fundamentally new goal of American foreign policy, it also outlined qualitatively new methods for achieving this goal.
During the war years, the government circles of all the great European powers considered the post-war order of the world in traditional terms. The foundation of the post-war world order was to be the changed balance of power, reinforced by large-scale annexations of the winners at the expense of the losers, i.e. it was supposed to carry out a new redivision of the world. United States already with conpa 19th century opposed the classical methods of colonial conquest and military-political expansion. they opposed them with the doctrine of “open doors” and “equal opportunities” (proclaimed! in 1899 by US Secretary of State J. Hay in relation to China), Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” contained a demand for international recognition of this doctrine, but no longer as regional, but as a fundamental principle of world politics.
The strategic line proposed by the American government. was to rely on economic advantages and not resorting to wide territorial conquest, oust foreign competitors and secure a dominant position in the world. Unlike England and France, who owned vast territories and established complete political dominance there. The United States sought to achieve its goal primarily through economic and financial leverage. Their program was not otuy- new territorial acquisitions, but the transformation of economic power into world political leadership.
Open door policy beyond the solution this main task had a number of significant advantages before open annexationism. She allowed avoid excessive spending on military needs and use democratic, national liberation and anti-imperialist traditions, since the main goal was not military, but "peaceful" financial and economic subordination. This policy finally made it possible to condemn the colonial practice European powers and caused a certain sympathy politically exploited and oppressed countries and peoples. Doctrine"open doors" thus represented a theory and the practice of economic colonialism, already contained contains elements of neo-colonialist politics, which finally formed after World War II.
In a sense, this international initiative USA can be called liberal alternative traditional imperialist course, the policy of colonial conquests and military dictate.
The geopolitical situation in Europe and in the world after the First World War has undergone significant changes. The world balance system of the post-war period was disturbed by two factors: the Treaty of Versailles, which placed Germany in the most humiliating conditions, and the 1917 revolution in Russia. Both factors will become the source of new social upheavals and the Second World War: the first because such humiliation of the whole nation could not but push it towards revanchist sentiments; the second - because of the policy of the Bolsheviks, who led Russia to international isolation (due to refusal to pay the debts of the tsarist government and a separate exit from the war) and proclaimed a course towards a world proletarian revolution.
The Treaty of Versailles put Germany in an extremely difficult position, in fact, in international isolation. This was facilitated by both the policy of the victorious powers, which placed it in an unequal position in the European community, and the policy of Soviet Russia, which was in a similar position and therefore became, as it were, a “natural ally” of Germany, which took advantage of the situation and, blackmailing the victorious countries with the possibility of folding the German -Soviet Union, forced them to make certain concessions. Another reason for France, England, and the United States to want Germany's economic revival was that the impoverished country that Germany had become simply could not pay the huge reparations imposed on it.
France found itself in the most difficult situation: having lost its natural continental ally - Russia, it received in the neighborhood a potentially more dangerous enemy than before the war - Germany. In addition, the French were worried about the Soviet-German rapprochement. During the 20-30s. France will try to rectify the situation by creating a system of alliances with the "small" countries of Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania). All this - together with the position of England, which had more moderate views on the position of Germany (caused by the reluctance on the part of Great Britain of French predominance on the continent) - made it very difficult to achieve the main goal of French foreign policy - to preserve the situation in Europe in the form in which it was formed after world war.
The only country that benefited from the war was the United States of America, which went from a European debtor to a major creditor. Two directions have emerged in American foreign policy: the traditional, isolationist, and the new, internationalist. Supporters of the first insisted on the rejection of "automatic" participation in European affairs and extreme caution in accepting international obligations. Supporters of the second spoke of the "historic mission" of the United States, calling it the world's first free country and a stronghold of democracy, whose mission is to bring the light of the liberal idea to all countries and peoples. The struggle of these directions ended with the victory of the internationalists. As a result, the interwar world turned out to be arranged in such a way that practically not a single serious problem of European politics could be solved without American participation. The US continued to Peaceful time to invest in Europe, which, combined with the policy of protectionism in relation to European goods, which closed their access to the US domestic market, also adversely affected the European situation.
Naturally, the United States could not but offer its own version of the solution of the German question. Such a plan was the Dawes reparations plan, which was supposed to ensure that Germany continued to pay reparations (and simultaneously open the German market to America as much as possible). His most important task was to stabilize the German mark by providing Germany with a loan of 200 million dollars (of which more than half was owed to American banks). This plan established the size of payments to Germany and the control of the Allies over the German state budget, finances and railways. In 1929, due to the slow recovery of the German economy, this plan was revised. New plan(Young Plan) provided for some reduction in the amount of annual payments and the elimination of foreign control bodies. The adoption of the Young Plan had one distant but very important consequence: it was during its approval that an agreement was reached on the withdrawal of allied troops from the Rhineland. This happened in the summer of 1930 and allowed Hitler to bring German troops there in March 1936.
The First World War brought Japan into the ranks of active players in the world political arena, which became a powerful dominant in Asia and pacific ocean. Decades behind the Western countries in terms of technology, it needed colonies where it could export its products without fear of competition from Western goods. A clash of interests with the United States and Great Britain led to the rupture of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in 1921; As for the United States, Japan has never ceased to be a potential enemy for them. All this led to a rapprochement between Japan and Germany, which resulted in their alliance in World War II.
The entire 1920s were marked by the problem of the allies' debts to each other and the reparation payments they were to receive from Germany. The United States was the main creditor, while France, Italy, Belgium and the United Kingdom were the main debtors. And when the US demanded the return of debts, the allies offered to fully or partially write off their debt, arguing that the provision of loans was the American contribution to the victory over Germany. And although the United States understood the certain validity of such statements, such a solution to the problem did not suit them in any way. Negotiations on this issue lasted four years (from 1922 to 1926) and ended with an agreement providing for the return of $ 2.6 billion, that is, a little more than a quarter of the amount originally requested.
