After 1933, two opposing camps began to emerge more and more clearly in the world. On the one hand, these are fascist regimes with clearly aggressive goals, led by Germany. On the other hand, these are anti-fascist forces led by the USSR. A special niche in the system of contradictory international relations was occupied by the capitalist countries of the West - France and Great Britain. The contradictions and international relations of the developed countries of the world on the eve of World War II will be discussed in this lesson.

On the third side was the Soviet Union, which created in Europe " collective security system”, not wanting to also drag himself into a military conflict on anyone’s side, but constantly monitoring the actions of German fascism and Anglo-French policy.

At the end of the 1930s. The world was shocked by an unprecedented disregard for international law and laws.

In March 1938, German troops crossed the border into Austria and occupied this country, annexing it to Germany. Happened Anschluss Austria, to which the world community mostly turned a blind eye. At the same time, Hitler laid claim to the Czechoslovak Sudeten region, where the majority of the population were Germans. Czechoslovakia was under threat of military invasion. The USSR offered help to Prague, but to do this it had to lead its troops through Poland, relations with which were very bad. As a result, the international community first forced Prague to give up the Sudetenland, and then, in the fall of the same 1938, dismembered Czechoslovakia itself. In the autumn of 1938, the heads of 4 states - Germany, France, Italy and England - gathered in Munich. Following " appeasement policy", England and France handed over independent Czechoslovakia to Hitler, thereby predetermining its fate. This agreement went down in history as " Munich Agreement" Czechoslovakia was divided between Germany (most of it), Poland and Hungary. British Prime Minister returning to London Chamberlain self-confidently declared to the British: (Fig. 2) .

Rice. 2. “I brought you peace” ()

In the Far East, the Japanese army occupied the eastern coast of China and staged provocations against the USSR in 1938 on Lake Khasan, and in 1939 on the Khalkhin Gol River in Mongolia, which the Soviet Union promised to defend from the Japanese. Both military provocations were broken by the Red Army.

Seeing the tense situation in Europe and the world, the USSR invites the Western countries - England and France - to move towards rapprochement, thereby opposing Germany, as in the First World War, realizing that it will not be able to fight on two fronts. Such a proposal could not satisfy the British and French, because their policy was aimed at expanding Hitler’s aggressive aspirations to the East - Poland, the USSR, the Balkans. Making concession after concession, believing that Germany, for “turning a blind eye” to the violation of all international laws, would never turn force against them, the British and French were seriously mistaken.

Seeing that England and France do not want to conclude mutual assistance agreements, the USSR begins to pursue its policy without looking back at Western countries. Overnight he changes his foreign policy orientation and August 23, 1939 signs Non-Aggression Pact with Germany(Fig. 3), thereby turning Hitler from East to West, buying himself a couple of years to prepare for war, because in Moscow, few doubted that sooner or later war with Germany would happen. This was a decisive move in the world political system. Western countries, conniving with Germany, themselves became hostages of such a system.

Rice. 3. After the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and Germany ()

1. Aleksashkina L.N. General history. XX - early XXI centuries. - M.: Mnemosyne, 2011.

2. Zagladin N.V. General history. XX century Textbook for 11th grade. - M.: Russian Word, 2009.

3. Plenkov O.Yu., Andreevskaya T.P., Shevchenko S.V. General history. 11th grade / Ed. Myasnikova V.S. - M., 2011.

1. Read Chapter 11 of the textbook by Aleksashkina L.N. General history. XX - early XXI centuries and give answers to questions 3-6 on p. 122.

2. What was the essence of the “policy of appeasement”?

3. Why did the rapprochement between Germany and the USSR become possible?

The development of the Soviet Union in the pre-war years took place in a difficult international situation. The presence of hotbeds of tension in Europe and the Far East, the secret preparation of the countries of the capitalist world for the Second World War, and the rise to power in Germany of a fascist party clearly indicated that the international situation was actively and rapidly approaching a military conflict.

During the period between the end of the First and the beginning of the Second World War, qualitative changes occurred in the balance of power in the world community: the emergence of the first socialist state, the aggravation of contradictions between the world's metropolises and colonies, the restoration and new rapid economic rise of those defeated in the First World War and dissatisfied with their position in the world. state - Germany. The consequence of these changes in the international arena was a change in the nature of the approaching conflict. From the dispute between the imperialist powers over the redivision of the world, which, according to V.I. Lenin, there was the First World War, the approaching war was supposed to turn into an arena of opposition and clashing interests of both the imperialist states among themselves, and the entire bloc with a state of a different socio-economic formation - the Soviet Union. It was this circumstance, in our opinion, that determined the policies of the leading capitalist states and the USSR on the eve of the Second World War.

2. Participation of the USSR in international events preceding the Second World War.

2.1 The struggle of the Soviet Union to prevent war. Development of relations with capitalist states on the eve of the conflict.

Let us now see how events developed in international politics on the eve of the Second World War.

We can begin counting down events from 1933, as the date of the Nazi National Socialist Party, led by A. Hitler, coming to power in Germany, who already in 1934 concentrated in his hands all the power in the country, combining at the same time the posts of Chancellor and Fuhrer. The fascists established a dictatorship in the country, a regime of reaction, annulled the Versailles Peace Treaty, which did not suit this rapidly developing imperialist power, and began active preparations for a war to redistribute the world.

During the same period (the 1930s), there was a significant intensification of Italian foreign policy, in which fascism had been the dominant ideology since 1922, and its influence on the balance of power in the world community increased.

One of the first aggressive acts committed by these states was the seizure in 1935-36. Ethiopia and the establishment of a fascist regime there.

In 1936-37, Germany, Japan and Italy concluded the “Anti-Comintern Pact”, which marked the beginning of the formation of new military blocs, further progress towards military conflict, and also testified to the manifestations of fascism aggression against the USSR.

Thus, a most dangerous hotbed of future war has emerged in the Center of Europe.

At this time, political circles in England, the USA, and France pursued a policy of encouraging Germany, trying to direct its aggression against the Soviet Union. This policy was carried out both on the world stage and within the states themselves. For example, in almost all countries a campaign was waged against the USSR, the idea of a “growing Soviet danger” and the idea of “Russian military preparations” were actively promoted. In foreign policy, British and French leaders, as evidenced by documents, solved the problem of how to ward off the threat of German aggression and defuse the energy of Nazism and expansion to the East.

In this situation, the USSR comes up with proposals to ensure peace and collective security. In response to the policies of capitalist states, our country is taking the following steps:

1933 - establishment of diplomatic relations with the USA.

1935 - France, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union sign a mutual assistance pact. This pact could have played a significant role in preventing Hitler's aggression, but at the insistence of France a clause was included in this treaty. Its essence was that military assistance to Czechoslovakia from the USSR could be provided only if France also provided it. Soon it was this reservation and the indecisiveness of the then Czechoslovak government that facilitated aggression on the part of Germany.

Events began to take on particular urgency in 1938, when Germany occupied Austria and included it in the Third Reich, intervened in the civil war in Spain, where it helped establish a fascist dictatorship, demanded that Czechoslovakia transfer the Sudetenland and annexed it after the approval of this action by the Munich Conference heads of government consisting of England, France, Germany, Italy, who made a decision on the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, at which the USSR and Czechoslovakia were not present. This “Munich agreement” encouraged the aggressor and pushed him to further intensify his actions; under its terms, about 20% of its territory was torn away from Czechoslovakia, where a quarter of the country’s population lived and about half of the heavy industry capacity was located.

The leaders of capitalist states, continuing to support fascist aggression, signed a number of non-aggression treaties with Germany (1938 - England and France).

Having untied his hands in this way, Hitler continued his aggression: in March 1939 he completely captured Czechoslovakia and seized the port of Klaipeda from Lithuania in favor of Germany. In April 1939, Italy captured Albania.

The USSR, continuing its peaceful policy, did not recognize the occupation of Czechoslovakia and offered it military assistance, which the government of this country refused. France did not fulfill its obligations under military assistance agreements with this country and did not provide support to it.

Thus, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in 1930 (until 1939) can be considered an example of the desire to prevent war and curb the aggressor. Our country was the most implacable and consistent opponent of fascism, exposed it, identified it with war.

However, by the summer of 1939, the situation had changed, and the result of this change was subsequently the signing of the treaties of August 23 and September 28, 1939 and secret protocols to them, under the terms of which the USSR became almost a partner of Germany. What caused this turn of events? In our opinion, there were several such reasons.

First of all, it should be noted that the very situation that had developed on the world stage by the spring of 1939 objectively contributed to the fact that the Soviet Union could not continue its activities alone, and it had to take care of its security, since by the spring of 1939 The Second World War in its localized phase was already a reality. In the current military-political situation, the USSR had three alternatives: reach a military agreement with France and England; to be left alone; conclude an agreement with Germany. The most beneficial seemed to be the Anglo-French-Soviet agreement on mutual assistance, directed against Nazi Germany. It would lead to the creation of a unified anti-fascist coalition, would effectively serve to deter fascist aggressors and, perhaps, would prevent the outbreak of a world war.

