The alignment of forces in the international arena has changed. Changes in the balance of power in the international arena. A new alignment of forces in the international arena. struggle of the ussr for a just post-war world order
and to Russia was not only a triumph of the reunification of the Russian nation. It opens a new era, which means the inevitable geopolitical redistribution of the world. First of all, it concerns Europe. As the philologist and geopolitician Vadim Tsymbursky noted, the world is not completely divided into various civilizations. Between civilizations, that is, between countries that do not doubt their civilizational affiliation, there are peoples who hesitate and cannot determine which civilizational association they should enter.
Now, after Crimea, the fate of the “buffer” states is in question. There are two possible scenarios for them. Or they remain in a loose, neutral, federal-confederal status. Or they are divided into zones belonging to different civilizations - to the one that forms Russia, and the one that creates the Euro-Atlantic. This is the opinion of political scientist and philosopher Boris Mezhuev in Izvestia.
Moreover, the geopolitical redistribution will not be limited to Europe. Buffer countries next Central Asia– Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. And not only them.
The annexation of Crimea became, in fact, the positioning of Russia as one of the key centers of the multipolar world that is taking shape before our eyes. The Crimean precedent changes the forces of attraction between these centers.
It is no coincidence that in his “Crimean” message, President Vladimir Putin specifically noted that “we are grateful to everyone who approached our steps in Crimea with understanding, we are grateful to the people of China, whose leadership has considered and is considering the situation around Ukraine and Crimea in all its historical and political completeness, we highly value India's restraint and objectivity." In other words, Crimea means a weakening of attraction along the Russia-West line, and its strengthening in the Asian direction.
The annexation of Crimea may change the geopolitical alignment for the countries of Latin America as well. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has already condemned the West's refusal to recognize the results of the referendum in Crimea, and compared it to the referendum held in 2013 in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands, we recall, were a disputed territory claimed by Argentina and Great Britain. In 1982, Britain defended its right to the islands with the help of troops, and in March last year, residents of these territories also voted for membership in the British kingdom. As Kirchner recalled, at that time the UN did not challenge the legality of this vote.
“Many of the major powers that secured the Falkland people’s right to self-determination are now reluctant to do the same for Crimea. How can you call yourself the guarantors of world stability if you do not apply the same standards to everyone? It turns out that the Crimeans cannot express their will, but the inhabitants of the Falklands can? There is no logic in this!” she said after meeting with Pope Francis.
In a word, Moscow has started a very big game. “The risk is great, and the possible jackpot seems to be considerable. The old world order is completely ceasing to function, a new one should soon begin to take shape. Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the first to speak about the need for a new world order back in 1986, did not succeed. Vladimir Putin is returning to the fork to try again,” he said. Chief Editor magazine "Russia in Global Affairs" Fyodor Lukyanov.
What is behind these changes, and what place can Russia take in this new world?
“By annexing Crimea, Russia has finally declared that its policy will be independent,” Fyodor Lukyanov believes. - In the sense that if the Russian Federation believes that some of its interests are so important that they require mandatory upholding, it will not pay attention to the costs in relations with the West.
So far it hasn't been like that. Russia quite actively tried to defend its interests, but always left space for what in English is called damage control (“damage control”, - "SP") – minimizing the damage that the Russian decision causes to relations with Europe and the United States.
Now Russia is designating, at a minimum, topics and goals that are not subject to negotiations, and do not contain room for compromise.
This is a major change, because since the Cold War there have not been countries that have raised the issue so hard. China follows a similar line, but it is passive, and tries not so much to attack as to defend itself. China, rather, does not allow America to do anything, but does not itself take offensive demonstrative steps.
The emergence of a power that is not afraid to challenge the US - in the full sense of the term - is a significant factor. However, what exactly this will lead to is not yet very clear. The problem is that Russia does not offer itself as a systemic alternative, simply as an independent and strong power.
"SP": - Putin in his "Crimean" speech separately thanked China and India. What does it say?
– If our relations with the West worsen, and it comes to an economic and diplomatic war, Russia has no other direction but to the East, and there is no other supporting partner than China. This brings with it very serious changes in geopolitical positioning.
In part, such changes were inevitable even before the Ukrainian events. Putin said in his December message to the Federal Assembly that our priorities for the 21st century are Siberia, Far East, and the Asian vector in general. But now the situation is getting more complicated. We may find ourselves in a position where we have no choice but to rely on China, and China will gladly support us - but, of course, for a reason.
China is interested in tying Russia to itself in such a way that after a certain number of years, when a situation of its sharp conflict with the United States may arise, Russia would not have the opportunity to take a neutral position. As a result, rapprochement with China gives us space now, but in long term this must be treated very carefully.
"SP": - Can the Crimean precedent affect the geopolitical orientations of Latin America?
- Argentina's statement on Crimea is rather exotic. It is clear why President Kirchner did it - she really sees parallels in the Crimean situation with the referendum in the Falkland Islands. But I do not think that her position can seriously affect international placement forces. Argentina is not the most significant country, and the situation in it is not the most stable. Her supportive voice is nice to hear but impossible to use.
"SP": - How will the situation develop now in the "buffer", as Boris Mezhuev calls it, the zone of Eastern Europe, can it really be divided into zones of influence?
– Unlike Boris Mezhuev, I am skeptical about the idea of the existence of civilizational rifts. I, at least, do not really understand what kind of civilization Russia offers. In my opinion, the Russian Federation proposes a purely instrumental project - Customs Union. And in terms of civilization, we do not offer anything that is fundamentally different from Western civilization. Russia has been and most likely will be a country European culture and history - albeit with their own specifics.
As for the security situation, yes, in the conditions of the Russia-West conflict, the "buffer" countries have a very hard time. We see what the attempt to force Ukraine to decide on development guidelines has led to. It is clear that the Ukrainian crisis has been ripe for a long time, but the immediate reason for it was an attempt to push Ukraine towards a decisive, last choice between the Russian Federation and the EU.
I think something similar could happen with Moldova – now it has to sign an association agreement with the EU. But there, thank God, the situation is simpler, in Moldova there is already a clear division - Transnistria - and in the event of an internal conflict, the country will be peacefully divided along this line. True, for Chisinau, joining the EU is a big problem, since Moldova may end up in Europe not as a separate country, but as a province of Romania.
In general, all “buffer” countries now have a difficult situation. I think they would all be interested in a joint Russia-Europe project to control this space. But, unfortunately for them, so far there is not the slightest desire - neither Russia, nor especially the EU - to discuss this kind of configuration.
"SP": - What will happen to the South-East of Ukraine? In his message, Putin said that we do not want the division of Ukraine. But, on the other hand, he stressed that “we are against the military alliance, and NATO remains a military organization in all internal processes, we are against the military organization hosting near our fence, next to our house or in our historical territories ". Meanwhile, Kiev has requested NATO assistance in ensuring the security of Ukraine, in May near Lvov NATO exercises Rapid Trident 2014 will take place, in which Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Great Britain and Ukraine will take part. Does this mean that de facto NATO's border is shifting to the East, and the alliance is starting to "manage around our fence"?