As for the problem of reparations, there were serious contradictions between the allies, and, above all, in the issue of the dependence of inter-allied debts on the payment of German reparations: France considered them to be rigidly interconnected and assumed to pay its debts from what it would receive from Germany, and the United States and Britain regarded German reparations as a separate issue. Moreover, Great Britain considered it more important that the ruin of an already heavily war-torn Germany with the help of reparations hinders the recovery of European industry as a whole and reduces international trade flows. However, France categorically insisted on receiving reparations. Such a tough position of France can be explained by the fact that, in comparison with Great Britain and the USA, it suffered much more from Germany - if only because military operations were directly conducted on its territory.
Numerous attempts to reach a compromise on this issue did not lead to success, and on December 26, 1922, the reparation commission, by three votes to one, stated the fact that Germany had not fulfilled its reparation obligations and, as a result, declared default on Germany, which (under the Treaty of Versailles) gave France the right to occupy the Rhine zone and Ruhr. Meanwhile, social inequality and unemployment were rising in Germany. Anti-Versailles moods were superimposed on the usual social tension in such conditions: the Germans accused the great powers of intending to completely ruin the country with reparations. The détente of the situation was also not helped by the desire of the communists to subordinate these anti-government and anti-foreign sentiments to themselves and direct them into a revolutionary channel. All this was accompanied by an increase in anti-Semitism, partly provoked by the influx of wealthy Jewish emigrants from Poland (where anti-Semitism became almost state policy under the Piłsudski regime) to Germany. Since this emigration coincided with the worsening economic situation in Germany, the newcomers were blamed for this.
The occupation of the Rhineland escalated the situation to the limit, which resulted in armed uprisings and demonstrations by both left and right forces, which, however, were poorly prepared and suppressed. As a result, a state of emergency was introduced in the country. Great Britain and the United States blamed France for the aggravation of the situation in Germany and put it before the threat of isolation by signing agreements with Germany at the end of 1923 on granting loans to it. From now on, in its confrontation with France, Germany could firmly count on the help of London and Washington.
The upheavals caused by the consequences of the First World War subsided by 1924. At this time, important changes began to occur in the world related to the change in the role and place of the social democratic movement in the socio-political life of states. This was manifested by the “entry into power” of social democratic parties, which either became part of a number of coalition governments, or even formed them independently, and the strengthening of the influence of reformist ideas in the ranks of social democracy. Both of these points were both a consequence and a reason for the fact that the theory and practice of the social democratic parties increasingly acquired a reformist orientation with an emphasis on the gradual peaceful transformation of capitalist society into a socialist one. The leaders of social democracy considered their main task to be participation in the work of the parliamentary system and the restructuring of the capitalist economy through "equal business cooperation" between workers and entrepreneurs, as well as through the adoption of social legislation.
Representatives of the communist parties absolutized the tendencies of the acute crisis of capitalism, on the basis of which they demanded an immediate armed and uncompromising struggle for power. Most of these parties, united in the Communist International (Comintern), were under the strong influence of the CPSU (b), which was the reason for such a position.
The change in the role of social democracy in the political life of European states was evidence of the growing crisis of traditional forms of statehood in the post-war development of Europe. However, if in countries with established traditions of bourgeois democracy this process proceeded quite peacefully, then in countries where democratic traditions had not yet taken root, the liberal-reformist path of changing the political structure of society turned out to be extremely difficult, or even impossible. Here, the place of social democracy was often taken by reactionary mass movements, which eventually led to the elimination of bourgeois democracy and the establishment of totalitarian dictatorships of various kinds (fascism) or other, more traditional forms of authoritarian dictatorial regimes.
On the whole, it can be said that in the 1920s there were two trends in the political development of states: liberal-reformist (based on the further development of parliamentary democracy, the implementation of reforms and the involvement of leaders of socialist or social democratic parties in the highest authorities); totalitarian, associated with the establishment of fascist and other dictatorial regimes.
History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume Nine Team of Authors
1. NEW POSITION OF FORCES ON THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA. THE STRUGGLE OF THE USSR FOR A JUST POST-WAR ORGANIZATION OF THE WORLD
1. NEW POSITION OF FORCES ON THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA. THE STRUGGLE OF THE USSR FOR A JUST POST-WAR ORGANIZATION OF THE WORLD
The most destructive of all the wars experienced by mankind - the Second World War, which engulfed more than four-fifths of the planet's population, had a huge impact on the fate of dozens of countries and hundreds of millions of people from different states. That is why the victorious conclusion of this war and the liberation of mankind from the threat of fascist enslavement, in which the Soviet Union played a decisive role, aroused in all peoples a feeling of deep gratitude to the Soviet people for their great liberation mission, unprecedented heroism and selflessness.
The peoples of other countries also contributed to the defeat of German fascism and Japanese militarism. Partisan actions and popular uprisings in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania, the liberation struggle of the peoples of Yugoslavia and Albania, the resistance movement in France, Italy and other countries merged with the heroic struggle of the Soviet people. The countries of the anti-Hitler coalition - the USA and Britain - also contributed to the defeat of fascism and militarism. However, the decisive role in the victorious conclusion of the war was played by the heroism and courage of the Soviet people. Of the 13 million 600 thousand killed, wounded and captured by the Nazis, the Wehrmacht lost 10 million on the Soviet-German front.
With their unparalleled heroism, the Soviet people saved world civilization and many countries from catastrophe.
