Recent history, or the history of modern times, is divided according to the logic of its development into three periods or stages. The first, interwar, stage begins with the end of the First World War in November 1918 and ends with the beginning of the Second World War on September 1, 1939. The second stage covers the time of the Second World War from September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945. And the third, post-war , the stage began in 1945 and continues to the present.
At the same time, the first stage of the history of modern times can also be divided into quite clearly distinguished four periods. The first period, covering the time from 1918 to 1923, was the period of the post-war crisis. It covered all aspects of society - economics, politics, social relations.
The war caused great damage to the economy European countries. On the one hand, this was determined by the destruction caused by hostilities, on the other hand, by a one-sided reorientation National economy for military purposes. It was necessary to transfer economic life to peaceful development, which also created serious problems.
In the countries participating in the war, people's lives have deteriorated significantly. About 9.5 million people died or died of wounds in the war. Many families have lost their breadwinners. Millions of people were crippled and could not earn a living. Economic difficulties have led to a sharp decline in the material security of the population. There were not enough everyday goods, wages were reduced, the working day was lengthened.
All this caused serious dissatisfaction among broad sections of the working population, led to an aggravation of social contradictions, to major social and political conflicts. Revolutions took place in countries such as Russia, Finland, Austria, Hungary, Germany. In other countries, social conflicts found expression in mass strikes of an economic and political nature and became the impetus for serious socio-political reforms.
A significant intensification of the struggle of the working class during the post-war crisis contributed to the formation of a radical wing in the workers' parties, which, following the model and likeness of the Russian Bolsheviks, was formed into communist parties that relied only on the violent change of the existing system. In 1919, these parties united to form the Communist International, which proclaimed a course for world revolution.
As a result of the war, the balance of power in Europe and in the world changed. As a leading force, the United States came out on top, which, as a result of the war, significantly strengthened its financial and economic position. In Europe, the victorious countries, primarily Great Britain and France, sought to strengthen their positions at the expense of the vanquished. During the work of the Paris Peace Conference, the so-called Versailles system was officially created, that is, a system of treaties and agreements with Germany and its allies, in which the new alignment of political forces that had developed after the war was recorded. This system was supplemented by the Washington Conference of 1922-1923, at which the United States secured for itself an advantageous position in the field of naval armaments and in the area Far East And Pacific Ocean. The new alignment of forces was based on the dictates of the victorious countries over the vanquished. This made the situation in the world, and especially in Europe, fragile and fraught with new crises. The first cracks in the Versailles system appeared already during the post-war crisis.
At the turn of 1923 - 1924. the ruling circles of European countries, and in the United States even a little earlier, managed to reverse the negative trends and overcome the post-war crisis. A period of stabilization began, covering the period from 1924 to 1929. The stabilization of the economy became the basis for normal and prosperous development. The pre-war level of production was restored and significantly surpassed, the financial situation was strengthened, and the national income increased. The most rapidly developing economy of the United States, which steadily led the world. Significant rates of development were characteristic of Germany and France. New branches of production, such as automotive, chemical, radio engineering, etc., developed especially rapidly. New technologies were introduced into production processes. All this had a positive effect on social processes. As a result of the reduction in unemployment, the growth of wages and other factors, the number of social conflicts has significantly decreased. The few strikes were predominantly purely economic in nature. The positions of the reformist forces strengthened in the workers' movement. Left-wing, communist forces have largely lost influence in society. The membership of communist parties has almost halved.
Stabilization also covers the scope international relations. After the signing of peace treaties, overcoming the most acute disagreements in the system of Versailles relations, and the adoption of the Dawes reparation plan, a new system of international relations is established. However, it was not strong, because it was based on the dictates of the victorious countries. In addition, the policy of the USSR was a completely new factor in the system of international relations. We can say that stabilization did not mean overcoming acute contradictions, but only their temporary obscuration. Countries dissatisfied with the new order needed time to accumulate strength in order to raise the question of changing it.
In the autumn of 1929, the Western world entered a new period of its development - the period of the global economic crisis, which ended only in 1933. Crises were not unusual in the history of the Western economy. However, this crisis was unparalleled in scope, destructive force and depth. It covered all countries and affected all spheres of the economy: industry, finance, agriculture, social relations. The level of industrial production decreased during the years of the crisis by 38%, Agriculture- by a third. The financial system was destroyed, international and domestic trade was disorganized.
The crisis has damaged all social strata. However, it had the most severe consequences for the workers. At this time, social spending was reduced, the level of wages decreased, the number of unemployed amounted to 26 million people. The processes of ruining the peasantry, the petty and middle urban bourgeoisie were actively developing. The crisis led to a sharp increase in social tension and increased polarization of political forces in society.
As a result of the global economic crisis, international relations have become aggravated. The violent destruction of the newly created Versailles system begins. Japan was the first to take this path, having occupied Manchuria in 1931. However, these processes began to develop especially actively after the Nazis came to power in Germany in January 1933.
The last period of the interwar stage of modern history can be called the eve of the war or the slide into war. This period lasted from 1934 to 1939. It was characterized by the openly aggressive policy of the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy, the gradual formation of a military-political bloc of aggressive powers. The Western countries of bourgeois-parliamentary democracy pursued a policy of appeasing the aggressors, surrendering their positions step by step. Soviet Union more and more moved from confrontation to friendship with Nazi Germany. The labor movement, split ideologically and organizationally, could not unite in the face of advancing fascism and the growing threat of war. The absence of active and powerful resistance made it possible for fascism to unleash the Second World War on September 1, 1939.
QUESTIONS
c 1. Name the main periods of the interwar stage of modern history.
2. What was common and what were the differences between the period of the post-war crisis and the world economic crisis?
3. What are the main features of the stabilization period?
1. The concept and periodization of new history. The Genesis of Capitalism in Europe by the 17th Century. and its features in various European regions. Shifts in the socio-economic, political, ideological and spiritual life of Europe.
The concept of "new history" is associated with the name of Jean Bodin. He proposed to divide history into the history of the ancient world, the history of the Middle Ages and modern times. In his understanding, "new history" is what replaced the Middle Ages.
In general, "new history" is the period of the birth of bourgeois (capitalist) relations.
After 1500, a new European civilization began to take shape in Europe. Europe is moving away from Asia. After all, Europe was able to adopt capitalist relations to a greater extent than Asia.
The center of economic life in Europe moved from the Mediterranean to northeastern Europe. These countries turned out to be the most ready to accept bourgeois relations. M.A. Bargh introduces the term "degree of readiness" for the perception of capitalist relations.
The development of capitalism in Europe was uneven and by the end of the 17th century. 4 regions were distinguished:
1. countries where bourgeois relations were actively developing, the manufacturing stage of the development of capitalism (England, Holland).
2. The capitalist structure appeared, but was subordinated to feudal structures (France, a number of German states, Sweden).
3. Countries where capitalist relations originated but were strangled by feudal reaction (Northern Italy, Spain, Portugal, Southwestern Germany).
4. Region of serfdom (Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany beyond the Elbe).
During this period, the Manchurian dynasty came to power in China, Europeans began to penetrate there. Japan is in self-isolation. The Portuguese were ousted from India, while the empire of the Great Mongols dominates there. Iran remains a strong state, which is constantly fighting with Turkey. The power of the Ottoman Empire itself by the 17th century. decreases. America is actively expanding.
TO mid-seventeenth in. the economic unity of the world and key role Europe plays in it.