– It's about that Ukraine should be the most free confederation, something like the Swiss cantons, plus have the status of a neutral state.
Now Ukraine is preparing to sign political bloc association agreements with the EU. But this, by by and large, does not mean anything - the European Union is not engaged in military cooperation. Such a signing is rather a symbol that Europe will not abandon Ukraine.
As for NATO, from the point of view of the alliance, you need to be crazy in order to sign any agreements with the current Ukraine, a poorly governed country, the obligations to protect which are obviously impossible to fulfill. So, I think that close cooperation between Ukraine and NATO is out of the question for the time being, and the threat of such cooperation is rather an inertial factor of bargaining between Russia and the West.
I think that after a while, behind-the-scenes attempts by the European Union and Russia will begin to understand what can really be done with Ukraine - a country that has become a suitcase without a handle for everyone ...
- The main geopolitical problem after the annexation of Crimea is still in Ukraine, - political scientist Anatoly El-Murid is sure. - Already this autumn in the "square" may be the most difficult economic situation. Apparently, the new Kyiv authorities spat on the sowing campaign, and on the industry, too. But they are going to increase gas tariffs - 1.4 times for industrial enterprises, and 2 times - for the population. Ukrainians will simply begin to flee en masse from the country, and we absolutely do not need this.
Russia has literally a month or two left to do something with the eastern regions of Ukraine. We need to create a buffer between the Russian Federation and Nazi Ukraine, and then this buffer can be used as a Ukrainian Benghazi (an alternative center that Western countries once created in Libya). And already this Ukrainian Benghazi will liberate the rest of the territory of the South-East of Ukraine.
"SP": - That is, military intervention by Russia is excluded?
– We cannot interfere directly in Ukrainian affairs, Russia really does not need a war with Ukraine. Moreover, a situation should not be allowed in which the Ukrainians in the South-East would sit and wait for someone to come to them and free them. If the Ukrainians themselves allowed such a mess in their country, they have to deal with this mess.
Another thing is that the inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine - it is now obvious - cannot create structures of resistance themselves. The reason is clear: these are ordinary, normal people who are in an abnormal situation. They don't have any theoretical training, no organizational, no resources. They need help with all of this.
If resistance structures are created in the South-East, in the next month or two Kyiv will not be able to oppose anything to them - just as it could not in the Crimea. It is necessary that these forces take control, as in the Crimea, of the authorities, the police, perhaps the army, and try to liberate Kyiv. Only after that it is possible to negotiate with Western Ukraine on a confederation or on the division of the country.
If Russia manages to solve the problem of the eastern regions of Ukraine, this will be a new major geopolitical victory. If we let the situation take its course, we will get a humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine, as a result of which the Kiev government will be able to turn to NATO with a request to take control of the entire territory of the "square".
This process - the establishment of Russian control over neighboring territories - can go further, to other countries of the post-Soviet space. But only on the condition that we manage to solve the problem of mainland Ukraine - without this, we will not be able to pull new acquisitions.
Andrey Polunin
The Second World War brought about 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.
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 legal right 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 South-Eastern Europe under its control. 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.
On the whole, the position of the USSR has changed: it has emerged from international isolation and has become a recognized great power. The number of countries with which the USSR had diplomatic relations increased from 26 to 52 compared to the pre-war period. It became one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with the USA, Britain, France and China. The Great Powers recognized the right of the USSR to part East Prussia, South Sakhalin, its dominant position in China and North Korea. The Yalta and Potsdam agreements recognized the interests of the USSR in Eastern Europe.
However, with the disappearance of the fascist threat, more and more contradictions began to appear between the former allies. The clash of their geopolitical interests soon led to the collapse of the coalition and the creation of hostile blocs. Allied relations persisted until about 1947. However, already in 1945. serious contradictions were revealed, primarily in the struggle for the division of influence in Europe. Against the backdrop of heightened disagreements, Churchill ordered Field Marshal Montgomery to collect german weapons to arm the prisoners in case the Russians continue their offensive to the West.
The highest military and intelligence agencies of the United States dramatically changed their assessment of the military potential of the USSR and began to develop plans for a future war. In the directive of the Joint Military Planning Committee of December 14, 1945. No. 432/D outlined a plan for the bombardment of the main industrial centers of the USSR. In particular, 196 atomic bombs were supposed to be dropped on 20 Soviet cities. At the same time, the former allies referred to the refusal of the USSR to fulfill the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, to the threat from the Red Army, located in the center of Europe. Churchill 5 March 1946 in the city of Fulton (USA) in the presence of President Truman for the first time openly accused the USSR of having fenced off Eastern Europe " iron curtain”, called for organizing pressure on Russia in order to obtain from it both foreign policy concessions and changes in domestic policy. It was a call for an open and tough confrontation with the Soviet Union. A year later, Truman officially announced US commitments in Europe to curb Soviet expansion and led the West's fight against the Soviet Union.
Indeed, there is evidence from V.M. Molotov that Stalin deliberately refused to fulfill some of the allied obligations of the USSR. Stalin decided to use the victory in the war to realize the age-old Russian dream - the capture of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The USSR demanded that Turkey transfer the provinces of Kare and Ardagan to it, and allow it to build a naval base near the straits. Danger also loomed over Greece, where a civil war was going on and communist partisans were trying to seize power. With American support, the Greek government crushed the communist uprising, and Turkey rejected the Soviet demands.
The main attention of the Soviet leadership was focused on putting together a socialist bloc in Europe. The creation of a socialist camp was considered the main achievement after the October Revolution. Using the insufficient firmness of the positions of the West, Stalin sought to establish his influence primarily in Eastern Europe. In these countries, communist parties were supported, and the leaders of the opposition were eliminated (often physically). Therefore, the Eastern European countries were dependent on the USSR, under its control they pursued their foreign and domestic policies (with the exception of Yugoslavia). In them in 1945 - 1947. coalition governments existed, then they were forcibly replaced by communist power. Only the leader of Yugoslavia, I.B. Tito, behaved differently. At one time he led the struggle of the Yugoslav people against the fascist occupation, created powerful armed forces, without refusing to fight and from Soviet assistance. Being popular, Tito himself sought to reign supreme in the Balkans and did not want to submit to Stalin's dictatorship. Moreover, he began to build socialism of a non-Soviet model: his socialism was based not on total state ownership (as was the case in the USSR), but on the self-management of enterprises. Stalin achieved the unanimous condemnation of Tito by the communist countries and parties as a revisionist, "agent of imperialism" in 1949. severed diplomatic and trade relations with Yugoslavia, forcing his allies to do the same. But he could not remove Tito, although he boasted to his comrades-in-arms: if you move your little finger, Tito will not be. It was one of the few episodes in Stalin's career when he was defeated by failing to take revenge on the successful Yugoslav leader.
