The revision of the foreign policy course in the USSR began after the death of Stalin. In the 50s. Malenkov began talking about "detente" in international relations. Let us further consider the distinctive features of the foreign policy of the USSR in 1953-1964.

Peace Treaties

The foreign policy of the USSR in 1953-1964 was focused primarily on the establishment of peaceful mutually beneficial cooperation with foreign countries. On the initiative Soviet leadership many agreements have been signed. So, in 1953, on July 27, an armistice agreement was signed in Korea. As the main means of easing tension on the world stage, the country's leadership saw the expansion of areas of cooperation with other states. In 1955, on January 25, the Presidium of the Armed Forces adopted a Decree ending the state of war with Germany. In September of the same year, the head of the German government arrived in Moscow. During the visit, diplomatic relations were established with West Germany. In 1955, in mid-May, an agreement was signed with Austria. In accordance with it, the state of war was also terminated. The document established and guaranteed neutrality.

In 1956, the USSR returned the leased territory to Finland - Porkkala Udd, where the Soviet naval base was located. In mid-June, the Karelo-Finnish Union Republic was transformed into an autonomous one. In the same 1956, on October 19, Japan and the USSR adopted a declaration on the restoration of diplomatic relations and the termination of the state of war. By the end of the 1950s, the Soviet Union was bound by trade contracts with more than 70 states.

Foreign policy of the USSR 1953-1964 (briefly)

The key directions were identified at the meeting Khrushchev announced the absence of the inevitability of the next world war, pointing to the possibility of different ways of transition to a socialist system and the peaceful neighborhood of countries with different political system. The documents of the congress emphasized the loyalty of the Soviet Union to the principles of independence and sovereignty in cooperation with foreign countries. At the same time, Khrushchev argued that the coexistence of states in the world acts as a specific type of class struggle. It excludes only military methods and does not extend to ideology. In 1957 the Foreign Ministry was headed by a prominent diplomat, Gromyko. The Foreign Ministry was under his leadership until 1985. Gromyko made a great contribution to the development of the negotiation process on the issue of establishing control over the arms race.

Changes in military doctrine

In 1956, a certain inconsistency in the foreign policy of the USSR in 1953-1964 manifested itself. Row foreign countries formed blocks whose activities were aimed, among other things, at containing the influence of the states of the socialist camp and the formation of the national liberation movement of the colonial peoples.

Foreign policy in the USSR in 1953-1964. showed, thus, the determination of the leadership to preserve the model of socialism in the states of South-Eastern and Central Europe.

Libmonster ID: RU-11946

The study of the peace-loving foreign policy of the Soviet state occupies an increasingly prominent place in the writings of Soviet historians. If in 1954 - 1955. (as can be seen from the "Book Chronicle" for the corresponding years) about 50 books and brochures were published in Russian and other languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the peoples of the USSR, and in 1959 - 1960. - over 110, then in 1961 - 1962. - already more than 140, not counting the works in which separate chapters or paragraphs are devoted to the foreign policy of the USSR, and scientific articles. The range of institutions is expanding, the number of authors conducting research work on this issue is increasing. In addition to scientists from Moscow and Leningrad, specialists from Kyiv, Tashkent, Baku, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Tallinn and other scientific centers of the country were actively involved in it. The IML under the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Institutes of International Relations, World Economy and International Relations, History, the Peoples of Asia, Slavic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, and a number of universities intensified their activities in the preparation and publication of books on the history of Soviet foreign policy.

Problems of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union began to be discussed more often than before at international scientific conferences. For example, at a conference held in Prague in May 1961 with the participation of scientists from 11 countries, questions of the USSR's struggle for European security in the postwar years were considered. The Soviet-German scientific session, held in Moscow in April 1962, was dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Rapallo Treaty between Soviet Russia and Germany. The need for further intensification of the work of international scientists was noted at the All-Union Conference of Historians in December 1962.

A profound analysis of Soviet foreign policy is contained in the documents of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU and in the new Party Programme. It shows that the main goal of the party's foreign policy activity is to provide favorable conditions for building communism in the USSR and developing the world socialist system, and delivering mankind from a new world war. The program reveals the ways and means necessary for the realization of this great goal, formulates specific tasks in the field of international relations. Special attention given in it to the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence. The general line of the USSR's foreign policy is comprehensively and profoundly substantiated in the speeches of the head of the Soviet government, NS Khrushchev. These documents, which determined the path of communist construction in our country, were theoretical basis for research on foreign policy issues.

An important condition for the successful scientific development of the history of the international policy of the USSR at various stages of its development is the continuous expansion of the documentary base. Very valuable work is being carried out by the Commission for the Publishing of Diplomatic Documents of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by A. A. Gromyko. In 1961 - 1963 it has published such publications as volumes V-VIII of the "Documents of the Foreign Policy of the USSR" series and several thematic collections 3 . Published but-

Review of Soviet literature on the history of the foreign policy of the USSR for 1954 - 1960. see: "Questions of history", 1961, N 1.

1 For this session, see: European Security and the Threat of West German Militarism. M. 1962.

2 See N. S. Khrushchev. On the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. 1960 T. I. January - May; v. 2. June - December. M. 1961; his own. Communism is the peace and happiness of peoples. T. I. January - September 1961; vol. II. October - December 1961 M. 1962; his own. Prevent war, defend peace! M. 1963.

3 See, for example, "USSR and Arab countries". 1917 - 1960 Documents and materials. M. 1961 (for a review by I. S. Isaikin, see: "Questions of History", 1962, No. 8); "USSR and African countries". 1946 - 1962 Tt. I - II. M. 1963; "Documents and materials on the history of Soviet-Polish relations". T. I. February 1917 - November 1918. M. 1963 (collection prepared jointly with Polish historians).

the second edition of the materials of the 7th Party Congress, much more complete than the previous one, showing the tremendous work of the Central Committee headed by V. I. Lenin in concluding and ratifying the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty 4 . AT last years The attention of historians was attracted by V. I. Lenin's speeches in the bourgeois press, a significant part of which had not previously been known to a wide range of researchers 5 . Very useful work was done by MI Trush 6 . In his book, step by step, information is reproduced in the form of a documentary chronicle about the leadership of V. I. Lenin in the foreign policy of the Soviet state for more than three years (until the end of 1920). It would be desirable to publish a work of a similar nature for 1921-1923. The fact that V. I. Lenin continued to pay great attention to foreign policy during this period, the most various forms of relations with the foreign world, is evidenced, for example, by the diary of V. I. Lenin’s secretaries on duty from November 21, 1922 to March 6, 1923 g. 7, as well as materials cited by A. M. Gak 8 . Of great importance for the study of Soviet foreign policy is the publication of reports, articles, speeches, and interviews by the talented Soviet diplomat GV Chicherin for 1918-1928 9 . It is also impossible not to note the publication of the main foreign policy acts and documents of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, its appeals, statements, resolutions since the 20th Congress of the CPSU - the period of the greatest activity of Soviet diplomacy 10 . In our opinion, it would be desirable to periodically publish new editions of such a book, containing materials for subsequent years. The publication of the memoirs of Soviet diplomatic workers has noticeably revived 11 . These sources help to recreate the picture of events, reveal the motives and circumstances of the foreign policy activities of governments and ministries, legislators and executors, as well as draw information and facts that were not reflected in the documents.

Thus, Soviet historians received at their disposal new valuable documents of creative Marxism-Leninism, as well as the opportunity to use a significant amount of new materials on the history of the international politics of the Soviet country, expanding the existing source base for research in this area.

How fully and successfully are the existing favorable opportunities used? What are some of the results in the development of the problem achieved over the past three years?

A significant number of works have already been written about the foreign policy of Soviet Russia in 1917-1924, when V. I. Lenin was at the head of the Soviet state, especially about the Decree on Peace and the withdrawal of our country from the imperialist war. But there are also significant gaps (both in the study of facts and in their analysis) in the scientific and theoretical interpretation of the foreign policy events of these years. In a number of

4 "Seventh Emergency Congress of the RCP (b)". Verbatim report. M. 1962.

5 See E. V. Klopov, L. M. Trofimova. V. I. Lenin's speeches in the bourgeois press of foreign countries in 1917 - 1922. "History of the USSR", 1962, N 1; Y. Sharapov. V. Schukin. V. I. Lenin on peaceful coexistence (new materials). "New and Contemporary History", 1962, N 6; "Lenin and the American Labor Movement". Publication by I. Andropov. "New time". 1962, No. 19.

6 M. I. Trush. Foreign policy activity of V. I. Lenin (1917 - 1920). Day after day. M. 1963. The book is supplied with an introductory article by the author, dedicated to the struggle of V. I. Lenin for peaceful coexistence with the capitalist countries. A. L. Ugryumov's review of this book, see: "Questions of History", 1963, No. 10.

7 See Questions of the History of the CPSU, 1963, No. 2.

8 A. M. Gak. VI Lenin and the development of international cultural and scientific relations of Soviet Russia in 1920-1924. "Questions of History". 1963, No. 4.

9 G. V. Chicherin. Articles and speeches on questions of international politics. M. 1961.

10 "Collection of the main acts and documents of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on foreign policy issues. 1956 - 1962". M. 1962.

11 I. M. Maisky. Spanish notebooks. M. 1962; his own. Who helped Hitler. (From the memoirs of the Soviet ambassador). M. 1962. A. M. Nekrich's review of both books by I. M. Maisky, see: "Questions of History", 1963, No. 6; M. I. Kazanin. Notes of the secretary of the mission. A page in the history of the first years of Soviet diplomacy. M. 1962; N. N. Lyubimov, A. N. Erlikh. Genoese conference. M. 1963, etc.

Efforts are being made to fill some of these gaps in recent studies 12 .

One of the aspects of the policy of peaceful coexistence carried out under the direct leadership of V. I. Lenin (which has not received due attention in the literature) - its results in the sphere of international legal recognition of the Soviet state - is considered by S. Olenev 13 . Consolidated essay on foreign relations of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1917 - 1920. first given by I. S. Khmel 14 . A number of works examine the relations of Soviet Russia with individual countries or groups of countries. The relations of the Soviet republics with Western states are also being studied. The work of I. S. Khmel is thematically adjoined by the monograph of R. G. Simonenko, based on the use of a large range of Soviet, Polish, Czechoslovak archival materials, many foreign publications and memoirs 15 . It quite fully analyzes the activities of the Paris Peace Conference in that part of it that concerns the redrawing of the post-war map of Europe at the expense of Russian and Ukrainian lands. New information about the anti-Soviet policy of American imperialism in the Far East is given in the work of V. A. Boyarsky, who drew on the documents of the Central State Archive of the USSR 16 . US anti-Soviet intrigues at the Genoa and Hague conferences are the subject of VF Lopatin's book 17 .

The use of a significant number of new documents from the Foreign Policy Archive (FPA) of the USSR and the CPA IML characterizes books on Soviet-German and Soviet-Czechoslovak relations. This enabled the authors to shed light on a wide range of questions of political and economic relations between the Soviet country and Germany and Czechoslovakia. A. A. Akhtamzyan studied the history of the Soviet-German negotiations in the summer of 1918 and the provocative rupture of relations between the German imperialists and Soviet Russia in October of the same year 18 . The collection of articles on the Treaty of Rapallo contains many new materials on Soviet-German relations in 1922-1923, especially on the almost unexplored negotiations in January-February 1922 in Berlin, on the events in Genoa that preceded the signing of the treaty, on the attitude of Western countries to the Rapallo Treaty 19 . V. A. Shishkin showed the inconsistency and duplicity of the foreign policy of Masaryk-Benesh. This book also contains much valuable information about the fraternal ties between the Soviet and Czechoslovak peoples, about the participation of Czechoslovak working people in the restoration of the national economy of the USSR.

Another group of insufficiently studied questions that have recently attracted the attention of researchers is the relations of the Soviet country with the states of the East. Significant results have been achieved in the study of the early period of relations with China. MA Persia shows the positive role of the FER mission in Peking in preparing favorable political conditions for direct Soviet-Chinese contacts. Fresh information about the performances of various strata of Sino-Chinese

13 S. Olenev. International recognition of the USSR. M. 1962.

14 I. S. Khmel. With the banner of peace through the flames of war. Diplomatic activity of the Ukrainian SSR (1917 - 1920). Kyiv. 1962 (in Ukrainian). A. I. Stepanov's review of this book, see: "Questions of History", 1963, No. 6.

15 R. G. Simonenko. The imperialist policy of the Entente and the United States towards Ukraine in 1919. Kyiv. 1962 (in Ukrainian).

16 V. A. Boyarsky. US imperialist invasion of Soviet Russia and its failure. M. 1961.

17 V. F. Lopatin. The failure of the US anti-Soviet plans. Genoa - The Hague. M. 1963.

18 A. Akhtamzyan. From Brest to Kiel. The Failure of the Anti-Soviet Policy of German Imperialism c. 1918 M. 1963.

19 "The Treaty of Rapallo and the Problem of Peaceful Coexistence". "Proceedings of the scientific session dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Treaty of Rapallo (April 25 - 28, 1962)". M. 1963. The authors of the articles are V. M. Khvostov. I. K. Koblyakov, L. A. Bezymensky, I. N. Zemskov, D. S. Davidovich.

20 V. A. Shishkin. Czechoslovak-Soviet relations in 1918-1925. M. 1962.

21 M. A. Persits. Far Eastern Republic and China. The role of the FER in the struggle of Soviet power for friendship with China. M. 1962. Review of L. A. Berezny on this book, see: "Questions of history", 1963, N 4.

th population in favor of the recognition of Soviet Russia leads R. A Mirovitskaya 22 . There are noticeable positive developments in the study of Soviet-Turkish relations. S. I. Kuznetsova talks about the negotiations between the RSFSR, Ukraine, the Transcaucasian republics, on the one hand, and Turkey, on the other, as well as the conclusion of agreements in 1921-1922, about the moral, political and material support provided to Turkey by Soviet Russia 23 . A. Kh. Babakhodzhaev exposes England's attempts to prevent the establishment of good neighborly relations between Soviet Russia and Afghanistan and Iran 24. The history of Soviet-Turkish relations over a fairly long period, both political and economic and cultural, was developed by I. F. Chernikov 25 . The works listed above, taken together, convincingly show what great assistance the Soviet country provided even in those years to the economically underdeveloped states of the East that were fighting for political independence. VI Lenin was the theoretician and practical leader of this policy. It is traditional for the USSR, and any attempt by bourgeois historians to distort it cannot but meet with the most resolute rebuff on our part.

These are some of the results of the study in 1961-1963. that period in the history of Soviet foreign policy, when it was directly led by V. I. Lenin.

Significantly less results have been achieved in the development of the history of Soviet foreign policy from the mid-1920s to the Second World War, although even before these periods were poorly studied. Here, besides the mentioned work by I. F. Chernikov, only the monograph by S. Yu. Oka also contains new information, mainly on questions of international proletarian solidarity with the USSR and partly on the history of its business ties with the capitalist countries. But in this work, foreign documentary publications, the foreign press, and especially Soviet archival documents are not sufficiently used (for example, the materials of the WUA of the USSR are not involved at all). General outline of the foreign policy of the USSR in 1924 - 1939. is given in Volume IX of "World History" 27 , and Soviet-British relations between the two world wars - in the monographs of VG Trukhanovsky and others 28 .

The main issue of Soviet foreign policy during the Great Patriotic War, which has been developed in recent years, were the relations of the USSR with England and the USA. Based on the materials of the WUA, I. N. Zemskov reveals the history of negotiations on the opening of a second front in Europe, diligently falsified by Western historians and memoirists 29 . Much of this story turns out to be a story of sabotage, not the preparation of major military operations against a common enemy by the US and British governments. In the fundamental work on the history of the Great Patriotic War, in the chapters devoted to foreign policy and the international position of the Soviet Union, military-diplomatic relations with the allies in 1943-1945 are also considered mainly 30 . These chapters contain

22 R. A. Mirovitskaya. Movement in China for the recognition of Soviet Russia (1920 - 1924). M. 1962.

23 S. I. Kuznetsova. Establishment of Soviet-Turkish relations (to the 40th anniversary of the Moscow Treaty between the RSFSR and Turkey). M. 1961.

24 A. Kh. Babakhodzhaev. The failure of British policy in Central Asia and the Middle East (1918 - 1924). M. 1962; A. I. Zevelev's review of this book, see: "Questions of History", 1962, No. 12.

25 I. F. Chernikov. Soviet-Turkish relations in 1923 - 1935. Kyiv. 1962 (in Ukrainian).

26 S. Yu. Vygodsky. Foreign policy of the USSR. 1924 - 1929 M. 1963.

27 World History. T. IX. M. 1962. - Authors of the relevant sections: V. G. Trukhanovsky, G. N. Sevostyanov, N. N. Yakovlev, A. M. Nekrich. Review of I. S. Kashkin, N. D. Korobov, A. F. Ostaltseva, M. S. Persov on this book, see: "Questions of History", 1963, No. 10.