In the summer of 1939, on the initiative of the Soviet side, negotiations began between the USSR - England - France on concluding a mutual assistance pact and creating an anti-German coalition. At these negotiations, the Soviet Union made radical proposals to resolve the issue of collective security, but for Western states that continued the policies developed at the Munich meeting, these proposals turned out to be unacceptable. By August 20, negotiations had reached a dead end and effectively failed. At the request of the British and French, a break was announced for an indefinite period, although both Moscow and London knew that aggression against Poland was scheduled for the end of August. The USSR failed to reach an agreement with the Western powers. Both sides are to blame for this. But the guilt of the Western powers, especially England, is much greater than that of the Soviet Union. The Soviet side did not have enough restraint, it showed haste, overestimated the degree of hostility of the Western powers towards the USSR and the possibility of their collusion with Nazi Germany. The Western powers did not have a sincere desire to move closer to the USSR, which can be explained, apparently, by various reasons, including fears of possible betrayal, and the inhumane internal policy of the Stalinist leadership, which contradicts his assurances on the world stage, and an underestimation of his strength as a possible ally in the fight against the fascist bloc, and deep hostility towards a country of a different socio-economic formation. The Western powers conducted negotiations with the USSR primarily in order to put pressure on Germany, to force it to make concessions to them; they tried to impose their own conditions on the Soviet Union and neglected its interests. “The blame for the failure to create a broad alliance of England, France and the USSR, capable of containing German ambitions,” admits the English researchers R. Hight, D. Maurice and A. Peters, “should be placed directly on the Western allies. It is precisely those methods "with which they resolved the major international crises of the 1930s, gradually undermined faith in the cause of collective security... French and British leaders consistently preferred to pacify Berlin, Rome and Tokyo rather than attempt to use Soviet power to defend international stability."

Thus, by the beginning of the autumn of 1939, the Soviet Union failed to solve the problem of reaching a military agreement with England and France. It would be appropriate to emphasize the following here. At this time, England and France had already formalized their non-aggression agreements with Germany and, thus, were objectively in an advantageous position over the USSR.

However, despite the failure, the beginning of Anglo-French-Soviet contacts caused alarm among the leadership of Nazi Germany. It realized that an agreement on mutual assistance between the three great powers could pose a serious obstacle to Hitler's expansionist plans, and began to make persistent efforts to prevent such an agreement.

Since May 1939, employees of the German foreign policy department, following the instructions of Ribbentrop, repeatedly came into contact with representatives of the USSR in Berlin, making it clear in various unofficial and official ways about Germany’s readiness to move closer to the USSR. Until mid-August 1939, while there was hope for concluding an agreement with England and France, the Soviet government left the German side’s probing unanswered, but at the same time closely monitored its actions. For a long time, a major role in countering the German “courtship of Moscow” was played by the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs Litvinov, who believed that no concessions could be made to Nazi Germany. However, in May 1939 he was removed from his post, where he was replaced by V.M. Molotov. Such a replacement could not go unnoticed and, probably, it indicated some changes in the orientation of the Soviet leadership. Therefore, the second reason that the union of the USSR and Germany became possible, in our opinion, must be the personal ambitions and expansionist plans nurtured by the Stalinist government. It seems to us that the similarity between these aspirations and Hitler’s plans for the conquest of the world largely contributed to the signing of the illegal secret protocols of 1939.

In continuation of German attempts at rapprochement with Moscow, in early July, the Soviet embassy in Berlin received an anonymous letter proposing the idea of rehabilitating the 1926 neutrality treaty or concluding a non-aggression and borders treaty. The German side, the letter said, proceeded from the assumption that both governments had a natural desire to restore their 1914 borders. At the beginning of August 1939, in a conversation with the Soviet plenipotentiary in Berlin Astakhov, Ribbentrop had already officially stated that the USSR and Germany could agree on all problems related to the territory from the Black Sea to the Baltic. The Soviet side left these attempts at rapprochement unanswered. Apparently, Stalin first wanted to clarify what results could be obtained from the Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations.

It should be noted that the Germans had a backup plan in case the Soviet leadership refused to accept Germany's proposals. At secret negotiations in mid-August, London and Berlin agreed on the trip of the second-ranking figure of the “Third Reich” Goering to the British Isles on August 23 for a secret meeting with Chamberlain. Judging by the documents, the two empires were going to work out a “historic compromise,” ignoring the interests of not only the USSR, Poland and a number of other Eastern European countries, but even France.

On August 15, 1939, the German Ambassador in Moscow F. Schulenburg asked for an urgent appointment with the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR V.M. Molotov. The ambassador read out Ribbentrop's statement, which proposed that all existing controversial issues be resolved to the full satisfaction of both parties, for which the German Foreign Minister was ready to arrive in Moscow in the very near future. Although the statement did not openly talk about resolving territorial issues, they were meant. This aspect of Soviet-German relations, along with the non-aggression pact and increased trade with Germany, interested the Soviet government to the greatest extent.

The situation for the Soviet government was very difficult. It began a risky political game. Negotiations with England and France were still ongoing, but reached a dead end. Germany, on the contrary, made concessions to the USSR, expressed its readiness to take into account its state interests, it even promised to influence Japan in order to normalize Soviet-Japanese relations, which was beneficial for the Soviet Union, since at that time there were fierce battles between the Soviet and Japanese troops on the Khalkhin Gol River. In such a situation, Stalin gave permission for Ribbentrop to come to Moscow.

Soviet-German negotiations were carried out under political time pressure. On the night of August 23-24, 1939, in the presence of Stalin, Molotov and Ribbentrop signed hastily agreed upon Soviet-German documents: the Non-Aggression Treaty, under the terms of which the parties pledged not to interfere in armed conflicts against each other for 10 years from the date of signing the document, and the Secret Protocol, according to which Germany assumed a number of unilateral obligations:

In the event of a German-Polish armed conflict, German troops were not to advance beyond the border of the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers and not to invade Finland, Estonia and Latvia;

The question of maintaining a unified Polish state or its dismemberment had to be resolved in the course of the further development of the political situation in the region;

Germany recognized the USSR's interest in Bessarabia.

The non-aggression treaty was published on August 24, 1939. The top leadership of the USSR did not inform either the party or state bodies about the existence of a secret agreement. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR on August 31, 1939, without discussion, ratified only the text of the Non-Aggression Treaty.

The news of the conclusion of a Soviet-German non-aggression treaty came as a complete surprise not only to the world, but also to the Soviet public. It was difficult to comprehend the revolution that had taken place in relations between the USSR and Germany. After the signing of this treaty, London and Paris completely lost interest in the USSR and began to look for ways to obtain from Germany commitments for the future that were stronger than those that it gave during the Munich Conference. Documents show that the day after the signing of the non-aggression pact with Germany, Stalin, being in extreme uncertainty about Hitler's integrity, tried to persuade England and France to continue the Moscow military negotiations. But there was no response to these proposals.

There are different points of view on the question of the need to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany.

Serious researchers - Soviet, Polish, British, West German and others - admit that on August 19-20, 1939, at the moment Stalin agreed to Ribbentrop's visit to Moscow to finally clarify Germany's intentions, the Soviet Union was left with no choice. The USSR alone could not prevent the war. He failed to find allies in England and France. All that was left was to think about how not to fall into the maelstrom of war, for which the USSR was even less prepared in 1939 than in 1941.

True, there is another point of view on this matter. Some historians believe that Germany in 1939 was also not ready for war with the USSR. This may be true, but at the same time it was impossible not to take into account the very obvious likelihood of Berlin’s deals with other Western powers against the Soviet Union.

Assessing the non-aggression treaty from the standpoint of today, it can be noted that for the USSR it had both positive and negative consequences. Positive:

The Soviet Union avoided a war on two fronts, since the agreement created a crack in Japanese-German relations and deformed the terms of the Anti-Comintern Pact in favor of the USSR;

The line from which the Soviet Union could conduct its initial defense was moved several hundred kilometers away from Leningrad, Minsk and other centers;

The treaty contributed to the deepening of the split of the capitalist world into two warring camps, thwarted the plans of the Western powers to direct aggression to the east, and prevented their unification against the USSR. Western powers began to be forced to reckon with the Soviet Union as a military and political power that had the right to outline its interests on the political map of the world.

Negative:

The treaty undermined the morale of the Soviet people, the combat effectiveness of the army, lulled the vigilance of the military-political leadership of the USSR, disoriented the democratic, peace-loving forces, and, therefore, became one of the reasons for the failures of the Soviet side in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War;

The treaty provided fertile ground for accusations against the Soviet Union by Western powers of supporting the aggressor and starting a war;

For a long time, it was considered a positive result of the conclusion of the Non-Aggression Treaty that the USSR received about two years to prepare for war and strengthen its defense capability. However, this time was used less effectively by the Soviet Union than by Germany, which increased its military potential to a greater extent in 22 months. If at the beginning of 1939 the military-political leadership of Germany assessed the Red Army as a very strong enemy, a clash with which was undesirable, then at the beginning of 1941 they already noted the weakness of the USSR Armed Forces, especially their command staff.