In this connection, one cannot fail to recall that in the days of the victorious conclusion of the Second World War, no one could deny the decisive role of the USSR in this war. Even British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who never had sympathy for the Soviet Union, was forced to admit in February 1945 that the Red Army's victories “won the boundless admiration of its allies and sealed the fate of German militarism. Future generations will consider themselves indebted to the Red Army as unconditionally as we, who happened to be witnesses of these magnificent feats. Similar were the confessions of other heads of state of the anti-Hitler coalition.
The victory won by the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War was the second, after the Great October Revolution, an epoch-making event in world history that had a tremendous revolutionary impact on all further world development. In a deadly battle with imperialism, socialism as a social system has shown high vitality and proved its undeniable superiority over capitalism.
Meeting with Soviet people - soldiers and workers, feeling their humanism, deep internationalism and boundless devotion to the ideas of peace and socialism, the working people of other countries were imbued with sympathy for the country of socialism and for socialism as a social system. It was this moral victory of the Soviet Union that was the main result of the Second World War, which made the process of increasing its international prestige irreversible. If before the Great Patriotic War the USSR had diplomatic relations with 26 states, then at the end of the war - with 52 countries. Not a single significant event in world history could be decided in the future without the participation of the Soviet Union.
The most important political consequences of the Second World War. The victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War, the liberation mission of the Red Army, the complete defeat of fascist Germany and militarist Japan irrevocably undermined the forces of world imperialist reaction. Under such conditions, a revolutionary situation began to take shape in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. The ruling bourgeois elite of these countries betrayed the national interests of the peoples, becoming a servant of the fascist aggressors, and among the broad masses of the people there was a sharp turn to the left. The Communist and Workers' Parties were able to correctly assess and take into account favorable internal and external factors, led the struggle of the workers and all the working masses for social and national liberation, and led them along the path of people's democratic and socialist revolutions. As a result of these revolutions, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia fell away from the capitalist system in Europe in the mid-1940s. The defeat of German fascism enabled the communists of Germany to lead the working people of the eastern part of the country, liberated by the Red Army, along a democratic path of development and in 1949 form the German Democratic Republic. The communist parties, as the most devoted and consistent defenders of the national and social interests of the masses, were able to rally the working people and all the progressive forces of their countries into united popular fronts and, relying on them, carried out deep revolutionary-democratic transformations already in the first post-war years. In the course of these transformations, the old state apparatus was broken and replaced by a new, people's democratic one, financial and industrial monopolies belonging to the Nazis and their accomplices were liquidated, large enterprises, banks, transport were nationalized, and agrarian reforms were carried out.
Depending on the specific alignment of class and political forces, historical traditions and other factors, all these revolutionary transformations in each country had their own specific features and characteristics, but their main and main content confirmed the general laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
The revolutionary-democratic reorganization took place in a fierce struggle against the overthrown forces of the old system, supported by international imperialism. True to its internationalist duty, the Soviet Union rendered every possible fraternal assistance and support to the young people's democratic states, strictly adhering to the principles of non-interference in their internal affairs. By the end of the 1940s, a number of European states - Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the German Democratic Republic - took the path of building socialism.
In the course of the defeat of Japanese militarism and the expulsion of the Japanese invaders, people's democratic revolutions unfolded in Vietnam and Korea. On the Asian continent, along with the Mongolian People's Republic, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were formed, however, soon subjected to imperialist aggression. The defeat of the Red Army together with the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Army of the Kwantung Army and the liberation of Manchuria from the Japanese invaders also created favorable conditions for the deployment of the revolutionary struggle in China, which culminated in the formation of the People's Republic of China in 1949.
Thus, by the end of the 1940s, along with the USSR and the Mongolian People's Republic, 11 new people's democratic states had formed in Europe and Asia, which had embarked on the path of building socialism. A group of states with a population of more than 700 million people fell away from the capitalist system. Socialism has become a world system that has become the most influential force in world development. Capitalism proved powerless to prevent this process.
The formation of the world socialist system was the main political consequence of the Second World War.
Another important consequence of the victory of the Soviet Union was the enormous positive changes that took place in the world communist and workers' movement. During the war years, the communist parties of the capitalist countries led the struggle of the peoples against fascism, for freedom and national independence, for democracy and social progress, thereby immeasurably raising their prestige among the masses and strengthening ties with them. Despite the enormous sacrifices made in the fight against fascism, the number of communists on the entire planet in 1945 increased by 5 times compared to 1939 and amounted to 20 million people. Only in the countries of Western Europe in 1946, compared with the pre-war period, the number of communists increased from 1.7 million to 5 million people.
The communist parties of Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Japan, Cuba, Colombia and other countries have achieved an exit from the underground and launched legal activities.
Legislative elections 1945–1946 showed the increased authority of the communists in many countries. More than 5 million votes were received by the French Communists in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, a fifth of the voters voted for the Communists in Italy.
In 13 capitalist countries (France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Luxembourg, Chile, Cuba, Iran, Indonesia) in the first post-war years, the Communists joined the coalition governments.
In some of them, they managed to carry out a number of democratic reforms. The working people of a number of capitalist countries, through an active political struggle under the leadership of the Communists, achieved important social reforms and the nationalization of certain branches of industry. There was a shift to the left of the masses as a whole, increased political activity, the role and organization of the working class on a national and international scale.
In September-October 1945, in Paris, representatives of 67 million workers from 56 countries organized in trade unions created the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), a progressive organization of the world trade union movement, which acted as an important organizing force in the struggle for the democratic rights of workers, their vital vital interests. A number of other international democratic organizations are being created: the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) (October - November 1945, London), the International Democratic Women's Federation (IDFJ) (December 1945, Paris), which united the efforts of boys, girls, women in the struggle for democratic rights and freedoms.