28 V. G. Trukhanovsky. The foreign policy of England at the first stage of the general crisis of capitalism (1918-1939). M. 1962, etc.

29 I. N. Zemskov. From the diplomatic history of the second front in Europe (1941 - 1944). Documentary essay. M. 1961.

30 "History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. 1941 - 1945". T. 3. M. 1961; v. 4. M. 1962; v. 5. M. 1963.

new materials about the desire of the popular masses of England and the USA to effectively help the Soviet Union and hasten the end of the war, about the work of the Moscow, Tehran, Crimean conferences, about the activities of the USSR delegation in the European Consultative Commission. So far, relations between the USSR and the states of the East during the war years have been studied much less 31 .

One of the characteristic features of the study of Soviet foreign policy is the decisive increase in levy in the last decade marked by outstanding successes in the struggle for peaceful coexistence. During these years, it has grown stronger and has become one of the most important factors modern development new type international relations between socialist states; at the same time, the Soviet Union has established relations with dozens of countries that have liberated themselves from colonial captivity, and has provided and continues to provide them with moral, political and economic assistance. A study of how Lenin's ideas and principles of the foreign policy of the Soviet state are being implemented in present stage, is thus an extremely topical matter for Soviet scientists. It is no coincidence that the total number of works on the post-war period is noticeably increasing every year. Particularly gratifying is the appearance, along with essays, popular publications, of a number of capital works, mainly collective ones.

The most serious study on the history of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR in the first five years after the war is the book prepared by the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 32 . By analyzing the history of the first post-war years, it shows how practically the world socialist system began to determine the main content and features of the development of international relations. Noting some mistakes and shortcomings generated by the cult of personality, the authors showed that the general line of Soviet foreign policy was correct and analyzed its goals, nature and methods. The book successfully combines a deep theoretical understanding of the factual material with its generalized presentation.

A fundamental study of one of the central problems of Soviet foreign policy - the struggle of the USSR for disarmament over the fifteen post-war years - is another collective work 33 whose authors examine in detail the essence of the problem, its constituent parts and analyze in detail the course of the political struggle around its solution. They show the reality and feasibility of Soviet disarmament projects, which has now been confirmed by such a major success in the peace-loving foreign policy of the USSR as the conclusion of an agreement banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in space and under water. The authors are well acquainted with the issues under study (some of them were directly involved in negotiations with Western countries), they widely use UN documents and materials (the texts of the main proposals of the Soviet Union on the issue of disarmament, made after the Second World War, are given in the appendix to the book), the press of a number of countries, special literature.

The struggle of the Soviet Union for disarmament and international cooperation in the postwar period is described in the works of D. I. Kudryavtsev and M. Ermagabetov, which contain an analysis of Soviet international legal acts and such concepts as disarmament, reduction and limitation of armaments, etc. 34 and in the book by O. V. Bogdanov,

31 One can only point to the book by D. I. Goldberg "Japan's Foreign Policy in 1941-1945." (M. 1962), containing several interesting paragraphs on Soviet-Japanese relations.

32 "International relations after the Second World War". T. I (1945 - 1949). M. 1962. The authors of the relevant chapters and paragraphs are: V. B. Knyazhinskiy, D. G. Tomashevsky, Sh. P. Sanakoev, Ya. M. Shavrov, V. M. Haitsman, Yu. Orlik. V. I. Popov's review of this book, see: "Questions of History", 1963, No. 9.

33 "The struggle of the Soviet Union for disarmament. 1946-1960". M. 1961. Authors: V. I. Menzhinsky, A. S. Piradov, V. A. Zorin, P. F. Shakhov, A. N. Shevchenko, I. G. Usachev.

34 D. I. Kudryavtsev. The struggle of the USSR for disarmament after the Second World War. International legal essay. M. 1962; M. Ermagabetov. USSR on guard of peace and security of peoples. Alma-Ata. 1961.

showing the logic, consistency and purposefulness of the Soviet proposals aimed at banning nuclear weapons tests 35 . The struggle of the USSR in the UN for the solution of topical international problems is considered by GI Morozov 36 .

The study of the Soviet Union's relations with the countries of the socialist camp is gaining ever greater scope - this is natural and absolutely correct. Various problems of these relations are studied unevenly. There are still very few special works on the new type of international political relations. One can only name the work of N. Kapchenko, 37 who examines the basic principles of the foreign policy of the socialist countries and emphasizes that for all the states of the socialist camp, their international policy is, first of all, a tireless, resolute and consistent struggle against thermonuclear war, based on a concrete and real program of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. Significant results have been achieved in the study of economic relations between socialist countries. The new patterns inherent in the socialist economic system and the main forms of economic cooperation between the countries that are members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance are studied in the monograph by N. I. Ivanov 38 .

On the whole successful attempts to theoretically comprehend and explain the presented facts, to reveal the patterns of development of the world socialist system as a community of fraternal countries based on the principles of socialist internationalism, were made by IV Dudinsky 39 . His works reveal the enormous economic effect of cooperation based on the international division of labor within the framework of the socialist camp. A special study of the characteristic features and peculiarities of this division of labor and its role in strengthening the economic might, unity and cohesion of the world socialist system is a collective work prepared by the Institute of Economics of the World Socialist System of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 40 . It shows that the socialist division of labor ensures the greatest efficiency in the economic development not only of the camp as a whole, but of each socialist country, contributes to the gradual overcoming of historical differences in their economic development and the creation of a material base for the transition of all the peoples of the socialist countries to communism within the same historical era.

Undoubted success in studying the problems of the world socialist camp is the writing of works on relations between the countries of the socialist camp and individual Soviet republics. And, F. Evseev published a study on political, economic and cultural cooperation between the Ukrainian SSR and the Polish People's Republic in the war and post-war years 41 . It illuminates both the unity of action in the struggle for peace and friendship among peoples, and the friendly solution of a number of practical issues in relations between Ukraine and Poland. The author considers various forms of economic ties between them - the development of trade, scientific and technical cooperation, the exchange of experience in the field of industry and agriculture, the growing contacts in the fields of culture, science, literature, and art. Unfortunately, the book sometimes lacks generalization of specific information: "examples and facts" prevail. From the works published in other Union republics, it follows

35 O. V. Bogdanov. Nuclear disarmament. M. 1961.

36 G. I. Morozov. United Nations. (Basic international legal aspects of the structure and activities). M. 1962.

37 N. Kapchenko. The foreign policy of the socialist countries is the policy of peace. M. 2961.

38 N. I. Ivanov. Economic cooperation and mutual assistance of socialist countries. M. 1962.

39 I. V. Dudinsky. The world system of socialism and the laws of its development. M. 1961.

40 "Socialist international division of labor". M. 1961. Authors: I. P. Oleinik, A. M. Voinov, I. I. Semenov, S. V. Plaksin, I. P. Kachalov, L. S. Semenova, I. V. Storozhev, G. B. Gertsovich, V. P. Sergeev, A. Alikhodzhich. Under the general editorship of I. P. Oleinik.

41 I. F. Evseev. Cooperation between the Ukrainian SSR and the Polish People's Republic (1944 - 1960). Kyiv. 1962. For B. S. Popkov’s review of this book, see: Voprosy istorii, 1963, No. 11.

mark the books of R. Kuliyev, who collected facts of recent years, characterizing the cultural and scientific ties of Azerbaijan with the countries of people's democracy 42 , and M. Ryskulbekov, covering the economic ties of Kyrgyzstan 43 . A useful summary of Soviet-Mongolian relations over 40 years was given by D. B. Ulymzhiev, who used some new documents from the archives of Ulan-Ude and Irkutsk 44 . The main attention is paid to his assessment of the role of the USSR in the defense of the national independence and freedom of the MPR.

In recent years, much and well-deserved attention of researchers has been attracted by the post-war relations of the Soviet Union with the countries of the East. And here this attention is directed mainly to the study of economic relations. A number of monographs have been written and published on this subject 45 . The great interest in these issues is understandable. The main content of these works is an analysis of the fundamental, qualitative difference between the policies of the socialist and imperialist states in the countries of the East and Latin America. Interesting, for the first time collected together material, summarizing the main problems of relations between the USSR and one of the largest countries in Asia - Indonesia - is collected in the book by Yu. Aleshin 46 . Here, questions of political, economic and cultural cooperation are considered in a complex, the great importance of Soviet assistance for strengthening the independence of the Indonesian state is noted.

A significant number of monographs on individual periods or problems of Soviet foreign policy created more favorable conditions than before for writing generalizing works. Some of them are devoted to the relations of the Soviet Union with individual countries or groups of countries throughout the years of the existence of the Soviet state. Among them, first of all, LN Kutakov's study of Soviet-Japanese relations, 47 which received high praise in the press, should be named. This topic is very complex, requiring the study of a huge amount of material and special language training. Until recently, the number of studies on Soviet-Japanese relations was small. LN Kutakov owns a new word in the development of the problem. The author used a large and varied archival material, mainly from the WUA of the USSR, as well as Japanese documents, press and special literature, which enabled him to cover in detail such issues as the Soviet-Japanese negotiations in 1923, relations between the two countries on fishing and concession issues, the position of Japan during the Great Patriotic War.

On the whole, the work of LB Teplinsky, who analyzes the history of traditionally friendly Soviet-Afghan relations, also deserves a positive assessment.

42 Rza Kuliev. Our friendly relations (international relations of the AzSSR). Baku. 1961.

43 M. Ryskulbekov. Economic cooperation of the Kirghiz SSR with the union republics and countries of socialism. Frunze. 1962.

44 D. B. Ulymzhiev. The indestructible fraternal friendship of the Soviet and Mongolian peoples. Ulan-Ude. 1961.

45 "USSR and Eastern countries. Economic and cultural cooperation". M. 1961. Authors: G. M. Prokhorov, I. P. Bankov, O. V. Vaskov, L. M. Gataullina, I. V. Samylovsky; L. A. Fituni, V. D. Shchetinin. Problems of assistance to economically underdeveloped countries. M. 1961; M. V. Lavrichenko. Economic cooperation of the USSR with the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. M. 1961; "Economic cooperation of the Soviet Union with economically underdeveloped countries". M. 1962. Authors: A. A. Polyak, G. S. Akopyan, O. D. Ulrikh, V. V. Alekseev, B. A. Zhebrak, I. A. Koloskov, V. A. Lyubimov, L. A. Fituni, P. N. Tretyakov, A. S. Kodachenko; V. V. Rymalov. USSR and economically underdeveloped countries. M. 1963; P. N. Tretyakov. Economic independence and two types of assistance to African countries. M. 1963.

46 Yu. Aleshin. Soviet-Indonesian relations. M. 1963. A. P. Lavrentiev's review of this book, see: "Questions of History", 1963, No. 11.

47 L. N. Kutakov. History of Soviet-Japanese diplomatic relations. M. 1962. The publication of this monograph was preceded by the publication of the book: LN Kutakov. Portsmouth Peace Treaty (from the history of Japan's relations with Russia and the USSR, 1905 - 1945). M. 1961. One of the chapters of this work highlights the struggle of the Soviet state for the development of good neighborly relations with Japan in 1917-1945.

48 L. B. Teplinskiy. Soviet-Afghan relations. 1919 - 1960. Brief essay. M. 1961; see also Yu. M. Golovin. Soviet Union and Afghanistan. Experience of economic cooperation. M. 1962.

Revealing the repeated attempts of the imperialists to interfere with the friendship between the USSR and Afghanistan, the author shows the role played by Soviet assistance in maintaining and strengthening the independence of Afghanistan, as well as in the development of its economy. The consistently friendly position of the USSR towards the Arab countries over the course of 45 years, the defense of their political sovereignty and economic independence are examined in a substantive collective work 49 . The authors analyze the role of the Great October Socialist Revolution in the historical destinies of the Arab peoples, for whom favorable international political conditions in the struggle against colonialism and imperialism. The Soviet Union did not recognize either the mandate system that existed between the two world wars, or the various forms of the post-war neo-colonialist policy of Western imperialists in the Arab East. The authors rightly emphasize that relations between the Soviet Union and the Arab states have always been based on the principles of equality, mutual recognition of sovereign rights, friendship and peaceful coexistence.

Along with studies of the complex problems of the Soviet Union's relations with the countries of the East, somewhat more attention was paid to the analysis of its relations with individual Western bourgeois states. Of the monographic works of this kind, VN Beletsky's book, 50 which was the result of a study of a wide range of Soviet and Austrian documents, can be named. The author reveals the position of the Soviet Union, which was not only a supporter of the independence and state independence of Austria, but also actively fought against the infringement of its sovereignty, contributed in every possible way to the demilitarization, denazification and democratization of the country. The post-war relations of the USSR with a number of other capitalist countries are also the subject of separate sections in works on the foreign policy of these countries. A monographic study of relations between the USSR and the USA throughout their entire length has not yet been crowned with significant results. A general assessment of Soviet-American relations at various stages is contained in the monographs of N. N. Inozemtsev and N. N. Yakovlev 52 .

Significantly great results have been achieved in the creation of works summarizing the history of the foreign policy activities of the Soviet country for 45 years as a whole. Among them, first of all, the book devoted to the analysis of the general line of the foreign policy of the USSR 53 should be named. This work examines socio-political, ideological, economic, international legal aspects of peaceful coexistence. Particular attention has been paid to the development and implementation of the policy of peaceful coexistence after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. Today, this policy should ensure not just a long peaceful respite, but peace between states and peoples for the entire historical period, during which countries with different social systems will coexist.

M. E. Airapetyan and G. A. Deborin made a fruitful attempt to characterize the peculiarities of individual historical stages of Soviet foreign policy 54 .

49 "Soviet-Arab Friendly Relations". Digest of articles. M. 1961. Authors V. V. Vladimirov, V. P. Lutsky. L. N. Vatolina, M. F. Gataullin, B. M. Danzig, I. M. Smilyanskaya, V. I. Kiselev, L. N. Kotlov, V. M. Fedorenko, R. G. Landa.

50 V. N. Beletsky. Soviet Union and Austria. The struggle of the Soviet Union for the revival of an independent democratic Austria and the establishment of friendly relations with it (1938 - 1960). M. 1962.

51 See, for example, A. S. Protopopov. Italian foreign policy after the Second World War. Brief essay. M. 1963. (S. I. Dorofeev's review of this book, see: "Questions of History", 1963, No. 11); N. N. Molchanov. French foreign policy. (Fifth Republic). M. 1961.

52 N. N. Inozemtsev. US foreign policy in the era of imperialism. M. 1960 (for V. I. Popov’s review of this book, see: Questions of History, 1961, No. 12); N. N. Yakovlev. Recent US History. 1917 - 1960. M. 1961. L. I. Zubok's review of this book, see: "Questions of History". 1963, No. 3.

53 "Peaceful coexistence - the Leninist course of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union". M. 1962. General edition of A. A. Gromyko. Authors: M. V. Barabanov, E. V. Vladimirov, G. P. Zadorozhny, G. V. Zisman, I. M. Ivanov, I. A. Kirilin, N. N. Lyubimov, I. A. Ornatsky, A. Ya. Popov, A. N. Sergeev, V. A. Shishkin. For N. I. Lebedev's review of this book, see: Voprosy istorii, 1963, No. 4.

54 M. E. Hayrapetyan, G. A. Deborin. Stages of the foreign policy of the USSR. M. 1961.

The authors revealed the real connection and interdependence of foreign and domestic policies, and expressed a number of interesting considerations about the peculiarities of diplomatic tactics at certain stages of the international policy of the Soviet country. The division proposed by M. E. Hayrapetyan and G. A. Deborin into two strategic periods and a number of stages within these periods seems quite acceptable, with the exception of two points: firstly, the end of the recovery period in 1924 and the date of the beginning of the socialist reconstruction of the national economy ( and, accordingly, the next stage of foreign policy) in 1925, because here there is an unjustified deviation from the general periodization of the history of Soviet society; secondly, the allocation in an independent period of 1950 - 1953. as a stage in the struggle of the Soviet Union to eliminate the military adventures of imperialism. This struggle, as is well known, was waged both before and after these years, and with regard to the internal history of the USSR, these years cannot in any way be regarded as a separate stage. The authors believe that there are two main principles of Soviet foreign policy: one relates to relations with capitalist countries (peaceful coexistence), the other - with socialist countries (proletarian internationalism). Relations with the third group of countries - young national states that won independence in the post-war years - are also summed up by M. Hayrapetyan and G. Deborin under the second principle. They question the presence of a separate, third basic principle - respect for the national dignity and sovereignty of other countries and peoples, support for their struggle to win and strengthen state independence. Therefore, the nature of interstate relations between the USSR and a large group of such national states is essentially identified in the book (from the point of view of political principles) with the nature of relations between the Soviet Union and the socialist countries, although there are not only common features, but also certain differences.