The legal, political and historical assessment of the Secret Protocol attached to this agreement may, in our opinion, be more unambiguous and categorical. This protocol can be considered as a great power request for “territorial and political reorganization” in the region, which, from a legal point of view, was in conflict with the sovereignty and independence of a number of states. It did not comply with the treaties that the USSR had previously concluded with these countries, with our obligations to respect their sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability in all circumstances. This protocol completely contradicted the official assurances about the abolition of secret diplomacy that the leadership of the USSR made to the world community, was a revision of the strategic course towards collective security and actually authorized an armed invasion of Poland.

Having freed its hands by signing a non-aggression pact and secret protocols, Germany attacked Poland on September 1, 1939.

England and France declared war on Germany, but did not provide effective military assistance to Poland and it was defeated.

The USSR and the USA declared their neutrality in the war.

On September 17, 1939, units of the Red Army entered the territory of Western Ukraine and Belarus, which was provided for by the provisions of the secret protocol.

So, the Second World War began.

At this time (end of September 1939), the leadership of the USSR, led by Stalin and Molotov, overstepped the bounds of reason in relations with Germany. On August 28, 1934, in Moscow, Molotov and Ribbentrop signed the Treaty of Friendship and Borders with the annex of several secret protocols, which, like the previous secret protocol, were not ratified. According to these documents, the spheres of influence of the USSR and Germany changed, the borders of countries in Poland were determined, the parties agreed on economic cooperation and the prevention of agitation directed against the other side. The territory of the Lithuanian state was recognized as a sphere of interests of the USSR, provided that the existing economic agreements between Germany and Lithuania would not be affected by the activities of the Government of the Soviet Union in this region. At the same time, the Lublin and Warsaw voivodeships were transferred to the German sphere of influence with appropriate amendments to the demarcation line. In one of the protocols, each side pledged to prevent “Polish propaganda” directed at the region of the other country.

At the same negotiations, Molotov made a statement in which he substantiated the idea that the fight against fascism was unnecessary and that an ideological agreement with Germany was possible. Together with Ribbentrop, he signed a note in which all responsibility for starting the war was shifted to England and France and stipulated that, if these countries continued to participate in the war, the USSR and Germany would consult on military issues.

The assessment of these agreements, in our opinion, should be unambiguous. If the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty in the minds of the Soviet people was justified by the need to avoid participation in the war, then the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Borders between the USSR and Germany was completely unnatural. This document was signed after the occupation of Poland and, consequently, was an agreement concluded with a country that committed an overt act of aggression. He questioned, if not undermined, the status of the USSR as a neutral party and pushed our country into unprincipled cooperation with Nazi Germany.

In our opinion, there was no need for this agreement at all. The change in the boundary of division of interests, recorded in the secret additional protocol, could have been formalized in a completely different way. However, motivated by the strengthening of personal power, Stalin went to great political and moral expense at the end of September in order to secure, as he believed, Hitler in a position of mutual understanding, but not with the USSR, but with him personally. It should be recognized that Stalin’s desire for parallel actions with Germany, which had been established since the end of September, expanded the freedom of maneuver of the Nazi leadership, including in carrying out a number of military operations.

Thus, in modern historical science, the Treaty of Friendship and Borders of September 28, 1939 is assessed sharply negatively. The conclusion of this agreement should be considered a mistake by the then leadership of the USSR. The treaty and everything that followed it in the media and in practical politics disarmed the Soviet people spiritually, contradicted the will of the people, Soviet and international legislation, and undermined the international authority of the USSR.

Summing up the story about the Soviet-German treaties of August 23 and September 28, 1939, it should be noted that according to the conclusions of the Commission of the Congress of People's Deputies, the Non-Aggression Treaty and the Treaty of Friendship and Borders lost their force at the time of the German attack on the USSR, and the secret protocols , as signed in violation of existing Soviet legislation and international law, are not valid from the moment of signing.

After the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation and the secret protocols, the Soviet Union began to steadily implement all their provisions. In addition to the moral damage caused to the Soviet people by the terms of these documents, the practical activities of the Soviet leadership caused great damage to the country. For example, discontent among anti-fascists living in the USSR was caused by individual unfriendly actions of the government towards some of them. Thus, in the fall of 1939, orphanage No. 6, previously created specifically for the children of German political emigrants, was closed in Moscow. At the beginning of 1940, several groups of German and Austrian anti-fascists who were repressed in the 30s and were under investigation or imprisoned were transferred to the German authorities. In most cases, this was done against the will of those being transferred. In addition, there were many cases of repression against Soviet citizens conducting anti-fascist propaganda. After the introduction, under the terms of the last Treaty, of the Red Army into the territory of Western Ukraine and Belarus, Lithuania and Poland, repression began there, the imposition of command and administrative methods of leadership, and the suppression of the national movement in these areas.

From 1939 to 1941, almost until the start of the Great Patriotic War, external rapprochement between Germany and the Soviet Union continued. The USSR, right up to the German attack in 1941, strictly complied with all the terms of the treaties it signed. So he did not participate in the events of 1940 -1941, when Hitler subjugated almost all European states, including France, and defeated the European contingent of British troops. Soviet diplomacy did everything to postpone the war and avoid fighting it on two fronts, in order to allow the USSR to prepare for war. For example, in 1941 the following were signed:

A note with Turkey, in which both sides pledged to remain neutral;

Non-aggression pact with Japan.

However, these measures could not solve the main problem of foreign policy and prevent war.

Topic 15. World War II and the post-war world order

International relations on the eve of the Second World War. Reasons for the instability of the system of international relations. The impact of the global economic crisis of 1929-1933. to intensify rivalry between leading powers. The threat to world stability from fascist states. Foreign policy program of the Nazi Party of Germany. Causes of World War II. Beginning of World War II.

2. USSR on the eve and during the Great Patriotic War

The policy of creating a collective security system. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and secret protocols on the delimitation of spheres of influence. German attack on Poland. Entry of Soviet troops into Western Ukraine and Belarus. War with Finland.

The main stages of the Great Patriotic War. Plan "Barbarossa". Failures of the Red Army in the initial period of the war and their reasons. Restructuring the country's life on a war footing. Defensive battles in the summer and autumn of 1941. The defeat of fascist troops near Moscow was a decisive military-political event in the first year of the war. Order No. 227 of July 28, 1942 “Not a step back.” Defense of Stalingrad. Battles in the Caucasus. A radical turning point in the course of the war and its victorious conclusion. World historical significance and lessons of the Great Patriotic War.

3. International relations after the Second World War. Cold War: confrontation between socialist and capitalist systems

Results of the Second World War. Nuremberg Tribunal. Creation of the UN, its composition, structure and functions. Causes of the Cold War. Fulton speech by W. Churchill. "Iron curtain". "Truman Doctrine". Marshall Plan. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki marks the beginning of the nuclear age. Creation of hostile military-political blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Department. Arms race.

1. The Second World War as a manifestation of the crisis of modern civilization

The birth of fascism. The world on the eve of World War II

Fascism was a reflection and result of the development of the main contradictions of Western civilization. His ideology absorbed (to the point of grotesquery) the ideas of racism and social equality, technocratic and statist concepts. An eclectic interweaving of various ideas and theories resulted in the form of an accessible populist doctrine and demagogic politics. The National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany grew out of the Free Workers' Committee for a Good World, a circle founded in 1915 by workers Anton Drexler. At the beginning of 1919, other National Socialist organizations were created in Germany. In November 1921, a fascist party was created in Italy, numbering 300 thousand members, of which 40% were workers. Recognizing this political force, the King of Italy instructed the leader of this party in 1922 Benito Mussolini

According to the same scenario, the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933. Party leader Adolf Hitler(1889-1945) receives the position of Reich Chancellor from the hands of the President of Germany Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934).

From the first steps, the fascists established themselves as irreconcilable anti-communists, anti-Semites, good organizers capable of reaching all segments of the population, and revanchists. Their activities could hardly have been so rapidly successful without the support of the revanchist monopolistic circles of their countries. The existence of their direct connections with the fascists is beyond doubt, if only because the leaders of the criminal regime and the largest economic magnates of fascist Germany (G. Schacht, G. Krupp) were nearby in the dock at Nuremberg in 1945. It can be argued that the financial resources of the monopolies contributed to the fascisation of countries, the strengthening of fascism, designed not only to destroy the communist regime in the USSR (anti-communist idea), inferior peoples (the idea of racism), but also to redraw the world map, destroying the Versailles system of the post-war system (revanchist idea).

