Changes in the balance of power in the international arena. The new alignment of forces in the international arena after the Second World War

and to Russia was not only a triumph of the reunification of the Russian nation. It opens a new era, which means the inevitable geopolitical redistribution of the world. First of all, it concerns Europe. As the philologist and geopolitician Vadim Tsymbursky noted, the world is not completely divided into various civilizations. Between civilizations, that is, between countries that do not doubt their civilizational affiliation, there are peoples who hesitate and cannot determine which civilizational association they should enter.
Now, after Crimea, the fate of the “buffer” states is in question. There are two possible scenarios for them. Or they remain in a loose, neutral, federal-confederal status. Or they are divided into zones belonging to different civilizations - to the one that forms Russia, and the one that creates the Euro-Atlantic. This is the opinion of political scientist and philosopher Boris Mezhuev in Izvestia.
Moreover, the geopolitical redistribution will not be limited to Europe. Next in line are the "buffer" countries of Central Asia - Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. And not only them.
The annexation of Crimea became, in fact, the positioning of Russia as one of the key centers of the multipolar world that is taking shape before our eyes. The Crimean precedent changes the forces of attraction between these centers.
It is no coincidence that in his “Crimean” message, President Vladimir Putin specifically noted that “we are grateful to everyone who approached our steps in Crimea with understanding, we are grateful to the people of China, whose leadership has considered and is considering the situation around Ukraine and Crimea in all its historical and political completeness, we highly value India's restraint and objectivity." In other words, Crimea means a weakening of attraction along the Russia-West line, and its strengthening in the Asian direction.
The annexation of Crimea may change the geopolitical alignment for the countries of Latin America as well. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has already condemned the West's refusal to recognize the outcome of the referendum in Crimea, and compared it to the referendum held in 2013 in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands, we recall, were a disputed territory claimed by Argentina and Great Britain. In 1982, Britain defended its right to the islands with the help of troops, and in March last year, residents of these territories also voted for membership in the British kingdom. As Kirchner recalled, at that time the UN did not challenge the legality of this vote.
“Many of the major powers that secured the Falkland people’s right to self-determination are now reluctant to do the same for Crimea. How can you call yourself the guarantors of world stability if you do not apply the same standards to everyone? It turns out that the Crimeans cannot express their will, but the inhabitants of the Falklands can? There is no logic in this!” she said after meeting with Pope Francis.
In a word, Moscow has started a very big game. “The risk is great, and the possible jackpot seems to be considerable. The old world order is completely ceasing to function, a new one should soon begin to take shape. Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the first to speak about the need for a new world order back in 1986, did not succeed. Vladimir Putin is returning to the fork to try again,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine.
What is behind these changes, and what place can Russia take in this new world?

“By annexing Crimea, Russia has finally declared that its policy will be independent,” Fyodor Lukyanov believes. - In the sense that if the Russian Federation believes that some of its interests are so important that they require obligatory upholding, it will not pay attention to the costs in relations with the West.
So far it hasn't been like that. Russia quite actively tried to defend its interests, but always left space for what in English is called damage control (“damage control”, - "SP") – minimizing the damage that the Russian decision causes to relations with Europe and the United States.
Now Russia is designating, at a minimum, topics and goals that are not subject to negotiations, and do not contain room for compromise.
This is a major change, because since the Cold War there have not been countries that have raised the issue so hard. China follows a similar line, but it is passive, and tries not so much to attack as to defend itself. China, rather, does not allow America to do anything, but does not itself take offensive demonstrative steps.
The emergence of a power that is not afraid to challenge the US - in the full sense of the term - is a significant factor. However, what exactly this will lead to is not yet very clear. The problem is that Russia does not offer itself as a systemic alternative, simply as an independent and strong power.
"SP": - Putin in his "Crimean" speech separately thanked China and India. What does it say?
– If our relations with the West worsen, and it comes to an economic and diplomatic war, Russia has no other direction but to the East, and there is no other supporting partner than China. This brings with it very serious changes in geopolitical positioning.
In part, such changes were inevitable even before the Ukrainian events. Putin is still in his December message Federal Assembly said that our priorities for the 21st century are Siberia, the Far East, and the Asian vector in general. But now the situation is getting more complicated. We may find ourselves in a position where we have no choice but to rely on China, and China will gladly support us - but, of course, for a reason.
China is interested in tying Russia to itself in such a way that after a certain number of years, when a situation of its sharp conflict with the United States may arise, Russia would not have the opportunity to take a neutral position. As a result, the rapprochement with China gives us space now, but in the long term this should be treated very carefully.
"SP": - Can the Crimean precedent affect the geopolitical orientations of Latin America?
- Argentina's statement on Crimea is rather exotic. It is clear why President Kirchner did it - she really sees parallels in the Crimean situation with the referendum in the Falkland Islands. But I do not think that her position can seriously affect international placement forces. Argentina is not the most significant country, and the situation in it is not the most stable. Her supportive voice is nice to hear but impossible to use.
"SP": - How will the situation develop now in the "buffer", as Boris Mezhuev calls it, the zone of Eastern Europe, can it really be divided into zones of influence?
– Unlike Boris Mezhuev, I am skeptical about the idea of ​​the existence of civilizational rifts. I, at least, do not really understand what kind of civilization Russia offers. In my opinion, the Russian Federation proposes a purely instrumental project - the Customs Union. And in terms of civilization, we do not offer anything that is fundamentally different from Western civilization. Russia has been and, most likely, will be a country of European culture and history - albeit with its own specifics.
As for the security situation, yes, in the conditions of the Russia-West conflict, the "buffer" countries have a very hard time. We see what the attempt to force Ukraine to decide on development guidelines has led to. It is clear that the Ukrainian crisis has been ripe for a long time, but the immediate reason for it was an attempt to push Ukraine towards a decisive, last choice between the Russian Federation and the EU.
I think something similar could happen with Moldova – now it has to sign an association agreement with the EU. But there, thank God, the situation is simpler, in Moldova there is already a clear division - Transnistria - and in the event of an internal conflict, the country will be peacefully divided along this line. True, for Chisinau, joining the EU is a big problem, since Moldova may end up in Europe not as a separate country, but as a province of Romania.
In general, all the "buffer" countries are now in a difficult situation. I think they would all be interested in a joint Russia-Europe project to control this space. But, unfortunately for them, so far there is not the slightest desire - neither Russia, nor especially the EU - to discuss this kind of configuration.
"SP": - What will happen to the South-East of Ukraine? In his message, Putin said that we do not want the division of Ukraine. But, on the other hand, he stressed that “we are against the military alliance, and NATO remains a military organization in all internal processes, we are against the military organization hosting near our fence, next to our house or in our historical territories ". Meanwhile, Kyiv requested NATO assistance in ensuring the security of Ukraine, in May, near Lviv, NATO exercises Rapid Trident 2014 will take place, in which Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Great Britain and Ukraine will take part. Does this mean that de facto NATO's border is shifting to the East, and the alliance is starting to "manage around our fence"?
- The point is that Ukraine should be the most free confederation, something like the Swiss cantons, plus have the status of a neutral state.
Now Ukraine is preparing to sign a political bloc of an association agreement with the EU. But this, by and large, does not mean anything - the European Union is not engaged in military cooperation. Such a signing is rather a symbol that Europe will not abandon Ukraine.
As for NATO, from the point of view of the alliance, you need to be crazy in order to sign any agreements with the current Ukraine - a poorly governed country, the obligations to protect which are obviously impossible to fulfill. So, I think that close cooperation between Ukraine and NATO is out of the question for the time being, and the threat of such cooperation is rather an inertial factor of bargaining between Russia and the West.
I think that after a while, behind-the-scenes attempts by the European Union and Russia will begin to understand what can really be done with Ukraine - a country that has become a suitcase without a handle for everyone ...
- The main geopolitical problem after the annexation of Crimea is still in Ukraine, - political scientist Anatoly El-Murid is sure. - Already this autumn in the "square" may develop a difficult economic situation. Apparently, the new Kyiv authorities spat on the sowing campaign, and on the industry, too. But they are going to increase gas tariffs - 1.4 times for industrial enterprises, and 2 times - for the population. Ukrainians will simply begin to flee en masse from the country, and we absolutely do not need this.
Russia has literally a month or two left to do something with the eastern regions of Ukraine. We need to create a buffer between the Russian Federation and Nazi Ukraine, and then this buffer can be used as a Ukrainian Benghazi (an alternative center that Western countries once created in Libya). And already this Ukrainian Benghazi will liberate the rest of the territory of the South-East of Ukraine.
"SP": - That is, military intervention by Russia is excluded?
– We cannot interfere directly in Ukrainian affairs, Russia really does not need a war with Ukraine. Moreover, a situation should not be allowed in which the Ukrainians in the South-East would sit and wait for someone to come to them and free them. If the Ukrainians themselves allowed such a mess in their country, they have to deal with this mess.
Another thing is that the inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine - it is now obvious - cannot create structures of resistance themselves. The reason is clear: these are ordinary, normal people who find themselves in an abnormal situation. They have neither theoretical training, nor organizational, nor resources. They need help with all of this.
If resistance structures are created in the South-East, in the next month or two Kyiv will not be able to oppose anything to them - just as it could not in the Crimea. It is necessary that these forces take control, as in the Crimea, of the authorities, the police, perhaps the army, and try to liberate Kyiv. Only after that it is possible to negotiate with Western Ukraine on a confederation or on the division of the country.
If Russia manages to solve the problem of the eastern regions of Ukraine, this will be a new major geopolitical victory. If we let the situation take its course, we will get a humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine, as a result of which the Kiev government will be able to turn to NATO with a request to take control of the entire territory of the "square".
This process - the establishment of Russian control over neighboring territories - can go further, to other countries of the post-Soviet space. But only on the condition that we manage to solve the problem of mainland Ukraine - without this, we will not be able to pull new acquisitions.
Andrey Polunin