An important act in rallying the communist and workers' parties of European countries on a common anti-imperialist and democratic platform was the creation in September 1947 in Warsaw at the Meeting of representatives of the communist parties of nine countries (USSR, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Italy and France) The Information Bureau of the Communist Parties with its printed organ - the newspaper "For a Lasting Peace, for People's Democracy". The creation of these and other international organizations and bodies contributed to the intensification of the struggle for the cause of peace and socialism, the exchange of experience in the work of the Communist Parties, the collective development of the strategy and tactics of the world communist movement by them, the establishment of the unity of the working class and all democratic forces on an international and national scale.
The third important political consequence of the Second World War was the activation of the national liberation movement, which led to the disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism. Having unfolded in the first post-war years primarily in the countries of Southeast Asia, the Near and Middle East, the national liberation movement soon spread to other regions. Already in the 40s, in addition to China, Vietnam and North Korea, the peoples of Syria, Lebanon, India, Burma, Ceylon, Indonesia and other countries won national independence. The prophetic words of V. I. Lenin came true about the inevitable awakening of the colonial peoples of the East, after which there will come "a period of participation of all the peoples of the East in deciding the fate of the whole world, so as not to be only an object of enrichment."
The national liberation movement merged with the revolutionary struggle of the working class and became an increasingly important part of the world revolutionary process. Young independent states were actively involved in world politics, playing a progressive role in international life. Of particular importance in this regard was the policy of non-alignment proclaimed by the government of India, headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, which was based on an anti-imperialist orientation. The second prophetic prediction of V. I. Lenin came true that “in the coming decisive battles of the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the world’s population, originally aimed at national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism and, perhaps, play a much greater revolutionary role than we expect". The further development of the world revolutionary process fully confirmed these Leninist thoughts.
Cardinal changes have also taken place in the camp of imperialism itself. Before the Second World War, six imperialist powers - the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy - occupied a dominant position in the world and represented the main might of world imperialism. During the war, the last three were defeated and reduced to the rank of minor states. England and France were also weakened militarily, economically and politically and became dependent on the United States. Thus, the public debt of England during the war years increased by more than 3 times, and the volume of goods exported by her decreased by more than 3 times. The role of French capital in the world market was reduced to a minimum. The share of France in the exports of the capitalist countries in 1945 was less than 1%.
Of the six major imperialist powers, only the United States emerged from the war stronger. Not a single bomb fell on the territory of this state, and the net profits of the American monopolies in the military industry for 5 years amounted to 117 billion dollars.
Swollen from permanent militarization during the war years, the American military monopolies did not want to reduce their production even in peacetime, pushing the country onto the path of an arms race and aggressive military adventures. Possessing a temporary monopoly on atomic weapons, the United States launched the so-called atomic diplomacy, calculated to blackmail and intimidate other countries and peoples, embarked on the path of creating military bases along the borders of the USSR and the countries of people's democracy, knocking together aggressive blocs and unrestrained striving for world domination.
Even at the end of the war, the ruling imperialist circles of the United States took a course of deliberate and conscious disruption of general agreements with the USSR and unleashing US-Soviet conflicts. According to one of the US military leaders, General A. Arnold, expressed in the spring of 1945, the United States began to consider Russia its main enemy and therefore believed that they needed bases around the world located so that any object of the USSR could be attacked from them. The Truman government that replaced the Roosevelt government began to put these ideas into practice and took an openly anti-Soviet course. On August 6 and 9, 1945, without any military necessity, the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was carried out, the main purpose of which, according to Secretary of State Byrnes, was to "make Russia more compliant in Europe." The speech proclaimed by the British Prime Minister Churchill on March 5, 1946 in Fulton in the presence of Truman, which abounded in open attacks against the Soviet Union, served, in essence, as the beginning of putting together an Anglo-American military-political bloc directed against the USSR in other forces of peace, democracy and socialism, the beginning of the cold war policy against them.
Under these conditions, the Soviet Union, relying on the friendship and support of the countries of people's democracy and other young independent states, pursued a policy of a just post-war world order, the elimination of new hotbeds of war, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial international cooperation with all countries.
The struggle of the USSR for a just post-war world order. Back in the years of the Second World War, the Soviet Union took concrete measures to prevent wars by creating an effective international organization for this purpose. With the most active participation of the USSR, already in October 1943, at the Moscow Conference of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, the USA and England, the first practical steps were taken to create such an organization. The declaration jointly adopted at this conference not only emphasized the importance of cooperation between these powers to ensure the defeat of the fascist aggressors, but also recognized “the need to establish in the shortest possible time a universal International Organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, whose members can be all such states - large and small." Thus, the principle sovereign equality states, regardless of their social order in the defense and preservation of peace.
The Tehran Conference of the leaders of the three powers, held in late November - early December 1943, confirmed the intentions of these states "to work together both in time of war and in the subsequent peacetime" and thus approved the idea of creating an international organization to maintain post-war peace and security peoples. At the conference in Dumbarton Oaks (near Washington) in August - October 1944 and the Yalta Conference of the leaders of the three allied powers in February 1945, thanks to the persistent position of the representatives of the USSR, the main fundamental issues on the creation of an international organization called the United Nations were positively resolved. Of great importance, in particular, was the achievement of an agreement in principle by the leaders of the three allied powers - the USSR, the USA and England - at a conference in Crimea on the inclusion of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs among the founding countries of the UN in recognition of the outstanding contribution of the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples to the victory over the common enemy - German fascism.
The conference in San Francisco, which opened on April 25, 1945, adopted the UN Charter, signed by 51 founding states of this organization, including the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR, as well as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, China and others. Based on the support of these and other democratic states, using the UN and other diplomatic ways, the Soviet Union resolutely sought to establish a truly just post-war world order. Strictly following the previously agreed decisions at the Yalta, Potsdam and other conferences, the USSR attached top priority to a fair alignment of political forces in Europe, where the first and second world wars had been unleashed for three decades. In this, as in other questions, the Soviet Union had to overcome the fierce resistance of the imperialist forces and their desire to prevent the democratic development of a number of European states at all costs.