The textbooks published in recent years 56 make a positive impression. In two volumes of a three-volume edition published by the staff of the Institute of International Relations, ed. VG Trukhanovsky, a detailed description of international relations of modern times is given. In some cases, the authors use new materials, for example, about the diplomatic struggle in 1939, about Soviet-American relations during the Great Patriotic War. But the structure of these books, in which Soviet foreign policy is considered mainly in connection with the development of international relations and is far from always linked with the internal policy of the Soviet Union, nevertheless narrowed the possibilities of the authors: if sufficient attention is paid to diplomatic relations with Western countries, then very little attention is paid to economic ones. . The same impression remains from the textbook published by the Higher Party School under the Central Committee of the CPSU. In addition, I would like the new editions of these books to reveal more widely the activities of individual Soviet diplomats and give their characteristics.

A great help to students of the history of the international politics of the Soviet Union is provided by the new, considerably expanded and improved edition of the Diplomatic Dictionary (two volumes of this three-volume set have already become the property of the reader).

Due to the fact that interest in foreign policy issues is growing more and more, as was rightly said at the June (1963) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the publication of not only scientific, but also popular science literature is becoming important. Various publishing houses have published a number of useful pamphlets on the struggle of the USSR for peace, disarmament

55 Similar considerations on questions of periodization can be found in the review of this book by PI Kabanov (History of the USSR, 1962, No. 2).

56 "History of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR". T. I, 1917 - 1939 M. 1961; vol. II, 1939 - 1945 M. 1962. Authors: L. A. Nikiforov, A. D. Nikonov, A. A. Akhtamzyan, P. V. Milogradov, L. I. Zubok, F. D. Volkov, G. L. Rozanov, I. A. Kirilin, V. B. Knyazhinsky, P. P. Savostyanov, L. N. Kutakov, V. T. Trukhanovsky, A. N. Krasilnikov, V. I. Antyukhina-Moskovchenko, N. I. Lebedev, D. G. Tomashevsky, N. N. Yakovlev, S. A. Gonionsky, I. V. Kozmenko, N. P. Komolova, V. B. Ushakov, A. I. Pushkash; "International Relations and Foreign Policy of the USSR (1917 - 1960)". M. "1961. Authors: F. G. Zuev, E. M. Ivanova, I. F. Ivashin, V. P. Nikhamin, S. P. Samarsky.

57 "Diplomatic Dictionary". T. I. A-I. M. 1960; vol. II. K.-P. M. 1961.

and international cooperation at the present stage 58 , on the relations of the Soviet Union with socialist 59 , capitalist 60 and economically underdeveloped 61 countries. Most of these pamphlets contain fresh material and cover the events of recent years, although in a number of cases the authors refer to the events of previous decades as well. Politizdat, moreover, showed an initiative that certainly deserves support by publishing the "Library of the Foreign Policy of the USSR", which includes 8 brochures on topical contemporary issues, intended for listeners of the party education network 63 . Another series of popular science works, which shed light on some questions of our country's foreign relations in the postwar years, are brochures published by the Publishing House of the Institute of International Relations on the foreign policy of individual socialist, capitalist, and young nation-states. Separate chapters or paragraphs of these books are devoted to the relations of these states with the Soviet Union. Ukrainian historians have published a number of popular works on the fraternal ties of the Ukrainian SSR with the peoples of the countries of the socialist camp 65 .

Much less frequently are attempts made to publish publications intended for the mass reader, which would reflect Soviet foreign policy over a long period, including the pre-war era, although the existing works of this kind deserve a positive assessment. As an example, one can cite books on Soviet-American relations 66 .

In recent years, another shift has taken place in the publication of literature for the mass reader: historical and biographical essays on Soviet diplomats have begun to appear. Of these works, it is impossible not to evaluate as a successful book by R. Karlova about L. B. Krasin 67,

58 See S. Viskov, V. Polyakov, A. Protopopov, A. Chubaryan. Program of the CPSU and foreign policy of the USSR. M. 1963; V. M. Khaitsman. Soviet Union. Disarmament. Peace. Events and facts. 1917 - 1962. M. 1962; A. O. Chubaryan. stages of struggle. (Struggle of the USSR for disarmament). 1917 - 1962. M. 1962; M. Baturin, S. Tarov. The foreign policy of the Soviet Union at the present stage. M. 1962; L. M. Gromov, V. I. Strigachev. The problem of disarmament is the main issue of our time. M. 1963; V. A. Semenov. The key to peace (on the problem of disarmament). M. 1962; N. V. Bereznyakov. USSR in the vanguard of the struggle for peace. Kishinev.

59 P. A. Lyakhov. The world system of socialism. L. 1962; V. S. Bruz. The community of socialist countries is a powerful factor in peace. Kyiv. 1961 (in Ukrainian); I. M. Kulinich, I. A. Petere. Economic cooperation of the Ukrainian SSR with the countries of socialism. Kyiv. 1962 (in Ukrainian), etc.

60 V. V. Pokhlebkin. Finland and the Soviet Union. M. 1961.

61 R. G. Iskanderov. The Soviet Union - underdeveloped countries. M. 1961; I. A. Kapranov. Two types of help M. 1962; V. D. Slutsky. India and the USSR. Kyiv. 1961 (in Ukrainian); A. I. Belgorodsky, V. N. Ge. USSR - the peoples of three continents. M. 1963, etc.

62 See, for example, G.K. Seleznev. Collapse of the conspiracy. US aggression against the Soviet state in 1917-1920. M. 1963.

63 S. Skachkov, V. Sergeev. G. Shevyakov. Assistance and cooperation for the sake of peace (economic cooperation of the USSR with the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America). M. 1962; V. Mikhailov. End the remnants of World War II in Europe. M. 1962; L. Kharlamova. Colonialism has no place on earth. M. 1962; Vl. Ushakov. Soviet Union and the UN. M. 1962; N. Arkadiev. General disarmament is the path to lasting peace. M. 1962; V. Granov. The main goal of the foreign policy of the USSR. "M. 1962; D. Karaundzhev, V. Kryuchkov, D. Nikolaev. Strengthening and development of the world socialist system. M. 1962; B. Leontiev. The hearts of millions are with us. The foreign policy of the USSR meets the interests of all Peoples, M. 1962.

64 E. Novoseltsev. Austrian foreign policy. M. 1962; L. Alekseev. Soviet Union and Iran. M. 1962; A. Osipov. Foreign policy of the Mongolian People's Republic. M. 1963, etc.

65 S. Zhurba. Fraternal cooperation. Kyiv. 1961 (in Ukrainian); "Friendship is stronger than steel. (Cooperation of enterprises and research institutions of the Ukrainian SSR with workers' collectives of the countries of people's democracy)". Digest of articles. Kyiv. 1962, etc.

66 V. Korionov, N. Yakovlev. The USSR and the USA must live in peace. Soviet-American relations: past and present. M. 1961; R. Gorbunov. Soviet-American trade relations. M. 1961.

67 R. Karpova. L. B. Krasin. Soviet diplomat. M. 1962.

based largely on unpublished documents from the archives of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade. This made it possible not only to tell vividly about the diplomatic activities of L. B. Krasin himself, but also to acquaint the general reader with many interesting details of the work of those conferences in which he participated, pathetic and trade negotiations that he conducted on behalf of the Soviet government in Berlin , Tartu and Stockholm, Moscow, London and Paris, at the Genoa and Hague conferences as the head or member of the Soviet delegation. Less successful is another book about the same figure in Soviet foreign policy. Its author used only published materials 68. Book S. A. Zakharov , despite the small volume, helps to recreate the bright image of the tragically deceased diplomat of the Leninist school P. L. Voikov 69. Brief biographical sketches about another prominent Soviet diplomat who also died in combat, V. V. Vorovsky 70 were published; biography of one of the first people from the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, N. G. Markin. about the creation of a series of books (maybe at first a collection of essays) about prominent Soviet diplomatic workers. Apparently, it would also be expedient to publish a special series of pamphlets on key, most topical issues in the history of the USSR's foreign policy.

Noting the undoubted positive developments in the publication of popular science literature on the foreign policy of the USSR, I would like to draw attention to the shortcomings in this important matter. A number of authors are faced with the not new question of the style of presentation: in some pamphlets the material is presented dryly, inexpressively, there are not enough vivid, memorable facts. Not everything is going well with the theme. Let us point out here the insufficient attention paid to such questions as the new type of international political relations that have taken shape in the socialist camp, the ties between Soviet and progressive foreign socio-political organizations, the international cultural cooperation of the USSR, the relations of the Soviet Union with small European countries, with the states of Latin America.

Achievements in the study of Soviet foreign policy are undoubted both quantitatively and qualitatively. The years 1961 - 1963 were marked by the intensification of publishing work on this issue and the improvement of the documentary base of research, great attention to the events of the last decade and positive changes in scientific popularization work. Significantly increased interest in international political topics. The circle of international historians is expanding. Recently, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences established a special Scientific Council on Foreign Policy and International Relations, which will unite scientific forces and coordinating research activities nationwide. The first session of the council aroused great interest in the scientific community 72 . Today, when the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence plays a crucial role in the struggle for the preservation and strengthening of peace, when this policy is believed and supported by hundreds of millions of people on all continents, the scope of both research and popularization work must undoubtedly increase. The post-war period cannot but come to the fore in this work.

71 N. F. Vargin. Commissioner of the Volga Flotilla. M. 1962.

72 For more details about the session, see: Questions of History, 1964, No. 3.

is called from the words "new stage" 73 , but when this stage began and what are its qualitative features, the author does not bring the necessary clarity to these questions. One cannot fully agree with the periodization proposed by the authors of the aforementioned book on the international socialist division of labor. They date the first stage to the war years - the time when the Soviet Union supplied raw materials, fuel, food to those countries that were liberated from fascist occupation. In our opinion, at that time it was about the provision of emergency assistance, which in most cases was not immediately compensated, and often was of a generally gratuitous nature, and it is hardly possible to speak here of some kind of division of labor. The periodization of the subsequent stages does not adequately take into account the socio-political changes in the people's democracies. It seems to us that the time has come, building on the work already done, to study the history of relations between the USSR and individual socialist countries in a monographic plan. This applies, in particular, to Soviet-Cuban relations 74 . Of more general topics, a book about the activities of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which recently celebrated its 15th anniversary, would be met with interest. In studying the history of the Soviet Union's relations with the countries of the East and Latin America, it would also seem expedient to devote more attention to the monographic development of political and diplomatic problems, as well as to the USSR's relations with individual states. The same applies to the history of relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist states. The role of the USSR in the history of the creation and activities of the United Nations needs a monographic study.

Historians working in the field of foreign policy and international relations are at the forefront of the ideological struggle. This struggle, as the June (1963) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU emphasized, is extremely acute. One form of ideological sabotage that has become more frequent in recent years is the perversion of the peace-loving foreign policy of the USSR and other socialist countries. It is the duty of Soviet scholars to give their work on the history of foreign policy a militant, offensive character. Recently, attention to the criticism of bourgeois historiography on these issues has increased significantly. This is evidenced, in particular, by the general meeting of the Department of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, held on May 21, 1963, at which VG Trukhanovsky's report "The Principle of Peaceful Coexistence and Its Bourgeois Critics" was discussed. And the report and speeches of academicians E. M. Zhukov, I. M. Maisky, I. I. Mints, M. V. Nechkina, B. A. Rybakov, member. - corr. The Academy of Sciences of the USSR V. M. Khvostov testified to the close attention of Soviet scientists to the urgent and acute demands of the modern ideological struggle.

In the volumes on the history of foreign policy, more and more attention is paid to the fight against the falsifiers of history. Thus, in the book edited by A. A. Gromyko, a detailed criticism of the views of the opponents of peaceful coexistence is given. The two-volume edition, edited by V. G. Trukhanovsky, contains an overview of the main Soviet and foreign sources, including publications in Eastern languages, and a critical assessment of the main trends in bourgeois historiography. M. E. Airapetyan and G. A. Deborin in their work criticize foreign falsifications for each of the periods of Soviet foreign policy they consider. Such a detailed criticism is also given in a number of special historiographical works 76 . But the most convincing answer to the bourgeois

73 I. V. Dudinsky. A new stage in the development of economic and political relations between the countries of the world socialist system. "New and Contemporary History", 1963, N 3.

74 It should be noted the publication of a collection of materials on this problem: "The Peoples of the USSR and Cuba Together Forever". Documents of the Soviet-Cuban friendship. M. 1963.

75 See Questions of History, 1963, No. 7.

76 See "Foreign Literature on October revolution". M. 1961; "Criticism of the latest bourgeois historiography." "Proceedings" of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History. Issue 3. M. - L. 1961; E. B. Chernyak. Historiography against history. M. 1962, etc. In scientists from the Union republics are actively involved in the fight against falsifiers of history. See G. A. Galoyan, The Socialist Revolution in the Transcaucasus in the Illumination of Bourgeois Historiography, M. 1960; K. N. Novoselov, Against the Bourgeois Falsifiers of the History of Central Asia, Ashkhabad, 1962; Sh. Inoyatov, Answer to the Falsifiers of the History of Soviet Central Asia and Kazakhstan, Tashkent, 1962. The books by K. N. Novoselov and Kh. Sh.

The most obvious falsifications will be the publication of deep and comprehensive studies on the general line of Soviet foreign policy. Life requires the development of various specific aspects of this problem, such as, for example, the policy of peaceful coexistence between states and the ideological struggle; peaceful coexistence and contradictions between imperialist countries; cooperation between countries with different social systems and class struggle; peaceful coexistence and national liberation movement. It also seems necessary to further study, especially in relation to the post-war period, the question of two tendencies in the attitude of the capitalist world towards the Soviet Union, of favorable factors that objectively facilitate coexistence between them.

Search publisher's materials in systems: Libmonster (worldwide) . Google. Yandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citation):

A. E. IOFFE, THE LATEST SOVIET LITERATURE ON THE HISTORY OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE USSR (1961-1963). HISTORY-FOREI-POLICY-USSR-1961-1963-gg (date of access: 22.08.2019).

USISAPIL

15-03-2011

A.A. Gromyko. History of the foreign policy of the USSR 1917-1980

Soviet-Turkish treaty

The new principles of foreign and national policy proclaimed by the Soviet state also found clear expression in the policy of the Soviet government towards Turkey.

In the first months after the October Revolution, Turkey fought against Russia on the side of Germany. Together with Germany, she was a party to the Brest Treaty. In violation of the Brest Treaty, the ruling circles of Turkey unleashed an intervention in the Caucasus.

But Turkey could not stand the test of the war and shared the fate of the other defeated powers of the Quadruple Alliance. On October 30, 1918, the Entente forced Turkey to sign an armistice at Mudros (on the Aegean Sea). The victors occupied the ports on the coast of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, forced them to open the straits for their warships, occupied Istanbul (Constantinople), demanded the complete demobilization of the army, established control over all railways, mail and telegraph. The Truce of Mudros was in fact the beginning of the division of Turkey. At the Paris Peace Conference, US President Wilson put forward a claim to a number of Turkish territories. There was even discussion of granting the United States a mandate for Istanbul and the Straits. Thus, Turkey was threatened with a complete loss of national independence.

Under the influence of military defeat and the ideas of the October Revolution, a national liberation movement unfolded in Turkey against the internal reaction and imperialism of the Entente, headed by Mustafa Kemal Pasha. Soviet Russia came to the aid of the Turkish people in their difficult struggle.

September 13, 1919 People's Commissar for foreign affairs The RSFSR appealed to the workers and peasants of Turkey. “Comrades, workers and peasants of Turkey!” this document said. “Your brothers, Russian workers and peasants, having experienced all the vileness of these internal predatory bloodsuckers who sold Russia to external predators - European robbers, decided to take the reins of government into their own hands.

And so, for almost two years they have been fighting for their own power, for the power of the working people.

And the hour is near when the triumph of labor over capital will be achieved in Soviet Russia and the enemies of labor will stop their attacks on her.

But this is not enough. It is necessary to unite the working people of the whole world against the world enslavers.

That is why the Workers' and Peasants' Government of Soviet Russia hopes that you, the workers and peasants of Turkey, having experienced everything at such a decisive, responsible moment, will stretch out your fraternal hand in order to drive off the European predators with a joint solid force and to destroy and weaken those who are accustomed inside the country. build your happiness on your misfortune" (19).

In April 1920, a revolutionary government headed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (20) was established in Turkey. Ankara became his residence. Revolutionary Turkey immediately ran into the fierce enmity of the imperialist powers of the Entente, especially England. Already on April 26, Kemal Pasha turned to Soviet Russia with. a proposal to establish diplomatic relations and conclude a military alliance between the two countries. His letter also contained a request to help the struggling Turkey.