There is no single periodization of modern history. There is even an idea that there is no need to strive for a scientific periodization of modern history.
In the USSR, the following periodization was adopted:
1640-1917 this periodization is based on the words of Marx that the revolution is the locomotive of history.
1st stage - 1640-1870
2nd stage - 1871-1917.
In 1934, the first textbook of modern history was published in the USSR, and this periodization was formulated in the comments on this textbook.
But the question arose as to which story a new story should begin with. Marx said that the ADB, and Engels, that only the French Revolution destroyed feudalism at once and with one blow.
In the early 30s. 20th century two points of view emerged:
* Kosminsky insisted that the new story should begin with the ADB.
* Volgin, Tarle - they said that a new story begins with the VFBR.
The dispute was ended with the intervention of Stalin, who supported Kosminsky. In the 60s. Revunenkov tried to return to the revision of periodization, but to no avail.
In the mid 90s. The periodization of Sadovaya and Kozenko was published in the journal "New and Contemporary History". They noted several shortcomings in Marxist periodization:
1. division into 2 parts, where the Paris Commune was the border, but it did not affect the course of events in Europe in any way.
2. Imperialism did not turn out to be the last stage of capitalism.
They tried to combine formational and civilizational approaches:
1640(1649)-1789(1815)
1789(1815)-1914(1923).
The difference between the stages is in the degree of maturity of capitalism.
In response to their publication, a round table gathered in Pskov, which supported them in their criticism of Soviet periodization. At this round table, it was decided that a new history should be started from the end of the 15th - the beginning of the 16th century. This is accepted all over the world, and pre-revolutionary Russian historians also considered it. After all, the birth of capitalism is a long process, its beginnings appeared before the ADB and it did not become dominant after it.
In the XVI century. WGOs occur, which greatly influenced the worldview of Europeans. Also underway is the Reformation, which produces ideological changes in the minds of Europeans. In science, the heliocentric system is replaced by the geocentric one. In the XVI-XVII centuries. a scientific revolution is taking place, skepticism is emerging in science.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
Abstract on the topic:
Periodization of New History
Content
- Periodization of world history
- Conclusion
Periodization of world history
One of the important problems historical science is the problem of periodization of development human society. Periodization is the establishment of chronologically sequential stages in social development. The selection of stages should be based on decisive factors common to all countries or to leading states.
Since the development of historical science, scientists have developed many different options for the periodization of social development. To date, the periodization of world history proceeds from two principles: for the early periods of the formation of human society, the material from which the main tools of labor and the technology for their manufacture are fundamental. Thus, the concepts Stone Age"," Copper-Stone Age", "Bronze Age", "Iron Age".
The dating of these periods is established using natural science methods (geological, dendrochronology, etc.). With the advent of writing in the history of mankind (about 5000 years ago), other grounds for periodization arose. It began to be determined by the time of existence of various civilizations and states that kept their own account of time. world history divided into four main periods:
1. Ancient world(the period from the isolation of man from the animal world about 2 million years ago until the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 (AD).
2. Middle Ages (the period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the beginning of the Renaissance in the 16th century).
3. New time (from the Renaissance to 1918 - the end of the First World War).
4. Modern times (from 1919 to the present day).
The problem of periodization of modern times. Her debatable nature
The problem of periodization HB. NI - the concept manifests itself in social thought in the 14th-15th centuries, was suggested by humanists who believed that in their time the birth of a new world had come. In modern historiography understands NI as the process of formation and approval of bourgeois relations as the basis of Zap. civilization. The history of HB is a term that is used in Spanish. in history to refer to events and processes, cat. made the time following the medieval fundamentally different. Transitional era is a term in Spanish. in Marxist historiography to designate the 1st period of NI, which is considered as the time of transition from the feudal formation to the capitalist (1640-1878). Previously, NV is a term for the historical era of the 16th-18th centuries, when Europe began the transition from a traditional agrarian society to a modern one. bourgeois. Marxist. (formational) per-tion:
1) 1640 (English bourgeois revolution) - 1871 (Paris commune). 2) 1871 - 1917 (end of World War I, V. Oct. social revolution). Civilization per-tion:
1) Earlier NV from k.15v - n.16v. (1492 - open America) to 1789 (French revolution). 2) 1789 - 1870/71 (Franco-Prussian war)
Butmall timemme(or new story) - a period in the history of mankind, located between the Middle Ages and modern times.
Historians of different schools differ sharply in the periodization of modern history. As a rule, in Soviet historiography, within the framework of formational theory, its beginning was associated with the English revolution of the mid-17th century, which began in 1640. the Spaniards in 1492 of the New World, the fall of Constantinople (1453) or even the beginning of the French Revolution (1789).
It is even more difficult to determine the end time of this period. In Soviet historiography, the point of view was undividedly dominated, according to which the period of modern history ended in 1917, when the socialist revolution took place in Russia. According to the modern point of view, consideration of the events associated with the New Age should be completed with the First World War (1914-1918).
The debate on the periodization of modern history continues today.
At the same time, two sub-stages are usually distinguished within the era of the New Age, their borders are Napoleonic Wars- from the French Revolution to the Congress of Vienna.
The concept of "New history", or "New time" refers to the period from the end of the 15th to the beginning of the 20th century.
Conventionally, this time period is divided into two parts.
The first part of the New History (early modern time) covers the period from the end of the 15th to the end of the 18th century. At this time, traditional societies are being destroyed, European (Western, Christian) civilization is taking shape, the main idea of which is freedom.
old order, characteristic features which were dominance catholic church, the power of the feudal state, the rights and privileges of the landowning aristocracy, the lack of rights of most of the population, began to change.
The bourgeois revolutions in the Netherlands and England, the war for the independence of the North American colonies and the formation of the United States led to the gradual establishment of a constitutional state in these countries based on the principles of the rule of law, political freedoms and freedom of enterprise. A person's position is determined by business ability. In most countries of continental Europe (Spain, France, Sweden, Prussia, Austria) at that time absolutism, class system, dependence of subjects on the state dominated.
At the end of the 18th century (1789-1794) the Great French Revolution took place, putting forward the ideas of freedom, equality, fraternity.
In the early modern period, favorable conditions for the development of capitalism began to take shape in Europe. The right to private property was established. At the end of the 18th century the prerequisites for the start of the industrial revolution were ripe.
The second part of the New History deals with the events of the 19th - early 20th centuries.
In the 19th century in Western Europe and the USA, an industrial society is born and receives its further development (the development of a traditional society into an industrial society occurs in the process of modernization).
Because The destruction of the traditional society was uneven, scientists distinguish 3 echelons of modernization:
I echelon (countries of old capitalism, evolutionary, natural development of industrial society (England, France)) II echelon (countries of young capitalism, modernization was carried out through targeted reforms (Germany, Italy, Austria, USA, Russia), "catching up modernization").
III echelon (countries far from the center ( Latin America, Spain, Portugal), where traditional societies and limited modernization prevailed).
In the 19th century there is a rapid population growth, migration processes are increasing, manual labor is being replaced by machine labor, technological processes are becoming more complicated, the division of labor and specialization are deepening. New materials, energy sources, means of communication, labor organization appear. There is a democratization of the state and public life. The power of kings and emperors is limited by constitutions and parliaments; a republican system is being established in a number of countries. The influence of political parties is growing, the principles of the rule of law state, civil society are being strengthened, the rights of the individual are expanding.