The phenomenon of fascisation in a number of European countries demonstrated even more clearly the critical state of the entire Western civilization. Essentially, this political and ideological movement represented an alternative to its foundations by curtailing democracy, market relations and replacing them with the politics of statism, building a society of social equality for selected peoples, cultivating collectivist forms of life, inhumane attitude towards non-Aryans, etc. True, fascism did not imply complete destruction of Western civilization. Perhaps this to a certain extent explains the relatively loyal attitude of the ruling circles of democratic countries to this formidable phenomenon for a long time. In addition, fascism can be classified as one of the varieties of totalitarianism. Western political scientists have proposed a definition of totalitarianism based on several criteria, which have received recognition and further development in political science. Totalitarianism characterized by: 1) the presence of an official ideology covering the most vital spheres of human life and society and supported by the overwhelming majority of citizens. This ideology is based on rejection of the previously existing order and pursues the task of uniting society to create a new way of life, not excluding the use of violent methods; 2) the dominance of a mass party, built on a strictly hierarchical principle of management, usually with a leader at its head. Party - performing the functions of control over the bureaucratic state apparatus or dissolving in it; 3) the presence of a developed system of police control that permeates all public aspects of the country’s life; 4) almost complete party control over the media; 5) complete control of the party over the security forces, primarily the army; 6) the leadership of the central government in the economic life of the country.

A similar characteristic of totalitarianism is applicable both to the regime that developed in Germany, Italy and other fascist countries, and in many ways to the Stalinist regime that developed in the 30s in the USSR. It is also possible that such similarity of the various faces of totalitarianism made it difficult for politicians who were at the head of democratic countries to understand the danger posed by this monstrous phenomenon in that dramatic period of modern history.

Already in 1935, Germany refused to implement the military articles of the Versailles Treaty, which was followed by the occupation of the Rhineland demilitarized zone, withdrawal from the League of Nations, Italian assistance in the occupation of Ethiopia (1935-1936), intervention in Spain (1936-1939), Anschluss (or annexation) of Austria (1938), dismemberment of Czechoslovakia (1938-1939) in accordance with the Munich Agreement, etc. Finally, in April 1939, Germany unilaterally terminated the Anglo-German naval agreement and the non-aggression pact with Poland, and thus a casus arose belli (cause for war).

World War II

Foreign policies of countries before the war. The Versailles system finally fell before the outbreak of World War II, for which Germany was quite thoroughly prepared. Thus, from 1934 to 1939, military production in the country increased 22 times, the number of troops increased 35 times, Germany became second in the world in terms of industrial production, etc.

Currently, researchers do not have a common view on the geopolitical state of the world on the eve of World War II. Some historians (Marxists) continue to insist on a two-polise characterization. In their opinion, there were two socio-political systems in the world (socialism and capitalism), and within the framework of the capitalist system of world relations, there were two centers of a future war (Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia). A significant part of historians believe that on the eve of the Second During the World War, there were three political systems: bourgeois-democratic, socialist and fascist-militarist. The interaction of these systems, the balance of power between them could ensure peace or disrupt it. A possible bloc of bourgeois-democratic and socialist systems was a real alternative to World War II. However, the peace alliance did not work out. The bourgeois-democratic countries did not agree to create a bloc before the start of the war, because their leadership continued to view Soviet totalitarianism as the greatest threat to the foundations of civilization (the result of revolutionary changes in the USSR, including the 30s) than its fascist antipode, which openly proclaimed a crusade against communism. The USSR's attempt to create a system of collective security in Europe ended with the signing of treaties with France and Czechoslovakia (1935). But these treaties were not put into effect during the period of Germany’s occupation of Czechoslovakia due to the counteracting “policy of appeasement” pursued at that time by most European countries towards Germany.

Germany, in October 1936, formalized a military-political alliance with Italy (“Berlin-Rome Axis”), and a month later the Anti-Comintern Pact was signed between Japan and Germany, to which Italy joined a year later (November 6, 1937). The creation of a revanchist alliance forced the countries of the bourgeois-democratic camp to become more active. However, only in March 1939 did England and France begin negotiations with the USSR on joint actions against Germany. But the agreement was never signed. Despite the polarity of interpretations of the reasons for the failed union of anti-fascist states, some of which shift the blame for the unbridled aggressor onto capitalist countries, others attribute it to the policies of the leadership of the USSR, etc., one thing is obvious - the skillful use by fascist politicians of contradictions between anti-fascist countries, which led to grave consequences for the whole world.

Beginning of World War II. The immediate pretext for the attack on Poland was a fairly open provocation of Germany on their common border (Gliwice), after which on September 1, 1939, 57 German divisions (1.5 million people), about 2,500 tanks, 2,000 aircraft invaded Polish territory . The Second World War began.

England and France declared war on Germany on September 3, without, however, providing real assistance to Poland. From September 3 to 10, Australia, New Zealand, India, and Canada entered the war against Germany; The United States declared neutrality, Japan declared non-intervention in the European War.

The first stage of the war. Thus, World War II began as a war between the bourgeois-democratic and fascist-militarist blocs. The first stage of the war dates from September 1, 1939 - June 21, 1941, at the beginning of which the German army occupied part of Poland until September 17, reaching the line (the cities of Lviv, Vladimir-Volynsky, Brest-Litovsk), designated by one of the mentioned secret protocols Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Until May 10, 1940, England and France conducted virtually no military operations with the enemy, so this period was called the “Phantom War.” Germany took advantage of the passivity of the Allies, expanding its aggression, occupying Denmark and Norway in April 1940 and going on the offensive from the shores of the North Sea to the Maginot Line on May 10 of the same year. During May, the governments of Luxembourg, Belgium, and Holland capitulated. And already on June 22, 1940, France was forced to sign an armistice with Germany in Compiegne. As a result of the actual surrender of France, a collaborationist state was created in its south, led by Marshal A. Pétain(1856-1951) and the administrative center in Vichy (the so-called “Vichy regime”). France's resistance was led by a general Charles de Gaulle ( 1890-1970).

On May 10, changes occurred in the leadership of Great Britain, and the head of the country's War Cabinet was appointed Winston Churchill(1874-1965), whose anti-German, anti-fascist and, of course, anti-Soviet sentiments were well known. The period of the “strange warrior” is over.

From August 1940 to May 1941, the German command organized systematic air raids on English cities, trying to force its leadership to withdraw from the war. As a result, during this time, about 190 thousand high-explosive and incendiary bombs were dropped on England, and by June 1941, a third of the tonnage of its merchant fleet was sunk at sea. Germany also intensified its pressure on the countries of South-Eastern Europe. The accession of the Bulgarian pro-fascist government to the Berlin Pact (an agreement between Germany, Italy and Japan of September 27, 1940) ensured the success of the aggression against Greece and Yugoslavia in April 1941.

Italy in 1940 developed military operations in Africa, attacking the colonial possessions of England and France (East Africa, Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia). However, in December 1940, the British forced the Italian troops to surrender. Germany rushed to the aid of its ally.

The policy of the USSR at the first stage of the war did not receive a single assessment. A significant part of Russian and foreign researchers are inclined to interpret it as complicit in relation to Germany, which is supported by the agreement between the USSR and Germany within the framework of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as well as fairly close military-political and trade cooperation between the two countries until the start of Germany’s aggression against the USSR. In our opinion, in such an assessment, a more strategic approach at the pan-European, global level prevails. At the same time, a point of view that draws attention to the benefits received by the USSR from cooperation with Germany at the first stage of World War II somewhat corrects this unambiguous assessment, allowing us to talk about a certain strengthening of the USSR within the framework of the time it gained to prepare to repel the inevitable aggression, which ultimately ensured the subsequent Great Victory over fascism of the entire anti-fascist camp.

The scale of the war and its causes. The Second World War was the largest military conflict in human history. Military operations took place on the territory of 40 countries in Europe, Asia and Africa, covering vast areas of four oceans and adjacent seas. 61 states with a population of 1 billion were drawn into the orbit of war. 700 million people, that is, 4/5 of the world's population. It was put under arms 110 million people The Second World War lasted six years, accompanied by the death of masses of people and numerous destructions.

Based on its deep origins, the Second World War should be considered as a surge in the global crisis of the system of international relations of the first half of the 20th century. The results of the First World War, embodied V Versailles-Washington system (1919-1922), as well as the victory of the Bolsheviks in Russia did not allow the restoration of a stable balance of power in the international arena. The world has split into a socialist one And capitalist camp, and the latter - to the triumphant victorious powers And humiliated losing countries. At these are the two largest And rapidly recovering economic powers: USSR And Germany - were placed, as it were, outside the system of civilized states, in the position of international “pariahs”. Formed V Their totalitarian regimes were united by their rejection of universal human values and “bourgeois democracies” And The Versailles-Washington system, the desire for social (and national - in Germany) messianism. “Genetically” they were united by the fact that the global crisis in the sphere of international relations was an important prerequisite for the victory of the Bolshevik and fascist regimes, A in many ways - and the condition of their existence.