On June 3, 1920, the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs informed Kemal Pasha that the Soviet government had familiarized itself with satisfaction with the basic principles of the foreign policy of the new Turkish government. "The Soviet government," the People's Commissar's letter said further, "takes note of the determination of the Grand National Assembly to conform your work and your military operations against the imperialist governments with the lofty ideal of the liberation of the oppressed peoples" (21).

The Soviet government agreed to immediately establish diplomatic and consular relations with Turkey and start negotiations. It expressed its readiness to act as a mediator in negotiations between Turkey, Armenia, where the bourgeois, counter-revolutionary Dashnaks were in power, and Iran.

“The Soviet government,” it was noted in conclusion, “is following with the liveliest interest the heroic struggle that the Turkish people are waging for their independence and sovereignty, and in these difficult days for Turkey, it is happily laying a solid foundation of friendship that should unite Turkish and Russian peoples" (22).

On July 4, 1920, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of revolutionary Turkey, Bekir Sami Bey, announced that the content of the letter was accepted by the Turkish government "with lively pleasure and satisfaction." The Turkish national government also reacted favorably to the proposal of the Soviet government for mediation.

“The Turkish Grand National Assembly is confident,” Bekir Sami Bey emphasized, “that in this unequal struggle undertaken by him and on the outcome of which his own existence depends, as well as the common cause of all suffering mankind, it will find all possible support from the great Russian Soviet Republic that has openly declared itself the liberator of the oppressed and the irreconcilable enemy of the capitalists and imperialists" (23).

On July 2, the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to Mustafa Kemal informing him of the dispatch of a representative of the Soviet government to Turkey. In turn, the Turkish delegation headed by Bekir Sami Bey arrived in Moscow. A draft Russian-Turkish treaty was developed here. Bekir Sami Bey returned to Turkey in the autumn of 1920, taking with him a prepared project.

Meanwhile, the Sultan's government, which still continued to sit in Constantinople under the cover of Anglo-French bayonets, signed with the Entente on August 20, 1920, the enslaving Treaty of Sevres, according to which Turkey was deprived of a significant part of its territory. The government of revolutionary Turkey refused to recognize this predatory treaty and opposed the treacherous government of the Sultan.

Britain and France did their best to keep the government of revolutionary Turkey from negotiations with Soviet Russia by means of threats and promises. They took advantage of the reactionary elements of the Turkish bourgeoisie, who opposed the establishment of close relations with Soviet Russia, and were in favor of an agreement with the imperialist powers. These elements dreamed of territorial conquests in Transcaucasia. Under pressure from the reactionary forces, the Kemalist government rejected the earlier mediation of the Soviet government in negotiations with Dashnak Armenia. It moved its troops against Armenia and put to flight the weak army of the Dashnak government. Blinded by class hatred for the Soviet country, the latter, on December 2, 1920, went to the signing of the enslaving Treaty of Alexandropol with Turkey, which turned almost the entire territory of Armenia, with the exception of the Yerevan region and Lake Gokcha (Sevan), in fact, into a Turkish protectorate. The government of the RSFSR refused to recognize the Treaty of Alexandropol - by the time it was signed, the Dashnak delegation no longer represented the government of Armenia. The establishment of Soviet power in Armenia on November 29, 1920 thwarted the criminal conspiracy against the Armenian people.

The adventure of the reactionary circles of Turkey, which diverted significant military forces for aggression against Armenia, weakened Turkey in its struggle against the imperialists. The position of revolutionary Turkey deteriorated sharply in connection with the beginning of the offensive of the Greek troops, which were the instrument of British imperialism. Under these conditions, the question of assistance from Soviet Russia acquired paramount importance for Turkey. The resistance of the reactionary group in the Kemalist government was overcome. The Turkish delegation in February 1921 again left for Moscow to complete the negotiations. It was headed by Yusuf Kemal Bey, a deputy of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. However, in the course of the negotiations, the Turkish side again revealed attempts to frustrate the conclusion of an agreement with Soviet Russia and to use the negotiations with her only as a means to induce British imperialism to some degree of compliance. When the Turkish delegation was in Moscow, another delegation, headed by Bekir Sami Bey, arrived in London, where a conference of the victorious powers was taking place. British Prime Minister Lloyd George told Bekir Sami Bey that England was ready to transfer the whole of Transcaucasia, including the Baku oil fields, to Turkey's protectorate. The prime minister hoped through such a proposal to disrupt the Turkish-Soviet negotiations, set Turkey against Russia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and deprive it of Soviet assistance. Information about these secret conversations was leaked to the press. GV Chicherin drew the attention of the Turkish delegation to these provocative ideas of the British. “I therefore allow myself to ask,” the people’s commissar wrote about the negotiations of the Turkish delegation in London, “who does Bekir Sami Bey represent, Constantinople (that is, the Sultan. - Ed.) Or Angora? (Ankara. - Ed.) And in In this last case, is there a change in orientation, which, if so, Turkey should have notified us in advance in accordance with our last year's decisions ... "(24).

The Turkish delegation, acting on instructions from Ankara, replied that they understood the provocative nature of the British maneuvers. The delegation assured of the sincerity of the desire of the Kemalist government to conclude an agreement with Soviet Russia.

At the plenary session of the Russian-Turkish conference in Moscow on February 26, 1921, the chairman of the Soviet delegation, G. V. Chicherin, emphasized in his speech the importance of friendly relations between Soviet Russia and the countries of the East. He said: “Friendship of the peoples of the East is for us the basic condition of our international life, and in the same way, friendship with us must be put by Turkey as the basis of its political position. Our moral and political strength is inseparable from our alliance with the peoples of the East, fighting for their liberation. The friendship that unites us must develop in our mutual interests, in the interests of all peoples fighting against tyranny coming from outside. This friendship must find its expression in a formal and final treaty uniting our peoples" (25).

In his response speech, the chairman of the Turkish delegation, Yusuf Kemal Bey, fully recognized the common interests of Turkey and Soviet Russia and the need for cooperation between them. “I will refrain from presenting historical facts here,” he said, “but I dare to assure all the working people of Russia, peasants, workers and soldiers, that the Turkish people sincerely extend their hand to them.”26 Continuing this thought, Yusuf Kemal Bey said: “Geographical, historical, economic and political conditions showed us the way to Russia. Before the representatives of the new Russia, I say with all the sincerity inherent in the Turk: believe in us "(27).

The negotiations ended on March 16, 1921, with the signing in Moscow of the Soviet-Turkish Treaty of Friendship and Brotherhood (28). Its preamble stated that both governments, "sharing the principles of the brotherhood of nations and the right of peoples to self-determination, noting the solidarity existing between them in the struggle against imperialism, as well as the fact that any difficulties created for one of the two peoples worsen the position of the other , and wholly inspired by the desire to establish between them permanent cordial relations and inseparable sincere friendship based on the mutual interests of both parties, they decided to conclude an agreement on friendship and brotherhood. Under Article 1, each party pledged in principle "not to recognize any peace treaties or other international acts, the adoption of which would be forced by force on the other of the contracting parties." The Soviet government agreed "not to recognize any international acts relating to Turkey and not recognized by the National Government of Turkey, now represented by its Grand National Assembly."

The treaty defined the northeastern border of Turkey along the line, according to which the Ardagan and Kars districts went to Turkey. According to Article 2, Turkey was to vacate Batum with the surrounding territory and "cede" it to Georgia, subject to free duty-free transit through the port of Batumi to or from Turkey. The Nakhichevan region was recognized as an autonomous territory under the state sovereignty of Soviet Azerbaijan. "Both contracting parties, stating the contact between the national and liberation movement of the peoples of the East and the struggle of the working people of Russia for a new social system," unconditionally recognized these peoples' right to freedom and independence, as well as their right to choose the form of government, in accordance with their desire. Both sides declared canceled and null and void all the old treaties, and the Soviet government declared that it considered Turkey free from all financial and other obligations assumed under the previous treaties concluded between Turkey and the tsarist government. The government of the RSFSR recognized the regime of capitulations as incompatible with the free national development of Turkey and lost all force. The contracting parties undertook not to allow the formation or stay on their territory of organizations or groups claiming to be the government of another country or part of its territory. The treaty included a very important article (5) devoted to the issue of the straits: "In order to ensure the opening of the straits and the freedom of passage of merchant ships for all peoples, both Contracting Parties agree to transfer the final development of the international statute of the Black Sea and the straits to a future Conference of delegates of the coastal states, provided that the decisions it makes do not prejudice the full sovereignty of Turkey, as well as the security of Turkey and its capital, Constantinople" (29).

Soviet Russia undertook an obligation to Turkey (Article 15) to take steps with regard to the Transcaucasian republics necessary "for the obligatory recognition by these Republics in the treaties that they will conclude with Turkey of the articles of this Treaty that directly concern them" (30).

The Soviet-Turkish treaty, concluded during the struggle of Kemalist Turkey against the Anglo-Greek intervention, was of the greatest importance for her. He strengthened her position in the struggle for independence. He provided the Turkish government with the opportunity to achieve equally favorable conditions in negotiations with other states. The treaty helped to strengthen the new regime in Turkey.

Fulfilling its obligation under Article 15 of the treaty, the Soviet government took an active part in the preparation of the treaty between Turkey and the Transcaucasian Soviet republics - Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. On October 13, 1921, with the participation of the RSFSR, a friendship agreement was concluded in Kars between Turkey, on the one hand, and Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, on the other. It repeated the main provisions of the Moscow Treaty of March 16, 1921 between the Soviet Union and Turkey.

At the conclusion of the Moscow Treaty between the representatives of the RSFSR and Turkey, an exchange of notes took place, which significantly supplemented the agreement. The note of the Turkish Ambassador dated March 16, 1921 stated: “In order to establish relations between Turkey and Russia based on complete sincerity and to irrevocably eliminate everything that could violate complete mutual trust, Turkey undertakes to immediately, without delay and in all details, report To the Russian Soviet Government about every statement or proposal from any power pursuing a policy in Asia different from the policy of Russia, on the issue of rapprochement or agreement of this power with Turkey, and equally undertakes to inform the Russian Soviet Government about all negotiations between Turkey in the future and one of the above powers.

Turkey also undertakes not to conclude any treaties that may affect the interests of Russia without notifying the latter" (31).

In a reply note from the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, dated the same date, the Soviet government took note of Turkey's commitment and, for its part, gave a similar commitment to the Turkish government (32).

In another note, also dated March 16, 1921, the Turkish government, on behalf of the Turkish National Assembly, undertook that "in the event of an intention ... to introduce changes of a fundamental nature or in the sense of orientation into the general direction of Turkish foreign policy towards Russia, the fact of such decision will be immediately brought to the attention of your (i.e., Soviet. - Ed.) Government "(33). In a reply note, the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs gave a similar commitment on the part of Soviet Russia.

Simultaneously with the signing of the Moscow Treaty of March 16, 1921, an agreement was reached between representatives of the RSFSR and Turkey to provide Turkey with financial assistance in the amount of 10 million gold rubles. Of this amount, 5.4 million rubles. were transferred to Turkey in parts during April, May and June 1921.

The time for Soviet Russia was very difficult. Economic disruption has not yet been overcome in the country. Nevertheless, the Soviet government transferred to the Turkish government at the end of 1921 another 1.1 million rubles. gold (34). They were extremely necessary for the purchase of arms and equipment for the Turkish army, without which it would have been difficult for the latter to continue the struggle against Greece, which enjoyed the support of British imperialism.

Soviet assistance to Turkey was not limited to financial support. M. V. Frunze's trip to Turkey in 1921-1922 also played an important role. Frunze's mission was formally sent on behalf of the Ukrainian SSR, where he served as commander in chief. Its official goal was to conclude an agreement between Turkey and the Ukrainian SSR, similar to the Moscow one. The decision to go to Frunze was taken at a very crucial moment in the Greco-Turkish war, when a decisive battle was brewing. In fact, the significance of the Frunze mission went far beyond Ukrainian-Turkish relations.

Frunze went to Turkey in November 1921. This trip was very tiring. M. V. Frunze and his companions, getting to Ankara, had to make a significant part of the journey on carts.

On December 20, 1921, M.V. Frunze addressed the National Assembly of Turkey. He publicly exposed the intrigues of the imperialist powers of the West, aimed at undermining the Soviet-Turkish friendship. “It goes without saying,” he said, “that they will begin to play the role of flattering friends and well-wishers and will make every effort to undermine the friendship between Turkey and the Soviet governments - this is the only guarantee of the integrity and independence of Turkey and, pushing Turkey to act against the Soviet governments, under the guise of friendship, will try to achieve the goal that they failed to achieve with the help of weapons" (35).

The arrival of M. V. Frunze in Turkey was highly appreciated by Mustafa Kemal in his telegram addressed to the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M. I. Kalinin and the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee G. I. Petrovsky:

“The fact,” the telegram said, “that the government of the Ukrainian Republic, in order to conclude a treaty of friendship with us and even more vivid confirmation of the political, economic and other ties that exist between the two peoples, sent to us Mr. Frunze, one of the most important political leaders and commander-in-chief, as well as one of the most valiant and heroic commanders of the Red Army, and the fact that this decision was communicated to us on the eve of the Battle of Sakaria (in which the Turks defeated the Greeks - Ed.), at a time when the enemies announced to the whole world that our final defeat is a matter of the near future evokes a particularly deep feeling of gratitude among the members of the National Assembly" (36).

In a difficult period, when the Soviet country fell victim to crop failure and famine, when the grave consequences of foreign intervention had not yet been eliminated, the Soviet government found it possible to provide financial, military and other assistance to Turkey. “As a result of the friendship established with the Russians,” Mustafa Kemal pointed out, “a significant number of guns, rifles and shells were received mainly from them” (37). So, on December 29, 1921 and April 29, 1922, the Soviet government in Novorossiysk handed over mine and artillery property, a certain number of rifles, etc. to the Turkish consul in Novorossiysk. In 1922, Turkey received equipment for a cartridge factory. On May 3, 1922, the Soviet government transferred 3.5 million rubles to Turkey. gold - the last installment on account of 10 million provided to the Turkish government. M. V. Frunze also donated funds for organizing a shelter in Turkey for children who lost their parents at the front. Baku workers sent a train with kerosene and gasoline to Turkey at a time when they were in great need.

On January 2, 1922, an agreement was signed in Ankara between the Ukrainian SSR and Turkey. It repeated the main terms of the Soviet-Turkish treaty of 1921.

“The stay of Comrade Frunze,” reported the Plenipotentiary of the RSFSR in Turkey, S. I. Aralov, “left a deep impression here. They speak of him as a wonderful, sympathetic person, they consider him a great friend of Turkey, he dispelled all misunderstandings and turned the sympathies of the Turks towards the RSFSR. Of course, he is considered a representative not only of Ukraine, but of the entire RSFSR, and his words, promises, speeches, judgments are considered the opinions of the entire Federation" (38).

Mustafa Kemal attached great importance to the friendship of the new Turkey with Soviet Russia. So, in a radiogram addressed to V. I. Lenin dated December 18, 1920, he stated: “In the firm conviction that only our close cooperation will lead us to the desired goal, I welcome any further strengthening of the friendly ties that bind us. I express to you my deep gratitude for the far-sighted policy which, on your high initiative, is being pursued by the Soviet Republic both in the East and throughout the world" (39).

In the future, while Kemal Pasha was in leadership of Turkey, the best friendly relations were maintained between her and the Soviet country. The 1921 Treaty of Friendship and Brotherhood served as an unchanging and reliable basis for them.

In the telegram of the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR to the Head of State and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey dated March 15, 1961, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of this treaty, he was given a very high assessment. “This historic treaty,” the telegram says, “concluded between our countries with the participation of V.I. Lenin and K. Atatürk during the years of the struggle of both countries against imperialist forces, contributed to the victory of the Turkish people in the national liberation war and the establishment of friendly relations between the Soviet Union and the Republic of Turkey" (40).

Notes

20 Atatürk (i.e. "father of the Turks") Kemal Pasha was subsequently named as a token of great service to Turkey.

21 Documents of foreign policy of the USSR, vol. 2, p. 555.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid., p. 556.

24 Documents of foreign policy of the USSR, vol. 3, p. 589-590.

25 International Life, 1958, No. 2, p. 156.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Documents of foreign policy of the USSR, vol. 3, p. 597-607.

29 Documents of foreign policy of the USSR, vol. 3, p. 599.

30 Ibid., p. 602.

31 Ibid., p. 606.

32 Ibid., p. 606-607.

33 Ibid., p. 605.

34 Documents of foreign policy of the USSR, vol. 3, p. 675.

35 Documents of foreign policy of the USSR, vol. 4, p. 782.

36 Ibid.

37 Kemal M. The path of the new Turkey, 1919-1927. M.. 1934, v. 3, p. 310.

38 Documents of foreign policy of the USSR, vol. 4, p. 782-783.

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE SOVIET UNION

From confrontation to peaceful coexistence. After Stalin's death, serious changes took place in the field of foreign policy. Its very foundations began to change. Different points of view on the prospects of the foreign policy course among the top leaders of the country were also revealed.