Question 01. How has the alignment of forces in the international arena changed since World War II?

Answer. Before the Second World War, the main one was the confrontation between the fascist and Western blocs. The USSR, which did not have its own bloc (except for Mongolia), was a third force. As a result of the war, fascism ceased to participate in the global confrontation, and the USSR acquired its own bloc and became the main force that fought the West (which was also led by the United States as a result of World War II) for world domination.

Question 02. Define the meaning of the term "cold war". What were the reasons for it? Why do you think modern historians find it difficult to define them unambiguously?

Answer. The term "cold war" means the military enmity of states, but without fighting directly between the armies of these states. The "Cold War" between the US and the USSR has many causes, researchers doubt which of them to recognize as decisive. I would venture to guess that the main ones are the following:

1) the pre-war rivalry of the three ideological systems after the war turned into a rivalry of two, but so different that it was difficult to establish peace between them, even if someone wanted to;

2) personal hostility to the opposite ideology of political leaders - the "cold war" began with the Fulton speech of W. Churchill (who hated the Bolsheviks from the time they came to power in Russia) and I.V. Stalin (despite the fact that W. Churchill at that time did not have any post in the British government);

3) the desire of subsequent leaders to continue the "cold war" - before M.S. Gorbachev, of the leaders of both superpowers, only G.M. Malenkov spoke out for its termination, but this party leader lost the struggle for power;

4) the war was precisely “cold” due to the presence of nuclear weapons, which made hostilities directly between the troops of the superpowers too destructive for both the vanquished and the winner.

Question 04. What are local conflicts? Why were they dangerous to international security? Justify your answer.

Answer. Local is called a conflict with a small number of direct participants and the territory of hostilities. During the Cold War, the superpowers almost always stood behind the opposing sides. The greatest danger was the aggravation of relations between the superpowers, as well as the participation of their military specialists in hostilities (the death of the latter could provoke intervention in the conflict by the superpower itself, which brought the threat of a global war closer). The second danger was not realized then, but has become relevant now: a significant part of extremists, especially Islamic fundamentalists today, are personnel trained during local conflicts of one of the superpowers (the most famous example is Osama bin Laden).

Question 05. Why didn't the Cuban Missile Crisis end in a nuclear war between the USSR and the USA? What lessons have the governments of the two superpowers learned for themselves?

Answer. Both superpowers understood that a direct military clash between them could be the end for both of them, as well as for modern human civilization as a whole (it was not for nothing that A. Einstein said: “I don’t know how they will fight in the Third World War, but in the Fourth they will fight with sticks and stones). It was after the Cuban Missile Crisis that the inadmissibility of even the thought of a nuclear war became clearly understood.

The main foreign policy objectives of this period were: stabilization of relations with European states (continuation of the policy of peaceful coexistence), elimination of the threat of the collapse of the socialist camp, support and propaganda of the socialist system in the countries of the "third world".

The most important strategic task was to strengthen the shaken positions of the USSR in the socialist camp and among the communist parties of the Third World. In relations with the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, the Soviet leadership focused on providing a little more economic and political freedom. The main emphasis was placed on strengthening economic cooperation (for example, the supply of energy resources) and political consultations within the framework of the work of the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance), which contributed to an increase in economic and political independence. In 1968, the Dubcek government in Czechoslovakia, in an attempt to reduce dependence on the USSR and overcome the economic crisis, began broad democratic reforms. The response was the entry of Warsaw Pact troops (Soviet, German, Polish and Bulgarian) and the military suppression of the Czech social movement. In Romania, the government under the leadership of N. Ceausescu tried to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Relations with China deteriorated. In 1969, armed clashes took place on the Soviet-Chinese border near Damansky Island (in the Far East) and Semipalatinsk (Central Asia), when more than a thousand people died. Improved relations with leading European countries (France, England).

1972 was a turning point in Soviet-American relations. In the same year, during the visit of US President Nixon to Moscow, an agreement was signed on strategic reductions?; Arms (OSV-1), which established restrictions on the creation of anti-missile defense and intercontinental missiles. The introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in December 1979 to support the communist movement caused a new round of the Cold War. In 1979, NATO decides to deploy American medium-range missiles in Western Europe. In the early 80s. contacts with Western countries have practically ceased.

Ticket number 25/1

Political parties in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century: Classification, programs (the question of the state system, agrarian, labor and national issues)

In the socio-political movement in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. various forces took part, having different ideas of the ways of the further development of the country. Three political camps were defined: the government led by K.P. Pobedonostsev and V.K. rights of zemstvos, etc.) and revolutionary (for the violent overthrow of the autocracy, radical transformations). The revolutionary forces were the first to create their organizations. Their activities were based on socialist ideas (at the beginning of the century Marxism was widely spread in Russia, especially among the intelligentsia, students, etc.), which were understood and interpreted in different ways. The “legal Marxists” (P. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, N. A. Berdyaev, and others) developed the idea of ​​a gradual, evolutionary development of society and a natural change in the social system. Russian Marxists (G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin, P. B. Axelrod, V. I. Zasulich, L. Martov, A. N. Potresov and others) shared K. Marx’s ideas about the historical mission of the working class , the violent overthrow of the existing system through the socialist revolution. Radical Social Democrats called a congress of their organizations to try to unite them into a party (Minsk, 1898). Its creation was completed at the Second Congress of the RSDLP (London, 1903) in the course of fierce discussions (by economists, "soft" and "hard" Iskra-ists, etc.). The congress adopted the charter and program of the party, which consisted of two parts: the minimum program (the overthrow of the autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the improvement of the position of workers, the solution of agrarian and national issues, etc.) and the maximum program (socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat) . Supporters of Lenin - the Bolsheviks prevailed on most of the debatable issues. In 1902, a party of socialist revolutionaries (SRs) arose from populist circles, defending the interests of the working people - the peasantry, the proletariat, student youth, etc. Their program provided for the organization of society on a communal socialist basis, the "socialization" of the land. Ways to achieve goals - revolution and revolutionary dictatorship, tactics - individual terror. Leaders - V. M. Chernov and others. During the years of the revolution, after the release of the Manifesto on October 17, liberal parties took shape. In October 1905 A constitutional-democratic party (the Cadets), or the "people's freedom" party, was created. Its program, based on the ideas of Western European liberalism, included provisions for the introduction of a constitution in the country that guarantees basic democratic rights and freedoms, for giving legislative functions to the parliament (State Duma), for transferring ownership of communal lands to peasants, etc. Achieve the implementation of its program the Cadets assumed through a peaceful, parliamentary struggle. The leaders were P. N. Milyukov, P. B. Struve, G. E. Lvov, V. I. Vernadsky and others. financial bourgeoisie and landlords. Her program was aimed at establishing a strong government in the country, enjoying the support of the people: the preservation of a "united and indivisible Russia", the adoption of a democratic constitution, and so on. The Octobrists considered private property to be the basis of the economy. The method of action is a dialogue with the authorities in the hope of transferring some of the functions of state administration into their hands. The leaders are A. I. Guchkov, D. N. Shipov, M. V. Rodzianko and others. “Russian People's Union named after Michael the Archangel” (V. M. Purishkevich). The ideological basis is the theory of official nationality (“Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality”): the preservation of the autocratic form of government, the protection of the interests of the Great Russians, etc. In the struggle for the implementation of their program, the Black Hundreds not only used the Duma rostrum, but also resorted to violent methods (Jewish pogroms, etc.). Thus, a multi-party system has developed in Russia, various political forces have acted.