The difference between them was, in particular, that the victory of the Bolsheviks was directly promoted by the First World War, and the fascists - by its results and the growing influence of the communists. The formation of a totalitarian regime in Germany took only three years, compared to two decades in the Soviet Union. Having quickly solved their internal political problems, the Nazis relied on external expansion. As a means of implementing their ideological doctrine, which was based on the thesis of the racial superiority of the “Aryans” over other peoples, as well as a way to solve internal socio-economic problems, A. Hitler openly proclaimed war. Already in 1933, Germany withdrew from the League of Nations, in 1935 it introduced universal conscription and broke its obligations under the Treaty of Versailles, returning (through a plebiscite) the Saar region. In 1936, German troops entered the demilitarized Rhineland, and in 1938 the Anschluss of Austria was carried out. Fascist Italy in 1935-1936. captured Ethiopia, and in 1936-1939. carried out armed intervention together with Germany in the civil war in Spain, where for the first time they were opposed not only by the left-democratic world community, but also by the USSR.

The situation in Asia has also worsened. In 1931-1932 Japan annexed Manchuria, and in 1937 began a large-scale war against China and captured Beijing, Shanghai and other important centers of the country. Thus, in the interwar period, up to 70 regional wars and local armed conflicts occurred.

The growth of international instability was facilitated by the weakness of the forces interested in preserving the Versailles-Washington system. The traditional Russian-French alliance that held Germany back disappeared after 1917, and isolationist sentiments prevailed in the United States. The Versailles system relied mainly only on France and England. However, the desire of these countries to maintain the status quo in Europe was negated both by the contradictions that existed between them and by the unwillingness of their ruling elites to take active action to suppress the aggressors. The passive wait-and-see position of England and France was explained not only by the relative instability of their internal situation, but, above all, by the desire to use Germany against the Bolshevik threat. That is why they pursued a policy of “appeasement,” which actually encouraged Hitler’s aggressive actions. The apogee of this policy was the Munich Agreement (September 1938), which authorized the transfer to Germany of the most important industrially and militarily Sudetenland, thereby leaving Czechoslovakia practically defenseless.

Munich was the biggest strategic miscalculation of Western democracy, opening the way for the armed expansion of fascism and hastening the start of the “great war” in Europe. In March 1939, German troops occupied the Czech Republic and Moravia (a puppet state was created in Slovakia), and then the Lithuanian port of Klaipeda (Memel). In April, Italy captured Albania. In Spain, the civil war ended with the victory of Franco's fascist regime. The German army quickly grew and strengthened. Hitler could equip up to 40 of his divisions with weapons captured in Czechoslovakia, and the Skoda factories produced the same amount of weapons as the whole of Great Britain. The balance of power in Europe was rapidly changing.

In response, England and France were forced to speed up their military programs, agree on mutual assistance and provide guarantees to some European countries against possible aggression. There was a smell of war in the air, but a significant part of the ruling elites of England and France still did not lose hope of directing Hitler’s aspirations to the East and, after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, expected a German-Soviet conflict.

Meanwhile, Germany was not yet ready for a big war with the USSR, and Hitler chose the Western option. The Nazi expansion strategy provided that after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Poland would be captured by the fall of 1939, and in 1940-1941. it will be France's turn, and then England's. The ultimate goal was proclaimed to be the “unification” of Europe and the establishment of fascist domination on the American continent. Since fascist Italy and militaristic Japan also had their own aggressive plans, an alliance of aggressors formed between these two countries and Germany. Back in October 1936, an Italian-German cooperation protocol was signed, called the “Berlin-Rome Axis.” In November of the same year, Germany and Japan concluded the Anti-Comintern Pact. A year later Italy joined him. The Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis emerged. The aggressive bloc was created with the aim of preparing and unleashing a war for the redivision of the world.

Responsibility for the short-sighted policy of “appeasement” lay primarily with the governments of England and France. But not only them. The general underestimation of the fascist threat (January 2, 1939, the American magazine “Time” declared Hitler “man of the year”), and the not unreasonable (in the future) fear of communist expansion, and, finally, the well-known “national egoism” had an impact » leading European nations. A public opinion poll conducted in October 1938 in France showed that 57% of respondents approved of the Munich Agreements, and only 37% opposed them.

Dramatic changes also occurred in the foreign policy of the USSR. In the spring of 1939, the Soviet leadership made a sharp change in its foreign policy strategy, choosing a course towards rapprochement with Berlin. On August 23, after three hours of negotiations in Moscow, the so-called “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact” was signed. Attached to the non-aggression pact was a secret protocol that provided for “the delimitation of spheres of mutual interests in Eastern Europe.”

These documents radically changed not only Soviet foreign policy, but also the situation in Europe as a whole. Now the Stalinist leadership has become an ally of Germany in the division of Europe. Thus, the last obstacle to starting a new global war for the redivision of the world was removed.

The nature of the fighting. The Second World War differed from the first in the very nature of military operations. If the first was predominantly a positional war, in which defense was stronger than attack, then during the second, the use of tanks, aircraft, motorization of armies and increased firepower made it possible to break through the enemy’s defenses. The war has become more maneuverable, and combat operations have become more dynamic, and their geographic scope has increased.

For countries - fascist states that took the path of aggression, the Second World War was an aggressive one. The expansionist policies of these countries led to the elimination of democratic order in the occupied territories and the emergence of racial and national oppression. Therefore, all those peoples who fought against the aggressors fought a just war of liberation, regardless of what the motives of this fight were for each of its participants. It should be borne in mind that among the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition there was also a totalitarian state - the USSR. For the Soviet people, the anti-fascist war did not become a movement towards democracy; rather, on the contrary, the war contributed to the strengthening of totalitarianism. But this in no way diminishes the role that the peoples of the USSR played in the war, nor does it diminish their contribution to the defeat of fascism.

Periodization war. Chronologically, the Second World War can be divided into three large periods. The first period lasted from September 1, 1939 to June 1942. It was characterized by the expanding scale of the war while maintaining the superiority of the aggressor forces. The second period lasted from June 1942 to January 1944 - this was the turning point in the war, during which the initiative and superiority in forces gradually fell into the hands of the anti-Hitler coalition. Third - from January 1944 until September 2, 1945 - the final stage of the war, during which the superiority of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition was consolidated, their armies managed to defeat the enemy, and the crisis of the regimes of the aggressor states developed into their collapse.

There is a point of view in historical literature according to which the war for the Soviet Union began long before the German attack. Its supporters believe that the annexation of the Baltic states, the war of conquest with Finland, the annexation of Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and Bessarabia can also be designated as episodes of the Second World War, which means that this was the direct participation of the USSR in the world conflict. These researchers raise the question of the legitimacy of the periodization of the events of 1939 - 1945. to the “Second World War” “Great Patriotic War”. In their opinion, everything that the Soviet leadership did in 1939 - 1945. - this is the nurturing and implementation of aggressive plans for “historical” revenge, called, in accordance with the ideology of that time, the “expansion” of socialism. Only after June 22, 1941, the nature of the war for the Soviet Union changed - it became a people's war, a liberation war. Despite this, the USSR's participation in World War II continued. As a result, the Soviet political elite actually managed to expand its sphere of influence, extending it to some areas of Central and Eastern Europe.

WORLD ECONOMIC CRISIS 1929-1933. HITLER'S COMING TO POWER AND THE BEGINNING OF FASCIST AGGRESSION

One of the essential features of the functioning of a market economy is cyclic repeatability economic phenomena. In this case we are talking about cyclical crises, accompanying the history of capitalism since the beginning of the 19th century. up to the present time. Today, economists have a sufficient amount of material to answer the question about the nature of this terrible phenomenon and what seems most significant - to develop recommendations for its prevention.

Formation of state- monopoly capitalism

The rapid development of production under the influence of scientific and technological revolution at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. strengthened the process of its concentration and centralization, the process of formation of monopolistic associations. The merging of industrial and banking capital led to the formation of the largest financial groups that occupied key positions in the main sectors of economic life. Almighty corporations were not slow to interfere in the domestic and foreign policies of their states, bringing them under their control. The folding process has begun state monopoly capitalism, which acquired special significance during the First and Second World Wars.

Monopolies, as the most powerful economic entities, in the pursuit of profit, increasingly influenced the sphere of pricing. This led not only to the emergence of serious imbalances within the national economies of individual countries, but also intensified international economic contradictions. Thus, the economic crises of the 20th century. are associated mainly not with hypothetical failures in the sphere of commodity and monetary circulation, but with the selfish policies of monopolies. This is what determined the peculiarities of the course of crises, their cyclical nature, scale, depth, length and consequences. So, in the first half of the 20th century. crises are becoming more frequent compared to the previous period, while the stages of recovery and growth are shorter. Before the First World War, two significant crises were noted: the already mentioned crisis of 1900-1901, the crisis of 1907, and the pre-crisis state of 1913-1914. During the interwar period, there were three major crises of general overproduction: 1920-1921, 1929-1933, 1937-1938. Moreover, at the stages of economic boom in the 20-30s. In most countries, unemployment and inflation persisted, becoming permanent and chronic, which had not been observed before.

Economic crisis 1929-1933 The most protracted, deep and all-encompassing crisis was the 1929-

1933, from which the USA and Germany suffered the most. Thus, industrial production in the USA decreased over these years by 46.2%, in Germany - by 40.2%, in France - by 30.9%, in England - by 16.2%. The crisis gripped all countries of the world, and the decline in production in less developed countries was often deeper than that of the four economic leaders. For example, the industrial production index in Czechoslovakia decreased by 40%, in Poland - by 45%, in Yugoslavia - by 50%, etc. Unemployment has reached unprecedented levels. Thus, according to official data alone, in 32 countries the number of unemployed during the three years of the crisis (1929-1932) increased from 5.9 million to 26.4 million, there was a massive ruin of farmers, etc.