Beria believed that one should bet on peaceful coexistence with the West. He agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that it become a neutral democratic state. Beria also offered to restore relations with Yugoslavia. He considered the CMEA ineffective and proposed to reform it.

Malenkov proceeded from the fact that after the war the international situation developed in favor of the USSR and its allies. He understood that in the event of a nuclear war, the entire world civilization would perish. Therefore, Malenkov was a supporter of the policy of peaceful coexistence. Khrushchev came to the same views over time.

In contrast, Molotov rejected the idea of ​​peaceful coexistence, believing that it was beneficial to the West. He proposed to maintain a tough confrontation between the two systems.

All leaders, however, were unanimous that the peaceful future of the Soviet people depended on the development of relations with the West.

Beginning of dialogue with the West. The death of I. V. Stalin coincided with the coming to power of the new US president. On April 16, 1953, D. Eisenhower appealed to the Soviet leadership to change the very atmosphere of international relations, to move from mutual distrust to cooperation. As concrete steps along this path, he proposed achieving the establishment of peace in Korea, Indochina, and limiting the production of nuclear weapons.

The Soviet leadership responded to these proposals. In the summer of 1953, an armistice was signed in Korea. Georgia and Armenia announced that they have no territorial claims against Turkey. In 1954, an agreement was reached to end the war in Indochina. At the same time, the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Poland proposed to convene a pan-European conference on collective security in Europe. In 1955, the victorious countries signed the State Treaty with Austria, according to which the USSR withdrew its troops from its territory. In the same year, the USSR announced the end of the state of war with Germany, and in 1956 - with Japan. Some of the top Soviet leaders even offered to conclude a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the United States. However, this proposal did not find support from Khrushchev. At the same time, he believed that the guarantee of peace is not the achievement of equality. nuclear forces USSR and the USA (which was still far away), but "complete cessation of production and destruction of nuclear weapons."

After the USSR in the second half of the 50s. managed to achieve superiority in the creation of missile delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons (for the first time the territory of the United States became vulnerable to attack), the nature of relations with the West became noticeably tougher. In 1956, the threat of a Soviet nuclear attack thwarted the Western countries' aggression against Egypt and prevented them from intervening in the Hungarian events. The same argument was of decisive importance in the days of the Berlin crisis of 1961, when a wall was erected to separate the western and eastern sectors of the German capital.

The Caribbean crisis of 1962 turned out to be the most dangerous for the destinies of the world, when, in response to the deployment of American nuclear missiles in Turkey, the USSR delivered medium-range nuclear missiles to Cuba. The world was on the brink of nuclear war. She managed to avoid it only at the very last moment. The USSR agreed to remove nuclear weapons and missiles from Cuba, while the United States pledged not to attack the "Island of Freedom" and to remove its missiles from Turkish bases. With the overcoming of the Caribbean crisis, there has been an improvement in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States.

But after the death of Kennedy (November 1963) and the resignation of Khrushchev (October 1964), the process of normalizing relations between East and West was interrupted.

The beginning of the crisis of the world socialist system. Strengthened by force, the "socialist camp" from the very beginning was heterogeneous, and its unity was very relative. Nevertheless, after Stalin's death, it not only survived, but also outwardly became even more durable - in May 1955, the military Organization of the Warsaw Pact was created. Its task was not only in defense against an external enemy, but also in the possible suppression of internal "unrest" in the participating countries themselves.

The situation began to change rapidly after the rejection of Stalinism proclaimed at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the announced variety of forms of transition of various countries to socialism. These conclusions were taken seriously at once in several socialist countries, where democratization processes began. In the autumn of 1956, there was a change of leadership in Poland, where mass demonstrations and strikes of workers began in the summer. Following this, part of the Hungarian population sharply criticized the leadership of the ruling Hungarian Workers' Party. Soviet troops entered the territory of Hungary, suppressing the uprising raised by the population against the authorities. Events in Hungary and Poland prompted Khrushchev not only to toughen his policy towards the socialist countries, but also to limit criticism of Stalinism within the USSR itself.

After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the second center of the world communist movement began to gradually form in China. It was joined by Albanian and Korean leaders, as well as some of the leaders of the communist movement in Asian countries. They reacted painfully to criticism of Stalin and Stalinism, as well as to the "thaw" in relations between the USSR and the USA. Mao Zedong said that "Soviet revisionism and American imperialism, acting in a criminal conspiracy, have done so many vile and vile deeds that the revolutionary peoples of the whole world will not spare them." Territorial claims against the USSR also began to be openly expressed. Khrushchev's attempts to get the Chinese position condemned by the world's communist parties led to an open split in the world communist movement.

This was yet another sign of the emerging crisis of the world socialist system.

USSR and third world countries. 1950s - early 1960s passed under the sign of the collapse of the colonial empires of England and France. The liberated countries sought to pursue an independent domestic and foreign policy, not joining either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. However, they faced significant pressure from both sides. For a more successful counteraction to it, the Non-Aligned Movement was formed, which united the countries of the "third world".

The Soviet leadership considered the liberated states as their allies in the "fight against imperialism." First of all, ties with the leading countries of the Non-Aligned Movement began to strengthen: India, Indonesia, Egypt. Prime Minister of India J. Nehru, President of Indonesia Sukarno, and President of Egypt G. A. Nasser visited Moscow. The USSR provided military and economic assistance to developing countries. In India, a smelter was built in Bhilai. In Egypt, the construction of the Aswan Hydroelectric Power Plant, the largest in Africa, has begun. Large-scale deliveries of Soviet weapons to the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America were carried out. With Soviet military and political support, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, and Indonesia liberated the island of Timor from the Dutch.

Such close cooperation between the USSR and the countries of the "third world" could not but disturb the United States and its allies. They also began to fight for influence on developing countries: in the Middle East they began to support Israel against Egypt, in South Asia - Pakistan against India. The states of the West also tried to deepen the contradictions between the countries of socialism.

SPIRITUAL LIFE OF THE COUNTRY IN 1953-1964

The beginning of a "thaw" in the spiritual life. Most major changes after Stalin's death occurred in the spiritual life of the peoples of the Soviet Union. According to the figurative expression of the famous writer I. G. Ehrenburg, after the long Stalinist "winter", a period of "thaw" began.

This was manifested not only in the removal of the most severe restrictions on the activities of masters of culture, but also in the gradual resumption of cultural ties with foreign countries.

In 1957, in Moscow, in an atmosphere of festivity and openness unprecedented at that time, the VI World Festival of Youth and Students was held, which marked the beginning of regular contacts between Soviet youth and foreign peers.

Literary and journalistic works appeared, marking the birth of a new trend in Soviet literature - renovationist. It was headed by the Novy Mir magazine, whose editor-in-chief at that time was A. T. Tvardovsky. Innovative articles by V. V. Ovechkin, F. A. Abramov, works by I. G. Ehrenburg ("The Thaw"), V. F. Panova ("The Seasons"), F. I. Panferov ("Volga- Mother River") and others. In them, the authors for the first time raised the question of the destructiveness of the atmosphere of previous years for the intelligentsia. It was so bold that Tvardovsky was removed from the leadership of the magazine.

V. D. Dudintsev (“Not by Bread Alone”), D. A. Granin (“Searchers”), E. Ya. Dorosh (“Village Diary”) spoke about this in their works. Vivid works were created by recognized masters of literature - F. A. Abramov ("Brothers and Sisters"), M. A. Sholokhov ("Virgin Soil Upturned"), K. G. Paustovsky ("Golden Rose"). The multi-volume epics created for many years by V. P. Kataev (“Waves of the Black Sea”), V. A. Kaverin (“Open Book”) and others, which had been created for many years, were completed. ", in which the Stalinist period of our history was comprehended.

Front-line writers Yu. V. Bondarev ("Battalions ask for fire", "Silence") and G. Ya. Baklanov ("A span of the earth", "The dead have no shame") .

A characteristic feature of the literature of the times of the "Thaw" was the posing of problems that were previously closed to free discussion: the relationship between revolution and morality ("The Blue Notebook" by E. G. Kazakevich), the cost of the people's victory in the Great Patriotic War ("The Fate of a Man" by M. A. Sholokhov ) and etc.

Art culture. Criticism of Stalin's "personality cult" in party documents led to a revision of the previous ideologized assessments in the field of artistic culture. In 1958, in a special resolution of the Central Committee, charges were dropped against prominent figures of Russian musical culture - Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Khachaturian, and others.

The beginning of the creative activity young composers E. V. Denisov, A. P. Petrov, A. G. Schnittke, R. K. Shchedrin, A. Ya. Eshpay and others. These years saw the flowering of the work of the outstanding composer G. V. Sviridov. The whole country sang the songs of A. N. Pakhmutova to the verses of N. A. Dobronravov "Song of Anxious Youth", "Geologists", "Girls", etc.

In painting, the avant-garde art of the 1920s was rehabilitated. Along with the works of famous masters that aroused great interest ("Mother" by A. A. Plastov, "Self-portrait in a red fez" by R. R. Falk, etc.), paintings by talented innovative artists V. I. Ivanov, V. E. Popkov , T. T. Salakhova, a new direction was affirmed - the "severe style" with its conciseness in details and emphasized drama in the assessment of life phenomena. The paintings "Our everyday life" and "Geologists" by P.F. Nikonov, "Rafters" by N.I. Andronov and others became the object of lively disputes among the audience. and "formalists". But it was no longer possible to ban their creativity.

The work of the outstanding sculptors S. T. Konenkov and S. D. Erzya (Nefedov), who returned from a long emigration, returned to the Soviet audience. A lively response from contemporaries was caused by Konenkov's "Self-portrait", a series of female portraits of Erzya.

Thanks to the beginning of the "thaw", the national culture was enriched by many bright works, which received recognition not only at home, but also abroad. For the first time, Soviet films received the Grand Prix at film festivals in Cannes ("The Cranes Are Flying" by M. K. Kalatozov) and Venice ("Ivan's Childhood" by A. A. Tarkovsky). New names of directors appeared in the cinema, which determined its development for many years - S. F. Bondarchuk, L. I. Gaidai, G. N. Chukhrai, M. M. Khutsiev.

Updating the system of ideological control. Innovative works of art contributed to the formation of a new, completely different mental attitude in the Soviet person, and as a result, a change in the spiritual atmosphere in society. But that was precisely what worried the authorities. As a result, special resolutions of the Central Committee appeared, setting the limits of "freedom of creativity", beyond which the intelligentsia could not go in criticism of the existing order. Otherwise, she was threatened with new persecutions.

A striking example of such a policy was the Pasternak case. The publication in the West of the novel "Doctor Zhivago" banned by the authorities and the award of the Nobel Prize to B. L. Pasternak literally put him outside the law. He was expelled from the Writers' Union and was forced to refuse the award in order to avoid deportation from the country.

In other cases, the authorities were not so harsh. A real shock for millions of people was the publication in Novy Mir of A. I. Solzhenitsyn's stories One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and Matrenin Dvor, which loudly declared that the "cult of personality" had been overcome in the minds of the Soviet people.

At the same time, in an effort to prevent the mass nature of anti-Stalinist publications, which hit not only Stalinism, but the entire existing system, Khrushchev specifically in his speeches drew the attention of writers to the fact that "this is a very dangerous topic and difficult material" and deal with it necessary, "observing a sense of proportion." Official "limiters" also acted in other spheres of culture. Not only writers and poets (A.A. Voznesensky, D.A. Granin, E.A. Yevtushenko, K.G. and sculptors, artists, directors (E. I. Neizvestny, R. R. Falk, M. M. Khutsiev and others), philosophers, historians.

Since direct repression against the intelligentsia was no longer possible, new forms of ideological influence on it were chosen. One of them was the regular holding of meetings of the leadership of the Central Committee with cultural figures, at which they gave "assessments" of their works and instructions on what should be done and how. All this had a restraining effect on the development of artistic culture.

The development of a multinational culture. The democratization of national politics contributed to further development Soviet multinational culture.

With new literary works Ch. Aitmatov, T. Akhtanov, I. Huseynov, D. K. Shengelaya spoke. Yu. P. Herman completed his trilogy: "The cause you serve", "My dear man" and "I am responsible for everything." A major event in the literary life of the mid-50s. was the completion of many years of work by M. O. Auezov on the epic "The Way of Abai", revealing the pages of the life of the Kazakh people. Created in the mid-50s, he was very popular with readers. magazine "Friendship of Peoples", which published the works of writers and poets of different nationalities.

Outstanding poetic works were created by I. V. Abashidze (“Palestine, Palestine…”), M. Tursun-Zade (“Voice of Asia”), Y. Marcinkyavichyus (“Blood and Ashes”), E. Mezhelaitis (“Man”), M. Rylsky ("Roses and grapes"), A. A. Akhmatova ("Running time"), P. U. Brovka ("And the days go by"), etc.

The painting works of artists from the Union republics - T. N. Yablonskaya from Ukraine, R. V. Kudrevich from Belarus, N. I. Bakhchevan from Moldova, R. R. Sturua from Georgia, O. Skulme from Latvia and others

Power and Church. The party leadership's attitude to the full-scale construction of communism could not but lead to a new wave of "struggle against the remnants of the past", primarily against religion and the church. From the end of the 50s. a new noisy anti-religious campaign unfolded. Activities of the Russian Orthodox Church and other religious denominations was placed under the de facto control of local authorities. Church elders were subject to approval by the authorities, and weddings, baptisms and funerals began to be recorded in special books, according to which the authorities then found out whether the participants in the rituals belonged to the party and the Komsomol (this was usually followed by expulsion from these organizations and troubles in the service or at the place of study ).

With the help of these measures, the authorities solved several problems at once: the bulk of believers were excluded from participation in religious affairs; religious activity was now completely under the control of the authorities; in relation to these measures, a clear split was outlined among the believers themselves, which turned into a split in church communities.

In the early 60s. started new wave destruction of temples. The number of Orthodox parishes in the country for the period 1953-1963. more than doubled.

All this could not but give rise to mass movements in defense of the rights of believers. They demanded that the authorities fulfill the provisions of the 1936 constitution on freedom of conscience.

Education. Established in the 30s. The educational system needed to be updated. It had to correspond to the prospects for the development of science and technology, the new tasks of economic construction. In 1953-1964. state spending on education has increased significantly, the latest technical developments have been introduced into the educational process. Separate education for boys and girls was abolished. Thousands of new schools, dozens of new universities have been opened. A complex of buildings of Moscow University on the Lenin Hills was put into operation.

At the same time, the growing needs of the extensively developing economy annually required hundreds of thousands of new workers for thousands of enterprises created in the country. Since 1956, "public calls" for young people to work at Komsomol shock construction sites have become a tradition. However, due to the lack of basic living conditions, the dominance of manual labor, many children returned home a few months later.

In December 1958, the school reform project was approved. Instead of the seven-year period, compulsory eight-year education was introduced. Young people received secondary education by graduating from either a school for working (rural) youth on the job, or technical schools that worked on the basis of an eight-year plan, or an average three-year labor general education school with industrial training. For those wishing to continue their education at the university, a mandatory work experience of at least 2 years was introduced.

Thus, the acuteness of the problem of the influx of labor force into production was temporarily removed. However, for production managers, this created new problems with even greater staff turnover and a low level of labor and technological discipline among young workers.

In August 1964, a decision was made on secondary education on the basis of a ten-year period as the main form of education.

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE USSR IN THE MIDDLE 1960s - 1980s

Growing conservative tendencies. L. I. Brezhnev. After the removal of N. S. Khrushchev from the leadership of the party and the state, L. I. Brezhnev became the leader of the country. He advanced to party work in the conditions of the mass purge of the 1930s, becoming secretary of the regional party committee. During the war years, Brezhnev was the head of the political department of the army, the political department of the front, then led the regional and republican party organizations. In the early 60s. he became the formal head of state (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR). According to his personal qualities, Brezhnev was a sociable, benevolent and sympathetic person. He could well meet those who asked him for help and support. He liked walking in the fresh air, swimming. He was a passionate hunter and car enthusiast. I watched movies with interest, especially about the war. Brezhnev was neither an outstanding theorist nor a brilliant organizer, and he himself understood this. He considered the main thing in the political assessment of his personality to be that he took into account the psychology of people and knew how to select personnel. In a totalitarian system, these qualities were decisive for a leader. Later, with age, Brezhnev lost his sense of reality, became subject to outright flattery, as a child rejoiced at numerous awards and prizes, which he sincerely perceived as a nationwide assessment of his work. As a result, by the end of his life, Brezhnev was awarded 122 orders and medals, including 4 times the Gold Star of the Hero of the Soviet Union, the Gold Star of the Hero of Socialist Labor, 8 Orders of Lenin, the military order of Victory, etc. In the conditions of growing illness, he entrusted more and more cases to his closest associates - Yu. V. Andropov, A. A. Gromyko, D. F. Ustinov. On his behalf, even such deeds that he did not approve and did not support were increasingly performed.