SECTION I

VERSAILLES-WASHINGTON SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: FORMATION. CHARACTER, ELEMENTARY PERIOD DEVELOPMENT

Results of the First World War. The alignment of forces in the international arena in the early post-war years

On November 11, 1918, in the French city of Compiègne, in the staff car of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, Marshal Ferdinand Fot, representatives of the Entente states and defeated Germany signed the Armistice Agreement. The conclusion of the Compiègne truce meant the end of the first and the history of human civilization of the world war, which lasted four years, three months and eleven days. 101 gun volleys heralded the onset of peacetime -

The development of international relations in the postwar period was most directly and directly connected with the results of the First World War. What were these results, what was their impact on world politics, on the formation of a qualitative new system international relations?

The most important military-political result of the world conflict was the triumphant victory of the Entente states and the crushing defeat of the countries of the Quadruple Union , which included Germany. Austria-Hungary. Turkey and Bulgaria,

This main result of the war was legally formalized in the Compiègne Armistice Agreement - in essence, with the exception of a few minor concessions to the German side. it can be equated with the act of unconditional surrender of Germany. Eloquent proof of this were the negotiations on the terms of the armistice. When the head of the German delegation, Reichsminister M. Erzberger, asked Marshal Foch what conditions the Allied Powers would propose for their subsequent discussion, he, with his characteristic directness of a military man, said: "There are no conditions. But there is one demand - Germany must kneel." This ended the discussion.

The demand to "kneel" was specified in the 34 articles of the Compiègne truce, which entered into force at 11 am on November 2, 191J. The text of the agreement dictated to Germany by the victorious powers included the following main provisions: the cessation of hostilities from the moment the armistice was signed: transfers; France of Alsace and Lorraine; the withdrawal of German armed forces from the territories of the Entente countries occupied by them within 15 days also from Austria-Hungary, Romania and Turkey; Germany undertook to clear the left bank of the Rhine, which was occupied by the Allied forces, from its military presence, while demilitarizing a 50-kilometer strip on its right bank; it was planned to return the trophies captured by Germany (including Russian, Belgian and Romanian gold ) and the immediate release by her of all prisoners of war; a significant part of the German weapons and vehicles were transferred to the Entente powers, which actually deprived Germany of its military and military-technical potential: German troops in East Africa were disarmed and evacuated; Germany forcibly renounced very benefits of the other for her the Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest treaties with Soviet Russia and Romania, concluded on March 3 and May 7, 1918, respectively. The said conditions of the Compiègne Agreement already spoke of this in themselves. what peace treaties will be dictated to the countries of the Quadruple Alliance-

Thus, the victory of the Entente in the First World War, legally enshrined in the Armistice of Compiègne, had its most important international consequence a radical change in the balance of forces in favor of the victorious powers. and to the detriment the defeated powers.

The most tragic outcome of the war was unprecedented human losses, huge material damage and destruction. This is there were four years of unprecedented exertion of strength, human sacrifice and suffering. That is why the contemporaries of the First World War rightly called it "the greatest crime against humanity."

In the war of 1914-1918. 32 states from five continents took part. Military operations took place on the territory of 14 countries. About 74 million people were mobilized into the armed forces. During the war, vast areas of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, northern France and Belgium were devastated. The damage from military destruction was estimated at $33 billion, which corresponded to the 10th part of the pre-war national income of all European countries. Total irretrievable losses are not walked in any comparison with the past. As the historical statistics, in wars XVII in. died 3.3 million .. in the XVIII century - - 5.2 million in the 19th century - 3.2 million people. For four goals First world war, the number of dead soldiers and civil persons amounted to 9 million. 442thousand. At the same time losses winners(5.4 million) exceeded the losses of the defeated (4 million) Over the same period of time in the rear of the warring states from hunger and diseases about 10 million died, were injured and crippled 21 million soldiers and officers, 6.5 million people were captured.

The direct result of the war was negative processes in the economic and especially in the socio-political sphere. The mobilization of industry for the production of weapons and military materials has led to the economic breakdown of all the belligerent countries. The production of civilian products was sharply reduced. primarily consumer goods. This gave rise to a commodity hunger, price increases, speculation. Agriculture also fell into disrepair. The number of livestock has decreased, grain harvest in European countries has decreased by 30-60%. Prices rose by two to four times while real wages fell by 15-20%. World economic crisis of 1920-1921 further worsened the situation.

All of the above allows us to draw the following conclusion: the most bloody and destructive war in the history of mankind has brought the peoples of the world, social movements and the political elite to the realization of the need to prevent such world conflicts, create a new, more just and safe system of international relations.

On the development of post-war international relationship could not not have a serious impact and another outcome of the First World War of fundamental importance - a sharp aggravation of social tension, the assimilation of the role of the social-democratic and communist parties and organizations, a powerful upsurge of the revival movement.

Revolutionary upsurge 191U-1923 manifested itself in the most diverse forms: from workers' strikes and peasant unrest before armed uprisings and social revolutions,

Peak strike movement came in 1919. This year in developed capitalist countries More than 15 million people were on strike. ra- Eyuchih - compared with the usual pre-war "norm" of 2-3 million- Human. There are two quality working features movements of that time, touching on the pressing issues of international life. First, workers' organizations besides galiion requirements for improving working conditions more and more often put forward slogans of combating reactionary politics both inside countries and in the international arena. Secondly, at their rallies and demonstrations, “the proletarians of all countries* expressed class support for the Soviet state. The demand "Hands off Soviet Russia!" met everywhere and became the slogan of the day.

It was these features that brought the labor movement closer to the general democratic, anti-war and pacifist movement, which had a broad social base: from workers and the petty bourgeoisie to well-known politicians and capitalist magnates. And although pacifism in the period under review did not take on a clear organizational shape in any country, more and more mass protests against war and aggression became an effective factor in world politics. The most impressive example is the manifestation of the solidarity of the democratic public in the West with the struggle of Soviet Russia against foreign intervention: from collecting funds and providing material assistance to sending volunteers to the Red Army.

The emergence of a new phenomenon in public life, the international communist movement, was connected with the results of the war and the revolutionary upsurge. In March 1919 in Moscow held the Constituent Congress III Communist international. In the early postwar years, the number communist parties grew at a rate threatening for Western democracies. If representatives of 35 communist parties and organizations were present at any 1st Congress of the Comintern, 11 Congress in 1920. - 67 then III congress, held in the summer 1921, collected plenipotentiaries of 103 communist parties. In 1922 there were 1 million 700 thousand communists in the world - 7 times more, than in 1917

During this period, the influence of the international communist movement on world politics, in accordance with its guiding principle of "democratic centralism", was built according to the scheme: Soviet Russia - Comintern - national communist parties. At the same time, the general foreign policy line of the Third International was formulated extremely simply and clearly: all-round assistance to the world proletarian revolution and all-round support for the world's first socialist state.

Other an influential factor in international life was the revival and development of the social democratic movement. On the conference of social democratic parties in Bern in February 1919. was restored II International. As a result his associations with II"/g the International in 1923 arose the Socialist Workers' International. To that time in the world was

to about 60 social democratic and socialist parties

uniting more than 8 million members.

The special role of social democracy in solving major international problems was determined not only by the growing size of the movement, but also by the main provisions of its foreign policy program: a firm adherence to the ideology of pacifism and an extremely negative attitude towards the idea of ​​world revolution and the principles of proletarian internationalism. promoted by the communists.

The social crisis that engulfed at the end of the war all over Europe, resulted in a series of revolutionary upheavals. February and October 1917 revolution in Russia. November 1918 revolution in Germany, revolutionary events in Finland. Austria. Czechoslovakia, the Baltic countries, education in 1919. The Bavarian and Hungarian Soviet Republics - this is by no means a complete list of acute revolutionary conflicts. In the context of the problems under consideration, it is important to note that the leaders of the European revolutions K. Liebknecht, R. Luxembourg. O. Levine. B. Kuhn, T. Samueli and others, along with demands for a radical reorganization of society, put forward slogans of revolutionary-democratic transformation of international relations, struggle against imperialist wars and aggression, freedom and equality of all countries and peoples, and all-round support for communist Russia.

Great social storm. caused by the First World War, became the most important component of the formation of a new world order and a new international system for at least two reasons: as a powerful factor in the democratization of international relations and as a serious obstacle to aggressive, imperialist foreign policy due to the involvement of government circles in internal socio-political problems, the fight against revolutionary danger *.

The epicenter of revolutionary upheavals and the result of a war of historical significance was the victory of the October Revolution in Russia; the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and the formation of the Soviet state.