The rapid growth of scientific knowledge, new ideas about the development of nature and society.
At the end of the 19th century: generation environmental issues. The territorial division of the world is completed. The tendency of redistribution of the already divided world is aggravated. The economic "cooperation" between the state and monopoly associations is intensifying. The concentration of production is growing. Important technical discoveries and their implementation in production and life.
Chronological framework and periodization of the history of the New Time of Russia
The question of the chronological framework of the New Age is defined differently in different historical schools.
For example, according to Lenin, a new period of Russian history begins "approximately from the 17th century," therefore, "before that, Russia, as it were, was still on the threshold of a new time." "Entering the 16th century," he wrote, "Russia, like other European country, was on the threshold of a new era.
The very transition to the New Age can be associated with the formation of a single state and its apparatus. In turn, this process, the historian believed, was largely determined by the final elimination of the appanage system and signs of autonomy. If you wish, you can see a certain inaccuracy here. After all, already in the XVII century. Ukraine became part of the Russian state as an autonomy; throughout this century, certain features were preserved in the administration of Siberia, the Volga region and even Novgorod land, Smolensk and Kazan. Moreover, what is especially important, these features of governance were only a reflection of the remaining features of the status of the population of these territories and, accordingly, the features of their relationship with the authorities. Of course, these were not destinies, but there are certainly signs of autonomization and even federalism here. To this we must add that later, already at the beginning of the 18th century. The Baltic lands annexed to Russia received a special status. The provincial reform begun by Peter I and actually completed by Catherine II contributed to the creation of a unitary state, but the special status of individual territories was preserved, which became especially clear in the 19th century. after Alexander I gave constitutions to Poland and Finland.
The time span of 170 years, coinciding with the process of the formation of the Muscovite state, according to the historian, thus, based on the same coordinate system, is essentially a transitional stage from the Middle Ages to the New Age. Several questions inevitably arise immediately. Firstly, does this mean that only pre-Moscow Rus can be considered medieval, so to speak, "in its purest form"? Secondly, isn't the transitional period too lengthy, protracted? Appeared by Russian historians since the late 1980s. the opportunity to refuse to use this scheme, at first glance, freed us from the fetters that hindered the movement and provided the right to either choose between any of the existing methodological approaches, or develop our own, or not think at all about the name of the period of history we are studying. However, as often happens not only in science, over time, freedom of choice began to be felt as a new burden. Many historians found themselves disoriented in the time of Russian history, and some even began to experience a kind of nostalgia for those times when it was possible to use a ready-made solution without undue hesitation.
Even more confusing was the attempt to replace formational approach"civilizational". It soon became clear that, in contrast to the formational one, based on precise definitions of its basic concepts, the civilizational approach is far from being so unambiguous, and difficulties begin already at the stage of finding out what civilization is, because a considerable number of different interpretations of this concept coexist in science. Moreover, it is purely mechanically impossible to choose one or the other, because each of them is associated with a whole train of sometimes completely unusual concepts, which together should create for the historian a different vision of the historical process, goals and objectives of historical knowledge, a different idea of their own capabilities as a researcher. . * In essence, this means the need to relearn, and do it yourself, constantly facing the problem of choice. Meanwhile, as the experience of recent years shows, one has to get used to freedom of choice (and again not only in science) for a long time and painfully, and as one gets used to it, one comes to understand that choice also means much more responsibility than before.
And this despite the fact that everyone is well aware of the conditionality of any periodization, its auxiliary, instrumental nature. At the same time, a kind of insidiousness of any periodization (as, indeed, of any scheme that is an artificial construction of a historian) is that, on the one hand, it is necessary for orientation in the temporal space of history, as well as for understanding the significance of certain historical phenomena. On the other hand, as soon as we accept this or that periodization, we automatically (and often unconsciously) transfer to the phenomena we study the accepted characteristics of the historical period to which they belong. Meanwhile, upon closer examination, it turns out that these characteristics are rather uncertain. As a result, the conclusions of specific historical studies are distorted.
Finally, it is impossible not to mention one more problem. We are talking about the problem of the correlation of the terminology of domestic historical science and the global one. If the "Middle Ages" is an almost literal translation of the corresponding terms that exist in most European languages, then the situation is different with the "modern time". The term itself appeared as a result of the opposition of the new and ancient history that arose during the Renaissance. Already F. Petrarch in 1341 distinguished between storia antica and storia nova, between which he placed dark ages, stretching, in his opinion, from the fall of the Roman Empire to his own time. However, later in most European languages (with the exception of German with its neuere Geschichte), the New History began to be denoted by the concept of modern. As a rule, this word is translated into Russian as modern and this is quite consistent with English-language modern history, if we take into account that Western historiography refers to the entire historical era from the Renaissance to the present day, introducing the concept of modern times, as "not so much meaningful, how much temporary, chronological", while in Soviet historiography it was inextricably linked with the assessment October revolution 1917, as the most important milestone in world history. The matter is further complicated by the fact that in the Russian language there is also a direct borrowing of modern, used in art history to designate a certain artistic style, * as well as its derivatives modernism and even modernization. Finally, just as in Russian one can offer a number of synonyms for the phrase modern history (current, real, current), so in historical literature on the European languages, for example, English, there are contemporary, current and even present history. All this creates additional confusion.
So, apparently, the questions that should be tried to answer are as follows. First, to what extent is the use of the concepts of the Middle Ages and the New Age in the context of Russian history generally justified? Secondly, if these concepts are used, does their meaning and time frame change in the context of Russian history and, if so, how? It must be immediately recognized that it is impossible to give definitive, exhaustive or any unambiguous answers to these questions. We can only talk about various probable, and even then very approximate, variants of such answers.
The history of Western Europe in modern times can be divided into two large sections according to two, so to speak, central epochs, giving one or the other meaning to each of these two sections as a whole of the cultural and social development of the last four centuries. The leading place in the first section belongs to the religious reformation of the 16th century. with all the cultural and social, ecclesiastical and political movements that preceded it, it was called out, accompanied and complicated, followed and flowed out of it. In the middle of the XVII century. the reformation period ends, and a new period of Western European history begins, characterized by the dominance of an absolute monarchy, the period from the Westphalian peace to the beginning of the French revolution, i.e. from 1648 to 1789. Just as, however, as the reformation of the 16th century, starting a new historical period, is at the same time at the center of an era, the first half of which was the time of its preparation, and the second the time of its development and the discovery of its consequences, so the French Revolution, with which many begin the "recent" history of Western Europe, can be considered as an event of central importance , because to this event converge and from this event all the main phenomena of the previous and subsequent history diverge. We can go further in this comparison: late XVIII in. Western Europe entered an era as turbulent as it had been at the beginning of the sixteenth century, but just as then social movements were carried out under the banner of religious ideas that had been expressed even earlier in literature, so the movements that began at the end of the eighteenth century were also preceded by an era of increased mental work aimed at resolving issues of morality and politics. This phenomenon is one of characteristic features XVIII century, "age of enlightenment" or "philosophical age", as it is called. A new cultural direction, which, as we will see, combines the results of humanism and Protestantism, inherited free-thinking and secular character the first and having assimilated the elements of religious and political freedom contained in the second, in the middle of the 18th century it took possession of the absolute monarchs and their ministers to a certain extent. In this era, the characteristic phenomenon of "enlightened absolutism" or "enlightened despotism" arises. As in the reformation period, church transformations were carried out in two ways, either from above, through the action of state power, or from below, through social and popular movements, so at that time, state and social reforms were undertaken either at the initiative of governments ("enlightened absolutism"), or were , on the contrary, the result social movement(revolution), moreover, the "enlightened despots" were sometimes even the forerunners of the revolution, since both they and the leaders of the latter set themselves the same tasks and proceeded from the same ideas.