The 18-year rule of Brezhnev became a "golden age" for the party-state nomenklatura. The party apparatus was tired of the numerous reorganizations of the Khrushchev era and therefore gladly accepted Brezhnev's main slogan - "to ensure the stability of personnel." In fact, this meant the conservation not only of political structures, but also the occupation of nomenklatura posts for life. Corruption flourished among government officials.

Soon "stability of personnel" led to the fact that average age top leaders of the country crossed the 70-year milestone. Their physical "extinction" began - in the period between the XXVI and XXVII congresses of the CPSU (1981-1986), three General Secretaries of the Central Committee died (and only 9 members and candidate members of the Politburo of the Central Committee out of 22). It is no coincidence that the eleventh five-year plan was called the "five-year plan for a magnificent funeral," and the abbreviation of the USSR in folklore began to stand for "Country of the Oldest Leaders."

There has also been a tacit "rehabilitation" of Stalin. Officially, no one canceled the decisions of the XX and XXII Congresses of the CPSU, but the mention of them was no longer associated with the condemnation of the "cult of personality."

Strengthening party control. The new status of the party apparatus had to be formalized. At the next, XXIII Congress of the CPSU in 1966, all changes in the Charter, introduced by Khrushchev to weaken the position of the party apparatus, were canceled. Chief among them was the limitation of the term of office in the party. At the 24th Congress in 1971, it was decided to expand the circle of institutions and organizations in which party committees had the right to control the activities of the administration.

Party committees of ministries and departments received the right to intervene in matters of state administration. The privileges of the nomenklatura were also expanded, allowing its representatives, even with an average salary, to have first-class housing, medical care, and summer cottages. Of particular importance, in the context of a constant shortage of food and light industry goods, was the supply of responsible workers. For 80 rubles. in the dining room medical nutrition"The family of a representative of the nomenklatura elite could eat for a month various delicacies (balyk, sausages, cheeses, caviar, confectionery), which ordinary citizens had long forgotten about.

The number of employees of the party-state apparatus also grew, the number of various institutions increased. If in 1965, with the revival of the sectoral ministries, their number was 29, then by the mid-80s. - already 160. 18 million people were employed in the management system - almost every seventh worker.

The growing role of the military-industrial complex. Since the mid 60s. the country's leadership set the task of achieving military-strategic parity (equality) with the United States. Not only the expanded production of nuclear and missile weapons, conventional weapons, but also the development of the latest combat systems began. Under these conditions, the role and influence of the army command and the leadership of military production grew even more.

The apogee of the process of merging the state and military-industrial elite was the appointment in 1976 of the Minister of Defense of a member of the Politburo D.F. - the entire defense industry. For the first time in the history of the country, the head of the army has turned from a simple executor of the decisions of the political leadership into a participant in the development and adoption of these decisions themselves. The results became apparent pretty soon. The USSR began to annually produce tanks and armored personnel carriers almost 5 times more than the United States, and by the mid-80s had. 64 thousand tanks (NATO countries have 22 thousand). The Soviet Union had 3 times more nuclear submarines, 2 times more strategic bombers, 7 times more guns and mortars. The armies of 130 countries of the world were armed with Soviet Kalashnikov assault rifles. The share of military spending in the gross national product of the USSR in some years reached 30%.

The role of the KGB has also increased markedly - not only in ensuring control over society, but also in making the most important political decisions. It is no coincidence that Brezhnev's successor as leader of the party and the state was the former chairman of the KGB, Yu. V. Andropov.

The concept of "developed socialism". Brezhnev and his entourage were well aware that there could be no talk of any "building of communism by 1980". Therefore, at first they stopped naming the date promised by Khrushchev, and then they started talking about communism as a long-term perspective.

The new concept replaced the program of "building communism" already in 1967, when Brezhnev announced the creation of a "developed socialist society" in the country. This conclusion had real fact completion of the construction of the economic foundations of an industrial society in the USSR. However, the authors of the new concept spoke about the homogeneity of the society built in the country, the final solution of the national question, and the absence of real contradictions. This was supposed to mean that there could no longer be internal sources of conflict and upheaval in society. This concept was consolidated in the new constitution of the country.

Constitution of the USSR in 1977. Each Soviet leader sought to develop his own constitution. Brezhnev was no exception. On October 7, 1977, the country's fourth constitution in 60 years was adopted. The preamble to the new Basic Law stated that a developed socialist society had been built in the USSR and formulated its features in the economy, political and spiritual life. It was noted for the first time that the social base of society is made up not only of the working class and the peasantry, but also of the intelligentsia. There was also a conclusion about the Soviet people as a new community of people. Article six officially consolidated the leading position of the CPSU in the life of society. The dominant positions of the Center in relations with the republics were also emphasized.

Among the social and economic rights of Soviet citizens, the constitution also designated a number of new ones: the right to work, to free education, medical care, rest, pensions, and housing. In contrast to the situation in 1936, immediately after the adoption of the constitution, the Supreme Soviet passed the relevant laws that ensured the implementation of these important rights. The possibilities of public organizations were significantly expanded: trade unions and the Komsomol received the right to submit bills for discussion by the Supreme Council, to nominate candidates for higher and local authorities.

The 1977 constitution was democratic. It was intensified by the fact that for the first time the most important international obligations of the USSR were included in the Basic Law of the country - the main provisions of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe signed in Helsinki in 1975 by the Soviet Union, with the participation of the USA and Canada .

However, the gap between word and deed, the preservation of strict party dictates in all spheres of society's life inevitably led to the fact that many of the rights written in the new constitution, in the end, remained only on paper.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY IN THE MID 1960s - 1980s

Economic discussions of the first half of the 60s. Economic difficulties and failures of the early 60s. caused lively discussions not only in the highest circles of the party leadership, but also among experts in the field of economics. The impetus for these discussions was largely given by the discussion by the population of the draft Program of the CPSU and the Constitution of the USSR. In September 1962, Pravda published an article by the Kharkov scientist E. G. Lieberman "Plan, Profit, Prize", in which he proposed to evaluate the activities of enterprises not in terms of gross output (which was what party documents were aimed at), but in terms of volume. the profit that remained after its implementation. It was proposed not only to revive the material incentives for the manufacturer, but also to free him from petty tutelage in matters of planning and marketing. These proposals were literally revolutionary, as they struck at the very foundation of the existing economic system.

Lieberman's proposals were supported not only by prominent Soviet economists (academicians L. V. Kantorovich, V. S. Nemchinov, V. V. Novozhilov), but also by N. S. Khrushchev, who allowed an "economic experiment" to be carried out at two textile factories.

These ideas were also approved by A. N. Kosygin, who in October 1964 became the head of the Soviet government instead of Khrushchev. He extended the experiment to enterprises in other industries and announced the beginning of the development of a full-scale economic reform.

Agrarian reform in 1965. Economic reform began with agriculture. In March 1965, the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a program for the restructuring of the agricultural sector of the economy. It was decided to significantly increase investment in the development of the social sphere of the village (construction of residential buildings, hospitals, schools, cinemas, libraries), increase the purchase prices for agricultural products, set a firm plan for public procurement for six years, introduce a 50% surcharge on the basic price for overplanned sale of products to the state, to write off debts and arrears of past years. The bans on private farming were somewhat relaxed. However, administrative mechanisms continued to be the main instrument of agrarian policy.

Nevertheless, the results of the reform affected very quickly. Expensive equipment was purchased, chemicalization and land reclamation programs were launched, grandiose livestock breeding and processing complexes were being built. In 1970, the total profitability of state farm production was 22%, and that of collective farm production was 34%.

However, the reform was hampered by the chronic problems of the collective farm system. The colossal funds allocated for the development of the country's agriculture (for 1966-1980 their amount amounted to about 400 billion rubles, which at the official rate was equal to 660 billion dollars) literally "went into the sand." Without the inclusion of the factor of personal interest, they were used extremely irrationally.

In addition, the introduction of stable and fairly high salaries on collective farms, with a ban on having an efficient subsidiary farm and selling its products, led to an increase in dependency sentiment. It got to the point that even the harvest of vegetables was annually harvested not by the peasants themselves, but by millions of students, schoolchildren, workers and employees. Harvested losses ranged from 20 to 40%. By the beginning of the 80s. collective farms and state farms again turned out to be unprofitable.

"Kosygin" reform in industry. In September 1965, the next plenum of the Central Committee considered the issues of reforming industry. The proposed measures were the most radical in all the years of Soviet power, although they did not affect the foundations of the directive economy.

The first direction of the reform was a change in directive planning. It was announced that the number of indicators determined "from above" would be reduced to a minimum. One of them was still gross output. But now a quality indicator has also been introduced.

Another direction of the reform was the strengthening of economic incentives for producers. Part of the income of enterprises was allowed to be left at their own disposal and used in three directions: for material incentives for workers and employees, for the construction of housing and social facilities, for the development of production.

The economic councils were abolished, and branch ministries were restored. True, it was announced that they would no longer be "dictators", but "partners". But few believed in it. On the contrary, it was precisely the thesis of the broad powers of the ministries that was in irreconcilable contradiction with the proclaimed "independence" of enterprises.

The Eighth Five-Year Plan (1966-1970) showed that even in such a limited form, the reform yields considerable economic results. Volume industrial production over the years has increased by almost 1.5 times. The quality of products has also improved. During the years of the Eighth Five-Year Plan, about 1,900 large industrial enterprises were built, including the Volga Automobile Plant in Tolyatti, the world's largest Krasnoyarsk hydroelectric power station, the West Siberian and Karaganda metallurgical plants, and a number of nuclear power plants. Large oil-producing complexes in the Tyumen region were put into operation. The construction of the Kama Automobile Plant (KAMAZ) and the Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM) began.

However, by the end of the 1960s reform has waned. Along with it, economic indicators also went downhill. In addition to economic reasons, there were also political reasons for this: similar innovations in Czechoslovakia led to the beginning of the dismantling of the political system. And Brezhnev could not allow this either in Czechoslovakia, let alone in his own country.

The directive model of economic development has finally exhausted its resource. She could still develop for some time by inertia. But historically it was doomed.

Progress Soviet science and technology. 1960s - early 1980s were marked by a number of fundamental scientific discoveries and technical developments. As before, they were concentrated in areas closely related to military production - in nuclear physics, rocket science, and aviation technology.

In the second half of the 60s. actively explored outer space. From solo space flights, Soviet cosmonauts moved on to multi-day collective expeditions to near-Earth orbit. The use of fundamentally new Soyuz spacecraft began. Long-term orbital space stations "Salyut" were created. In 1966, the Luna-9 automatic interplanetary probe made the first soft landing on the Moon in history. "Luna-16" in 1970 delivered samples of lunar soil to Earth. In the same year, the first automatic self-propelled vehicle "Lunokhod-1" was delivered to the Moon and successfully started its work. Soviet descent spacecraft were the first to reach the surface of Venus and Mars, began to study their atmosphere and soil. In 1975, the first joint Soviet-American space flight took place on the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft, which opened the era of international space cooperation.

In 1975, the world's largest thermonuclear facility "Tokamak-10" began its work, on which a developed thermonuclear reaction was carried out for the first time under laboratory conditions.

In the second half of the 60s. the concept was developed and the Unified Energy System of the country (UES) began to be created.

Great success was achieved by Soviet designers, engineers and technicians. In 1965, the world's largest transport aircraft "Antey" was created in the design bureau of O.K. Antonov. In December 1975, the operation of the world's first supersonic passenger aircraft"Tu-144" (Design Bureau A. N. Tupolev). Since 1976, the first Soviet "airbus" "Il-86" (Design Bureau of S. V. Ilyushin) began to transport passengers and cargo. In 1975, Belarusian car builders created the largest BelAZ dump truck with a carrying capacity of 110 tons. In 1974, the largest nuclear-powered icebreaker Arktika was launched.

At the same time, the achievements of science and technology had little effect on the state of mechanization and automation of production, especially in construction and agriculture.

Features of social policy. In 1965-1984 the urban population has grown significantly. It increased from 130 million to 180 million people. The authorities went to the restriction of registration in a number of cities in the country. The number of rural residents over the same years decreased from 105 million to 96 million people. In some regions of the country, townspeople made up 75% of the total population, with almost complete desolation of the village (Non-Chernozem region of the RSFSR, etc.).

An important social achievement of this time was that by the mid-80s. the share of people with higher and secondary education amounted to almost 70%.

The rapid growth in the number of citizens, as well as the population of the southern republics of the country, gave rise to new problems. Despite a significant increase in the volume of housing, the number of people on the waiting list to receive it increased every year. Unemployment was not only due to the continuation of extensive industrial construction. But in the republics of Central Asia, it gradually became mass (albeit hidden).

The reduction in health care costs soon led to the fact that the USSR moved to 35th place in the world in terms of average life expectancy and 50th in infant mortality.

Population growth and a decline in agricultural production have exacerbated food shortages. As a result, by the beginning of the 1980s in many regions of the country, the card system, which was liquidated in 1947, began to be reintroduced. ranked only 77th.

Share wages in the national income created in the industry of the USSR, was only 36.5% (1985), while in the USA - 64%, and in some other Western countries - up to 80%. The rest was "eaten up" by the arms race, unreasonable management, support for pro-communist regimes in other countries.

SPIRITUAL LIFE OF SOVIET SOCIETY IN THE 1960s - the first half of the 1980s

Crisis of the official ideology. The gap between the statements of the party ideologists and the realities of life was so great that people have already from the second half of the 60s. no longer trust official propaganda. Gradually, the building of communism turned from the main slogan of the day into an occasion for numerous jokes and ridicule.

Gradually, people lost not only faith in the ultimate goal, but also the ideological incentive to work (there was no economic incentive before). The concept of "developed socialism" was so vague and incomprehensible even to party leaders that it could not explain for a long time the reasons for the failures in building communism. In the early 80s. it was necessary to "adjust" it. In 1982, a new concept was announced - "further improvement of developed socialism." It was noted that this process is objectively inevitable and is so lengthy that it will require "an entire historical epoch".

Since 1980 had passed and communism had not been built (in fact, just at that time an unprecedented shortage of everyday food products broke out), it was announced that it was necessary to make changes to the CPSU Program. The official ideology has finally come to a standstill.

dissident movement. The crisis of communist ideology became obvious to a part of the intelligentsia already in the first half of the 1960s. True, at that time no one put forward ideological views that were different from the communist ones. It was about the "renewal" of Marxism-Leninism, its "creative development."

Since the mid 60s. a movement of dissidents (dissidents) gradually began to form in the country. It initially absorbed three main directions: human rights (which required the authorities to fulfill all the rights that were contained in the Constitution of the USSR), national liberation and religious. The ideological basis of the dissident movement was represented by both liberalism (whose representatives considered the provision of freedom and human rights to be the foundation) and nationalism (whose supporters believed that the main goal should be the construction or revival of a nation state). The main theorist of the first direction was A. D. Sakharov, the second - A. I. Solzhenitsyn. True, adherence to liberalism did not prevent A. D. Sakharov from speaking out in favor of the need for convergence (merging) of the USSR and the West by combining the best features of both civilizations.

The beginning of the dissident movement is considered to be a wave of protests and demonstrations that followed the arrest in 1965 of the writers A. D. Sinyavsky and Yu. M. Daniel. They were accused of publishing their works abroad and sentenced to 7 years in camps and 5 years in exile.

In 1969, the first public organization in the country that was not controlled by the authorities was created - the Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR (N. E. Gorbanevskaya, S. A. Kovalev, and others). In 1976, a group was formed in Moscow to promote the implementation of the Helsinki Accords in the Soviet Union, headed by Yu. F. Orlov.

For the first time in many years, dissent also penetrated the ranks of the army. In 1969, the "Union of Struggle for Democratic Rights" was opened, which consisted of officers from the Baltic Fleet. In 1975, the political officer of the large anti-submarine ship "Storozhevoy", captain of the 3rd rank V. Sablin managed to withdraw the ship from Riga to Leningrad in order to appeal to the country's leadership with an appeal against "embezzlement and demagogy, window dressing and lies" reigning in society. The bombers lifted into the air stopped the ship. Sablin was shot for "treason."

All this testified to the growing gulf between the government and society.

Strengthening the struggle against "bourgeois" culture. The authorities saw in the dissident movement and other "informal phenomena" only one reason - "the intrigues of the imperialists." Already in the mid-60s. the thesis of "aggravation of the ideological struggle" was formulated. It was nothing more than a modernized version of the infamous Stalinist proposition about the aggravation of the class struggle as we move towards socialism. In the 30s. this provision was used to justify massive political repression. "Updated" version of it in the 60-70s. also had to explain phenomena unusual for society (the dissident movement, the crisis of official ideology, etc.). It was convenient not only for justifying criticism, but also for a number of restrictions in the spiritual life. As for the dissidents, each of them inevitably presented himself as an "agent of influence" of the West or simply a spy.