Modern detractors and critics October, exactly the same his violent opponents in the past, are trying to reduce the Russian revolution to the level of a "Bolshevik coup", a historical accident caused by "clouding of the people's consciousness.". This approach seems to be overly ideologized and. more importantly, unprofessional - enough to understand the terminology. A revolution, unlike a coup, is a historical phenomenon of a much more fundamental and global nature. First, it not only leads to the replacement of power structures, but also introduces radical changes in the political and socio-economic system. toy country where it happened. Secondly, it has an enormous impact on the entire course of the world process, including the development of international relations. In accordance with these criteria, the October events of 1917. represented in Russia not"local" coup d'état and even not just a revolution. but the Great Revolution.

What did it consist international importance October?

First of all, the victory of the Russian revolution meant whatthe world is rasko.yu."1sya into two opposing socio-political systems. IN AND. In this connection, Lenin said: "Now the two camps, in full consciousness, stand against each other on a world scale." A new era has begun - the era of struggle, confrontation between the two systems. Or. in other words, a qualitatively new contradiction arose in international relations - a class contradiction. "inter-formation", ideological-

It should be noted, however, that the split peace happened in all spheres of public life: economic (nationalization of foreign property by the Bolsheviks and the annulment of foreign loans; economic blockade by Western powers Soviet Russia), diplomatic (non-recognition of Soviet power by the West), military (preparation and organization of armed intervention in the “country of Soviets”), ideological (“incompatibility”, mutual rejection of two ideologies, deployment of agitation and propaganda war on both sides).

Direct influence on the theory and practice of international relations was put forward by the Bolshevik leadership new principles of foreign policy activity, which can be divided into two main groups.

One of them was the general democratic principles declared in the first foreign policy acts of the Soviet government (Decree on Peace, adopted by the II Congress of Soviets on October 26, 1917; Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia from November 15, 1917;

Appeal to all working Muslims of Russia and the East of December 3, 1917): "a just democratic world without annexations and indemnities", openness and openness of diplomacy, the right of the nation "to free self-determination up to secession and formation of an independent state", "equality and confidence" large and small peoples, "the abolition of all and any national and national-religious privileges and restrictions." development of economic relations on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, etc.

These principles, later transformed into the concept of peaceful coexistence, could not but evoke a response from the government circles of the Western powers, which was reflected in their plans for a post-war peace settlement (for example, in the "Fourteen Points" of US President Wilson). Moreover, at the end of 1917, the Soviet government began (or, rather, was forced" to put into practice its foreign policy program. Recognizing the independence of Finland, Poland, the Baltic countries, which previously were integral parts of

Russian Empire.

The second group included rigid class attitudes associated with the doctrine of the world revolution and called the principles of proletarian internationalism. They assumed unconditional support for the struggle against "world capital": from moral encouragement and material assistance to the revolutionaries. About the organization of the "red intervention", since, according to the leader of the "left communists" N.I. Bukharin, "the spread of the Red Army is the spread of socialism, proletarian power, revolution."

These revolutionary attitudes and attempts to put them into practice also evoked a response from Western leaders, but already, for obvious reasons, extremely negative and militant. It is no coincidence that I. Lloyd George, very cautious in his assessments, declared; "The Bolsheviks are fanatical revolutionaries who dream of conquering the whole world by force of arms."

The contradictory nature of the principles of peaceful coexistence and proletarian internationalism determined their dual role in the formation of the post-war system of international relations: if the former could contribute to its democratization and strengthening, the latter were a destabilizing factor.

The October Revolution and the establishment of Soviet power in Russia influenced the development of international relations and indirectly, being the real embodied goal of the labor, communist and revolutionary movement, which, in its

Turn, as mentioned above, has become an important component of world politics and international life Speaking about the results of the First World War. needs to be highlighted unprecedented scope of the national and national liberation movement.

The last years of the wars were marked by the collapse of four once mighty empires: Russian. German. Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman- In Europe, without waiting for international legal registration, Austria and Hungary proclaimed their independence. Poland, Finland. Czechoslovakia. Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Lithuania. Latvia. Estonia.

Such a radical breakdown of the international structure required the pacifier powers to make significant adjustments to their approach to the problems of a peaceful settlement, taking into account the new political realities and the national interests of the newly formed European states.

Almost the entire colonial world was engulfed in the national liberation struggle. This was explained both by the growth of national self-consciousness and by the weakening of the metropolitan powers during the World War. In 1918-1921. major anti-colonial and anti-imperialist actions - from mass demonstrations to armed uprisings and liberation wars - took place in India. China, Mongolia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya. Morocco, Afghanistan and other colonial and dependent countries.

The first significant successes were achieved on the path to national liberation. In November 1918, the leaders of the Libyan tribes proclaimed the creation of the Tripolitan Republic, which, in a fierce struggle against the Italian colonialists, defended its independence until the 1930s. As a result of the third Anglo-Afghan war, in August 1919, the Rawalpinda Peace Treaty was signed, according to which England recognized the independence of Afghanistan. troops in 1926. In February 1922 The British government published a Declaration on the abolition of the English protectorate and the recognition of Egypt as an independent state.

The national liberation movement in the first post-war years nominated from its ranks the largest political and state figures, such as Sun Yat-sen in China, Mo-handas Karamchand Gandhi India, Mustafa KemalAtaturk in Turkey, Amanullah Khan in Afghanistan. Their program requirements, despite differences in the question of the means to achieve goals, had a pronounced anti-imperialist and democratic character; independence and sovereignty; abolition of foreign political and financial control, mode capitulations; recognition of ethnic boundaries; freedom and equality:your all peoples. Many country leaders East emphasized the importance of rapprochement with Soviet Russia, what they were striving for practice.

Assessing the role and significance of the national liberation movement in the colonial world during this period of time, can come to the following conclusion.

Firstly, the most important consequence of the liberation Zorba in this political region was a change in the tactics of the colonial powers: from carrying out transformations in the management of the colonies while expanding the rights of the local population (one of the examples is the “Montagu-Chelmsford reform”, which the British government carried out in 1919 in India) until the recognition of political independence while maintaining economic and financial dominance over the liberated country (one of the examples is the granting of independence by England to Egypt while maintaining full control over the Suez Canal, the rights to "protect the interests of foreigners" and other conditions that made the proclaimed independence in largely fictitious). In essence, these were the first attempts to move from classical colonial policy to neo-colonialist methods. However, new methods have so far been an exception to the general rule: the leading metropolitan powers built their relations with their subordinate im t territories based on direct political and military domination. On the whole, the colonial and semi-colonial countries (even those that had declared their independence) continued to be the object of the policy of the great powers, to be in a position subordinate and dependent on them.

Secondly, like the revolutionary upsurge in Europe, the national liberation movement in the colonial world contributed to the democratization of international relations. many Representatives of the Western political elite started talking seriously about the "right of nations to self-determination" and about resolving the colonial issue "taking into account the interests of the local population."

These were the main results of the First World War and the cardinal changes associated with them in the post-war international situation.

Should. but, note that character new system international relations and its legal registration in decide- degree depended on alignment and balance of power between the great powers - the main subjects of world politics. For obvious reasons, we are talking primarily about the powers-

winners who, by the right of the strong, were to determine the principles and conditions for a peaceful settlement and the post-war organization of the world. What changes have taken place in the international situation these states after the end First world war?

The United States benefited the most from it. States of America: the war turned this country into a first-class world power. It created favorable conditions for rapid economic growth and a significant improvement in the financial position of the United States.

As is known. United States entered the war only in April 1917, and active hostilities began in July 1918 i.e. shortly before completion. Losses USA were relatively small: 50 thousand people were killed (0.5% of the total losses in the war) and 230 thousand were wounded. From senior officers, one colonel died: being drunk, he fell off his horse and crashed to death. The territory of the United States itself, due to its remoteness from Europe, was not affected by military operations and, therefore, unlike the European countries, the United States managed to avoid any material damage and destruction.

Another and much more significant condition for strengthening the economic positions of the United States was their "participation of a supplier" of military materials, food and raw materials for the warring countries of Europe. As a result, the net profits of the US corporations that made these deliveries amounted to $33.5 billion, a figure that exceeded the estimated cost of all the material destruction on the European continent. New large investments significantly increased the production possibilities of the American economy and ensured its rapid growth. In 1920 The US share in world industrial production exceeded 33%. For individual sectors of industry that determine economic power, it ranged from 50 (mining hard coal) up to 60% (production of iron and steel) and even U5% (production of automobiles). The value of American exports from 1914 to 1919 increased by Zraza: from 2.4 to 7.9 billion dollars. Thus, the most important consequence of the war was a sharp strengthening of the US position in the world economy, consolidation behind them the role of the most economically powerful power in the world.