The Soviet-Yugoslav conflict had the consequence that the myth of the monolithic unity of communist ranks and ideas collapsed. In an attempt to prevent the emergence of new heresies and continuing to promote the Soviet model of socialism, Stalin organized high-profile political processes over prominent party and statesmen satellite countries. Such leaders as V. Gomulka in Poland, L. Raik and J. Kadar in Hungary, T. Kostov in Bulgaria, J. Klementis and R. Slansky in Czechoslovakia, A. Tauker in Romania. The purpose of the purges was to eliminate those who allowed the slightest hesitation, replacing them with those who unconditionally supported the policy of the USSR. The establishment of socialist orders cost these countries dearly: more than 120 thousand people were repressed in East Germany (1945-1950), in Poland (1944-1948) - about 300 thousand, Czechoslovakia (1948-1954) - about 150 thousand
The formation of the Soviet bloc went in parallel with the intensification of confrontation with the West. The turning point was 1947, when the Soviet leadership refused to participate in the Marshall Plan and forced other Eastern European countries to do the same. USA in June 1947. put forward a plan to help European states in the amount of 13 billion dollars, the vast majority free of charge. The Marshall Plan formally extended to the USSR and was at first favorably received by the Soviet leaders, who expected to receive assistance on the terms of lend-lease. However, it soon became clear that the Americans were insisting on the creation of supranational bodies that would identify the resources of countries and determine their needs. This did not suit the USSR, and it refused to participate in the Marshall Plan and did not allow its satellites to accept it. Western European states accepted him with gratitude. American assistance gave a powerful impetus to the almost crisis-free post-war development of the economy of Western Europe.
To tighten control over his allies, Stalin in (September 1947 established the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties - Cominform (he dissolved the Comintern in 1943, hoping that this would contribute to the opening of a second front). The Cominform included Eastern European Communist Parties and from Western - Italian and French.In 1949, the socialist countries formed the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) as an alternative to the Marshall Plan.However, the closeness, lack of a real market, free flow of capital did not allow the CMEA countries to achieve economic proximity and integration, as was the case in the West.
The formed socialist bloc of countries headed by the USSR was opposed by the union of the countries of Western Europe and North America led by the United States, which, with the creation in 1949. NATO has finally taken shape. The tough confrontation between the West and the East contributed to the "correction" of the domestic policy of the leading powers. In 1947 under the influence of the US ruling circles, the communists were removed from the governments of Italy and France. In the United States itself, a test of the loyalty of civil servants began, lists of "subversive organizations" were drawn up, whose members were expelled from work. Communists and people of leftist views were especially persecuted. In June 1947 The US Congress approved the Taft-Hartley Act, which restricted strike and trade union movements.
The confrontation took on more and more dangerous outlines, and in the late 40s, Germany turned out to be the main arena of struggle. The United States began to send economic aid to the zones of occupation Western countries striving to create a democratic and friendly state in them. Stalin tried to thwart this plan, fearing a resurgence of German power. He exploited the vulnerability of West Berlin, which was inside the Soviet zone of occupation. June 24, 1948, following the introduction of the West German currency in the western sectors of the city, Soviet troops cut the roads leading to West Berlin. For a whole year, the United States and Great Britain supplied the city by air bridge, until Stalin lifted the blockade. By and large, the blockade only damaged Soviet interests: it contributed to the re-election for a second term of Truman, who showed firmness towards the USSR, to the victory democratic parties in the elections in West Germany and West Berlin and the proclamation in these territories in September 1949. the Federal Republic of Germany, the formation of the NATO military bloc. In response to the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany, the USSR responded by creating in October 1949. German Democratic Republic in its zone of occupation. So Germany was divided into two states.
The division of Europe ended in the West. It became obvious that Stalin's attempts to further expand his sphere of influence here were repulsed. Now the center of confrontation has moved to Asia. In 1949 the Chinese Revolution won, even earlier the communist regime had established itself in North Korea. At the end of the 1940s, world socialism covered more than 1/4 of the entire earth's land mass and 1/3 of the world's population. Based on this circumstance, and also taking into account the presence of the communist movement in the countries of the West, the leaders of the Soviet bloc and China, apparently, were inclined to the opinion that it was possible to change the balance of power that had developed in the world in their favor. In February 1950, the leaders of the USSR and China signed an agreement on mutual assistance for a period of 30 years.
Further, Stalin organized an international adventure on a large scale on the Korean Peninsula. He played a decisive role in initiating the Korean War (1950-1953) in which more than a million people died on both sides. The war started with an attack North Korea to the South. Despite this, communist propaganda claimed otherwise. However, the UN Security Council unmistakably stated "an armed attack on the Republic of Korea by North Korean troops." According to his decision, US troops and 15 other states intervened in the conflict under the UN flag.
Stalin did not want the Americans to convict him of preparing for war, but wanted only the Chinese to openly participate in the Korean War for the time being. He confirmed his readiness to arm 60 Chinese infantry divisions. Stalin gave the order to form a special corps to cover China and the North Koreans. In total, during the war in Korea, 15 Soviet aviation and several anti-aircraft artillery divisions received combat practice. There was a strict order: not a single adviser or pilot should be captured. On Soviet aircraft, the identification marks were Chinese, the pilots wore Chinese or Korean uniforms. Soviet pilots and anti-aircraft gunners shot down 1309 American aircraft. About 300 Soviet pilots and advisers were killed.
In the last years of his life, Stalin's special attention was drawn to the area of the Bering Strait and Alaska. It was here that the active deployment of the armed forces of the USSR began. Since the beginning of the 50s, airfields and military bases have been created. In the spring of 1952 Stalin decided to urgently form 100 divisions of front-line jet bombers. Preparations for a new world war were unfolding in the immediate vicinity of the US borders. In the event of war, America was threatened with massive air strikes and invasion by ground forces. Humanity as a whole was on the verge of a third world war with monstrous consequences. Fortunately, Stalin's plans were not destined to come true, and his successors had a different vision in solving the problem of war and peace.
46. New arrangement political forces in the world after World War II.
The international situation after the 2nd World War was characterized by the strengthening of positions Soviet Union. The sphere of Soviet influence included Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania.
Of the six great states of the Western world, only two have retained their position - Great Britain (although it survived the collapse of the colonial system) and the United States.
People's democratic revolutions are taking place in central and eastern Europe, during which, with the support of the USSR, communist parties come to power. During the first three or four years after the war, the block of communist states of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe united. A world socialist system is emerging.
In 1949 The Chinese Communists won a long-term civil war and proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China. A huge centralized Chinese state appeared on the borders of the USSR with a population exceeding the population of the USSR by more than three times.
The task of consolidating the victory over racism is being consistently tackled. In the first post-war years, preparations were underway for peaceful talks with Germany's former allies. Final approval of texts peace treaties were carried out at the Paris Peace Conference (July-October 1946). 21 states participated. The main problem that was considered at this conference is the eradication of fascism, to prevent the revival of fascism. The treaty included articles prohibiting the activities of fascist organizations. Peace talks established post-war territorial changes. A number of articles of peace treaties established restrictions on the armed forces of the defeated states and obliged them to partially compensate for the damage caused to the economy of the victorious parties.