Features of the socio-economic and political development Russia in modern times In European countries in the 17th century. a crisis came, which was characterized by historians as "universal." And this is not only because the crisis swept most European countries, but primarily due to the fact that it had an impact on almost all aspects of public life.
In Russia, the questions of social life, which were tied in tight knots in the 16th century, passed into the 17th century. Oprichnina gave rise not only to the Troubles of its beginning, as is commonly believed, but also to the subsequent social movements of its middle and second half. Perhaps in Russian history until the 17th century. There has never been such a time, saturated with such sharp and dramatic social contradictions. "Rebellious" were not only periods of direct popular explosions, but also the time between them with the "quietest" Romanov tsars - Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-1645) and Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676). This was no coincidence, because in the XVII century. Russia’s future path was determined in general terms: instead of a class-representative monarchy, there was a movement towards an absolute monarchy, instead of self-government with an elected local administration, the practice of appointing royal governors was introduced, in addition, the main productive force of society, the peasantry, was finally enslaved, although the first signs of new production relations appeared. - capitalist.
At the end of the XVI century. social contradictions sharply aggravated in the country. The severe economic crisis generated by the oprichnina and the wars led to a new round of enslavement measures. In 1581, "reserved years" were introduced, i.e. years in which peasant transitions were prohibited; in 1597, decrees were adopted on "lesson years" (within 5 years it is possible to search for fugitive peasants) and strengthening the dependence of serfs. However, these measures meant only the beginning of serfdom: the peasants were attached to the land, and not to the landowner. The situation was aggravated by the dynastic crisis caused by the death of the last representative of the Rurik dynasty, Fyodor Ioannovich (1584-1598) and the accession of Boris Godunov (1598-1605). However, even under Fedor, he acted as the de facto ruler of the state. At that time, foreign policy was successfully pursued: the result of the war with Sweden (1590-1593) was the return of the Tyavzinsky Peace (1595) of the lands captured in the Livonian War (Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye and Korela were returned).
By the middle of the XVII century. the devastation and ruin of the "Time of Troubles" were largely overcome. At the same time, "the whole history of the Muscovite state in the 17th century developed in direct proportion to what happened in the troubled era" (S.F. Platonov).
In the 17th century there is a further growth of large-scale landed property, which is now predominantly developing in the form of landed estates. A new phenomenon in the development of the landowning economy was the strengthening of its connection with the market. Along with this, on a much larger scale, the emergence of a prosperous elite from the peasant milieu - "capitalist peasants" - is observed on a much larger scale. On the whole, there is a further deepening of the specialization of agriculture. In the same time runs the widespread development of craft (custom-made) into small-scale production (manufacturing for the market); districts are formed in accordance with natural and geographical conditions. handicraft production; the number of manufactories increases. The number of cities is growing - by the end of the century it reaches 300.
These factors gave wide scope for the development of market relations. The exchange of goods between individual regions of the country expanded significantly, which indicated the formation of a national all-Russian market. The merger of the lands into a single economic system which strengthened the political unity of the country. However, it must be borne in mind that the elements of capitalist relations that appeared on a wider scale than before were strongly influenced by the feudal system.
The processes taking place in society reflected the code of state laws adopted by the Zemsky Sobor - a code of state laws (by the way, which remained in force until 1832). The most important norm was the introduction of an indefinite investigation of fugitive peasants - thereby canceling the "lesson summer". The prohibition of the transition of peasants on St. George's Day was also confirmed. These measures meant the legal registration of serfdom. A number of articles regulated the development of large land ownership. In particular, there has been an even greater tendency towards a convergence of patrimonial and local land tenure, as well as a further restriction of church ownership.
The first chapters of the Council Code contained articles on prestige royal power and crimes against her. The power of the monarch increased, which meant moving towards the establishment of an absolute monarchy in Russia. The strengthened autocracy has now ceased to need support from the class-representative body - Zemsky Cathedral (last cathedral full composition was held in 1654). However, the tsar was still forced to reckon with the Boyar Duma, which, at the same time, was replenished with nobles and representatives of the prikaz bureaucracy. The executive power belonged to the orders, experiencing in the XVII century. its flourishing. In total, up to 80 orders functioned at that time. The most important were the Posolsky, Local. Secret affairs, Streletsky, financial affairs were in charge of the orders of the Great Parish, the Great Treasury, the Counting. There was a system of Palace and Patriarchal orders, as well as those in charge of some regions of the country. The number of bureaucracy increased significantly - up to more than 4.5 thousand people. Changes also occurred in the organization of local government: power in the counties was concentrated in the hands of governors appointed from the center. However, Zemstvo administration remained in Pomorye. Attempts are being made to reorganize the army: regiments of the "new system" are being created, where "subsistence people" were recruited (one hundred peasant households gave one soldier for life service), who underwent military training under the supervision of foreign officers.
The political system of Russia in the 17th century is quite true. determined by M.M. Bogoslovsky, who wrote that the Muscovite state of the middle of the 16th - the middle of the 17th centuries. was autocratic-zemstvo, and then it began to turn into autocratic-bureaucratic.
Middle - second half of the 17th century. was filled with social explosions. The social movements of that time testified that there was still the possibility of developing a class-representative monarchy based on zemstvo institutions. However, the trend towards absolutism was stronger. 17th century uprisings in their organization and structure are quite complex: they include elements of veche orders, and elements of urban and Cossack self-government.
periodization new history russia
The first in this chain was the uprising in Moscow in 1648, known as the Salt Riot. Its origins must be sought in financial reform head of government boyar B.I. Morozov, who provided big influence on the king and, moreover, intermarried with him by marriage with the sister of his wife. He decided to replenish the empty state treasury by replacing direct taxes (extremely ruinous) with indirect ones. In 1646, it was decided to impose an additional duty on salt. This caused a sharp reduction in salt consumption and dissatisfaction, primarily among the ordinary townspeople. Then in 1647 the salt tax was abolished, but the resulting arrears began to be collected again in the usual way - direct taxes. In the cities, this especially hit the inhabitants of the "black settlements", who, unlike the "white settlements", who were exempted from payments, bore the sovereign's tax in full. The "Chernoslobodchiks" demanded the liquidation of the "white settlements" and the equalization of their population in rights and obligations with the rest of the settlement. The nobility also expressed dissatisfaction.
By the middle of the XVII century. main tasks foreign policy Russia is becoming: in the west and northwest - the return of the lost in Time of Troubles lands, and in the south - the achievement of security from the raids of the Crimean khans (vassals of the Ottoman Empire), who took thousands of Russians and Ukrainians into captivity.
In the 17th century the number of literate (who can read and write) people is increasing. So, among the townspeople there were 40% literate, among merchants - 96%, among landowners - 65%.
Business writing is expanding significantly, and qualified office work was carried out not only in central orders, but also in zemstvo institutions, and even in estates.
Handwritten books continued to be widely used. And from 1621, a hand-written newspaper called Chimes began to be produced for the tsar, consisting mainly of translated foreign news.