Another significant metamorphosis was a radical change in the international financial status of the United States. The payment of military orders by the allies and the associated transfer of securities from European banks to American banks reduced Europe's investment in the United States during the 4 years of the war from 5 to 3 billion dollars.

On the other hand, over the same period, American investment behind abroad increased and 6 times; from 3 to 18 billion dollars. If before the war the United States owed Europe 3.7 billion dollars, then after the war Europe already owed the United States 11 billion dollars, which was 55% of the mutual debt of the allied states, which was estimated at n 20 billion. dollars. This meant that the United States turned from a debtor country into the largest international creditor. In the early 1920s. The United States owned half of the world's gold reserves (4.5 out of 9 billion dollars: 1.5 billion - accounted for by England and France, the remaining 3 - by 40 states). Along with London, New York became the universally recognized* financial capital of the world.

The strengthening of the financial position of the United States, combined with economic leadership, created the material basis for the transformation of the country from a regional to a great world power. In a broader international aspect, this meant the transfer of the industrial and financial center of the capitalist world from Europe to North America.

These were the reasons that led to the intensification of US foreign policy. Becoming the leading power in the world in terms of economic and financial indicators. The United States is beginning to lay claim to a leading role in world politics as well. And if earlier ideas "Rah Atepsapa". While the slogans of establishing "world leadership" of the United States, put forward by American politicians, were only an illusion, after the end of the war they seemed to have acquired real meaning. Already in April 1917. President Woodrow Wilson publicly proclaimed:

“We are faced with the task of financing the whole world. a that. whoever gives money must learn to rule the world.”

At the same time, as the example of the United States shows, a sharp increase in economic and financial power is not always adequate for such same a sharp strengthening of political positions in the international arena. The change in the balance of power between the great powers in favor of the United States during this period did not lead to its transformation into a political leader on a global scale. And there were reasons for this, which limited the influence of the United States on the development of post-war international relations.

First of all. American business has not yet been enough prepared” for the role of trendsetter in the global economy. Partly this was due to the fact that the development of the vast domestic market was far from being completed. In the early 1920s 85-90% of industrial output in the US was consumed domestically. As for excess capital, then. except for an emergency situation during the war years, it was exported to a limited number countries of the Western Hemisphere. In other sectors of the world market, where European capital has retained its dominant position. USA faced fierce competition.

Secondly. An even more significant obstacle to "world leadership" was the ideology and practice of American isolationism. The main meaning of this foreign policy course, which starts demolition from< Про шального послания» первою пре­зидента США Джорджа Вашингтон;!, сводился к отказу от каких-or obligations and agreements with the states of the Old World, which could draw the United States into European military-political conflicts and, thereby, undermine their independence both in domestic and foreign policy. "Internationalists", seeking to overcome this age-old tradition, without which active participation in world politics and, Moreover, the achievement of political leadership in the world remained would well-wishes, were losing the battle to the isolationists. The serious advantages of being an isolationist were explained primarily topics. that they enjoyed the support of the population, among whom were widely the ideas of so-called democratic isolationism are widespread - the ideas of the struggle to establish and maintain a just social order within the country with a complete rejection of external military adventures and colonial conquests. As far as isolationist politicians are concerned, they have never challenged the right USA on economic expansion and the role of international arbiter, but strongly opposed the participation of the United States in any unions and agreements with European states. The paradox of the situation was therein, that attempts by government circles USA pursue a policy consistent with the economic and financial power of the great North American power, could be blocked (as happened in practice) within the United States itself States.

Thirdly. Foreign policy any power in solving global world problems should rely on Not only on a powerful economic potential, but also on an equally significant military potential. In this area, the United States significantly lagged behind the European powers - Land Army USA was, as ironically noted in Europe, "an indeterminate value." Large-scale programs to build a modern navy in those goals were only an application for the future. Overall military strength USA was more than compensated by the naval superiority of England, the strength of the ground forces of France - and after a while, by high level war machine organization Germany and Japan.

Fourth. Another factor that limited the foreign policy possibilities of the United States. lay in the realm of practical diplomacy. Even the first attempts by the American administration to play a leading role in international affairs met with a resolute rebuff from the governments of England and France, experienced in diplomacy. And in this area the advantage was not on the side of the United States.

These were the real contours of international US positions in the first post-war period. Them Influence at development international relations, no matter how contradictory sounds. became more and more clear and at the same time remained very limited.

International Position Great Britain after graduation wars are extremely difficult to characterize clearly.

On the one hand, one can state the well-known weakening its position in the world, which was due to the following reasons, the victory went to England expensive yen. Her human losses amounted to 744 thousand killed and about 1.700 thousand wounded - Such the history of this country did not know military losses. The war has done a lot significant damage to the British economy. United Kingdom lost about 20% of the national wealth. how in the years war. So and in the first post-war years continued shrink industrial production. As a result, the pre-war level was reached only in 1929. (the worst figure among all Western powers). Significantly inferior USA. England finally lost of its former industrial leadership in the world. Her share in world industrial production progressively decreased. compiled in 1920. 9% (in comparison from 13.6% in 1913) Huge military spending sharply worsened the financial UK position, For the first time in long goals of financial prosperity she is evolved from the most influential international creditor in debtor country. Her post-war external debt rated 5 billion dollars, of which 3.7 billion were share of the US-Wo during the war were undermined and foreign trade positions England- The country has lost 40% of its trade front- Traditional foreign economic relations were interrupted. Eventually English foreign trade decreased by almost 2 times. a her foreign investments - by 25%. powerful rise national liberation movement became another "blow of fate *, from which in England suffered the most occupied leading place among the colonial powers.

Together However, the above-mentioned negative UK effects First no world war absolutize. There were other factors that allowed this country not only maintain its position as a great world power, but in some areas to strengthen them. , -.

First, despite the first signs of the crisis of the British Empire, England managed to defend itself as a result of the war. my colonial monopoly. Furthermore. her colonial possessions were expanded in July ^ by obtaining a mandate on the administration of territories formerly belonging to Germany and Turkey. If before the war, England accounted for 44.9% of the colonial possessions of the world, then after the war - 5R%,

Secondly, in the first post-war years, the priority of the strongest British navy in the world remained unshakable. British government circles strove to strictly adhere to them the same developed formula: the British fleet should be larger than the combined fleet of the other two powers.

Thirdly, the deterioration of England's financial position could be considered temporary and relative. Her debt to the United States was largely offset by England's debt from continental European states, which exceeded $4.3 billion.

Fourthly, and the asset of England, of course, should be attributed to the defeat of Germany's main pre-war competitor and the change in the European balance forces in favor of the United Kingdom, the high international prestige of the winner in the war, traditionally a major role in world diplomacy and vast experience in resolving complex international problems a realistic and sufficiently far-sighted foreign policy of the British government.

World War brought significant changes to the international status French Republic.

The triumph of victory could only for a time obscure the extremely grave consequences of the war. First of all, the huge material damage and numerous human casualties. In terms of military losses, France was second only to Germany and Russia: 1327 thousand killed and 2800 thousand wounded. The northeastern departments of France were almost completely devastated, more than 10 thousand industrial enterprises and about 1 million residential buildings were destroyed. The total amount of material losses was estimated at 15 billion dollars, which was 31% of the pre-war national wealth. The deplorable state of the French economy was explained not only by the material damage and destruction caused by the war, but also by the deep crisis associated with the post-war reconversion, i.e. the transfer of industry to the production of peaceful products. The crisis lasted from 1918 to 1921. The index of industrial production dropped to 55% of the 1913 level. Even more serious losses awaited France in the financial area. The war deprived her of her role as "world usurer". putting them on a par with other debtor states. French debt USA and England exceeded 7 billion dollars. A powerful blow to the financial positions of France was inflicted by the October Revolution: 71 * ^ of all the debts of the tsarist and Provisional rulers ^ ti. canceled by the Soviet government, fell to the share of the French Republic. Not could not have had a negative impact on the international position of France and such consequences of the war as a sharp reduction in foreign trade turnover (almost 2 times) and foreign investment (by 30%), as well as the aggravation of the national liberation struggle in the French colonies.

However, as in the case of England, the positive outcomes of the war for France prevailed over the negative ones, which allowed her not only to maintain, but also to strengthen her position as a great world power.

First, through the acquisition of the so-called mandated territories, France managed to significantly increase its colonial empire. Its share in the colonial possessions of the world increased from 15.1% in 1913 to 15.1%. up to 29% after the end of the war. Following Great Britain, France remained the most powerful metropolitan country.