March 5, 1946 The former head of government, Churchill, delivered a speech in the US city of Fulton, calling on the English-speaking states to unite, which symbolized the beginning of the Cold War. A frenzied arms race has begun in the world, because each side (socialism, capitalism) wanted to secure its own military advantage. The Soviet Union mobilized huge funds to create atomic bomb and quickly caught up with the United States in this. The arms race, political confrontation on all issues between the two opposing systems created an extremely tense and dangerous situation, threatening military conflicts.
In April 1949 The North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) was created - a military-political bloc, which included the USA, England, France, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Holland, Portugal and other states of Western Europe.
NATO's entire policy was aimed at undermining the growing influence of the socialist countries and expanding the dominance of the US and Western countries in the world. The creation of this bloc significantly complicated the international situation and contributed to the intensification of the Cold War.
In the post-war period, the German question remained one of the most acute issues in international politics. The Soviet Union consistently implemented the program of three "D": demilitarization, democratization, denazification.
The Western countries then refuse to carry out the agreed solution of the German problem. In the western zones of Germany, the program of three "D" was not implemented. In violation of their obligations, the United States and England concluded on December 2, 1946. an agreement to unite their zones of occupation. This led to the split of the German state, and on September 7, 1949. The Federal Republic of Germany was proclaimed. In May 1952 An agreement was signed on the creation of the European Defense Community with the participation of the FRG and Western states, which meant the creation of its own army in the FRG and its inclusion in the “European army”. This step meant the demilitarization of West Germany.
After the Second World War, the collapse of the colonial system began. The United States began to penetrate into regions that were under the control of England, France and other states before the war. Sharp rivalry unfolded in the Near and Middle East. Rivalry between Israel and Arab countries is escalating.
In 1947 At the session of the UN General Assembly, it was decided to create two states on the territory of Palestine - an Arab and a Jewish one. May 14, 1948 part of Palestine was proclaimed the Jewish state of Israel. Soon there is a conflict between Israel and the Arab states. In the course of hostilities, Israel seizes part of the Arab territory of Palestine.
One of the results of the Second World War was the liberation of Korea from the Japanese occupation. The Soviet Union withdrew in 1945. Their troops from North Korea, where the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was formed. South of the 38th parallel (according to an agreement between the United States and the USSR, the borders of military operations in the Far East ran along the 38th parallel), the Republic of Korea was proclaimed with a pro-American
government. On the 38th parallel, armed clashes continuously took place, which resulted in a war between the North and the South.
After the war, the United Nations, which began its work in January 1946, becomes the military tribune of the struggle for peace and international security.
After the war, an organized movement of peace fighters was born and developed. The peace movement embraced all continents and countries of the globe.
Thus, the alignment of political forces in the world was characterized by a confrontation between two systems (socialism and capitalism), regional conflicts, and the creation of a mechanism for resolving hotbeds of tension.
With the entry of the capitalist countries into a period of economic and social stabilization, a new stage began in the history of international relations. This stage. being a logical continuation of the previous one, it had the following distinctive features.
In the 1920s the governments of the great powers that won the world war managed to find a common language and develop a coordinated line in solving the largest international vehemently&1em. The consensus reached became the basis for the further development of the Versailles-Washington system. Despite all its contradictions, the post-war world order, legally formalized in Paris and Washington, was not only preserved. but also in a certain sense strengthened. In any case, centripetal and constructive forces at that time prevailed over centrifugal and destructive tendencies.
Another characteristic feature of the period under review became widespread pacifist ideas and sentiments. Perhaps. never before have so many peace projects been put forward and so many conferences on peace and international security like in the twenties. It is no coincidence that in historical literature the third decade of the XX century. often referred to as the "era of pacifism".
Unprecedented popularity of pacifist plans and programs attributed to various factors: tragic consequences of the First World War and general aspiration to prevent such military conflicts in future: a necessity restoration of the destroyed economy and financial system, which was supposed to be essential condition stabilization of international relations; activation peacekeeping liberal and democratic intelligentsia. as well as the coming to power in a number of European countries of politicians whose foreign policy concept was based on the principles of pacifism (E. Herriot in France. J. R. Maclonald in England, etc.).
However, the most significant reason The surge of pacifist aspirations lay in the very nature of the international situation that had developed by the mid-1920s. Its uniqueness lay in the fact that the government circles of all the great powers without exception, although for different reasons, were interested in maintaining the peaceful status quo. The leading victorious powers (USA, England, France) opposed any attempts to forcefully deform the Versailles-Washington system, the creators of which they were. The defeated states (primarily Germany), as well as the powers that considered themselves "undeservedly deprived" of the decisions of the Paris and Washington conferences (Italy and Japan), did not possess at that time sufficient power for a military revision of the established international order and used diplomatic, i.e. peaceful means and methods for realizing its foreign policy goals. As for the Soviet Union, its party and state leadership, without abandoning the slogans of proletarian internationalism, concentrated its efforts on strengthening the international positions of the USSR on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence. Not last role the defeat of the “anti-party group” led by L.D. played in the formation of this course. Trotsky, condemnation of her revolutionary maximalism. who denied the very possibility of building socialism in the USSR without the victory of the world revolution. I.V. Stalin, proclaiming the Soviet Union the "lever" and "base" of the development of the world revolutionary process, defended the independent significance of socialist transformations in the country, which. in turn, it demanded the creation of favorable foreign policy conditions, the maintenance of "peace throughout the world" and the normalization of relations with the capitalist powers. Such were the real prerequisites for the "epoch of pacifism."
Despite the clearly expressed tendencies towards the strengthening of the Versailles-Washington system, stabilization in the sphere of international relations was unstable and. as a result, temporary. The settlement of disputed interstate problems and pacifist measures could not eliminate the deep contradictions inherent in the post-war international model from the moment her occurrence. Moreover, these contradictions hidden in the 1920s under the cover of pacifism, over time, inevitably had to develop into open conflicts and clashes.
The reason for this was the events that occurred during the stabilization period. new changes in the placement of si on the world stage. In this connection
should at least briefly describe international positions of the great powers, the dynamics of their development during the twenties.
In 1929 as a result of the rapid growth of the economies of the capitalist countries, the index of their industrial output in comparison with 1913 amounted to 147%. However, the economic recovery was extremely uneven, which could not but affect international position states and the balance of power between them. The corresponding figures for the leading world powers were as follows: the United States - 172. England - 101, France - 143, Italy - 185, Japan - 330, Germany - 117, USSR - 115. By "share" in the world industrial production their roles by the end of the 1920s. distributed as follows: USA - 38% (in 1913 - about 30%). England - 9 (13.6). France - 8 (8.4). Italy - 3 (2.5). Japan - 2.8<1.3). Германия - 9,2 (11,8). СССР - 2.8% (Российская империя в 1913г. -3.6).