The seventies passed under the sign of the intensification of the "struggle against bourgeois culture." From the theater repertoire, as in the late 1940s, plays by many foreign authors were withdrawn. Concerts of famous performers were cancelled. The distribution of the best Western films was forbidden. The reasons, as a rule, were critical assessments of Soviet reality expressed in the language of art, as well as condemnation of the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968, and in the late 70s into Afghanistan.

Contradictions in the development of artistic culture. The official position of the party leadership regarding culture did not change after Khrushchev's resignation. It was reduced to the traditional "golden mean" - the rejection of "slander", on the one hand, and "lacquering of reality" - on the other. But at party congresses and official meetings, as a rule, those who tried not to notice the problems of life around them got the floor.

The authorities "recommended" cultural figures to create works on industrial topics, in which everything usually came down to the personal shortcomings of the characters, the costs of their upbringing and education. In them, everything ended happily after the intervention of an independent and infallible arbiter in the person of a party official.

Soon, in the party instances, not only began to give orders to cultural figures on the number and themes of films or performances, but also to determine the performers of the main roles. This could not but lead to the stagnation of artistic culture.

As a result, many cultural figures were forced to emigrate. The writers V. P. Aksenov, A. I. Solzhenitsyn, V. E. Maksimov, A. A. Zinoviev, V. P. Nekrasov, V. N. Voinovich, the poet I. A. Brodsky, the film director A. A. Tarkovsky, theater director Yu. P. Lyubimov, cellist M. L. Rostropovich, opera singer G. P. Vishnevskaya.

Objectively, official ideology was opposed by representatives of "village" prose (F. A. Abramov, V. P. Astafiev, V. I. Belov, V. G. Rasputin, B. A. Mozhaev, V. M. Shukshin, etc.), figuratively showing the tragic consequences of continuous collectivization for the Russian village. B. L. Vasiliev and Yu. V. Trifonov wrote about the enduring problems of morality.

Popular directors G. A. Tovstonogov, A. V. Efros, M. A. Zakharov, O. N. Efremov, G. B. Volchek, T. E. Abuladze, and also many theater (E. A. Lebedev, K. Yu. Lavrov, O. V. Basilashvili, S. Yu. Yursky, T. V. Doronina, R. Ya. Plyatt) and film actors (V. V. Tikhonov, I O. Gorbachev, M. A. Ulyanov, N. V. Mordyukova, etc.).

In cinematography, this period saw the heyday of the work of S. F. Bondarchuk ("War and Peace", "Waterloo", "They Fought for the Motherland", "Father Sergius"), Yu. N. Ozerov (the epic "Liberation", "Soldiers freedom"), S. I. Rostotsky ("We'll Live Until Monday", "And the Dawns Here Are Quiet...", "White Bim - Black Ear"), T. M. Lioznova ("Seventeen Moments of Spring"), A. A. Tarkovsky ("Andrei Rublev", "Solaris", "Stalker", "Nostalgia"), E. A. Ryazanov ("Irony of Fate", "Garage", "Office Romance"), L. I. Gaidai ("Prisoner of the Caucasus ", "The Diamond Arm").

Masters of the Soviet ballet M. M. Plisetskaya, N. I. Bessmertnova, M. E. Liepa, V. V. Vasiliev, E. S. Maksimova, N. V. Pavlova, V. M. Gordeev achieved outstanding success and world recognition. , A. B. Godunov, M. N. Baryshnikov and others. In exile, R. X carried a high brand of Russian ballet art. Nureyev.

Opera art was represented by the skill of I. K. Arkhipova, V. A. Atlantov, Z. L. Sotkilova, E. V. Obraztsova, T. I. Sinyavskaya, E. E. Nesterenko, B. T. Shtokolov, A. A. Eisen and others.

The People's Artists of the USSR I. S. Glazunov and A. M. Shilov reached true heights in their work.

Famous sculptors N. V. Tomsky, V. E. Vuchetich, L. E. Kerbel created bright sculptural compositions. Among the most significant are the monumental and decorative sculptural ensembles on Mamaev Kurgan (Volgograd), in the Brest Fortress, Kyiv, Novorossiysk.

A bright page of culture of the 60-70s. was the "tape recorder revolution". Recordings of songs and performances performed by V. S. Vysotsky, Yu. Ch. Kim, B. Sh. Okudzhava, M. M. Zhvanetsky listened to the whole country. The greatest master of the satirical genre was A. I. Raikin, who castigated the vices of society in his miniatures.

During these years, I. D. Kobzon, M. A. Kristalinskaya, M. M. Magomaev, E. S. Piekha, E. A. Khil, A. B. Pugacheva, S. M Rotaru, L. V. Leshchenko, V. Ya. Leontiev.

Education system. In the 60-70s. the education system has taken a step forward. The number of high school graduates has grown rapidly. In the 70s. The state was tasked with providing universal secondary education. As a result, between 1970 and 1985, the number of people with such education nearly tripled. But the quality of the acquired knowledge did not improve: dropouts due to academic failure stopped, there was no real competition in the selection for education in grades 9 and 10.

The network of higher educational institutions of the country has expanded. By the beginning of the 80s. they produced annually over 1 million specialists.

However, both universities and schools still oriented young people towards solving problems inherent in early industrial society. Attempts to change this situation with the help of the 1984 reform did not bring success, not only because of the lack of material resources, but also because it was necessary to change not only the education system, but also the socio-economic system as a whole.

NATIONAL POLICY AND NATIONAL MOVEMENTS IN THE USSR IN THE MIDDLE 1960s - 1980s

"New Historical Community". In 1972, the country celebrated the 50th anniversary of the formation of the USSR. The results of the development of the Soviet federal state were also summed up. They were very impressive. The highest were the rates of development of the republics of Central Asia. If in 1922 the illiteracy rate of the population here was 95%, now the same number of inhabitants of the region had higher, secondary and incomplete secondary education. The volume of industrial production over the years has grown in Kazakhstan 600 times, in Tajikistan - 500 times, in Kyrgyzstan - 400 times, in Uzbekistan - 240 times, in Turkmenistan - 130 times (in a fairly developed Ukraine - 176 times). Only in the Uzbek SSR in 1972 more specialists with higher and secondary specialized education worked than in the national economy of the entire USSR at the end of the 1920s. The Baltic republics also reached a high level of development - industrial production in Latvia increased 31 times since 1940, in Estonia - 32 times, and in Lithuania - 37 times. All these results were achieved by the collective work of all the peoples of the country.

In the second half of the 60s. an ideological conclusion about the Soviet people as a new historical community of people took shape. He matured gradually. At first, this directive itself was voiced in a report dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution. Then it was stated that this commonality means the result of many years of rapprochement between the socialist nations and peoples. The main thing that unites these nations and forms a single Soviet people, party documents said, is "a common goal - the building of communism."

Soon, party theorists felt that ideological unity was clearly not enough. In the early 70s. the former provisions were supplemented by the conclusion that the "unified national economic complex" that had taken shape in the country was the "material basis of the friendship of the peoples" of the USSR. This provision was enshrined in the Constitution of 1977.

The theoretical setting about the Soviet people as a new form of community of people could not but be reflected in the political course pursued by the party leadership in the national question.

The course proclaimed by the country's leadership for the further internationalization of Soviet society inevitably came into conflict with the processes of growth of national self-consciousness and the previous experience of relations between the Center and the republics.

Growing contradictions between the Center and the republics. In the course of implementing the 1965 reform, the authorities placed a serious emphasis on developing the specialization of the economies of the union republics. Each of them was supposed to develop traditional production: Kazakhstan - growing grain and obtaining livestock products; Uzbekistan - cotton growing; Turkmenistan - gas and oil production; Moldova - growing vegetables and fruits; the Baltic republics - agriculture and fisheries.

In the interests of rapid integration of the economies of the union republics, the industrial development of the less developed of them proceeded at an accelerated pace. The fastest growth rates were in Belarus, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Lithuania. This led not only to high economic indicators for the entire country, but also to overcoming the isolation of the republics. At the same time, the rapid industrial construction in these regions, with the leading role of the union ministries, further strengthened the role of the Center in relations with the republics.

In the 70s. All those rights and powers of the Union and Autonomous Republics, both in economic and political matters, which had been granted to them in the 1950s, were practically eliminated. The peoples of the union republics lost even limited control over their economies, they could not solve many problems of cultural development without sanction from Moscow. In addition, due to the lack of locally qualified personnel, engineers and technicians from Russia were resettled in the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia. This was sometimes perceived even at the household level as a violent expansion of other traditions and cultures, which strengthened nationalism. National movements revived again.

national movements. National movements at this stage in the development of the union state acted as a form of protection of national cultures from the policy of leveling and unification pursued by the Center. Any attempts by the intelligentsia to raise at least some problem of their national culture, language were declared a manifestation of nationalism and were viewed as hostile. In 1971 in Ukraine, in the conditions of a decrease in the number of national schools and a reduction in teaching in the Ukrainian language at universities, many began to demand a return to the previous situation. For this, not only the participants in student protests were punished, but the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine P.E. Shelest was also removed from his post.

In the conditions of growing dissent in the country, national movements began to occupy an increasing share in it.

To the already existing movements for the right of the Germans to leave for the FRG, for the return to their native places Crimean Tatars and the Meskhetian Turks in 1967, a mass movement of Jews for leaving for Israel was added. With their active actions, the participants of the national movements were able to achieve a lot. In 1972, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR lifted all restrictions on the choice of residence by Soviet Germans throughout the country. However, the autonomy of the Volga Germans was never restored. As a result, from the country for 1970-1986. more than 72 thousand Germans emigrated. Departure of Soviet Jews to their "historical homeland" for 1967-1985. exceeded 275 thousand people.

The most massive and active in the 70s. there were national movements in the Baltic republics. Their participants demanded not only compliance civil rights but also the removal of restrictions on the activities of the church. Nearly 150,000 people signed a petition addressed to Brezhnev, in which the Lithuanians demanded the reopening of the cathedral in Klaipeda, which was closed by the authorities.

Numerous nationalist groups and organizations also operated in Ukraine. Clashes in connection with the discussion of the draft of the new constitution took place in 1978 in Georgia, where thousands of people took to the streets demanding that the provision of the Georgian language as the state language be preserved in this document. In 1977, members of the "National United Party of Armenia" protested several explosions, including in the Moscow metro.

The surge of nationalism in the Union republics could not but lead to the formation of the Russian national movement. Its participants advocated the rejection of nation-building and the transition to the administrative-territorial division of the country. They also demanded greater respect for the Russian people anywhere in the country. The ideologists of the Russian national movement in these years were A. I. Solzhenitsyn, I. R. Shafarevich, I. S. Glazunov, V. A. Soloukhin.

One of the largest organizations of the Russian movement was the All-Russian Social-Christian Union for the Liberation of the People (VSKhSON), created in the mid-1960s. in Leningrad. The ideology of this organization was based on the rejection of communist construction and the construction of a national Orthodox state. Despite the defeat of the VSHSON, by the end of the 70s - the beginning of the 80s. Russian national movement has become one of the most significant in the country.

The activities of national movements in the USSR were supported by foreign emigrant centers - the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Peoples, the Central Asian Research Center, etc. They provided material support to the participants in the movements.

The evolution of national politics. In the context of the growth of national movements, the authorities were forced to adjust the national policy. Direct repression, as a rule, was used only against participants in open forms of protest. In relation to the leadership and intelligentsia of the Union republics, a policy of flirting was pursued. For 20 years (1965-1984) thousands of workers of culture, industry and agriculture of the union republics were awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labor, awarded the highest orders of the country.

Another wave of "indigenization" of the party-state elite of the union republics began. As a result, for example, the proportion of Kazakhs in the top leadership of Kazakhstan by the beginning of the 80s. almost doubled and amounted to 60%. The second secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the republics, as a rule, Russians, turned out to be only "observers" of the ongoing processes. At the same time, the authorities seemed completely oblivious to the phenomena that were taking place in the autonomous republics, national regions and districts. Even in official documents devoted to national problems, it was only about the union republics. In the 1977 constitution, national minorities and national groups were not even mentioned.

All this led to a gradual maturation of a crisis in interethnic relations.

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE USSR IN THE MIDDLE 1960s - 1980s

International situation in the mid-1960s. In the mid 1960s. the situation in the world has worsened again. The war waged by the United States in Vietnam cooled relations between the USSR and the USA for a long time. The attack in June 1967 by Israel on neighboring Arab countries almost led to the beginning of a direct military clash between the USSR and the West. Ideological disputes with China were continued in the nomination of its territorial claims for 1.5 million square meters. km of Soviet lands in Primorye, Amur, Transbaikalia, Central Asia. This sharply complicated bilateral relations, and in 1969 led to a large-scale armed conflict on Damansky Island.

If criticism of Stalinism contributed to the cooling of relations between the CPSU and the communist parties of China, Albania, and Korea, then the "rehabilitation" of Stalinism that had begun pushed away the largest European communist parties, primarily the French and Italian.

However, by the end of the 1960s The Soviet Union managed to achieve strategic parity with the United States in nuclear missile weapons. This opened up the possibility of easing international tension. The reasons why both sides agreed to normalize relations were different. The USSR believed that this was a sign of weakness on the part of the West. The United States believed that the political regimes in the USSR and its allied countries retain their strength only in conditions of tough military confrontation. And so they hoped that peaceful coexistence would cause their downfall. A ten-year period began, which became known as the "era of detente."

Relations with the West. The leaders of East and West have taken a number of important steps to melt the ice of the Cold War.

In the summer of 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed. In 1969, the leading Western countries supported the USSR's proposal to hold a Pan-European Conference on Security and Cooperation. In the summer of 1970, an agreement was signed between the USSR and the FRG, which recognized the post-war borders in Europe. Later, Germany signed such agreements with Poland and Czechoslovakia. In 1971, a quadripartite agreement was signed (USSR, USA, England and France) on West Berlin, which determined the status of this city. In 1972, the mutual recognition of the GDR and the FRG took place.

The countdown of a new period in East-West relations began with the first ever visit of the President of the United States (R. Nixon) to Moscow in May 1972, when key agreements were signed that still determine relations between countries: on the foundations of relations, on limiting systems missile defense (ABM) and strategic offensive weapons (OSV-1). This success was reinforced in 1973 during Leonid Brezhnev's visit to the United States, when an agreement was signed to prevent nuclear war.

All this led to the fact that for the first time in many years the very climate of international relations began to change.

Helsinki meeting. The apogee of the era of detente was the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In Helsinki in the summer of 1975, the heads of state and government of 33 European countries, as well as the United States and Canada, signed the Final Act. It enshrined the principles on which the states promised to build relationships: sovereign equality; non-use of force or threat of force; inviolability of post-war borders; territorial integrity; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Permanent structures were created to monitor the observance of these principles and ensure their implementation.

As it turned out, the USSR and the West differently assessed the significance of the Conference and interpreted its Final Act. The Soviet leaders believed that the main thing was to ensure the inviolability of the post-war borders. Their Western colleagues emphasized the observance of human rights in the socialist countries. Their assistance to dissidents in the Warsaw Pact countries intensified.

Soon the foundation of detente gave the first cracks. The West began to accuse the USSR of violating human rights and persecuting dissidents. The Soviet leadership began deploying medium-range nuclear missiles on the territory of the GDR and Czechoslovakia, which was not formally prohibited, but changed the strategic balance in Europe. Attempts to re-negotiate a weakening of the military threat were unsuccessful. The SALT-2 treaty, signed in the summer of 1979 in Vienna, was never ratified by the US Senate due to the introduction of Soviet troops to Afghanistan. The era of detente ended with the first volleys of Soviet guns in this country. It was time for a new tough confrontation between East and West.

regional conflicts. War in Afghanistan. Under the conditions of military-strategic parity, direct military confrontation between the USSR and the USA became impossible. Therefore, it was transferred to the regional level.

Since the mid 60s. For almost ten years, the USSR provided large-scale assistance to Vietnam, which was fighting against US aggression. The victory of the Vietnamese people in 1975 was perceived in the USSR as their own.

When the Israeli war against Egypt, Syria and Jordan began in the summer of 1967, the USSR not only severed diplomatic relations with the aggressor country, but also sent large quantities of weapons and several military advisers to the Arab states, and introduced a navy into the Mediterranean Sea, ready to use nuclear weapons if the conflict escalates. The aggression was stopped only after an appeal to the US President by the head of the Soviet government, A. N. Kosygin, which contained a direct threat "from a position of strength."