Secondly, in the first post-war period, the French Republic had the most powerful land army in the world.

Thirdly, the socio-economic instability caused by huge material losses in the war seemed to be a temporary factor. The transformation of France from from an agrarian-industrial country to an industrial-agrarian power in the future should have significantly improved the economic situation of the republic. As for the financial damage, it was supposed to compensate for it with reparations levied from Germany.

Fourth. military defeat of the German empire and post-war policy of the French government aimed at on the maximum attenuation of the traditional and the most formidable enemy, created favorable conditions for statements France's leading role on the European continent.

Another winning country Italy- before the war on law was considered one of the weak links among the great European powers.

The World War did not contribute to This position no matter how serious positive changes. Rather, on the contrary, she demonstrated economic and military failure of Italy, becoming an unbearable burden for her. During the war, Italy lost 5JOtys. soldiers and officers. After a crushing defeat in the first major battle for the Italians at Caporet- then in In October 1917, the Italian troops were completely demoralized and remained in this state until the very end of the war. A record number of deserters and voluntarily surrendered to captured (more than 1 million people) allowed military experts to call the Italian army "the most captivating army in the world." The Italian economy could not withstand military stress. All the main branches of Italian industry fell into decay. 1 public debts exceeded the country's national wealth by 70%. Economic recession. social tension and financial chaos was accompanied by a deep political crisis, which manifested itself in the extreme instability of power structures.All this testified that, despite the victory in the war, Italy continued to play a subordinate, in a sense, a secondary role in post-war international relations in comparison with other victorious powers.

Together with that in the early 1920s. in the economic and political development of Italy, new trends appeared that were supposed to increase the influence of this country on world politics.

First, the process of revival of Italian industry that began immediately after the war led to this. that already in 1920. in terms of industrial output, Italy reached the pre-war level. This laid the foundation for fairly rapid economic growth in Italy in subsequent years.

Secondly, Yeshe more important had political processes. As a result of the infamous "campaign on Rome" in 1922 Fascism came to power in Italy. The leader of the Italian fascists, Benito Mussolini, in his policy statements openly preached the idea of ​​a sharp intensification of Italy's foreign policy. Slogans of expansion, new colonial conquests. "reconstruction of the Great Roman Empire", as well as practical preparation for their implementation, could not but affect the foreign policy situation Italy and on the international situation as a whole.

Japan, entered the war on the side of the Entente in August 1914, but did not take an active part in it. Her military operations were mainly reduced to the hunt for German cruisers in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Japan's contribution to the overall victory over the enemy can be indirectly estimated by its military losses, which amounted to about 300 people. But the results of the war turned out to be Japan over than favorable.

First, by lightning fast already in at the very beginning wars German possessions in the Far East and quiet ocean. Japan significantly strengthened its position in that region peace. She mastered the strategically and economically important districts:

Marshall. the Caroline and Mariana Islands, the territory of Guangzhou leased by Germany in China, as well as the Chinese province of Shanlong with a population of 36 million people.

Secondly, taking advantage of the preoccupation of the European powers with the war, Japan made the first attempt to establish control over all of China. In January 1915 She presented the interim President of the Republic of China Yuan Shikai with an ultimatum, which went down in history under the name * 21 demands. This document actually turned China into a Japanese semi-colony (recognition of the occupation regime in Shandong, Japan's "control rights" in South Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, preventing any other powers from managing Chinese territories, appointing Japanese advisers to the armed forces and state bodies of China. It is no coincidence that on May 9, 1915, the day of signing this agreement by the democratic public of China was declared a “day of national shame.” However, Japan was not completely satisfied with what had been achieved and achieved more: in 1915-1917, it managed to conclude with the allies ~ England, France and Russia - secret treaties by which the latter recognized her special rights and interests" in China.

Thirdly, another extremely beneficial result of the war for Japan was the ousting of the Western powers engaged in the war in Europe from the Asian markets. This largely explained the extremely rapid growth of the Japanese economy. In 1920, the volume of industrial production exceeded the pre-war level by 70% (an annual increase of 10%). Over the same period, exports of Japanese goods increased by 330%.

This was how the material basis for the new external policy of Japan, which has begun the practical implementation of its own developed concept of "Asia for Asians" (read:

"Asia for Japan"). All the above testified About, that during the war years and in the first post-war period Japan fast transformed from a leading regional into a great world power.

From defeated Quadruple states union before war status"great powers" were Germany and Austria-Hungary. Ottoman Empire, formally called "great" only the size of the territories included in it, in fact it was a semi-colonial and dependent country. As for Bulgaria, it could be considered "great" only among small Balkan peoples.

The main striking force of the German Quadruple Alliance empire, as mentioned above. suffered a crushing defeat in the war.

Germany excelled by number irretrievable military losses - 2 million 37 thousand German soldiers and officers died. The direct result of the war was the catastrophic state of the economy. The release of industrial products in 1920. compared with the pre-war level was 58%. The production of agricultural products was reduced by 3 times. An acute social and political crisis resulted in the November Revolution. the overthrow of the Hohenpollern monarchy and the proclamation of the Weimar Republic. Already by the Armistice of Compiegne, Germany lost its navy, a significant part of its weapons and all colonial possessions.

Assessing the post-war international state of the country an unambiguous conclusion, which then seemed undeniable, suggested itself: Germany had lost its great power status, it had left the international arena as a great world power for decades to come.

In a certain sense, the world war dealt an even more crushing blow to international positions. Austria-Hungary.

By analogy with Germany, Austria-Hungary, as a defeated state, experienced all the devastating consequences of the war:

great material damage and human losses (1 million 100 thousand people);

economic and financial collapse; revolutionary crisis, the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy and the establishment of the Austrian Republic. However, in the context of the development of international relations, more a significant outcome of the war was the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The wave of the national liberation movement already in the autumn of 1918. swallowed up the "patchwork monarchy", in the place of which four independent states were formed.

Thus, unlike Germany, Austria-Hungary did not simply and not temporarily lose its great power status, it lost it forever; in the recent past, a powerful empire ceased to exist not only as a great power, but also as a state.

Particular attention should be paid to the characterization of the international situation Soviet Russia.

Despite significant territorial losses in the European part of the former Russian Empire - Finland, Poland. Estonia. Latvia and Lithuania became sovereign states. the western parts of Ukraine and Belarus went to Poland. and Bessarabia was annexed by Romania - Russia in its new incarnation continued to be an important factor in international life. The main thing is that it has retained the status of a great power with all its obvious signs.

First of all, it is a vast territory and a huge internal potential. “Socialism within one country* occupied 17% of the territory and accounted for 8% of the world's population. Another indicator of "great power" was the complete independence of the political course of Soviet Russia. There could be no talk of any dependence on the West either in the foreign policy of the RSFSR (expectation and encouragement of a world revolution) or in domestic policy (an experiment in building a new society). A major role in strengthening the international position of the Land of Soviets was played by "class solidarity" and assistance from the workers', communist and national liberation movements. The Soviet-Bolshevik regime demonstrated its viability and viability in the civil war and in the struggle against foreign intervention. He leaned on the support of the vast majority of the population, and this. according to V.I. Lenin, this is the main and irrefutable "proof of the true strength of the state."

However, the victory of the October revolution and conservation Soviet Russia's great power status at all not meant strengthening its international position. On the contrary, one can speak of their extreme weakening compared to pre-war imperial Russia.

The reasons are well known; unprecedented material damage and many millions of human victims caused by the imperialist and civil wars, foreign intervention, white and red terror, during the World War, Russia lost 1 million! 1 thousand people (the second largest number of irretrievable losses after Germany). In civil war 800 thousand people died on both sides. The famine of 1921 claimed 3 million human lives. Hundreds of thousands of people became victims of terror, an exact count of which is impossible. In general, the population of Russia decreased in the period from 1918 to 1922. by 15.1 million people. The total material damage inflicted on the Russian economy during the two wars was estimated at 76.5 billion gold rubles.. which accounted for 51% of the pre-war national wealth. The volume of industrial production by 1921 decreased by 7 times (15% of the level of 1913), foreign trade turnover - by 33 times (3% of the pre-war level). Already these figures and facts testified to the catastrophic deterioration of Russia's international economic positions. Its share in the world gross product fell from 6% in 1913 to 2% in 1921. The national income per capita, amounting to civil war$120 was 20 times less than in the US and $10 less than in semi-colonial China.