Already these figures allow us to draw certain conclusions. During the years of stabilization the economic and financial positions of the United States have become stronger. The most important international consequence of the American "prosperity" was the sharp intensification of the financial and economic expansion of the United States. covering new countries and regions. -The Great Offensive of the Dollar "manifested itself in a significant increase in US foreign investment: over 6 years of "prosperity" they increased almost 3 times, amounting to 16.5 billion in 1929;> together with government loans, 28 billion dollars. Therefore The United States came close to England, whose foreign investments were estimated at $ 31 billion. The popular saying "The dollar buys the globe" has become a fundamental principle of American foreign policy. Adherence to the isolationist course of the Republican administrations of W. Harding, K-Coolidge and G. Hoover did not contradict their widespread use of “dollar diplomacy”, which flourished in the twenties. European countries not only did not deny, but assumed that the United States would be given "freedom of hands" in the financial conquest of the world. The successors of George Washington saw the meaning of the isolationist doctrine not only in the rejection of any coalitions with the states of the Old World, but also in the use of inter-European contradictions to the advantage of the USA. In this sense, isolationism yourself American version of the balance of power policy. Such the globalist-scan interpretation of isolationism theoretically substantiated both economic expansion and claims USA on role world referee. Convinced isolationist President K. Coolidge declared in 1928: “Our investments and trade relations have reached such proportions that it is almost impossible to imagine any kind of conflict somewhere on earthly ball that would not cause us serious damage.
Globalism of US foreign policy aspirations. based on unprecedented economic power, led and could not but lead to a clash of their interests with the interests of other great powers and, above all, England, the United States consistently and purposefully ousted Great Britain from the markets of Latin America, the Far East and even the British dominions - Canada and Australia. In 1929, for the first time in 300 years, England conceded to the United States leadership in terms of total foreign trade. The struggle of the Anglo-Saxon powers escalated behind oil and other sources of raw materials. Maritime rivalry between the United States, Britain and Japan intensified.
Together with that, by analogy with the previous period, not neither the influence of the United States for the development of international relations, nor sharpness Anglo-American antagonism.
The factors that limited the US role in world politics continued to operate; isolationist prohibitions, the inconsistency of military force with the declared foreign policy goals, the growing resistance to the hegemonic claims of America on the part of the European powers and Japan. Two fairly convincing examples can be cited as proof of the last proposition. By legitimizing at the Washington Conference the equality of its battle fleet with the English. The United States subsequently began to lose the naval competition not only to England, but also to Japan. The rivals of the United States, formally adhering to the letter of the "treaty of five powers" on the quantitative ratio of battleships, significantly modernized them and at the same time began the large-scale construction of cruisers and aircraft carriers. As a result, by the beginning of the 1930s. England had 73 ships of these three classes, Japan - 38. and the USA - 31. If the English navy had 16 ships of the line with a speed of 22 knots or more, in the Japanese - 10, then in the American - not a single one. In the sphere of economic international relations, where the United States felt overconfident. The situation also did not always develop in their favor. European countries, having restored their economies, launched a counteroffensive on global commodity markets and investment. Already in 1927, Europe again, as before the war, sent USA more capital than the United States to the European continent. Wall Street was forced to abandon the thought about submission the economy and finance of Europe to their control. Thus yum. stating a significant increase in the specific US weight in mi- new capitalist economy and strengthening influence of this countries on international processes, it should be noted what in It's time for the above reasons United States had very limited opportunities for implementation;of their globalist plans for economic and political world management.
An equally weighted assessment requires the characterization of Anglo-American relations. Acute conflicts between the Anglo-Saxon powers were combined with the development of a common line of conduct in resolving the most significant international problems (the German question, the policy of "open doors" in the Far East, etc.). In any case, there are no reasonable grounds for considering the Anglo-American contradictions as “the main inter-imperialist antagonism” of the twenties, which was proved for so long and with such monotony in Soviet historiography.
Another extremely important change in the balance of power was associated with the rapid pace of the industrial rise of Italy.\ii and Japan,those. those states in the camp of the victors, who openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the post-war organization of the world. The strengthening of economic positions was accompanied by an increase in military potential, which created a real basis for the subsequent military revision of the Versailles-Washington system. In the 1920s was her diplomatic training.
The fascist leadership of Italy, having proclaimed the slogan "Reconstruction of the Great Roman Empire", began its practical implementation, using the methods of open and secret diplomacy at the initial stage of "reconstruction". In the second half of the 1920s. The Italian government signed a series of landmark treaties that had far-reaching consequences:
treaty with Romania in 1926. “on friendship and cordial cooperation” (the parties pledged to support each other in the interests of “preserving international order.” Italy recognized the annexation of Bessarabia by Romania); Treaty of Rome with Hungary in 1927 "on friendship and conciliation procedure" (in the secret articles of the agreement, Italy undertook to assist in arming the Hungarian army, which encouraged Hungary's desire to revise the Trianon Treaty of 1920); "Pact of Tyranno" albania pc 1927 (provided for joint action in the case of "non-conductive war" against one of the parties to the treaty, placed at the disposal of the ally all military, financial and other resources, as well as territory, the initiative of "joint action" against a third power was entirely given to Italy);
1928 Ethiopia treaty on Addis Ababa (proclaiming "permanent peace and eternal friendship" between Italy and now future victim).
What concerns Japan, then she is in this period is not showed special activity on the diplomatic front. However, the Japanese government circles, pursuing a deliberately cautious and moderate policy in the Far East, simultaneously developed plans to conquer China and all of East Asia, "crush the United States -* and establish Japan's undivided dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.
The changing balance of forces in the camp of the victorious powers created tangible prerequisites for the struggle for a new redivision of the world, the prerequisites for a crisis and the destruction of the Versailles-Washington systems.
Even more significant and "promising" for the development of international relations have become changes in the balance of power between the powers that won the world war and defeated Germany. Relying on its huge internal potential, as well as on financial assistance from the United States and England. Weimar Republic towards the end of the 1920s not only reached pre-war economic indicators, but also significantly surpassed them. The scale of the growth of the German economy becomes more evident if the starting point of the economic recovery is not 1913, but 1920. In this case, the index of industrial production in 1929 will not be 117. but 1NJO %. In recent years of stabilization, Germany has taken second place in the world in terms of industrial output and third after the United States and Britain in terms of foreign trade. Contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, the military-technical potential of Germany was also restored. In particular, it was at this time that the construction of warships began (battleships Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, etc.).
So, already in the first post-war decade, Germany regained the status of one of the main subjects of international relations. Revanchism, backed up by economic power, turned from an illusory into a realistically achievable goal, which made the German question the most important in world politics.
General arrangement picture forces in the 1920s would be incomplete without mentioning the increased importance of the Soviet factor in international life. The stabilization process THE USSR, taking place in the conditions of the NEP, strengthened the economic position of the Country of Soviets. In 1923-1928. the annual growth of industrial output in the Soviet Union exceeded 24%. Consequently index industrial production in 1929. compared to 1920 amounted to about 280%. In addition to similarities with capitalist stabilization (restoration of the economy and the financial system, economic recovery, increase in foreign trade turnover), stabilization in the Soviet Union also had a fundamental difference, since its main goal was to build socialism. In the mid-twenties, a course was taken for socialist industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture. Without touching upon the question of the nature and methods of building a new society, it is important to note that the very fact of the implementation of this innovative plan became additional evidence of the strengthening of the international positions of the USSR.