In the 70s - early 80s. Soviet weapons and military advisers were used as the main instrument of confrontation with the United States in Laos, Kampuchea, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Yemen, and Nicaragua. Tens of billions of dollars were spent on these shares. It was assumed that the countries assisted by the USSR would follow the path of socialism.

The Soviet leadership pinned special hopes on Afghanistan, where pro-communist leaders came to power in the spring of 1978. Soon a fierce struggle for power broke out between them, resulting in a civil war. The Afghan government has repeatedly asked for Soviet troops to "maintain stability in the region." Each time Brezhnev refused. Only after they managed to convince him that if Soviet troops were not brought into Afghanistan, the Americans would enter there, he agreed to the introduction of a "limited military contingent." On December 25, 1979, our troops entered Afghanistan. This was a fatal mistake of the Soviet leaders. With the arrival of parts Soviet army the civil war acquired a new quality: now both sides fought not so much with each other as with Soviet soldiers. It cost the Afghan people nearly 1 million dead and several million refugees.

Afghan war dealt an irreparable blow to the international prestige of the USSR. For our country, it has become "Soviet Vietnam."

The USSR and the Crisis of World Socialism. The world socialist system has entered a period of protracted crisis. In 1968, 12 years after the Hungarian events, Czechoslovakia tried to enter the path of democratic change. The new leader of her Communist Party, A. Dubcek, announced an economic reform that envisaged the promotion of market mechanisms and self-management of enterprises while maintaining the traditional economic model. In the political sphere, it was supposed to introduce alternative elections and restructure the ruling party. Not everyone in the leadership of Czechoslovakia supported these plans. Some of its members turned to Moscow with a request for urgent assistance. Brezhnev, not wanting to send troops into Czechoslovakia, at the same time could not "lose" it.

As a result, in August 1968, the combined troops of the Warsaw Pact countries were introduced into Czechoslovakia. This attempt to "rally the socialist community" actually led to the opposite results and hastened its split. Albania withdrew from the Warsaw Pact, China, Romania, Yugoslavia, and North Korea moved further away from the USSR.

After the Prague Spring, the USSR proposed changing the nature of cooperation with its allies. A program of socialist economic integration was adopted, which significantly increased the role of the USSR in the Commonwealth and limited the sovereignty of the socialist countries. These measures in the West began to be called the Brezhnev Doctrine. But even they did not save the "socialist commonwealth" from the impending collapse.

The actions of the workers in Poland were gaining momentum. They led to the creation of the first independent socio-political force in the socialist camp - the Solidarity trade union. In 1981, the communist leadership of Poland had to declare martial law to prevent a change of power.

In 1979, a war broke out between two socialist countries - China and Vietnam, in which the USSR supported the Vietnamese.

All this indicated that the world socialist system was living out its last years.

The CPSU and the world communist movement. Even faster destructive processes were growing in the world communist movement. With the beginning of the "rehabilitation" of Stalinism, the communists of France and Italy departed from the CPSU. The entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia further deepened the contradictions between the leadership of the CPSU and the leaders of other communist parties both in Europe and in Asia and Latin America. In 1969, Brezhnev decided to convene an International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties to support his course, which revealed serious differences between the communists of different countries.

The military actions of the USSR in various regions, especially the war in Afghanistan, further alienated its recent allies from the CPSU - the Communist Parties of France, England, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Japan and other countries. A mass withdrawal of communists from these organizations began. It stopped somewhat only after the main Marxist guidelines began to disappear from the program documents of the communist parties - about the dictatorship of the proletariat, world revolution, atheism, democratic centralism as the basis for building the parties themselves. On the contrary, the most important components of the liberal doctrine began to appear in them - about the freedom of the individual and human rights, the diversity of forms of property, democracy, and so on.

What you need to know about this topic:

Socio-economic and political development of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Nicholas II.

Domestic policy of tsarism. Nicholas II. Strengthening repression. "Police socialism".

Russo-Japanese War. Reasons, course, results.

Revolution of 1905 - 1907 Character, driving forces and features of the Russian revolution of 1905-1907. stages of the revolution. The reasons for the defeat and the significance of the revolution.

Elections to the State Duma. I State Duma. The agrarian question in the Duma. Dispersal of the Duma. II State Duma. Coup d'état June 3, 1907

Third June political system. Electoral law June 3, 1907 III State Duma. The alignment of political forces in the Duma. Duma activities. government terror. The decline of the labor movement in 1907-1910

Stolypin agrarian reform.

IV State Duma. Party composition and Duma factions. Duma activities.

The political crisis in Russia on the eve of the war. The labor movement in the summer of 1914 Crisis of the top.

The international position of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

Beginning of the First World War. Origin and nature of war. Russia's entry into the war. Attitude towards the war of parties and classes.

The course of hostilities. Strategic forces and plans of the parties. Results of the war. Role Eastern Front in the first world war.

The Russian economy during the First World War.

Workers' and peasants' movement in 1915-1916. Revolutionary movement in the army and navy. Growing anti-war sentiment. Formation of the bourgeois opposition.

Russian culture of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

Aggravation of socio-political contradictions in the country in January-February 1917. The beginning, prerequisites and nature of the revolution. Uprising in Petrograd. Formation of the Petrograd Soviet. Provisional Committee of the State Duma. Order N I. Formation of the Provisional Government. Abdication of Nicholas II. Causes of dual power and its essence. February coup in Moscow, at the front, in the provinces.

From February to October. The policy of the Provisional Government regarding war and peace, on agrarian, national, labor issues. Relations between the Provisional Government and the Soviets. The arrival of V.I. Lenin in Petrograd.

Political parties (Kadets, Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks): political programs, influence among the masses.

Crises of the Provisional Government. An attempted military coup in the country. Growth of revolutionary sentiment among the masses. Bolshevization of the capital Soviets.

Preparation and conduct of an armed uprising in Petrograd.

II All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Decisions about power, peace, land. Formation of public authorities and management. Composition of the first Soviet government.

The victory of the armed uprising in Moscow. Government agreement with the Left SRs. Elections to the Constituent Assembly, its convocation and dissolution.

The first socio-economic transformations in the field of industry, agriculture, finance, labor and women's issues. Church and State.

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, its terms and significance.

Economic tasks of the Soviet government in the spring of 1918. Aggravation of the food issue. The introduction of food dictatorship. Working squads. Comedy.

The revolt of the left SRs and the collapse of the two-party system in Russia.

First Soviet Constitution.

Causes of intervention and civil war. The course of hostilities. Human and material losses of the period of the civil war and military intervention.

The internal policy of the Soviet leadership during the war. "War Communism". GOELRO plan.

The policy of the new government in relation to culture.

Foreign policy. Treaties with border countries. Participation of Russia in the Genoa, Hague, Moscow and Lausanne conferences. Diplomatic recognition of the USSR by the main capitalist countries.

Domestic policy. Socio-economic and political crisis of the early 20s. Famine of 1921-1922 Transition to a new economic policy. The essence of the NEP. NEP in the field of agriculture, trade, industry. financial reform. Economic recovery. Crises during the NEP and its curtailment.

Projects for the creation of the USSR. I Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The first government and the Constitution of the USSR.

Illness and death of V.I. Lenin. Intraparty struggle. The beginning of the formation of Stalin's regime of power.

Industrialization and collectivization. Development and implementation of the first five-year plans. Socialist competition - purpose, forms, leaders.

Formation and strengthening of the state system of economic management.

The course towards complete collectivization. Dispossession.

Results of industrialization and collectivization.

Political, national-state development in the 30s. Intraparty struggle. political repression. Formation of the nomenklatura as a layer of managers. Stalinist regime and the constitution of the USSR in 1936

Soviet culture in the 20-30s.

Foreign policy of the second half of the 20s - mid-30s.

Domestic policy. The growth of military production. Extraordinary measures in the field of labor legislation. Measures to solve the grain problem. Armed forces. Growth of the Red Army. military reform. Repressions against the command personnel of the Red Army and the Red Army.

Foreign policy. Non-aggression pact and treaty of friendship and borders between the USSR and Germany. The entry of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus into the USSR. Soviet-Finnish war. The inclusion of the Baltic republics and other territories in the USSR.

Periodization of the Great Patriotic War. First stage war. Turning the country into a military camp. Military defeats 1941-1942 and their reasons. Major military events Capitulation of Nazi Germany. Participation of the USSR in the war with Japan.

Soviet rear during the war.

Deportation of peoples.

Partisan struggle.

Human and material losses during the war.

Creation of the anti-Hitler coalition. Declaration of the United Nations. The problem of the second front. Conferences of the "Big Three". Problems of post-war peace settlement and all-round cooperation. USSR and UN.

Beginning of the Cold War. The contribution of the USSR to the creation of the "socialist camp". CMEA formation.

Domestic policy of the USSR in the mid-1940s - early 1950s. Restoration of the national economy.

Socio-political life. Politics in the field of science and culture. Continued repression. "Leningrad business". Campaign against cosmopolitanism. "Doctors' Case".

Socio-economic development of Soviet society in the mid-50s - the first half of the 60s.

Socio-political development: XX Congress of the CPSU and the condemnation of Stalin's personality cult. Rehabilitation of victims of repressions and deportations. Intra-party struggle in the second half of the 1950s.

Foreign policy: the creation of the ATS. The entry of Soviet troops into Hungary. Exacerbation of Soviet-Chinese relations. The split of the "socialist camp". Soviet-American Relations and the Caribbean Crisis. USSR and third world countries. Reducing the strength of the armed forces of the USSR. Moscow Treaty on the Limitation of Nuclear Tests.

USSR in the mid-60s - the first half of the 80s.

Socio-economic development: economic reform 1965

Growing difficulties of economic development. Decline in the rate of socio-economic growth.

USSR Constitution 1977

Socio-political life of the USSR in the 1970s - early 1980s.

Foreign Policy: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Consolidation of post-war borders in Europe. Moscow treaty with Germany. Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Soviet-American treaties of the 70s. Soviet-Chinese relations. The entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Exacerbation of international tension and the USSR. Strengthening of the Soviet-American confrontation in the early 80s.

USSR in 1985-1991

Domestic policy: an attempt to accelerate the socio-economic development of the country. An attempt to reform the political system of Soviet society. Congresses of People's Deputies. Election of the President of the USSR. Multi-party system. Exacerbation of the political crisis.

Exacerbation of the national question. Attempts to reform the national-state structure of the USSR. Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR. "Novogarevsky process". The collapse of the USSR.

Foreign policy: Soviet-American relations and the problem of disarmament. Treaties with leading capitalist countries. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Changing relations with the countries of the socialist community. Disintegration of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact.

Russian Federation in 1992-2000

Domestic policy: "Shock therapy" in the economy: price liberalization, stages of privatization of commercial and industrial enterprises. Fall in production. Increased social tension. Growth and slowdown in financial inflation. The aggravation of the struggle between the executive and legislative branches. The dissolution of the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of People's Deputies. October events of 1993. Abolition of local bodies of Soviet power. Elections to the Federal Assembly. The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 Formation of the presidential republic. Aggravation and overcoming of national conflicts in the North Caucasus.

Parliamentary elections 1995 Presidential elections 1996 Power and opposition. An attempt to return to the course of liberal reforms (spring 1997) and its failure. The financial crisis of August 1998: causes, economic and political consequences. "Second Chechen War". Parliamentary elections in 1999 and early presidential elections in 2000 Foreign policy: Russia in the CIS. The participation of Russian troops in the "hot spots" of the near abroad: Moldova, Georgia, Tajikistan. Russia's relations with foreign countries. The withdrawal of Russian troops from Europe and neighboring countries. Russian-American agreements. Russia and NATO. Russia and the Council of Europe. Yugoslav crises (1999-2000) and Russia's position.

• Danilov A.A., Kosulina L.G. History of the state and peoples of Russia. XX century.

Introduction

1. Conduct an analysis of the literature on this topic.

2. Consider the foreign policy of the USSR after World War II.

The relevance of this topic is due to the fact that the Second World War led to fundamental changes in the world and international relations. Fascist Germany and Italy, militarist Japan were defeated, war criminals were punished, and an international organization, the United Nations, was created. All this demonstrated the relative unity of the victorious powers. The great powers reduced their armed forces: the USA from 12 to 1.6 million people, the USSR - from 11.4 to 2.5 million people.

With its contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany, the USSR aroused the sympathy of the population of Western countries, and the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943 contributed to the growth of the authority of the Communist Parties. During the war years, the number of their members increased by almost 3 times, and the communists - in 1945-1947. were members of the governments of 13 countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America. On the other hand, the war was the first discovery of the West for 6.1 million Soviet people who visited Europe as part of the army, as well as for 5.5 million repatriates who saw with their own eyes the achievements of Western civilization and had the opportunity to compare them with the Soviet reality. Their stereotypical ideas about the West were shaken, their interest and sympathy for it increased.

The war led to drastic changes on the world map. First of all, the United States has grown enormously in economic, military and political terms. This country owned the vast majority of world industrial production and gold and foreign exchange reserves. The United States had a first-class army, turned into the leader of the Western world. Germany and Japan were defeated and left the ranks of the leading countries, other European countries were weakened by the war.

The military and political influence of the USSR increased significantly. However, its international position was paradoxical: the country that won at the cost of heavy losses was ruined, but despite this, it had a legitimate right to claim a prominent role in the life of the world community. The economic ruin was offset by military and political advantages. The USSR derived political benefits, in particular, thanks to the vast territory of the countries of the South-East under its control. of Eastern Europe. He had the largest army in the world, but at the same time, in the field of military technology, he was far ahead of the United States and Great Britain.

Foreign policy of the USSR

The foreign policy activity of the Soviet state in the second half of the 1940s took place in an atmosphere of profound changes in the international arena. The victory in the Patriotic War increased the prestige of the USSR. In 1945, he had diplomatic relations with 52 states (against 26 in the prewar years). The Soviet Union took an active part in solving the most important international issues, and above all in settling the post-war situation in Europe.

Left-wing, democratic forces came to power in seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The new governments created in them were headed by representatives of the communist and workers' parties. The leaders of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia carried out agrarian reforms in their countries, nationalization big industry, banks and transport. The established political organization of society was called people's democracy. It was seen as a form of proletarian dictatorship.

In 1947, at a meeting of representatives of nine communist parties in Eastern Europe, the Communist Information Bureau (Cominformburo) was created. It was entrusted with coordinating the actions of the communist parties of the states of people's democracy, which began to call themselves socialist. The conference documents formulated the thesis of dividing the world into two camps - imperialist and democratic, anti-imperialist. Regulations on the two camps, on the confrontation on the world stage of two social systems was the basis of the foreign policy views of the party-state leadership of the USSR. These views are reflected, in particular, in the work of I.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. The work also contained a conclusion about the inevitability of wars in the world as long as imperialism exists.

Treaties of friendship and mutual assistance were concluded between the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe. Identical treaties linked the Soviet Union with the East German Democratic Republic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the People's Republic of China (PRC). The agreement with China provided for a $300 million loan. The right of the USSR and China to use the former CER was confirmed. The countries reached an agreement on joint actions in case of aggression from any of the states. Diplomatic relations were established with the states that gained independence as a result of the national liberation struggle unfolding in them (the so-called developing countries).

Beginning of the Cold War. With the end of the Patriotic War, there were changes in the relations between the USSR and the former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. "Cold War" - this is the name given to the foreign policy pursued by both sides in relation to each other in the second half of the 40s - early 90s. It was characterized primarily by the hostile political actions of the parties. Forceful methods were used to solve international problems. The ministers of foreign affairs of the USSR in the initial period of the Cold War were V.M. Molotov, and since 1949 - AD. Vyshinsky.

The confrontation of the parties was clearly manifested in 1947 in connection with the Marshall Plan put forward by the USA. The program developed by US Secretary of State J. Marshall provided for the provision of economic assistance to European countries that suffered during the Second World War. The USSR and the people's democracies were invited to participate in the conference on this occasion. The Soviet government regarded the Marshall Plan as a weapon of anti-Soviet policy and refused to participate in the conference. At his insistence, the Eastern European countries invited to the conference also announced their refusal to participate in the Marshall Plan.

Instead of a hostile "cordon sanitaire", most of the friendly states became the neighbors of the USSR. The relations of the Soviet Union with other countries expanded: before the war, the USSR had diplomatic relations with 26 states, and by the end of the war - (with 52). It became even more clear that not a single issue of world politics could be resolved without the participation of the USSR.

New tasks confronted Soviet foreign policy: the development of fraternal friendship with the people's democracies and the strengthening of the world socialist system in every possible way; support for the national liberation movement and friendly cooperation with the young states that have thrown off the colonial yoke. At the same time, the foreign policy of the USSR was still aimed at protecting peace and exposing the aggressive nature of imperialism, at promoting and consolidating the Leninist principles of the peaceful coexistence of states and developing business ties with all countries.