Along with handwritten editions, printed materials produced at the Moscow Printing House came into use more and more. Already in the first half of the XVII century. About 200 books of various titles were published. Libraries began to be collected by individuals. In 1672, the first bookstore opened in Moscow. Printing made it possible to publish grammar and arithmetic textbooks in mass editions. Primer ("ABC") Vasily Burtsev, published in 1634, subsequently reprinted several times. At the end of the century, an illustrated primer by Karion Istomin appeared, in 1882 - a printed multiplication table. For "educational purposes" "Psalms" and "Books of Hours" were also issued.
Literacy was usually taught either in families or by clergy, deacons and clerks. However, the need for organized learning became more and more urgent. Already in the 40s, on the initiative of one of the prominent statesmen F.M. Rtishchev, a school was organized in the Moscow Andreevsky Monastery. In 1665, a school for the education of clerks was opened in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, in 1680, a school was founded at the Printing House.
The first schools prepared the opening in 1687 of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (originally a school) headed by the Greek brothers Ioannikius and Sofroniy Likhud. The Academy's goal was to teach people "of every rank, rank and age" "from grammar, rhyme, rhetoric, dialectics, philosophy to theology." The training was designed to train the higher clergy and civil service officials.
As for scientific knowledge, its practical side was mainly developed and its theoretical basis was hardly touched upon. For example, mathematical knowledge was associated with the practice of describing lands, trade and military affairs. Thus, the "Charter of military, cannon and other matters relating to military science" (1621) gave practical information on geometry, mechanics, physics, and chemistry.
Medical knowledge was based on folk traditions of treatment, as well as on the experience of translated foreign healers and "herbalists". The Pharmaceutical Order concentrated specialists who knew how to make medicines; pharmacists and doctors were also trained here. In 1654, 30 archers were trained in the order, then sent to the regiments "for medical treatment" of military people.
Knowledge about the surrounding nature and the world is accumulating and developing: astronomical and geographical. In the middle of the XVII century. writings introducing the heliocentric system of Copernicus penetrate into Russia.
Back in the first half of the century, compiled geographic Maps. For example, in 1627, the "Book of the Great Drawing" was made in the Discharge Order, and the "Drawing of Russian and Swedish Cities to the Varangian Sea" was created in Novgorod.
The expansion of geographical representations was facilitated by the materials of expeditions for the development of Siberia (Stadukhin, Poyarkov, Dezhnev, Khabarov, Atlasov). After 1683, a "Description of new lands, that is, the Siberian kingdom" appeared. It and previous descriptions and drawings prepared the work of S.U. Remizov "Drawing book of Siberia".
There is a long tradition of singling out the 18th century. as a separate, integral in economic, social and cultural relations. We say culture Ancient Russia IX-XVII centuries, but we will never include the XVIII century here. This is truly a "new" period in our history. And we are talking not only about culture, but also about all spheres of the life of the state.
Cultural historians believe that the exact boundaries of the century cannot be considered the chronological facets of the phenomenon that we call the "XVIII century". As the starting date, they take the 1690s, when new phenomena in culture began to take shape in a whole system, and as the final date - the Patriotic War of 1812 as the first "general historical action of the Russian nation" (P.I. Krasnobaev). For all the conventions of such chronological frameworks, they coincide with the chronology of the processes that took place in the economy and political life.
Reforms of Peter I. As a result of the reforms of the state apparatus and local authorities in Russia, a state was created, which in historical literature was aptly called a "regular state". It was an absolutist bureaucratic state riddled with surveillance and espionage. Naturally, in such a state, democratic traditions, which never died out in Russia, found themselves in very unfavorable circumstances. They continued to live in the daily life of the peasant community, the Cossack freemen. But democracy was increasingly sacrificed to brutal authoritarian rule, accompanied by an extraordinary rise in the role of the individual in Russian history. One of external manifestations this was the adoption by the Russian tsar of the title of emperor and the transformation of Russia into an empire, which was reflected in public consciousness and in culture.
Among the reforms of the time of Peter the Great, one should highlight the reforms in the field of culture. They also always caused the most controversial assessments. We list the main of these reforms. In 1700, following the example of Western Europe, Peter introduced a new chronology in Russia - from the birth of Christ, and not from the creation of the world, as was previously believed according to the Byzantine church tradition. Peter tried to create the first public theatre. On January 2, 1703, the publication of the first newspaper Vedomosti began in Moscow, which was edited by Peter himself. Instead of the old Church Slavonic, a new font was introduced. But Peter paid special attention to the school. The first school organized by Peter was the "School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences" in Moscow, later transferred to St. Petersburg, where in 1715 it was transformed into the Naval Academy. Engineering and artillery schools were opened in Moscow and St. Petersburg. In all provinces "digital schools" began to open. By order of Peter, church schools were opened in the dioceses. Teaching at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was significantly improved. A medical school was also opened in Moscow. Handicraft schools were created at the largest manufactories. Textbooks were created to improve school education.
Assessing the development of Russian science and culture, it should be said about M.V. Lomonosov and other figures of science and technology in the middle of the XVIII century. On the basis of the Academy of Sciences, established in 1725 by Peter's decree, a number of large geographical expeditions were undertaken. Historical works are created by V.N. Tatishchev, literary works by A.D. Kantemir and V.K. Trediakovsky. It is no coincidence that Lomonosov is called "our first university." His work is characterized by that indivisibility of scientific knowledge, which in general distinguishes the science of the 18th century. In 1755, on his initiative, a university was opened in Moscow (a number of researchers consider St. Petersburg University, which arose on the basis of the Academy of Sciences as early as 1725, to be older).
In the second half of the XVIII century. starts to develop school education, although the main was still very imperfect home schooling. In 1758, a gymnasium was opened for nobles and raznochintsy in Kazan. In 1764, the first women's educational institution, the Educational Society for Noble Maidens, was created at the Smolny Monastery in St. Petersburg. There are a number of other educational institutions. It was supposed to introduce three types of such institutions - small, medium and main public schools. All these activities in the field of education were associated with the name of I.I. Betsky. In the field of exact sciences and technology, Russian scientists achieved significant success. Talented scientists worked within the walls of the Academy of Sciences. I.I. Polzunov invented the steam engine, I.P. Kulibin created many high-quality scientific instruments, developed a wonderful project for a single-arch bridge across the Neva. Unfortunately, in the conditions of the bureaucratic system that had already emerged in Russia at that time, many of these inventions remained unclaimed.
Conclusion
Whatever subject historians study, they all use scientific categories in their research: historical movement ( historical time, historical space), historical fact, theory of study (methodological interpretation).
Historical movement includes interrelated scientific categories of historical time and historical space.
Historical time only moves forward. Each segment of the movement in historical time is woven from thousands of connections, material and spiritual, it is unique and has no equal. Outside the concept of historical time, history does not exist. Events following one after another form a time series. There are internal links between events in the time series.
At the end of the 19th century, materialist historians divided the history of society into formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, and communist. At the turn of the 21st century, historical-liberal periodization divides society into periods: traditional, industrial, informational (post-industrial).
Theories of the historical process or theories of learning (methodological interpretation) are determined by the subject of history. Theory is a logical scheme explaining historical facts. By themselves, historical facts as "fragments of reality" do not explain anything. Only the historian gives the fact an interpretation that depends on his ideological and theoretical views. What distinguishes one theory of the historical process from another? The difference between them lies in the subject of study and the system of views on the historical process Each schema-theory selects from a variety of historical facts only those that fit into its logic. historical research, each theory identifies its own periodization, defines its own conceptual apparatus, creates its own historiography. Various theories reveal only their patterns or alternatives - variants of the historical process and offer their own vision of the past, make their own forecasts for the future.