The fight against the crisis, the search for new methods and forms of countering it, determined the general policy line of the governments of all countries. At first, anti-crisis policy was guided by a well-known liberal approach. However, it soon became obvious that the doctrine of state “non-interference” in economic life, based on the concept of market self-regulation, is unsuitable in modern conditions.

Exit options crisis

IN In connection with this, since the beginning of the 30s, the activity of the state in the economic and social spheres has noticeably increased,

The tendency towards the development of state-monopoly capitalism is clearly visible. However, in various countries, the degree of state intervention was determined by the characteristics of their historical development, the level and specificity of socio-economic and political relations. Nevertheless, we can conditionally identify three main directions, three options within which this phenomenon developed. Its most striking expression is one of them ( liberal-reformist) received in the anti-crisis policy of the “new course” of President F. Roosevelt in the USA; second (social reformist) - typical for Scandinavian countries, France; third (totalitarian) The option of state regulation was most fully used in Germany.

American version relied heavily on the traditions of liberal economic doctrine, and therefore the emphasis was on indirect methods of influencing the economic and social spheres of life. The banking and financial reforms carried out by Roosevelt served as the starting point for subsequent transformations. With the help of strong fiscal and monetary policies, the government carried out major investment activities aimed at achieving optimal rates of economic growth; eliminated social tensions by financing programs to help the unemployed, organizing public works, etc. The policy of public financing was supplemented by a complex of legal acts, skillful regulation of the tax system, protectionist measures, etc.

Despite the fact that the results of this direction were not felt immediately, but only after a fairly long period of time, it turned out to be very acceptable in the foreseeable future. Thus, by the beginning of World War II, the United States had almost completely recovered from the consequences of the crisis, as had Great Britain and a number of countries that had applied the “New Deal” policy. It should be noted that this direction was chosen by countries with a higher level of economic development and strong democratic traditions.

Social reformist direction was characterized by a combination of strengthening the regulatory role of the state and the “socialization” of the economy, i.e. the transition of individual enterprises and sectors of the economy to the state. Thus, in the 1930s in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway the public sector of the economy grew significantly. The social democratic governments of these countries brought foreign trade and the export of capital under state control, eased the conditions for lending to production by reducing interest rates, financed capital construction, agricultural production, etc. These measures were supported by an equally strong social policy, which provided for a significant improvement in pensions , the creation of a state insurance system, the publication of laws on the protection of motherhood and childhood, the development of labor legislation, and finally, state financing of housing construction.

Similar trends in government regulation appeared in France and Spain after left-wing anti-fascist forces came to power in them.

This direction was typical for countries where, for various reasons, the bourgeoisie did not have wide opportunities for socio-economic maneuvering and at the same time the positions of left parties were strong. It should be noted that this option also did not lead to immediate positive results. Moreover, not in all countries reformers managed to maintain an optimal balance in activities, i.e. meet the needs of various social groups of citizens in conditions of severe crisis. This created instability in the domestic political situation, deprived the reforms of consistency, and sometimes even interrupted them, as happened in Spain and France with the victory of right-wing forces. Nevertheless, the direction of state-monopoly capitalism turned out to be very promising, because today we have the phenomenon of “Swedish socialism” in the prosperous countries of Scandinavia.

Finally, a different picture was observed in countries that used totalitarian direction like Germany.

Fascism was a reflection and result of the development of the main contradictions of Western civilization. His ideology absorbed (to the point of grotesquery) the ideas of racism and social equality, technocratic and statist concepts. An eclectic interweaving of various ideas and theories resulted in the form of an accessible populist doctrine and demagogic politics. The National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany grew out of the Free Workers' Committee for a Good World, a circle founded in 1915 by workers Anton Drexler. IN At the beginning of 1919, other National Socialist organizations were created in Germany. In November 1921, a fascist party was created in Italy, numbering 300 thousand members, of which 40% were workers. Recognizing this political force, the King of Italy instructed the leader of this party in 1922 Benito Mussolini(1883-1945) form a cabinet of ministers, which from 1925 becomes fascist.

According to the same scenario, the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933. Party leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

receives the position of Reich Chancellor from the hands of the President of Germany Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934).

the phenomenon of fascisation in a number of European countries even more clearly demonstrated the critical state of the entire Western civilization. Essentially, this political and ideological movement represented an alternative to its foundations by curtailing democracy, market relations and replacing them with the politics of statism, building a society of social equality for selected peoples, cultivating collectivist forms of life, inhumane attitude towards non-Aryans, etc. True, fascism did not imply complete destruction of Western civilization. Perhaps this, to a certain extent, explains the relatively loyal attitude of the ruling circles of democratic countries towards this formidable phenomenon for a long time. In addition, fascism can be classified as one of the varieties of totalitarianism. Western political scientists have proposed a definition of totalitarianism based on several criteria, which have received recognition and further development in political science. Totalitarianism characterized by:

1) the presence of an official ideology that covers the most vital spheres of human life and society and is supported by the overwhelming majority of citizens. This ideology is based on rejection of the previously existing order and pursues the task of uniting society to create a new way of life, not excluding the use of violent methods;

2) the dominance of a mass party, built on a strictly hierarchical principle of management, usually with a leader at its head. Party - performing the functions of control over the bureaucratic state apparatus or dissolving in it;

3) the presence of a developed system of police control that permeates all public aspects of the country’s life;

4) almost complete party control over the media;

5) complete control of the party over the security forces, primarily the army;

6) the leadership of the central government in the economic life of the country.

Already in 1935, Germany refused to implement the military articles of the Versailles Treaty, which was followed by the occupation of the Rhineland demilitarized zone, withdrawal from the League of Nations, Italian assistance in the occupation of Ethiopia (1935-1936), intervention in Spain (1936-1939), the Anschluss (or annexation) of Austria (1938), dismemberment of Czechoslovakia (1938-1939) in accordance with the Munich Agreement, etc. Finally, in April 1939, Germany unilaterally terminated the Anglo-German naval agreement and the non-aggression pact with Poland, and thus a casus arose belli (cause for war).

It should be noted first of all that the liberal-reformist and social-reformist models were based on a system of market relations, and the totalitarian one essentially eliminated them as much as possible. This fundamentally different economic mechanism, characterized by over-centralization, took shape in the 30s and 40s. also in Italy, Japan, Spain (after the victory of General Franco(1892-1975) and some other countries. All of them tried to solve not so much the problem of overcoming the crisis, but rather pursued the longer-term goal of the armed redivision of the world. More precisely, the ultimate task of redividing the world determined the path and methods of overcoming the crisis.

The main feature of anti-crisis policy thus becomes the total militarization of the national economy. For this purpose, fascist states widely used direct methods of intervention, along with indirect ones. Moreover, the latter, as a rule, as government intervention develops,

became dominant. Suffice it to say that in these countries there is a constant increase in the public sector in the economy. In addition to the enterprises of the military industry itself, the nationalization of raw materials industries, the fuel and energy base, transport, etc. took place. Along with this, forced cartelization was carried out (the entry of individual enterprises into large monopoly associations closely associated with the state). On this basis, the share of state orders constantly increased, and elements of directive economic planning developed.

As a result of this policy, within a year unemployment disappeared in Germany, from which countries that had chosen other models of state-monopoly capitalism continued to suffer. Economic growth rates, especially in heavy industries, have risen sharply. This model gave an immediate positive effect, distinguishing it from other models. It should also be noted that after the end of the crisis of 1929-1933. Most countries, with the exception of Germany and Japan, were in a state of fairly prolonged depression, feeling the impact of recurrent crisis phenomena.

And yet, despite the excellent indicators of economic growth, Germany stood on the brink of an economic disaster: we should not forget that the basis of its prosperity was an artificially promoted military situation, the collapse of the market based on the forced over-centralization of the national economy. The continuation of the policy of militarization of the national economy not only did not solve the problem of restoring optimal economic proportions, expanding the domestic and foreign markets, improving the financial system, harmonizing social relations, etc., but, on the contrary, drove these problems into a dead end. Only the unleashing of external aggression could postpone the inevitable economic catastrophe. Therefore, already from 1935, Germany and other fascist countries were increasingly drawn into military conflicts and ultimately began the largest-scale Second World War in the history of mankind.

The militarization of fascist countries caused an intensification of the arms race in the world. In this regard, in countries such as the USA, England, France and others, before the war a tendency towards strengthening state-monopoly capitalism appeared. However, this did not change their economic mechanism according to the totalitarian model.