All of the above allows us to conclude that that in the period under review in relations between the West-Soviet Union a certain balance has been established. I.V. Stalin at the XIV Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1925. stated: "Achieving some temporary equilibrium between these two stabilizations - such is the characteristic trait the international situation we are experiencing." This "temporary balance" was based on the realization by both sides of the real state of affairs: Western leaders - the impossibility of destroying the "world's first socialist state" through military force. Soviet leadership - the unrealizability of counting on a speedy victory of the world revolution. -class struggle", but it presupposed mutual recognition of the possibility and inevitability of the peaceful coexistence of the two systems.
These were the most important changes in the alignment and balance of forces on the world stage, which led to a deep internal inconsistency in the development of international relations in the 1920s. During this period, two large knots of contradictions, or two "triangles of power" were formed: European (England-France-Germany) and Far Eastern (USA-England-Japan "- In the first from the German question was of decisive importance.
The German Question in the 1920s Dawes plan
In the international life of the 1920s, the German problem was rightly regarded not only as the most important, but n the most difficult, which was due to three main reasons. As noted above. the policy of revenge, combined with the growing economic power of Germany, threatened the very existence of the Versailles system. It is significant that at that time there was not a single party in the Weimar Republic. which in the foreign policy part of its program would not put forward as a priority the demand for the abolition of the humiliating treaty signed in Paris. Moreover, the main object of the propaganda attack was his 231st article, which established Germany's "full and indisputable responsibility" for unleashing the First World War. It is clear that its annulment made all other provisions of the Treaty of Versailles meaningless. The President of the Weimar Republic, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, openly stated in this connection that Germany in 1914-191^. “led a just struggle for self-affirmation in the world. full of enemies." Verbal calls for a revision of the post-war international order were accompanied by revanchist actions. In 1929 the paramilitary Prussian organization "Border Guard" concentrated armed detachments of up to 30 thousand people on the German-Polish border. The prophetic warning of D. Lloyd George, expressed by him at the Paris Conference, began to come true: "Germany will find means to take revenge on its victors."
Another important circumstance complicating The solution to the German question was that it could not be considered in isolation from another major international problem - the Soviet one. In the 1920s two possible scenarios for the development of European international relations became apparent. The first - extremely unfavorable for the West - assumed further rapprochement between humiliated Germany and communist Russia (the Rapallo Treaty of 1922 showed the reality of such a course of events). The second - the most acceptable for the allied powers - provided for the transformation of Germany into a counterbalance to the Soviet Union. However, when implementing the second option, new difficulties arose: only a strong Germany could oppose the USSR: this meant that Western democracies should provide it with serious economic and financial assistance, as well as make concessions on a number of issues. her political demands; as a result, no one could guarantee that at some point the revived German power would be directed not against the Soviet Union, but against the very powers that helped Germany become strong. While Western strategists puzzled over that. how to get out of this vicious circle, the German government skillfully used the Soviet factor How a lever of pressure on the victorious countries in order to revise the Versailles systems. Additional complications in the process of settling the German problem were introduced by disagreements and contradictions between the allied powers. England and USA. who initially advocated the preservation of a “not too weak Germany” as a counterbalance to Soviet Russia and France, consistently pursued this course in the 1920s, which was reflected in the large-scale financing of the German economy and in the readiness to meet some of the “political wishes” of the Weimar Republic - The French government, which, under the onslaught of the Anglo-Saxon states, was forced to abandon his maximalist stance towards Germany, continued to insist on strict adherence to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and objected to any significant concessions to the German revanchists. In Paris, it was well understood that in the mobile power triangle of England-France-Germany, the strengthening of the international positions of the latter meant not only the loss of hopes for the establishment of French hegemony in Europe. but also created a direct threat to the security of the French Republic. It is far from coincidental that already in 1927 the government circles of France developed a plan for the construction of a fortified line on the eastern borders, named after Minister of War A. Magneno. Thus, the solution of the German question directly affected the foreign policy interests of the victorious great powers and could not but be accompanied by a tense struggle between them, since these interests did not coincide in many respects.
The German problem (in accordance with the main sections of the Treaty of Versailles) included Aspects:
territorial, colonial, military, reparation, economic. In the twenties attention world community and international debate has centered on the flow of reparations. since Germany, referring to the heavy financial position, began with a violation of precisely these decrees of the Union powers. Particularly acute is the reparation question I bought during the Ruhr crisis. Trying to prevent new revolutionary explosion in Germany and stabilize European order. Britain and the United States took the lead in their hands. Not without their insistent advice the German government in September 1923 spoke in favor of holding a conference on the problem of reparations. France was forced to agree only not for powerful pressure from the Anglo-Saxon powers, but also reason for the complete the failure of the "action of retaliation" in Ruhr: occupational expenses, which by the autumn of 1923 reached 1 billion francs and exceeded at the cost of unpaid reparations by Germany, put French Republic facing the prospect of financial and economic collapse and forced her to look for a political solution question.
In order to carefully prepare the conference at the proposal of the United States two international committee experts. One of them was headed by an American banker closely associated with the banking group. J.P. Morgan, retired General Charles Dawes. The tasks of this committee included the development of measures to stabilize the economy and the monetary system of Germany, the establishment of a new scheme for the repayment of reparation payments. Another committee, led by the English financier Reginald McKenna. had to determine the ways and methods of placement and the Weimar Republic of foreign capital and the return of German capital to their homeland. In August 1924 special inter-allied conference in London discussed the recommendations of experts and approved as his official decision, the report of the first committee, called the Dawes Zhdan.
Plan established new order reparations payments- much more favorable for Germany, than the London reparations program of 1921. Were put forward two important basic thesis: on the need to provide assistance to Germany for economic recovery and finance, in connection with what proposed to provide the Weimar republic an international loan of 800 million gold marks; reparation payments made dependent from "changes in index welfare Germany". At maintaining the final amounts reparations of 132 billion marks, the timing of their final payment was not indicated. Designated only annual contributions from 1 billion in 1924 to 2.5 billion stamps - starting from 1928, which was much less original London version (3.5 billion marks a year).
The Dawes plan defined and main sources of reparations: deductions from the state budget, as well as from the profits of industrial enterprises and railways. In the first case, it was about introducing high indirect taxes And, consequently, an increase in the prices of manufactured goods, which placed a heavy burden on the population of Germany. In the second - about participation in the payment of reparation contributions of large businesses (near 50% of the total).
The plan provided for the organization of strict control over the economy and finances of the Weimar Republic in as a guarantee for the payment of reparations. The German government was effectively deprived of the right to manage the Reichsbank and state railways. Instead, two international companies were created: a transfer company that carried out foreign exchange transactions related to reparation payments, and a joint-stock railway company that disposed of income from transportation. The post of General Agent (American Mr. Parker) was established. whose functional duties included overseeing the restoration of German industry and the financial system, as well as the timely payment of reparations.
Adoption of the Dawes Plan. entered into force on 1 September 1924, became a landmark event not only in the decision of the reparation question, but also development of interwar international relations.