Only the facts of history can be true, the interpretation of these facts is always subjective. Facts that are biased and built into a predetermined logical and semantic scheme (without explanation and conclusions) cannot claim to be an objective history, but are only an example of a hidden selection of facts of a certain theory.
Different learning theories that explain real historical facts do not take precedence over each other. All of them are "truthful, objective, true" and reflect the difference in worldviews, systems of views on history and modern society. Criticism of one theory from the position of another is incorrect, as it replaces the worldview, the subject of study. Attempts to create a common (single), universal theory, that is, to combine different theories - worldviews (subjects of study), are anti-scientific, as they lead to a violation of cause-and-effect relationships, to contradictory conclusions.
List of used literature
1. Barg M. Civilization approach to history // Kommunist, 1991, No. 3.
2. Grechko P.K. Conceptual Models of History: A Handbook for Students. M.: Logos, 1995.
3. Ionov I.N. The theory of civilization and the evolution of scientific knowledge // Social Sciences and Modernity, 1997, No. 6.
4. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. M., 1956.T. I.Ch. I.
5. Marx M., Engels F. Sobr. op. T.13, 22.
6. Rakitov A.I. Historical knowledge: system-epistemological approach. Moscow: Politizdat, 1982.
7. Savelyeva I.M., Poletaev A.V. History and time: in search of the lost. Languages of Russian culture. M., 1997.
8. Semennikova L.I. Civilizations in the history of mankind. Bryansk: Cursive, 1998.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
The concept of historical time, the division of the history of society into formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist. Analysis of the time periods of the development of Russia, their relationship to the world-historical periodization.
abstract, added 05/23/2010
The problem of periodization of the development of modern civilization. The stepwise nature of the entry of various peoples of the world into an industrial civilization. The specificity of the protection policy in relation to the monuments of the history of the New Age.
control work, added 11/29/2006
Principles of periodization of history. Scheme of five formations, developed by Soviet scientists on the basis of the works of Marx and Engels. civilizational approach. World-system analysis. Development periods Russian state. Periodization in educational literature.
term paper, added 02/29/2016
The beginning of the historical path of I.S. Galkin. Great Patriotic War and the post-war period of the work of the historian. Studies on the history of the labor movement in France, on the history of modern Germany. Historiography of the Soviet period.
abstract, added 12/13/2006
The study of the humanities as an important part of the general education of modern specialists. Variants of periodization of history. Stages of development of historical science. Functions of historical knowledge. Principles of studying a number of historical factors.
abstract, added 11/13/2009
Unity and diversity of the world historical process. Criteria that allow us to speak about the diversity of history. Russia's place in the world community of civilizations. The main factors of the Russian historical process. Westerners ("Europeanists") and Slavophiles.
abstract, added 02/11/2014
The study of the principles of historical research: scientific, objectivity, historicism, dialectics. Periodization Overview national history according to the nature of the government. Characteristics of scientific and social status historical science.
test, added 11/08/2012
The crisis of modern Russian historical science, domestic historiography. Marxist approach to "typification and periodization historical development". Study of the history of Russian representative institutions, the history of local self-government.
test, added 09/19/2010
Subjective scientific category of history. Logic, meaning, purpose in history. Analysis of the use of the subjunctive mood in historiography. The study of the concept of historical space and time. The objectivity of history and the subjectivity of the historian. Ranke's formula.
abstract, added 06/13/2013
Historical reality as a historical and epistemological phenomenon. Theories of the historical process as semiotic semantic systems. Semantics of theories of the historical process from the standpoint of hermeneutics. Probabilistically ordered nature of historical knowledge.
1914-1918 pp. up to the present. 2. The science that studies this period (sometimes under N. and. They understand only history foreign countries of Europe and North America). The main sign of N. and. is the mastery of scientific and technical achievements by mankind, the approval and flourishing with a market economy, which, overcoming the crisis, has proved its economic and social efficiency, in particular in competition and confrontation.
The development of mankind is a continuous and continuous process. An important factor in the conditional separation world history to a new one and became a world one, which entailed a deep
crisis of development and at the same time contributed to the development of the processes inherent in the new era, the new international order. It was this war that brought about a decisive change in . It eliminated the old capitalism of free competition, weakened by the domination of monopolies in the pre-war period, and opened the way for the development of modern capitalism with a budgetary policy, a system of state orders and appropriations for vital industries, legislation and social programs.
The disasters of the war are one of the reasons for the collapse of the German, Austrian and, as well as explosions and upheavals in a number of European countries. In Russia, a socialist system was established, the beginning of coexistence and opposition of capitalism and socialism, a phenomenon that gained a global scale after the establishment of a socialist system in the countries of Central Europe and some Asian countries. A characteristic consequence of the war 1914-1918 pp. became with its militant and, the cult of strength and. The war determined the development of international relations for many years, changed the map of Europe and the world, creating the ground for a new world war. Militarism has become on the agenda in the politics of many countries. The coexistence and confrontation of capitalism with socialism was accompanied by wars, the most severe of which was the Second World War, social revolutions, the intensity of which at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. weakening everywhere.
Capitalism reigns on the world stage, determining trends and prospects for development. He won the competition in productivity and, as a result, in the development of the economy and the rise in living standards against "world socialism". At the turn of the 80-90s pp. 20th century the socialist system dominating in the countries of Central Europe collapsed. The process of transformation in the device and the economy began in the direction of introducing the laws of a market economy and. However, capitalist relations are not a single system of the XX and early. 21st century As in the XVII-XVIII centuries. capitalism coexisted with the obsolete feudalism as well as in the 20th and early 21st centuries. it shares the world with various forms of socialism.
Internal N. and. in the domestic it was traditionally built according to the stages of the general crisis of capitalism. The disappearance of this category violates in its entirety the problem of searching for new criteria, milestones and boundaries that would indicate the way to N.'s definition and. With all the conventionality of periodization in N. and. three stages of world development can be distinguished: 1) the period between the two world wars (1919-1939 pp.) 2) the second World War(1939-1945 pp.) 3) period modern history(after 1945 p.).
Each stage can be subdivided accordingly depending on the problems of civilizational changes that are considered. So, the internal periodization of N. and. after can be associated with periods « », which were among the most significant characteristics of the development of the world in the second half. 20th century Among them are the following stages: 1) the division of the world into two warring blocs and the incitement of the Cold War (1947-1953 pp.) 2) the "thaw" in the Cold War (1953-1959 pp.) 3) from the Berlin crisis to the Vietnam War (1960-1969 pp.) 4) detente (1969-1979 pp.) 5) a new stage of the Cold War (1979-1985 pp.) 6) the end of the Cold War (1985 - 1991 pp.) 7 ) the world in the absence of bipolar confrontation (90s pp. XX - early XXI centuries)
Within N. and. both individual countries of the world and regions have their own internal logic of development and the corresponding periodization, which may differ from the periodization on the basis of the Cold War. For example, N.'s periodization and. countries of Western Europe can be considered in accordance with the stages of their political and economic integration, N.'s periodization and. countries of Asia and Africa - in accordance with the stages of liberation and national economic development.