D. Z. Manuilsky, on behalf of the Ukrainian SSR, signs the UN Charter, June 1945
The sharp struggle of two opposing political courses: the USSR and the people's democratic states - on the one hand, the Western states - on the other, unfolded around the conclusion of peace treaties with the former allies of Nazi Germany - Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland and Bulgaria. In accordance with the decision of the Potsdam Conference of the Three Powers, the preparation of peace treaties was entrusted to a body specially created for this purpose - the Council of Foreign Ministers (CMFA) of the states that signed the terms of surrender with these countries.
At the sessions of the Council of Foreign Ministers held from September 1945 to the end of 1946 in London, Moscow, Paris and New York, as well as at the Paris Peace Conference (July - October 1946), the Soviet Union resolutely and persistently defended the interests of the people - the democratic states of Europe, defended them from attempts by Western states to interfere in their internal affairs, steadily pursued a policy of ensuring lasting peace in Europe, striving to maintain cooperation on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence with the states participating in the anti-Hitler coalition. The Ukrainian SSR, as one of the founders of the UN, also made a worthy contribution to this struggle.
Members of the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR in the meeting room of the Paris Peace Conference in 1946: first row (from left to right) N. N. Petrovsky, V. A. Tarasenko, A. K. Kasimenko
Numerous meetings of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held to develop draft peace treaties with Germany's former allies, clearly revealed the desire of representatives of the United States and Britain to use the preparation of peace treaties to interfere in the internal affairs of Bulgaria, Romania and other countries that have embarked on a democratic path of development, to restore them former capitalist regimes. At the very first meetings, the US delegation made slanderous attacks on the democratic governments of Bulgaria and Romania and refused to discuss peace treaties with these countries until governments "that can be recognized by the United States" are established in them. Having met with a resolute rebuff from the USSR and other democratic forces, the representatives of the United States and Britain subsequently tried to impose demands, if not replacement, then the reorganization of governments in these countries that they liked, insisted on the creation of some kind of “inspection commissions” or a “European international court”, allegedly for monitoring the fulfillment of the terms of peace treaties, put forward other untenable demands and claims.
The main struggle between the two opposing courses flared up at the Paris Peace Conference that opened on July 29, 1946, convened to consider and adopt peace treaties with Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Italy and Finland, that is, to decide on the merits of issues related to the fate of peace in Europe. Along with the delegations of the USSR and the BSSR, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR, headed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a prominent state and political figure DZ Manuilsky, actively participated in this conference. These delegations persistently sought that the conclusion of peace treaties with Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Italy and Finland would contribute to the democratic development of these countries in accordance with the will of their peoples, eradicate forever in them the possibility of the revival of Nazi ideology and orders, and resolve all disputed territorial issues in such a way. so that a lasting and lasting peace in Europe can be consolidated. They strongly condemned the desire of the Western states to impose on the Eastern European states such territorial solutions that would revive the atmosphere of conflict and tension in the area.
In a number of speeches at the conference, D. Z. Manuilsky and other members of the Ukrainian delegation, relying on historical facts, revealed the complete inconsistency of the claims of the then reactionary Greek government to a significant part of the Bulgarian and Albanian territories. “By what right,” said D.Z. Manuilsky, “the Greek delegation makes claims to the original Bulgarian land, where there are only 150-200 people of Greek nationality per 300 thousand people.” If we talk about changing the Bulgarian-Greek border, then the only right thing, the head of the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR emphasized, would be the return of Bulgaria to Western Thrace with access to the Aegean Sea, which was illegally taken from it in 1919 under the Treaty of Neuilly. Thanks to the firm position of the Soviet delegations and representatives of a number of other democratic states, the territorial claims of Greece to Bulgaria and Albania were rejected. In a telegram addressed to D. Z. Manuilsky on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Soviet Ukraine, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PRB comrade. V. Kolarov conveyed heartfelt greetings to the Ukrainian people and expressed his ardent wish that the fraternal friendship of the peoples of both countries, which was so clearly manifested at the Paris Peace Conference, “where, - as he emphasized, - the representatives of Ukraine so resolutely and brilliantly defended the just cause of the Bulgarian people."
An acute struggle at the Paris Peace Conference flared up and over the definition of the Italian - Yugoslav border. The Soviet Union defended the demand of Yugoslavia to correct the injustice committed after the First World War and return to Yugoslavia the entire Julian Krajina, with the city of Trieste, liberated from the fascist invaders by the Yugoslav People's Liberation Army. Western states insisted on the division of this territory between Italy and Yugoslavia. The Ukrainian delegation firmly defended the interests of Yugoslavia. At that time, the government of the Ukrainian SSR received numerous telegrams and letters from the population of various settlements and regions of the Julian Krayna (Monfalkome, Panzanor, Arisa, etc.) with requests to support their desire and primordial aspirations to unite with their Motherland - Yugoslavia. “Such a heroic people as the Ukrainians, who suffered so much in the struggle against fascism,” they wrote, “cannot fail to understand the struggle that our people are waging today, who want our right to belong to Yugoslavia to be recognized.”
Fulfilling the will of their people, the delegates of the Ukrainian SSR resolutely defended the legitimate demands of the Slavic population of the Julian Extreme. Speaking at a conference on this issue, D.Z. Manuilsky angrily condemned the position of the Western states seeking the dismemberment of the Julian Krajina, and supported the compromise proposal of the Yugoslav delegation to establish the free port of Trieste with a small territory.
Just as resolutely, the Ukrainian SSR delegation, together with other Soviet and people's democratic delegations, defended the just provisions of the peace treaties on reparations and other economic issues. Thanks to this joint activities democratic forces led by the Soviet Union managed to conclude generally fair peace treaties with Germany's former allies. For the first time in history, a situation arose when a great victorious country persistently sought fair decisions in relation to the defeated countries, guided by humane feelings and concern for the peaceful future of Europe.