Firstly. New reparation plan "legally" issued significant changes in the European and general balance of power.
First of all, it marked the strengthening of international positions England and USA. since with its adoption the Anglo-American line triumphed in the settlement of the German problem. The leading role of the United States in both the preparation and implementation of this plan should be especially emphasized. Their share in Germany's financial assistance during the period of the Dawes program exceeded 70% (compared to 14% in Holland and 10% in England). At the insistence of the United States, special resolutions of the London Conference stipulated that two key posts in control of the payment of reparations - the Agent General and the Chairman of the Reparation Disputes Tribunal - should be occupied only by Americans. Thus began the idea of turning the United States into an international umpire. This, of course, irritated England, but she found solace in that. that the Dawes Plan embodied her concept of a continental balance of power, in which a "not-too-strong France" was opposed by a "not-too-weak Germany". It should be noted that in addition to political dividends, the Anglo-Saxon states also received quite tangible economic benefits, since their investments in the German economy brought a profit of 9% per annum (against the average European rate of 6.5%).
Another significant outcome of the inter-allied conference in 1924. was a diplomatic defeat French republics. Sending troops to the Ruhr. The French government sought to use force to solve the problem of reparations and thereby assert its dominant position in Europe. Both the first and second French claims were categorically rejected at the London Conference. Dawes plan. which> - ". read the economic basis of Versailles contracts - C other side. This plan was intended to create "economically
Lnaya Germany”, which objectively contributed to its offensive struggle for the revision of the resolutions adopted in Pirizh in 1919. This is how the decisions of the London Conference and the government circles of the Weimar Republic were perceived. Speaking at the settlement of the Reichstag, the Minister of Foreign Affairs G. Streeemann said: “From Versailles to London there was a long way of humiliation and hugeness \ difficulties. I am convinced that London is not horses - London can be a starting point for development ... ".
Third. As for the financial and economic stabilization of the Versailles system, it also turned out to be temporary and relatively
Spruce. The United States proceeded from that. What proposed
The reparations program will consistently and successfully resolve a number of international economic problems: Germany's assistance ensures the rapid growth of its industry - the goods produced find markets in the USSR. which at the same time will undermine the process of socialist industrialization that has begun - the proceeds in the form of reparations are sent to England and France - the latter pay the war debts of the USA - As it turned out. this beautiful chain logical constructions had several weak links. The leadership of the Soviet Union, unwilling to abandon its plans for the reconstruction of industry and building socialism, dismissed as "malicious" the US attempt to solve its own problems at the expense of the USSR. Stalin, at the XIV Congress of the CPSU (b) in December 1925, harshly and unambiguously declared: “We Not we want to turn into an agrarian country for some power, including Germany. America's European debtors, led by England, insistently advocated the cancellation of all war debts, which could not but spoil the optimistic mood of their main creditor. United States in 192E-1926 concluded 13 World War I debt agreements, in which they were forced to make serious concessions to their debtors: the amount of payments was reduced by an average of 51%. payment terms increased from 25 to 62 years. interest on salaries decreased from 4.25 to 3.3-0.4%. Nevertheless, Europe continued to evade repayment of its debt to the great transatlantic usurer. And finally, the central link of the "ideal" American scheme - Germany, believing in the loyalty and indulgence of its Anglo-Saxon patrons, began to demand new concessions in resolving the issue of reparations. Shortly after the Dawes Plan went into effect, the German government proposed that it be revised. proving the need for even greater softening of reparation orders.
Germany's calculation was justified: the USA and England, firmly adhering to their "pro-German" course, went to meet her wishes. a new international committee of experts began its work, headed by the president of the Morgan company General Electric, one of the authors of the Dawes plan, Owen D. Young. The recommendations of this committee were approved at an inter-allied conference in The Hague at the end of August of the same year (finally approved on January 20, 1930)
Compared to the Dawes program, the Young plan was much more liberal in regard to Germany, what found his reflection in all its main sections.
First of all, it concerned the procedure for collecting reparations. The total amount of reparation payments was determined at 113.9 billion marks (taking into account the contributions already paid, the amount originally established in 1921, ~ 132 billion, remained unchanged). Germany had to fulfill its reparation obligations for 59 years (until 1989), paying annually from 2.4 to 0.9 billion marks, i.e. an average of 20% less than the Dawes plan.
Main reparations payment sources according to plan Young kept the state budget and profits from the railways. However, one significant amendment was made to these provisions: industrial enterprises were exempted from participating in the formation of a reparation fund, which organically fit into the Anglo-American strategy for ensuring the rapid growth of German industry.
The greatest benefits for Germany were contained in those decisions of the Hague Conference, which dealt with reparations guarantees. All types of control of the Allied powers over the finances and economy of the Weimar Republic were abolished, including the post of General Agent. The reparation commission was dissolved, and its functions were transferred to the newly created Basel Bank for International Settlements. In fact, this "superbank" limited its activities to the financing of German industrial production. Essentially, in Young's plan, the clauses on "guarantees and control" were replaced by provisions on their abolition.
Unlike the London Conference of 1924. The Hague Forum also adopted an important political decision that changed in favor of Germany the corresponding resolution of the Treaty of Versailles - on the early (5 years ahead of schedule) withdrawal of allied troops from the Rhine demilitarized zone.
Thus, Young's plan consolidated and strengthened those tendencies in development European international relations, which were distinctly designated with the adoption of the Dawes program. The fate of the new reparation plan was short-lived: it lasted less than two years. In connection with the Great Crisis. engulfed the entire capitalist world. at the suggestion of US President G. Hoover in July 1931, a moratorium was imposed on the payment of reparations for a period of one year. Decision about The abolition of reparation payments was adopted by the Lausanne Conference, which took place in the summer of 1932. The German government was offered to redeem its reparation obligations for 3 billion marks, repaying this amount within 15 years at 5% per annum. Adolf Hitler finally buried the reparations, refusing to pay anything to the states, who "for so many years grz 0" - "1" Germany. There were no objections from the named states.
Financial results of the policy Western powers in reparations question were such" for the entire period existence of reparations(from 1919 to July 1931) German payments the winners were 21 billion 807 million gold marks, or 17.2% initial amount set by the London conference in 1921 At the same time, the Weimar Republic received financial assistance in the form of loans and credits in the amount of 39 billion rubles. stamps.
The abolition of reparations, largely predetermined by the Anglo-American approach to settling the German problem, on a broad international plane meant the abolition of the main economic component of the Versailles system. The process of reorganization of the post-war world order, caused by changes in the balance of power and which began with a revision of its financial and economic foundations, inevitably had to spread to other spheres of international life. As noted above, the German problem, which remained central in world politics, in addition to the reparations included a number of other aspects, the most important of which were territorial, political and military. These issues were resolved within the framework of general discussions on the problems of ensuring European security and disarmament. Problems of European Security and Disarmament - Conference in Locarno
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.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
The alignment of forces in the international arena after the First World War. Peace Plans: Wilson's 14 Points
wilson program trade principle
By the end of the war, a new alignment of forces in the world was determined, which reflected significant changes. The power of world rank - Germany - was defeated, its political status changed, the question of a peace treaty was urgent. As a result of the October Revolution in Russia, 1/6 of the territory of the earth fell away from the general world system. Western powers sought to bring it back into the world system through military intervention.