During the Second World War, as already noted, there was a rapid development of state-monopoly capitalism, and state intervention in economic life increased noticeably. However, with its completion, a reverse process was observed, which indicates the extraordinary nature of this phenomenon. This can be confirmed by the refusal of a number of countries to use state-monopoly capitalism with a centralized economic mechanism and their return to a market system. Its effectiveness was confirmed by the presence of fairly long periods of rapid economic growth in these countries, which were called the German, Japanese, and Italian “economic miracle.”

Introduction

The Second World War was the largest military conflict in human history. More than 60 states with a population of 1.7 billion people took part in it. Military operations took place on the territory of 40 countries. The total number of fighting armies was more than 110 million people, military expenditures were more than 1384 billion dollars. The scale of human loss and destruction was unprecedented. More than 60 million people died in the war, including 12 million in death camps: the USSR lost more than 26 million, Germany - approx. 6 million, Poland - 5.8 million, Japan - approx. 2 million, Yugoslavia - approx. 1.6 million, Hungary - 600 thousand, France - 570 thousand, Romania - approx. 460 thousand, Italy - approx. 450 thousand, Hungary - approx. 430 thousand, USA, UK and Greece - 400 thousand each, Belgium - 88 thousand, Canada - 40 thousand. Material damage is estimated at 2600 billion dollars. The terrible consequences of the war strengthened the global tendency to unite in order to prevent new military conflicts, the need to create a more effective system of collective security than the League of Nations. Its expression was the establishment of the United Nations in April 1945. The question of the origin of the Second World War is the subject of acute historical struggle, since it is the question of guilt in the most serious crime against humanity. There are several points of view on this issue. Soviet science on the question of the causes of World War II gave an unequivocal answer that the culprit was the militaristic Axis countries with the support of other capitalist countries. Western historical science accuses countries of inciting war: Germany, Italy, Japan. Modern researchers of this problem consider the entire range of documents currently available and come to the conclusion that it is wrong to blame only one country.

The situation in the world on the eve of World War II

In the two decades after the First World War, acute economic, socio-political and national problems have accumulated in the world, especially in Europe.

As in the 19th century, one of the main geopolitical problems of Europe was the objective desire of a significant part of the Germans, who historically lived in addition to Germany: in Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, to unite in a single national state. In addition, Germany, which experienced national humiliation after its defeat in the First World War, according to many German politicians, sought to regain its lost position as a world power. Thus, particularly favorable conditions were created for a new wave of growth in German expansionism.

The rivalry between other powers and their desire to redistribute spheres of influence in the world also persisted. World economic crises of the 20-30s. accelerated the growth of military-political confrontation in the world. Realizing this, many politicians and statesmen in Europe, America and Asia sincerely sought to prevent or at least delay the war. In the 30s, negotiations were held on the creation of a collective security system, agreements on mutual assistance and non-aggression were concluded. And at the same time, again, two opposing blocs of powers were gradually but steadily emerging in the world. The core of one of them consisted of Germany, Italy and Japan, who openly sought to solve their internal economic, social, political and national problems through territorial seizures and plunder of other countries. The second bloc, which was based on England, France and the United States, supported by large and small countries, adhered to a policy of containment.

From the entire previous history of mankind, it is known that under these conditions, it was historically inevitable and normal in the pre-nuclear era to resolve the conflict of interests of the great powers through war. In this respect, the Second World War differed from the First World War only in the increased scale of military operations and the associated disasters of peoples, and it is often presented as another round or rematch in the struggle of old geopolitical opponents. However, along with the obvious similarities between the first and second world wars, there were significant differences.

Almost all Germans believed that their country had been treated unfairly in 1919. And they expected that when Germany accepted the Fourteen Points and became a democratic republic, the war would be forgotten and there would be mutual recognition of rights. She had to pay reparations; she was forcibly disarmed; It lost part of the territory; in other parts there were Allied troops. Almost all of Germany was eager to get rid of the Treaty of Versailles, and few saw the difference between the annulment of this treaty and the restoration of the dominant role that Germany played in Europe before its defeat. Germany was not alone in feeling resentment. Hungary was also dissatisfied with the peace settlement, although its dissatisfaction meant little. Italy, being seemingly among the victors, emerged from the war almost empty-handed - so, at least, it seemed to her; Italian dictator Mussolini, a former socialist, called it a proletarian country. In the Far East, Japan, also among the victors, looked increasingly disapprovingly at the superiority of the British Empire and the United States. And, in truth, Soviet Russia, although it eventually joined those who defended the status quo, was still dissatisfied with the territorial losses it suffered at the end of the First World War. But the main driving force among the dissatisfied was Germany, and Adolf Hitler became its spokesman from the moment he entered the political arena.

All these grievances and claims were not dangerous in the 20s, during the short period of restoration of the pre-war economic order, with more or less unlimited foreign trade, a stable currency, and private enterprises in the activities of which the state hardly interfered. But this recovery was destroyed by a large-scale economic crisis that broke out in 1929. A catastrophic decline in foreign trade began, mass unemployment - over 2 million unemployed in England, 6 million in Germany and 15 million in the USA. A sharp currency crisis in 1931 - with the abolition of the gold standard - shook the sacred pound sterling. In the face of this storm, countries concentrated their activities within their own national systems; and the more intensely this happened, the more industrialized the country was. In 1931, the German mark ceased to be a freely convertible currency, and the country switched to barter foreign trade. In 1932, Great Britain, which traditionally adhered to the principle of free trade, established protective tariffs and soon extended them to its colonies. In 1933, the newly elected President Roosevelt devalued the dollar and, independently of other countries, began to pursue a policy of economic recovery.

The economic struggle began largely unexpectedly. At first it was a struggle of all against all, then its character changed and the division of the world intensified. Soviet Russia has always been a closed economic system, although this did not protect it from the consequences of the global crisis. Some other great powers, primarily the United States, as well as the British and French empires, could, at worst, make do with internal resources. Germany, Japan and other major industrial powers lost: they could not provide for themselves, they needed imported raw materials, but the crisis deprived them of the opportunity to obtain it in the normal way through foreign trade. Those who ran the economies in these countries undoubtedly felt that their countries were suffocating and that they needed to create their own economic empires. The Japanese chose the simplest route and sent their troops first to Manchuria and then to the coastal regions of China. But Germany, still bound by the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1930s, did not have such an easy way out. She had to fight through economic means; this increased her isolation, the autarky imposed by the will of circumstances.

At first, German leaders were reluctant to fight economically, then Hitler came to power in January 1933. He perceived autarky as a good thing. Subsequently, there was debate about what gave birth to Hitler and the National Socialist movement he led. The country's economic troubles brought Hitler to power, but his fight against the Treaty of Versailles had already created a certain reputation for him. In his opinion, the crisis in Germany was caused by defeat, and those means that will help overcome the crisis will lead Germany to political victory. Autarky will strengthen Germany for political victories, and these in turn will contribute to the further development of autarky.

Here, right up to the Second World War, there was a hidden contradiction. The USA and England regretted the need to wage an economic struggle and considered it a temporary matter. For the Japanese and Germans, economic struggle was a constant factor and the only way to become great powers. This led to paradoxical consequences. Usually the stronger power is more aggressive and restless, because it is convinced that it is able to capture more than it has.

The outbreak of the Second World War was preceded by aggressive actions of Japan, Italy and Germany in various regions of the globe. The countries of the fascist-militarist bloc, united by the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo "axis", embarked on the path of implementing a broad program of conquest. The initiatives of the Soviet Union aimed at creating a system of collective security, for various reasons, did not receive the support of England and France and did not lead to the achievement of a coordinated policy of containing aggression. Having sealed Hitler's dictatorship with their signatures in Munich, Chamberlain and Daladier pronounced the death sentence on Czechoslovakia (September 1938).

In the first years of the so-called peaceful existence, the USSR struggled to establish more or less acceptable diplomatic relations with capitalist countries. Throughout the 20s and 30s, foreign trade was given not only economic but also political importance.

1934 - The USSR joins the League of Nations, where it makes its proposals regarding the creation of a system of collective security and resistance to conquerors, which, however, do not find support. At the beginning of 1934, the Soviet Union came up with a convention on the definition of the attacking party (aggressor), which emphasized that aggression is an invasion of the territory of another country with or without a declaration of war, as well as bombing the territory of other countries, attacks on ships, blockade coasts or ports. The governments of the leading powers reacted coldly to the Soviet project. However, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, and later Finland signed this document in the USSR. In the 30s, the Soviet government actively developed relations with fascist Germany, which grew into active efforts to organize collective resistance to aggressive fascist states. The idea of creating a system of collective security and the practical work of Soviet diplomacy were highly appreciated and recognized by the progressive world community. Joining the League of Nations in 1934, concluding alliance treaties with France and Czechoslovakia in 1935, appeals and specific actions in support of one of the powers subjected to aggression - Ethiopia, diplomatic and other assistance to the legitimate republican government of Spain during the Italian-German intervention, readiness to provide military assistance under the treaty of Czechoslovakia against Nazi Germany in 1938, and finally, a sincere desire to develop joint measures to support aggression on the eve of the Second World War - this is a brief chronicle of the consistent struggle of the Soviet Union for peace and security.