All participants in the Paris Peace Conference, including the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR, on February 10, 1947, concluded peace treaties in Paris with Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland, which became valid on September 15, 1947, after their ratification on August 29 1947 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which extended the effect of this act to the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR. In the signed peace treaties with these countries, some unjust territorial decisions of the Versailles system were corrected, in particular, the new borders of the USSR were fixed, taking into account the national interests of the respective states. These treaties did not infringe on the political and economic independence and national dignity of the defeated states, did not hinder their peaceful development. The important political provisions contained in them on the complete and final elimination of fascism in these countries, on ensuring human rights and fundamental democratic freedoms for all their citizens, etc., opened up new opportunities for further progressive development and strengthening of the international positions of these countries.
Together with the delegation of the USSR and other Danube countries, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR carried out significant work at the Danube Conference in 1948, where the question of the rights of navigation on the river was considered. A fair solution to the Danube problem was of great political and economic importance for all the Danubian countries.
The imperialist forces, led by the USA, tried at all costs to preserve the unjust regime of navigation on the Danube established by the treaties of the Versailles system, according to which the USA, England and France, not being Danube countries, would exercise control over the river and use it to interfere in internal affairs. countries adjacent to it. Even at the Paris Peace Conference, when discussing the Hungarian question, D. Z. Manuilsky, decisively exposing these plans of the USA and England, declared that for the small Danube countries such a regime would be tantamount to suicide, because it would mean that “the owners on the Danube would not be the Danubian countries, but those who live on the Hudson and the Thames.
The head of the Ukrainian delegation at the Danube Conference A. M. Baranovsky, together with the delegates of the USSR and other Danubian countries, firmly stated that their states would not allow any diktat and outside interference in resolving issues of navigation on the river. Acting as a united front, the Danube countries rejected the outdated convention of 1921, which allowed the imperialist countries - the USA, Britain and France - to actually control navigation on the Danube, and adopted a new one, which renewed the sovereign rights of the countries adjacent to it to the regime of navigation on the river. This convention, together with other Danubian countries, was signed by the delegations of the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR.
One of the central issues in the post-war years was also the question of a just democratic solution to the German problem. Fulfilling the will of the peace-loving peoples, fixed in the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, the Soviet Union persistently sought to eradicate fascism in Germany and create conditions for the development of the country as a single democratic peace-loving state. The entire public of Ukraine ardently supported this policy of the Soviet Union, demanding the complete destruction of fascism and all the conditions for its revival. “The fascist plague will threaten humanity until then,” the fiery internationalist writer Yaroslav Galan warned in the days of the Nuremberg trials, “until the centers of fascism are eliminated, every last one.”
At the same time, the Soviet people were never guided by a sense of revenge. They sought to conclude a just peace treaty with Germany, turning it into a single peace-loving state. However, the Western powers renounced their allied obligations and headed for the split of Germany and the revival of militarism in it, creating in September 1949 a separate state of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). Under such conditions, the democratic forces of East Germany on October 7, 1949, proclaimed the creation of the German Democratic Republic, which took the path of building socialism. The family of socialist states grew and grew stronger.
The formation of new, socialist international relations and the participation of the Ukrainian SSR in them. The defeat of fascism and militarism in the Second World War and the accomplishment of the great liberation mission by the Red Army, which created favorable conditions for the victory of people's democratic and socialist revolutions in a number of European and Asian countries, also opened up wide opportunities for establishing and developing completely new international relations between countries and peoples, based on the Leninist principles of socialist internationalism.
From the first days of the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the young Soviet state, through the mouth of its leader V. I. Lenin, proclaimed the main principles of its foreign policy to be the desire for peace and friendship with all peoples and the achievement of a voluntary and honest union of peoples based on their complete mutual trust. The Soviet government pursued this course consistently and steadily at all stages of the development of our state. But the conditions of the capitalist encirclement and the policy of the imperialist ruling circles greatly hampered and limited the possibility of its implementation. The victory of people's democratic revolutions in a number of European and Asian countries created new, favorable conditions for putting into practice the Leninist principles of relations between countries and peoples.
The establishment and development of qualitatively new international relations between countries that have embarked on the path of building socialism is an essential component and one of the regularities in the formation of the world socialist community as a new social phenomenon in world history.
Even during the Great Patriotic War and in the first post-war years, the CPSU and the Soviet government took a number of steps to lay a solid foundation for new relations with the young people's democratic states. Given that from the first days of their existence, their most important vital task was to overcome foreign political isolation, as well as to strengthen sovereignty and international positions, the Soviet Union was the first of the great powers to establish diplomatic relations with the new democratic governments of Poland without any preconditions (January 4, 1945), Yugoslavia (April 11, 1945), Romania (August 6, 1945), Bulgaria (August 14, 1945), Hungary (September 25, 1945), Albania (November 10, 1945). This act was an important political support for the young people's democracies. It also opened up new opportunities for expanding trade and economic ties and was accompanied by the provision of the economic, technical and other assistance they needed. In 1945, the USSR also concluded the first trade agreements with Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and other countries, which marked the beginning of new foreign economic relations with them.
Of particular importance was the signing of treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the USSR and other people's democratic countries, as well as between them. The first treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance were signed by the Soviet Union during the war years: with Czechoslovakia on December 12, 1943, Yugoslavia on April 11, 1945 and Poland on April 21, 1945.