In addition to the critical state of the economy and the aggravation of the internal political struggle, another very unfavorable factor for Soviet Russia was its complete international isolation. Diplomatic non-recognition, economic blockade, direct military-political pressure - all this allowed V.I. Lenin when characterizing the international position of Soviet Russia, compare it with a "besieged fortress", "a socialist island in the ocean of raging imperialist elements",

Thus, in the first post-war years, the international positions of the Soviet state were extremely fragile and unstable. Her material possibilities did not go neither in what comparison with the economic and military might of the great Western powers. The balance of forces in the confrontation between the two socio-political systems undoubtedly developed in favor of the capitalist West. Therefore, the main directions of development of international relations were determined by the policies and contradictions of the Western powers, and not struggle and relations "capitalism-socialism".

Such was the general picture of the alignment of forces and international positions of the great powers after the end of the First World War. It was this new alignment of forces that became the basis of the post-war system of international relations. Its main contours were outlined in the plans of the victorious powers.

Plans of the great powers for a peaceful settlement and post-war organization of the world

The plans for the post-war order of the world, with which the victorious powers came to the peace conference, reflected three initial points: 1) the main results of the world war; 2) a new alignment of forces between the great powers; 3) the international position of the country and her national-state goals and interests.

The most ambitious plan was U.S.A. It was presented by the President Woodrow Wilson in a message to the US Congress on January 8, 191 I d- in the form of fourteen points, or "basic principles." The content of the program peace" Wilson boiled down to the following.

Point 1 declared the rejection of secret diplomacy, publicity in peace negotiations. "open peace treaties". Paragraph The 2nd solemnly declared freedom of navigation in peacetime and wartime, or "freedom of the seas". Paragraph 3 spoke of yet another freedom - freedom of trade, the elimination of all customs barriers, i.e. on the international recognition of the principles " open doors' and 'equal opportunities'. Point 4 demanded the establishment of firm guarantees to ensure the reduction of national armaments "to the utmost minimum." Paragraph 5 proclaimed a “completely independent, impartial solution to the colonial question” with equal consideration of the interests of not only the mother countries, but also the population of the colonies (despite the vague wording, it was about recognizing the right of colonial peoples to self-determination and independence). Point 6, devoted to Russia, asserted its right to "freely determine" its national policy and the path of political development (although in the comments on this point, stored in the "Archive" of Wilson's chief adviser, Colonel E. M-House, the need was emphasized to support "democratic forces" of Russia, to which the US administration did not include the Bolsheviks:

moreover, as one of the options for resolving the Russian question, it was proposed to dismember the former Russian empire to a number of independent states and territories controlled by Western powers). Points 7 to 13 contained American proposals for settling the most important territorial and state problems: the restoration of the sovereignty and borders of Belgium; the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France: the establishment of the borders of Italy "on clearly expressed national lines"; granting the peoples of Austria-Hungary the rights of autonomy and independent development: restoration of the sovereignty of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, preservation of access to the sea for Serbia: independent existence of the Turkish nation, autonomy and independence of other nationalities that are part of the Ottoman Empire, international guarantees of free passage through the Black Sea straits for ships of all countries; the creation of an independent Poland, including the undisputed Polish territories and having access to the sea. Point 14 and last, provided for the establishment of an international, supranational organization for the preservation and maintenance of peace - in order to "provide mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to countries equally large and small." The President of the United States called the projected organization the "League of Nations".

Thus, in Wilson's program, democratic and even radical slogans, unusual for that time, were put forward. A massive publicity campaign was launched in the American and European press praising the Fourteen Points, which was translated into many languages ​​and distributed worldwide in over 6 million copies. The propaganda emphasis was placed on Wilson's allegedly completely disinterested desire to establish a new international order based on the principles of freedom, democracy and justice. Admiring Americans called Wilson "the great peacemaker" and "the apostle of peace." Enthusiastic Europeans greeted the US President who arrived at the peace conference with banners: "Glory to Wilson the Right" -*. Streets and squares in the cities of Italy, France and other European countries were named after him. the plan is the real content of the United States' program proposals for the creation of a new world order.

How can one characterize Wilson's "Peace Program" - at that time, indeed, the largest American foreign policy initiative in the history of the United States? What were the aims behind the pompous democratic and pacifist phraseology?

This question is far from being idle, since in the historical literature there have been long disputes about the meaning and meaning of the “Peace Program” of the United States: from panegyric assessments in Western, primarily in American historiography, to derogatory criticism in Soviet historiography.

An unbiased analysis of the document rejects these extreme views. The Fourteen Points is a complex and contradictory foreign policy act that took into account both the peculiarities of the post-war international position of the United States itself and the new trends in world development. Therefore, it contained demands of both an imperialist and a democratic nature.

First. Wilson's program was the first official declaration by the American government of US claims to be the world's political leader, the "ultimate arbiter" in international affairs. It was a bid to lead the post-war world.

The material basis of globalist aspirations USA was their transformation into the leading industrial and financial power of the world. The ideological justification was developed in detail by the American expansionists at the end of the 19th century. Not surprisingly, after the end of World War I wars in the USA

the ideas and slogans of "destiny" and "divine destiny", "democratic expansion"* and the establishment of "American peace" again became widespread. wilson only gave these ideas an international legal sound. An indirect confirmation of the new trends in American foreign policy was the solemnity and pomposity that accompanied the first trip of an incumbent president to Europe in the history of America (the number of the American delegation exceeded 1,300 people). Wilson, who went to the Old World on the George Washington, broke a long tradition, since the solution of such important tasks and the realization of such great goals required his personal presence at the conference.

About what is the main thing in the program Wilson had claims to leading role in the world, testifies the content itself"Fourteen Points" and comments on them from the side the president and his advisers.

It is significant that the central idea American plan became the idea creation of the League nations, wherein USA was "booked" place of the world "superarbiter". In other words. league Nations was considered by government circles United States as the main instrument of political leadership. tool for "extending the Monroe Doctrine to the entire world". AT Europe the background of this initiative of Wilson well understood. calling the projected organization a firm "Yankee & Co". Explaining to his compatriots the meaning of the League of Nations, President of the U.S.A. proving himself a worthy son of a Presbyterian pastor preached; "America became the first world power... We need solve the only question: do we have the right give up moral guidance that is offered us. accept whether we or reject the trust of the world... Us God is leading. We not Can retreat - We can only follow forward with gaze fixed on to heaven, and cheerful in spirit. By demonstrating enough high level of oratory. Wilson has shown as you can combine "heavenly forces" and "divine providence" with a more obvious earthly goal of establishing American hegemony in the world.

In this context, other democratic-pacifist points put forward in the US President's program also acquire a more real meaning.

Stirring up the public opinion slogan of openness negotiations and the rejection of secret diplomacy in specific conditions post-war period meant the abolition of secret contracts Entente countries on the division of spheres of influence and a new redistribution of the world. Not participating in their compilation. The United States rightly feared that American interests were not taken into account in these agreements. The conclusion suggested itself: it was necessary to annul all previous secret treaties in order to create a new treaty system in which the Mr.

The rather pacifist-sounding clause on the reduction and limitation of armaments was explained not only by the military backwardness of the United States from the European powers and by a completely inhuman desire for general disarmament. The main thing was different: the principle of "maximum reduction in armaments" provided the United States with the most favorable conditions in the struggle for political predominance in the world, since the determining factor of rivalry was not military, but economic power, i.e. an area where the United States unquestionably led the way.

Thus, Wilson's Fourteen Points was a kind of manifesto, which, under the guise of pacifist slogans, traced the desire of the American administration to bring the United States to the forefront of world politics, to secure its position as a leading power not only in the economic but also in the political sphere.

Second. The US "Peace Program" not only proclaimed a fundamentally new goal of American foreign policy, it also outlined qualitatively new methods for achieving this goal.

During the war years, the government circles of all the great European powers considered the post-war order of the world in traditional terms. The foundation of the post-war world order was to be the changed balance of power, reinforced by large-scale annexations of the winners at the expense of the losers, i.e. it was supposed to carry out a new redistribution of the world. United States already with conpa 19th century opposed the classical methods of colonial conquest and military-political expansion. they opposed them with the doctrine of “open doors” and “equal opportunities” (proclaimed! in 1899 by US Secretary of State J. Hay in relation to China). Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” contained a demand for international recognition of this doctrine, but no longer as regional, but as a fundamental principle of world politics.

The strategic line proposed by the American government. was to rely on economic advantages and not resorting to wide territorial conquest, oust foreign competitors and secure a dominant position in the world. Unlike England and France, who owned vast territories and established complete political dominance there. The United States sought to achieve its goal primarily through economic and financial leverage. Their program was not otuy- new territorial acquisitions, but the transformation of economic power into world political leadership.