The United States entered the international arena as an active contender for world domination. The war enriched the United States of America unheard of, turning it into one of the most important creditors of the world: it lent to the countries of Europe about 10 billion dollars, of which about 6.5 billion dollars were private American investments. The US ruling circles sought to use their position as a world creditor and their military might by dictating their will at the forthcoming peace conference in Paris. Therefore, the interests of the United States clashed with the aspirations of England and France.
One of the first contentious issues On the eve of the conference, the question was how to link the debts of the Entente powers to the United States of America with the reparations that were supposed to be collected from Germany, as well as with the general settlement of international debts.
The attitude of the allies towards the principle of "freedom of the seas" proclaimed by the United States and the question of the superiority of the fleets was contradictory. Great Britain sought to maintain maritime dominion and expand the colonial empire. It retained the status of a great power after the war, although it was relegated to the background by the United States, becoming their debtor. England suffered considerable losses in the war, which affected industrial production. In the Middle East, England controlled a significant part of the "legacy" of the Turkish empire, she got the German colonies in Africa and Oceania. British diplomacy at the peace conference sought to secure the position of the winner in the war, to counteract the growing claims of France in Europe, and, relying on an alliance with Japan, to prevent US hegemony in the world.
The position of France remained strong. Despite the fact that she suffered significant material damage and human losses more than others, her positions were strengthened militarily. French two millionth land army was the largest in Europe. France strove for the maximum economic and military weakening of Germany in order to assert its hegemony on the continent.
The new states that emerged political map post-war Europe - Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), as well as Romania were to form the chain of France's allies on the eastern borders of Germany, to replace former ally- Russia, to become a "cordon sanitaire" between Germany and Russia.
Italy hoped to increase its territory by adding a number of lands of Austria-Hungary, as well as colonies in Africa, and Japan - to strengthen its economic and military potential at the expense of German island colonies in the Pacific Ocean.
Settlement of interstate relations on the basis of peace treaties of 1919-1922. created conditions for political and economic stabilization in the world. In Europe, the Versailles system legalized the formation of independent nation states. Their number increased due to the collapse of Austria-Hungary and Turkey, the reduction of the territory of Germany. Among them are Czechoslovakia, Austria, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (since 1929 Yugoslavia), Poland, also the Romanian Kingdom, which expanded its territory (it included Northern Bukovina, Bessarabia and Southern Dobruja), significantly reduced in size Bulgaria and Hungary. In the north-east of Europe, Finland and the Baltic republics appeared - Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia.
A significant expansion of the circle of new active participants in European politics was one of its important factors. But the new state-political map of Europe did not always coincide with the ethno-national map: the German people were divided by the borders of several states; in multinational Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia national question was used for political purposes, became the basis for the growth of separatism and territorial claims, and aggravated interstate relations.
Two weakened but potentially influential powers - Soviet Russia and Germany were actually set by tough conditions for the winners - the leading Entente countries outside of Versailles international system. In the interwar period, two main issues arose - Russian and German, requiring a joint solution by the international community.
"14 points" by W. Wilson.
Soviet Russia, after the October Revolution of 1917, negotiated with Germany and its allies on the conclusion of a separate peace. The Entente countries, seeking to prevent the conclusion of a separate peace, developed their own plan for ending the war.
The program of US President W. Wilson was of great importance. On January 8, 1918, in a message to Congress, he outlined a program with peace conditions and the principles of the post-war world order, which went down in history under the name "14 points". W. Wilson's program formed the basis of peace treaties, the essence of which was the democratic reorganization of the world.
This program included the following principles:
1) open peace negotiations and treaties, thereby non-recognition of all secret treaties and agreements;
2) the principle of freedom of the seas;
3) the principle of free trade - the elimination of customs barriers;
4) the establishment of guarantees to ensure the reduction of armaments;
5) impartial settlement of colonial issues;
6) the liberation by Germany of all Russian territories occupied by it, giving Russia the opportunity to determine its national policy and join the community of free nations;
7) liberation and restoration of Belgium;
8) the return to France of the territories occupied by Germany, including Alsace and Lorraine;
9) fixing Italy's borders;
10) granting autonomy to the peoples of Austria-Hungary;
11) the liberation by Germany of the occupied territories of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; giving Serbia access to the sea;
12) independent existence of Turkish and autonomy of national parts Ottoman Empire, and the opening of the Black Sea straits;
13) creation of an independent Poland;
14) the creation of a “general union of nations (League of Nations) in order to provide mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity, - equally large and small states.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
End of World War I 1914-18, Treaty of Versailles, its purpose; fourteen points of W. Wilson on the redistribution of the world in favor of the victorious powers; The League of nations. Reasons for the instability of the Versailles-Washington system of peace settlement.
abstract, added 05/07/2011
Positions of powers in the international arena as a result of the First World War. Contradictions at the Paris Peace Conference. Features of the Versailles Peace Treaty. The clash of imperialist interests of Great Britain, the USA and Japan in the Far East.
abstract, added 02/10/2012
International relations in 1919-1929, prerequisites for the conclusion of the Versailles Peace Treaty. The finalization of the results of the First World War, the creation of a system for maintaining international security. Changing the balance of power in Europe after the war.
abstract, added 12/14/2011
Socio-economic specifics of the final stage of the First World War. Economic terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The Dawes and Young plans. Germany after the payment of reparation payments. Mine reforms, elimination of unemployment. Three bank system.
term paper, added 07/09/2013
The neutrality of the United States of America "in thought and in reality" and Wilson's reflections on the future world. The end of the policy of reconciliation and entry into the war. End of World War and role American program peace. The decision to intervene in Russia.
term paper, added 01/14/2015
Exodus Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 Terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth. Consideration of interstate relations 1905-1916. and the role of post-war peace treaties in them. Culture and religion are two miracles that closely connected the two warring parties.
term paper, added 10/31/2012
The formation of nation-states in Europe after the end of the war and the ways of their creation. Goals of the victorious countries. Contents of the Paris and Versailles peace treaties. Their results for Germany. Tasks of the League of Nations. Conference in Washington in 1921-22.
presentation, added 10/28/2015
The development of the foreign policy process in the first half of the 20th century as the formation of the prerequisites for its development after the Second World War. The results of the Second World War and the change in the status of Great Britain on the world stage. Formation of the British Commonwealth.
term paper, added 11/23/2008
The transition of the British colonies to self-government after the 1919 conference. Transition from a military economy to a peacetime economy. Demobilization of the population. Law on universal suffrage. Foreign policy Britain in the post-war years.
presentation, added 09/06/2011
Biography of the 28th President of the United States, milestones in his development as a national leader. Prerequisites for US intervention in global historical processes along with European countries. Participation of Woodrow Wilson in the organization and course of the Paris Peace Conference.
Search
We may notify you of new articles,