A number of trade agreements were signed with other states, and later - treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance: with Romania - February 4, 1948, Hungary - February 18, 1948, Bulgaria - March 18, 1948, as well as an agreement with Albania April 10, 1949 In 1947–1949 and between themselves European countries People's Democracy signed treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance. By the end of the 1940s, they had concluded 35 different bilateral allied treaties among themselves. Thus, a whole system of contractual relations was created between the USSR and these countries, which legally fixed the new relations between the countries of socialism and played an important role in defending the gains of socialism and in its successful development. The most important feature of these treaties was their conclusion on a fundamentally different basis than the treaties that existed before that between the capitalist countries. Characteristic features of the new agreements were complete equality of the parties, mutual respect for independence and sovereignty, fraternal mutual assistance and cooperation. They provided for close military-political cooperation and mutual assistance in defending the gains of socialism, joint struggle against a repetition of aggression by Germany and Japan or by states that had allied with them. The main goal of the treaties is fraternal mutual assistance in building socialism through the development of all-round cooperation in the economic, political, cultural and other fields.
The Ukrainian SSR, which borders directly on a number of European people's democratic states, has taken an active part in establishing and developing friendly relations with them, and in particular in resolving all border and other issues on a good neighborly basis.
Thus, in the spirit of complete mutual understanding and sincere friendship, the questions of the mutual exchange of population between Soviet Ukraine and Poland were resolved. After the liberation of Poland from the fascist occupation, many Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians living on its territory, and Poles living in the USSR, began to express a desire to resettle to their homeland. In accordance with the agreement concluded on September 9, 1944 in Lublin between the governments of the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, which granted the right of voluntary mutual resettlement of citizens, from October 1944 to August 1946, 482,880 people left the territory of Poland for Ukraine, and from the territory of Ukraine to Poland - 810415 people.
Thus, about 1 million 300 thousand people of Ukrainian and Polish nationalities were able to use the right granted to them to return to their homeland and join in the creative work of their people to build a new life. Such a fair solution of the problem became possible only after the establishment of people's power in Poland and on the basis of new relations between the two neighboring countries.
A similar decision was made by the Ukrainian SSR and Czechoslovakia. After the liberation of Transcarpathian Ukraine in October 1944, a nationwide movement for reunification with Soviet Ukraine began in the villages and cities of Transcarpathia. In accordance with the will of the population of Transcarpathia, on June 29, 1945, the Soviet-Czechoslovak Treaty was signed in Moscow on the withdrawal of Transcarpathian Ukraine from Czechoslovakia and its reunification with its homeland - the Ukrainian SSR. This act completed the reunification of all Ukrainian lands in a single Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Meeting the request of the government of Czechoslovakia, on July 10, 1946, the Soviet government signed an agreement that granted the right to opt for Czechoslovak citizenship and resettlement in Czechoslovakia to Soviet citizens of Czech and Slovak nationalities living in the territory of the former Volyn province, and the right to opt for Soviet citizenship and resettlement in the USSR Czechoslovak citizens of Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian nationalities.
In accordance with this agreement, 33,077 people moved from the USSR to Czechoslovakia, and 8,556 people moved from Czechoslovakia to the USSR. Both sides have done everything necessary to ensure that this humane action takes place in an organized manner, with strict observance of the principles of voluntariness and in the spirit of sincere friendship and good neighborliness. In a similar way, on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the principles of new fraternal relations, other issues related to the mutual return of various material and cultural values of Soviet Ukraine and its neighboring people's democratic states - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania were resolved.
The working people of the Ukrainian SSR followed with great attention all the processes of revolutionary transformations in the fraternal neighboring countries, generously shared with them their experience in building a new life, and provided them with every possible help and support. Mutual exchanges of parliamentary and government delegations, as well as delegations of industrialists, cultural and public figures, etc., were of particular importance.
Already in 1946-1947. Deputies of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic and the National Assembly of Bulgaria visited Ukraine to get acquainted with the experience of the work of the highest state bodies of the Ukrainian SSR. The stay of the leaders of Poland and Czechoslovakia in these years in Ukraine, as well as a visit to Ukraine in 1948 by a government delegation of Hungary, also contributed to the strengthening of fraternal friendship and cooperation.
In order to study the experience of collective farm construction, Polish, Czechoslovak, Bulgarian, Romanian peasants and agricultural specialists repeatedly came to the Ukrainian SSR. Only during February - July 1949, three delegations of Polish peasants visited the republic total strength about 600 people. They visited a large number of collective farms, state farms, MTS, industrial enterprises and scientific institutions of Kiev, Cherkasy, Kharkov, Poltava, Sumy, Dnepropetrovsk, Vinnitsa, Zhitomir, Chernihiv and other regions, where they got acquainted in detail with the organization of production, life and life of agricultural workers. In June - July of the same year, a delegation of peasants of the Romanian People's Republic got acquainted with the experience of agricultural production in Kiev, Kharkov, Poltava and Kirovograd regions, and in November - in five regions of Ukraine, a delegation of peasants of Czechoslovakia studied the experience of field workers. In turn, Ukrainian masters of agricultural production F. I. Dubkovetsky, E. S. Hobta, M. Kh. Savchenko and others traveled to fraternal countries, where they shared their experience and innovative achievements.
Despite the great difficulties and hardships associated with huge losses and destruction during the war, the Soviet Union, true to its international policy, provided very significant assistance to the young people's democratic states in the restoration and development of the economy and in the implementation of all processes to create a new society. The Ukrainian SSR also made a worthy contribution to this fraternal assistance.
So, in January 1945, immediately after the liberation of the capital of Poland, the government of the Ukrainian SSR handed over a significant amount of food to the starving residents of Warsaw, sent specialists and equipment to revive the destroyed city.