Periodization of history- a special kind of systematization, which consists in the conditional division of the historical process into certain chronological periods. These periods have certain distinctive features, which are determined depending on the chosen basis (criterion) of periodization.
Global changes by the beginning of the 20th century:
1. New phenomena in economics, politics, ideology.
2. Changes in the social structure.
3. The final formation of an industrial society.
4. Global migration processes: changing emigration flows from Europe to America (from Eastern Europe and the Balkans).
5. Territorial division of the world.
6. Scientific and technological progress.
7. New phenomena in culture.
By the middle of the first decade of the 2000s, the transition from the post-bipolar world order of the 1990s to a new structure of international relations was completed in the international system.
In a short period of historical time spanning less than 60 years from the end of World War II to the mid-2000s, the international order on the planet managed to change twice. For the first time - after the defeat of the powers in 1945, and then - after the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Second World War destroyed the pre-war multipolarity. It was replaced by the bipolar organized world of the Yalta-Potsdam order. It existed for 46 years and collapsed with the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
In its place, a transitional post-bipolar world order arose in the mid-1990s. Today it is going through another phase of its modification, increasingly acquiring pronounced features of unipolarity. The United States and American allies are deploying in their own grandiose work to create a universal trans-state community - a "world society" - based on Western ideals and values, based on economic, political and military power Western world, as well as the emotional appeal of its living standards.
The shifts that originated in the world system in last years, are superimposed in modern international relations on long-term development trends rooted in the middle of the last century - the post-war era that prepared the conditions for the current changes.
SECTION 1.
Post-war peace settlement. Beginning of the Cold War
Topic 1.1.
Post-war peace settlement in Europe.
Plan
1. Interests of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France in Europe and the world after the war.
2. Development of a coordinated policy of the Allied Powers in Germany.
3. The idea of collective security.
4. A new alignment of forces on the world stage. Churchill's speech at Fulton.
5. Doctrine of "containment" Marshall Plan.
6. Beginning of the Cold War
Immediately after the end of World War II, in the approach to solving political problems related to its results, two courses were outlined: the policy of preserving and consolidating the conquered world, international cooperation pursued by the Soviet Union and other peace-loving countries, and the policy of whipping up international tension, the Cold War. and the aggression carried out by the imperialist states. This confrontation very clearly expressed the opposition of the goals set before themselves, on the one hand, by the forces of progress and socialism, and on the other, by the forces of reaction and imperialism.
2. The most important problem of the post-war peace settlement was the question of the future of Germany. The USSR advocated the complete eradication of fascism and militarism in post-war Germany, the elimination of its military-industrial potential, and the development of a system of measures that would ensure the development of this country on a democratic, peace-loving basis.
The implementation of a number of practical measures in this direction was envisaged by the decisions of the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, England and the USA (July 17 - August 2, 1945) and other agreements between the governments of the USSR, England, the USA and France. The Allies formulated the principle of preserving Germany as a single economic and political entity, its development as a democratic and peace-loving state. At the same time, the USSR rejected the plan for the dismemberment of Germany proposed by the Western powers, which did not meet the interests of either the German or other peoples of European countries and the whole world.
Meeting of party and state leaders of the countries - participants of the Warsaw Pact
The three powers proclaimed their intention to give the German people the opportunity to build their lives on a peaceful and democratic basis. It was also stated that the goal of the occupation of Germany is its complete disarmament and demilitarization, the dissolution of the National Socialist Party, the restructuring of socio-political relations, the judicial system, the education system on the principles of democracy, and the provision of democratic freedoms to the population. To prevent the revival of Germany's military and economic potential, the three powers decided to decentralize the German economy and eliminate monopolies.
At the conference of nine countries held in London in late September - early October 1954 - the USA, Great Britain, France, the FRG, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Canada - the central question was the rearmament of the FRG and the size of its "contribution" to the "defense » West. By the agreements of the Paris Conferences (October 20 - 23, 1954), signed by representatives of a number of Western countries, the Federal Republic of Germany was allowed to create armed forces consisting of 12 infantry divisions, an air force and a navy; Germany (as well as Italy) is included in NATO and in the Western Union, which was later transformed into the Western European Union. At the same time, the provision on the obligation of the parties to provide mutual assistance in the event of a new German aggression was removed from the text of the Brussels Pact (1948) on the Western Union.
Under the Paris Agreements, the FRG banned the production of atomic, chemical and bacteriological weapons, some types of heavy weapons, warships with a displacement of more than 3,000 tons, submarines with a displacement of more than 350 tons, missiles and strategic bombers. But the ban did not extend to the possibility of West Germany acquiring these weapons outside the country. In May 1955, the Paris Agreements entered into force. Germany received the right to form its own army - the Bundeswehr.
In difficult conditions, the issue of a peaceful settlement in the Far East and a peace treaty with Japan was being decided. Agreed decisions regarding Japan were made in December 1945 at the Moscow Conference of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, the USA and England. The Far Eastern Commission was created (with a stay in Washington), which worked in compliance with the principle of unanimity of the USSR, the USA, England and China, and in Tokyo - the Allied Council for Japan - as an advisory body to the commander-in-chief of the American troops. They were called upon to implement the demands for a peace settlement for Japan put forward in the Potsdam Declaration and the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers. They consisted in the complete disarmament of Japan, the dissolution of its armed forces, the liquidation of the military industry, the punishment of war criminals, the democratization of public life, and the eradication of militarism.
Thus, the process of implementing the decisions of the allied powers of the anti-Hitler coalitions on Germany and Japan, normalizing relations with them in the post-war years and developing peace treaties was complicated by a sharp struggle between two opposing courses. Despite the enormous efforts of the USSR, comprehensive and fair peace treaties with these countries were not concluded, which significantly limited the possibilities of a post-war peace settlement.
By the decision of the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference, the drafting of these treaties was entrusted to the Ministerial Council. The preparation of a peace treaty with Italy provided for the participation of the USSR, SITA, England and France, with Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria - the USSR, the USA and England, with Finland - the USSR and England. Direct preparation of peace treaties, many provisions of which were developed by the powers of the anti-Hitler coalition during the war years, began at a session of the Council of Foreign Ministers in London in the autumn of 1945.
3. Questions about the borders of Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland were also agreed earlier. However, at the Paris Peace Conference (July 29 - October 15, 1946), which was one of the stages in the preparation of peace treaties, the United States and Britain departed from decisions taken and supported encroachments by third states on the territory of a number of people's democracies.
On February 10, 1947, peace treaties with Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland were signed in Paris. They entered into force on September 15 of the same year after their ratification by the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain and France.
The issues of a peaceful settlement were ultimately resolved in concert, on the basis of the cooperation of all the major powers that were members of the anti-Hitler coalition. This was a major victory for the foreign policy of the CCCP as a result of its increased international prestige and influence as the main force that crushed the fascist aggressors.
The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials played a significant role in the struggle for a post-war democratic, just world and against aggressive wars. For the first time in international practice, war criminals were held accountable and severely punished, including those who participated in the preparation, initiation and conduct of an aggressive, imperialist war, in planning and carrying out actions that entail or result in war crimes and atrocities.
The international trial of the main German war criminals took place from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946 in Nuremberg. The main Nazi war criminals, the highest state and military figures, were brought to trial by the International Military Tribunal Nazi Germany. They suffered severe punishment for plotting against peace and humanity, for committing the gravest war crimes and crimes against humanity. Twelve criminals were sentenced to death penalty by hanging, three - to life imprisonment, four - to imprisonment for a term of 10 to 20 years, three, contrary to the dissenting opinion of the Soviet judge, were acquitted.