Open door policy beyond the solution this main task had a number of significant advantages before open annexationism. She is allowed avoid excessive spending on military needs and use democratic, national liberation and anti-imperialist traditions, since the main goal was not military, but "peaceful" financial and economic subordination. This policy finally made it possible to condemn the colonial practice European powers and caused a certain sympathy politically exploited and oppressed countries and peoples. Doctrine"open doors" thus represented a theory and the practice of economic colonialism, already contained contains elements of neo-colonialist politics, which finally formed after World War II.

In a sense, this international initiative USA can be called liberal alternative traditional imperialist course, the policy of colonial conquests and military dictate.

In the focus of nuclear destruction. The First Aid Unit (OPM) is a mobile formation of the civil defense medical service

The geopolitical situation in Europe and in the world after the First World War has undergone significant changes. The world balance system of the post-war period was disturbed by two factors: the Treaty of Versailles, which placed Germany in the most humiliating conditions, and the 1917 revolution in Russia. Both factors will become the source of new social upheavals and the Second World War: the first because such humiliation of the whole nation could not but push it towards revanchist sentiments; the second - because of the policy of the Bolsheviks, who led Russia to international isolation (due to refusal to pay the debts of the tsarist government and a separate withdrawal from the war) and proclaimed a course towards a world proletarian revolution.

The Treaty of Versailles put Germany in an extremely difficult position, in fact, in international isolation. This was facilitated by both the policy of the victorious powers, which placed it in an unequal position in the European community, and the policy of Soviet Russia, which was in a similar position and therefore became, as it were, a “natural ally” of Germany, which took advantage of the situation and, blackmailing the victorious countries with the possibility of folding the German -Soviet Union, forced them to make certain concessions. Another reason for France, England, and the United States to want Germany's economic revival was that the impoverished country that Germany had become simply could not pay the huge reparations imposed on it.

France found itself in the most difficult situation: having lost its natural continental ally - Russia, it received in the neighborhood a potentially more dangerous enemy than before the war - Germany. In addition, the French were worried about the Soviet-German rapprochement. During the 20-30s. France will try to rectify the situation by creating a system of alliances with the "small" countries of Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania). All this - together with the position of England, which had more moderate views on the position of Germany (caused by the unwillingness on the part of Great Britain of French predominance on the continent) - made it very difficult to achieve the main goal of France's foreign policy - to preserve the situation in Europe in the form in which it was formed after world war.

The only country that benefited from the war was the United States of America, which went from a European debtor to a major creditor. Two directions have emerged in American foreign policy: the traditional, isolationist, and the new, internationalist. Supporters of the first insisted on the rejection of "automatic" participation in European affairs and extreme caution in accepting international obligations. Supporters of the second spoke of the "historic mission" of the United States, calling it the world's first free country and a stronghold of democracy, whose mission is to bring the light of the liberal idea to all countries and peoples. The struggle of these directions ended with the victory of the internationalists. As a result, the interwar world turned out to be arranged in such a way that practically not a single serious problem of European politics could be solved without American participation. The United States continued to invest in Europe in peacetime, which, combined with the policy of protectionism in relation to European goods, which closed their access to the US domestic market, also adversely affected the European situation.

Naturally, the United States could not but offer its own version of the solution of the German question. Such a plan was the Dawes reparations plan, which was supposed to ensure that Germany continued to pay reparations (and simultaneously open the German market to America as much as possible). His most important task was to stabilize the German mark by providing Germany with a loan of 200 million dollars (of which more than half was owed to American banks). This plan established the size of payments to Germany and the control of the Allies over the German state budget, finances and railways. In 1929, due to the slow recovery of the German economy, this plan was revised. The new plan (the Young Plan) provided for some reduction in the size of annual payments and the elimination of foreign control bodies. The adoption of the Young Plan had one distant but very important consequence: it was during its approval that an agreement was reached on the withdrawal of allied troops from the Rhineland. This happened in the summer of 1930 and allowed Hitler to bring German troops there in March 1936.

First World War brought Japan into the ranks of active players in the world political arena, which has become a powerful dominant in Asia and the Pacific. Decades behind the Western countries in terms of technology, it needed colonies where it could export its products without fear of competition from Western goods. A clash of interests with the United States and Great Britain led to the rupture of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in 1921; As for the United States, Japan has never ceased to be a potential enemy for them. All this led to a rapprochement between Japan and Germany, which resulted in their alliance in World War II.

The entire 1920s were marked by the problem of the allies' debts to each other and the reparation payments they were to receive from Germany. The United States was the main creditor, while France, Italy, Belgium and the United Kingdom were the main debtors. And when the US demanded the return of debts, the allies offered to fully or partially write off their debt, arguing that the provision of loans was the American contribution to the victory over Germany. And although the United States understood the certain validity of such statements, such a solution to the problem did not suit them in any way. Negotiations on this issue lasted four years (from 1922 to 1926) and ended with an agreement providing for the return of $ 2.6 billion, that is, a little more than a quarter of the amount originally requested.

As for the problem of reparations, there were also serious contradictions between the allies, and, above all, in the issue of the dependence of inter-allied debts on the payment of German reparations: France considered them to be rigidly interconnected and assumed to pay its debts from what it would receive from Germany, and the United States and Britain regarded German reparations as a separate issue. Moreover, Great Britain considered it more important that the ruin of an already heavily war-torn Germany with the help of reparations slows down the recovery of European industry as a whole and reduces international trade flows. However, France categorically insisted on receiving reparations. Such a tough position of France can be explained by the fact that, in comparison with Great Britain and the USA, it suffered much more from Germany - if only because military operations were directly conducted on its territory.

Numerous attempts to reach a compromise on this issue did not lead to success, and on December 26, 1922, the reparation commission, by three votes to one, stated the fact that Germany had not fulfilled its reparation obligations and, as a result, declared default on Germany, which (under the Treaty of Versailles) gave France the right to occupy the Rhine zone and Ruhr. Meanwhile, social inequality and unemployment were rising in Germany. Anti-Versailles moods were superimposed on the usual social tension in such conditions: the Germans accused the great powers of intending to completely ruin the country with reparations. The détente of the situation was also not helped by the desire of the communists to subordinate these anti-government and anti-foreign sentiments to themselves and direct them into a revolutionary channel. All this was accompanied by an increase in anti-Semitism, partly provoked by the influx of wealthy Jewish emigrants from Poland (where anti-Semitism became almost state policy under the Piłsudski regime) to Germany. Since this emigration coincided with the worsening economic situation in Germany, the newcomers were blamed for this.

The occupation of the Rhineland escalated the situation to the limit, which resulted in armed uprisings and demonstrations by both left and right forces, which, however, were poorly prepared and suppressed. As a result, a state of emergency was introduced in the country. Great Britain and the United States blamed France for the aggravation of the situation in Germany and put it before the threat of isolation by signing agreements with Germany at the end of 1923 on granting loans to it. From now on, in its confrontation with France, Germany could firmly count on the help of London and Washington.

The shocks caused by the consequences of the First World War subsided by 1924. At this time, important changes began to occur in the world related to the change in the role and place of the social democratic movement in the social political life states. This was manifested by the “entry into power” of social democratic parties, which either became part of a number of coalition governments, or even formed them independently, and the strengthening of the influence of reformist ideas in the ranks of social democracy. Both of these points were both a consequence and a reason for the fact that the theory and practice of the social democratic parties increasingly acquired a reformist orientation with an emphasis on the gradual peaceful transformation of capitalist society into a socialist one. The leaders of social democracy considered their main task to be participation in the work of the parliamentary system and the restructuring of the capitalist economy through "equal business cooperation" between workers and entrepreneurs, as well as through the adoption of social legislation.

Representatives of the communist parties absolutized the tendencies of the acute crisis of capitalism, on the basis of which they demanded an immediate armed and uncompromising struggle for power. Most of these parties, united in the Communist International (Comintern), were under the strong influence of the CPSU (b), which was the reason for such a position.

The change in the role of social democracy in the political life of European states was evidence of the growing crisis of traditional forms of statehood in the post-war development of Europe. However, if in countries with established traditions of bourgeois democracy this process proceeded quite peacefully, then in countries where democratic traditions had not yet taken root, the liberal-reformist path of changing the political structure of society turned out to be extremely difficult, or even impossible. Here, the place of social democracy was often occupied by reactionary mass movements, which eventually led to the elimination of bourgeois democracy and the establishment of totalitarian dictatorships of various kinds (fascism) or other, more traditional forms of authoritarian dictatorial regimes.

In general, it can be said that in the 1920s there were two trends in the political development of states: liberal-reformist (based on the further development of parliamentary democracy, the implementation of reforms and the involvement of leaders of socialist or social democratic parties in the highest authorities); totalitarian, associated with the establishment of fascist and other dictatorial regimes.