An authoritative commission of Soviet experts arrived in the capital of Poland. The USSR sent to the fraternal country 500 prefabricated houses, 500 cars, a large number of various building materials and equipment, equipment for factories and plants. A new Warsaw rose from the ruins and ashes. And many sons of Ukraine took part in its revival. “The history of mankind does not know such a fact of cordial responsiveness and disinterested friendship,” the mayor of Warsaw said on this occasion, “which the Soviet people show towards the fraternal Polish people. Pasha brothers - Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, who themselves suffered so much from the Nazi barbarians, were the first to lend us a helping hand in order to heal the wounds inflicted on us by the Nazi executioners as soon as possible.
The working people of Ukraine rendered similar fraternal assistance to the peoples of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and other countries. Having concluded the first trade agreements with Bulgaria and Hungary in 1945, the Soviet Union immediately began supplying them with the necessary goods, materials, fuel, raw materials, machinery and equipment. In just seven months of this year, 30 thousand tons of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, about 10 thousand tons of oil products, about 10 thousand tons of cotton, more than 20 thousand agricultural machines and many other equipment and materials were imported into Bulgaria. As the newspaper Rabotnichesko Delo wrote at the time, this was "of decisive importance for the salvation of our national economy from the catastrophe that threatened it." A special role was played for Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary by the supply of Soviet goods, raw materials and materials in the dry years of 1946-1947, when the population of these countries experienced serious difficulties associated with crop failure. Since 1948, the USSR began to import machinery and equipment there, which contributed to the successful construction of the material and technical base of socialism in these countries.
Of great importance for the young people's democratic countries was the systematic assistance of the USSR in the training of specialists, which began in 1946, as well as other forms of scientific and scientific-technical cooperation, the exchange of experience in cultural construction, in which Ukraine also took an active part. .
Thus, in the second half of the 1940s, thanks to the wise internationalist policy of the CPSU and the Soviet state, new, socialist international relations took shape, in which not only state bodies, but also the broad masses of working people take an active part. The formation of new, socialist international relations is an inseparable and most important component of the process of formation and development of the world socialist system. The all-round cooperation of the USSR with the people's democratic states grew and developed as socialist transformations were carried out in them, the restoration and further development of the national economy, the emergence of new branches of production and new processes in social life.
The successes achieved in the development of the national economy of the people's democratic states in the 1940s and the accumulated experience of bilateral ties and cooperation dictated to them the necessity and expediency of switching to multilateral cooperation. In January 1949, an economic meeting of representatives of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia was held in Moscow, at which the question of organizing broader economic cooperation between them on a multilateral basis was discussed. The meeting decided to create a common economic body - the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance - on the principles of equal representation of the countries participating in it. The main goals of the CMEA were proclaimed the exchange of economic experience, the provision of technical assistance to each other, mutual assistance in raw materials, materials, machines, equipment, etc.
At the same time, the CMEA was declared an open organization, which could also be joined by other countries that share its principles and wish to cooperate with the states that are members of it.
From their own experience, the countries that have embarked on the path of building socialism have become convinced that solidarity, unity of action, cooperation and mutual assistance multiply their forces, increase the effectiveness of the foreign policy actions of each of them and contribute to the growth of their economic and political might, their joint influence on the world revolutionary process.
In the struggle for international cooperation and the social progress of peoples. As the international prestige of the USSR grew and people's power was consolidated in a number of countries in Europe and Asia in the post-war years, on the one hand, and the position of imperialism in the world as a whole weakened, on the other, the imperialist circles of the United States and other Western states increasingly strengthened the course of the so-called " Cold War" against the USSR and the young people's democratic states. This course was most clearly manifested in the notorious "Truman Doctrine" and the "Marshall Plan" proclaimed by official US circles in 1947.
The "Truman Doctrine", set out in the message of the US President to Congress on March 12, 1947, provided for the provision of "aid" of 400 million dollars to Greece and Turkey, allegedly to protect them from "aggression", declared the fight against communism as a line of US state policy. A frank goal was put forward - to counteract revolutionary changes in the world in every possible way, to support reactionary regimes, military dictatorships as bastions of anti-communism, to put together military blocs around the USSR and young people's democratic states.
The second program of "dollar diplomacy", outlined on June 5, 1947 by the US Secretary of State
From the book Against All the author Suvorov ViktorVictor Suvorov AGAINST EVERYONE The crisis in the USSR and the struggle for power in the country's leadership in the first post-war decade The first book of the Chronicle of the Great Decade trilogy, a prequel to the bestseller Kuzkina's Mother Tatiana Untalented and the unprecedentedly cruel Marshal Zhukov
From the book History. General history. Grade 11. Basic and advanced levels author Volobuev Oleg Vladimirovich§ 17. Post-war structure of the world. International relations in 1945 - early 1970s Creation of the UN. An attempt to form a new world order. The Anti-Hitler coalition created during the war became the basis for the formation of a new international organization. More fighting in Europe
From the book History of the Middle Ages. Volume 1 [In two volumes. Under the general editorship of S. D. Skazkin] author Skazkin Sergey DanilovichChanges in the balance of power in the international arena in the XIV-XV centuries. In the XIV-XV centuries. the balance of power in the international arena has changed significantly. The German Empire after the Hohenstaufen (1254) and the interregnum period that followed, ceased to play any significant role.
From the book of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Secret diplomacy of the Kremlin author Mlechin Leonid MikhailovichPOST-WAR WORLD RESTRUCTURE When the victorious Red Army entered Europe, Stalin and Molotov were able to dictate their terms to the West. In January 1944, at the plenum of the Central Committee, the law “On granting powers to the union republics in the field of foreign relations and on
From the book Tehran 1943 author Berezhkov Valentin MikhailovichPost-war organization The participants in the Tehran meeting touched upon the problem of the post-war order of the world only in general terms. Despite the contradictory interests of the powers represented at the conference, already at this stage of the war, attempts were made to find a common language in
From the book "For Stalin!" Great Victory Strategist author Sukhodeev Vladimir Vasilievich
Loading...