Politics of European countries. Both sides of the close military conflict (Nazi Germany and democratic England and France) needed the support of the USSR. Western countries needed Soviet military assistance; it was important for Germany to neutralize the USSR and gain time. In 1939, the USSR simultaneously conducted negotiations with Western countries and secret agreements with Germany.

The main task of foreign policy The USSR of that period was the creation of a system of collective security against fascism. The USSR's proposals to Western countries in 1939 to conclude agreements on mutual assistance and create a system of collective security in order to prevent war did not meet with support. This was due to the fact that the Stalinist totalitarian regime aroused fears in the West. And the USSR set conditions that were unacceptable to the West regarding the freedom of action of Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

For the USSR it was necessary to delay the inevitable, as it became clear, war.

Germany’s proposals for rapprochement provided a definite solution; Germany turned to the USSR with such proposals, because Hitler was afraid of a war on 2 fronts and considered the USSR a serious adversary.

In August - September 1939, a Soviet-German treaty was signed. It consisted of 3 parts: a non-aggression pact; treaty of friendship, military-political cooperation; secret protocol on delimitation of spheres of influence. It was, as researchers say, an agreement between two leaders. Hitler and Stalin single-handedly decided all issues.

For Hitler, the treaty was needed to capture Poland and restore the 1914 borders of Germany.

For Stalin, the treaty was supposed to limit the advance of German troops to the east in Germany’s war with Poland and annex Western Ukraine, Western Belarus, Bessarabia, etc. The treaty with Germany also removed the Japanese threat. The main goal of this agreement for Stalin was to push the warring imperialist groups together and preserve peace for the Soviet country.

How can evaluate this agreement? For a long time, the agreement was interpreted unilaterally as the correct foreign policy step of the Soviet government. Modern researchers assess this agreement as a political mistake with dire consequences. The best solution to the problems was not chosen.

Consequences of the treaty: From a moral point of view, the treaty caused damage to the USSR in world public opinion. The change in policy towards Nazi Germany seemed unnatural to the world community. And in the Soviet country, people did not understand the changes in relations with Germany.

What did the Soviet country achieve as a result of the agreement? The USSR avoided a war on 2 fronts; Japan's trust in Germany as an ally was undermined and caused independent actions by Japan (neutrality pact with the Soviet Union in April 1941); plans to create an anti-Soviet united front (Germany, France, England) were dealt a blow; the war dragged on for 2 years. It is necessary to note the negative consequences of this agreement. More about this in the lecture.

In 1939-1940 The Soviet-Finnish war occurred. The Soviet Union tried to annex Finland. But they failed to conquer Finland. This war showed how unprepared the USSR was for war. The losses of the Red Army amounted to 130 thousand killed. The Finns lost 29 thousand people.

In 1939-40 Soviet control was established over the Baltic republics.

When we pose the question of could the second world war have been avoided?, then we answer - yes, the war could have been avoided if the countries of Western Europe, together with the USSR, had created a system of collective security against fascism. This was not done. They were unable to overcome ideological prejudices.

World War II started September 1, 1939 and ended September 2, 1945 victory of the anti-fascist coalition. 61 states, 80% of the world's population, took part in the war.

The Great Patriotic War is an integral part of the Second World War. It began on June 22, 1941 and ended on May 9, 1945. It lasted 1,418 days.

Main periods Great Patriotic War. First- June 1941 - November 1942, the period of failures of the Red Army. The main characteristic feature of this period was strategic defense. More than 30 major operations were carried out (Battle of Moscow). Heavy defeats of the Red Army. Failure of the plan for a lightning war. The heroic struggle of the Soviet people.

Second period- November 1942 - end of 1943. A radical turning point in the course of the war. 26 major operations were carried out, 23 of them offensive (Battle of Kursk). The strategic initiative passes to the USSR.

Third period - January 1944 - May 9, 1945 The USSR had a strategic initiative. The territory of the USSR and European countries were liberated. 34 major offensive operations were carried out. Surrender of Germany and its allies in Europe. On June 6, 1944, a second front was opened in Normandy. The USSR's participation in the World War continued during the Soviet-Japanese War (August 9 – September 2, 1945).

Reasons for failure The first stage of the war for the Soviet country was as follows: Germany managed to prepare well for war in 2 years (1939-1941). On the eve of the war, the economic power of Germany and the USSR was approximately equal. But Germany had already made extensive use of the resources of the conquered countries of Europe. The German economy was already war-oriented; mass production of all types of military equipment and weapons had been established. In addition, all the military equipment of the captured countries fell into the hands of Germany.

The situation in the USSR worsened, because he was not ready for war and in the very first months he suffered huge territorial, economic and human losses: in the occupied territories by November 1941, 40% of the population lived, 63% of coal was produced, 68% of cast iron, 58% of steel, etc. .d., 38% - livestock, 41% - the country's railways. Soviet losses not only reduced the economic capabilities of the USSR, but also increased the enemy's resources - material and human. 8 million prisoners of war and civilians were deported to work in Germany. For comparison, 12 million people were evacuated to the east of the country. 1/3 of the number of foreign workers in Germany were Soviet citizens.

The fascist army had 2 years of experience in waging war with the massive use of aircraft, tanks and other military equipment. The Red Army had no such experience.

The Soviet Union did not have time to sufficiently develop military production, and although in 1940 a third of the budget was allocated to national defense, this was clearly not enough, and the quality of military production was low. The military industry has only just mastered the production of new types of aircraft, tanks, and artillery, without establishing mass production.

The rearmament of the army was not completed. Even in the border districts, new tanks accounted for only 18%, new aircraft - 21%. In addition, the new technology was just being mastered by the personnel.

There is also a point of view that in terms of the main types of weapons, the USSR and Germany were equal and there was no great qualitative superiority of German technology.

The main problem was that the military-political leadership was unable to properly manage the available forces of the Red Army. Major political mistakes and miscalculations of a military-strategic nature were made.

It should be noted that there was a miscalculation in determining a possible attack by Nazi Germany; miscalculation in determining the enemy's main attack; incorrect assessment by the Soviet command of the initial period of the war; The general strategy of the war was also incorrectly defined; it was believed that the enemy would be stopped at the border and the Red Army would immediately go on the offensive and beat the enemy on foreign territory. Therefore, the troops were not taught to defend themselves and did not build powerful defensive structures on the new border; the troops of the border districts were not fully equipped, and there was a lack of military equipment.

The unpreparedness of the army led to the fact that in the first 6 months of the war, 3.9 million soldiers were captured (5.7 million during the entire war). All this was caused by a climate of fear and mass repression. Up to 70% of the army command staff were repressed. Before the war, more people died from the repressions of commanders than during the war.

The repression led to a huge turnover of personnel. The level of military education of the new commanders did not meet the requirements of the time. Many officers in the army were afraid to take the initiative and make serious decisions, since in case of failure they could be accused of deliberate sabotage.

Thus, subjective factors played a negative role in the failures of the first period of the war; the main sources of errors and miscalculations lay in the system of power that developed in the 30s in the USSR.

In July 1941, the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was created, headed by I.V. Stalin, the chiefs of the General Staff were G.K. Zhukov (until July 1941), B.M. Shaposhnikov (until May 1942), A.M. Vasilevsky (until February 1945), A.I. Antonov (until March 1946)

It is necessary to imagine the general course of the war, its stages.

It should be noted that even in these difficult years, the authorities systematically deceived the people, information about the true situation at the front was withheld, repressions continued, and the principle of achieving goals at any cost was in effect.

During the Great Patriotic War, spontaneous de-Stalinization and democratization began in society, the self-awareness of the people grew, and initiative from below developed. The people stood up not to defend Stalin’s political regime, but to the Motherland.

In World War II 50 million people died. From 1/3 to 1/2 (according to various estimates) of all losses in the Second World War fell on the USSR - over 25 million. people, of which about half, approximately 12 million, died in battle, and more than 50%, approximately 13 million, died in fascist dungeons, incl. - 4 million prisoners of war. Siberia lost 10% of its population during the war.

Germany lost 13.6 million people in the war; USA - 400 thousand; England - 375 thousand

The Soviet Union won the war. But the victory came at the cost of enormous sacrifices. The country, finding itself in the group of winning countries, was ruined. Western countries soon overcame the consequences of the war in the economy, population, etc. and continued to develop further. The USSR never returned to its pre-war economic trajectory, which negatively affected the post-war development of the country.

The war changed the people, their psychology, way of life, population structure, type of life, style of behavior.

In conditions of war and the front, conditions were created for the manifestation of initiative and independence. Military life formed freedom of thought, freedom to evaluate the actions of the highest party and Soviet leadership. The process of spontaneous de-Stalinization began.

The Soviet Union remained a totalitarian state. This aggravated the tragedy, but did not detract from the greatness of the feat of the Soviet people.

The tragic paradox of history was that the people who went to war with the inhuman, aggressive Nazi regime themselves lived under Stalin’s despotic regime, which brought suffering to millions of people. But the choice that was made by the people in 1941 was not a choice in defense of the Stalinist regime. It was a choice in defense of the independence of the Motherland.