The Tokyo trial of the major Japanese war criminals took place from 3 May 1946 to 12 November 1948 at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. For participation in the preparation and unleashing of an aggressive war, for carrying out mass brutal destruction of the civilian population in the occupied countries, prisoners of war and other atrocities, 7 criminals were sentenced to death by hanging, 16 to life imprisonment, 1 to 20 years and 1 to 7 years in prison. Among those executed were former prime ministers of Japan, the minister of war, and representatives of the highest generals.
The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were essential for establishing the just principles and norms of international law.
Thus, the peaceful settlement of post-war problems took place in a sharp political and diplomatic struggle.
4. Fulton speech - a speech delivered on March 5, 1946 by Winston Churchill at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, USA; in the USSR was considered a signal for the start of the Cold War. At the time of the speech, Churchill was not, contrary to popular belief, the Prime Minister of Great Britain; after the defeat of the Conservative Party in the elections of July 5, 1945, he was the leader of the opposition; in the United States was not on an official visit, but as a private person, as a vacationer.
At the beginning of the Fulton speech, Churchill stated that henceforth "the United States is at the pinnacle of world power." "This is a solemn moment of American democracy," but also an extremely responsible position.
In the second part of his speech, Churchill turned to an analysis of the situation in Europe and Asia. He openly cited the Soviet Union as the cause of "international difficulties":
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an "Iron Curtain" was lowered across the continent. Behind this line are all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe: Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities with the population around them are in what I should call the Soviet sphere, and all they are, in one form or another, objects not only of Soviet influence, but also of very high, and in some cases even growing, control from Moscow ... Communist parties who were very small in all these Eastern European states, have been raised to a position and power vastly outnumbered, and they are trying to achieve totalitarian control in everything.
The danger of Communism, Churchill declared, was growing everywhere, "with the exception of the British Commonwealth and the United States, where Communism is still in its infancy."
Throughout his speech, written and read with Churchill's inherent brilliance, he actively used memorable images and capacious expressions - "the iron curtain" and its "shadow that has fallen on the continent", "fifth columns" and "police states", "complete obedience" and "unconditional expansion of power", etc. Since the late 1930s, such epithets have been used by politicians around the world in relation to only one state - Nazi Germany. Using this language now in relation to the USSR, Churchill skillfully switched the negative emotions of American society to a new enemy.
Stalin was almost immediately informed about the speech of the former ally in the anti-Hitler coalition. Tassov ciphers and translation lay on the table to Stalin and Molotov the very next day. For a couple of days, with his characteristic caution, Stalin expected a reaction abroad.
On March 14, J. V. Stalin, in an interview with Pravda, carefully dosed out the ratio of the warning about the threat of a possible war and called for restraint, but unambiguously put Churchill on a par with Hitler and stated that in his speech he called on the West to go to war with the USSR, and also accused him of racism: It should be noted that Mr. Churchill and his friends are strikingly reminiscent in this respect of Hitler and his friends. Hitler began the business of starting the war by proclaiming the racial theory, announcing that only people who spoke German represent a complete nation. Mr. Churchill begins the business of unleashing war also with racial theory, arguing that only nations that speak English language, are full-fledged nations, called to decide the fate of the whole world. German racial theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only complete nation, should dominate other nations. The English racial theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the nations that speak the English language, as the only full-fledged ones, should dominate the rest of the nations of the world.
For the whole world, this March week marked the beginning of the Cold War.
According to former US President Ronald Reagan, not only the modern West, but also peace on our planet was born from the Fulton speech.
The contemporary Russian researcher N. V. Zlobin notes the "sagacity and political instinct of Churchill", expressed in this speech. In his opinion, "his [Churchill's] prediction for the next 40 years of the structure and nature of international relations in general and Soviet-American relations in particular has been fully confirmed."
Churchill himself called this speech the most important in his entire career.
5. Marshall Plan - "Program for the Reconstruction of Europe" - a program to help Europe after the Second World War. Nominated in 1947 by US Secretary of State George C. Marshall (effective April 1948). 17 European countries (including West Germany) participated in the implementation of the plan. The Marshall Plan contributed to the establishment of post-war peace in Western Europe. The goal of the United States was to restore the war-torn economy of Europe, remove trade barriers, modernize the industry of European countries and develop Europe as a whole.
George Marshall delivered his speech with the aid program at Harvard University on June 5, 1947. On July 12, representatives of 16 Western European countries gathered in Paris. Representatives of the states of Eastern Europe were also invited to the meeting, but at the insistence of the Soviet government, which saw this as a threat to its interests, the leaders of the Eastern European countries refused this invitation. At the same time, the Soviet Union itself did not fall under the plan for a purely formal reason - in connection with the declared absence of a budget deficit in the USSR.
Former US Vice President Wallace Henry Egard denounced the Marshall Plan, calling it a Cold War tool against Russia.
Participants discussed the amount of specific assistance required for each of them. In response to the willingness to accept it in the United States, a Government Committee was created to study the state of the country's economy and its ability to provide such assistance.
The Marshall Plan began to be implemented on April 4, 1948, when the US Congress passed the Economic Cooperation Act, which provided for a 4-year program of economic assistance to Europe. The total amount of appropriations under the Marshall Plan (from April 4, 1948 to December 1951) amounted to about 12.4 billion dollars, with the main share falling on England (2.8 billion), France (2.5 billion), Italy (1.3 billion), West Germany (1.3 billion), Holland (1 billion). At the same time, the Americans, as a precondition for providing assistance, demanded the removal of the Communists from the governments of the countries that signed the treaty. By 1948, there were no communists in any government in Western Europe.
Later, the Marshall Plan was also applied to Japan and some other East Asian countries.
The Marshall Plan was curtailed in the second half of the 1960s: the governments of the recipient countries began to get rid of dollars. The first exchange of dollars for gold was demanded by the French government in 1965. By 1971, all countries that received American aid abandoned the dollar. The result was the devaluation of the American currency and, as a result, the US abandoning the gold standard of the dollar, as well as the partial withdrawal of France from NATO (France left the military structure of the North Atlantic Alliance in 1966, but retained membership in its political organization).
6. The Cold War is a global geopolitical, military, economic and informational confrontation between the USSR and its allies, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies, on the other, which lasted from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s.
The name "cold" here is arbitrary, since this confrontation was a war in the truest sense. One of the main components of the war was ideology. The deep contradiction between the capitalist and socialist models is the main cause of the war. The two victorious superpowers in World War II tried to rebuild the world according to their ideological guidelines.
The term "cold war" was first used on April 16, 1947 by Bernard Baruch, adviser to US President Harry Truman, in a speech before the South Carolina House of Representatives.
The USA and the USSR created their own spheres of influence, securing them with military-political blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The United States and the USSR regularly entered into direct military confrontation (52 hot episodes around the world).
The Cold War was accompanied by a conventional and nuclear arms race. The policy of perestroika and glasnost announced by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 led to the loss of the leading role of the CPSU. In 1991, the USSR collapsed, which marked the end of the Cold War.
IN Eastern Europe communist governments, having lost Soviet support, were removed even earlier, in 1989-1990. The Warsaw Pact officially ended on July 1, 1991, marking the end of the Cold War.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
