Having experienced panic fear for their capital and privileges during the years of the revolutionary upsurge, the British capitalists were imbued with hatred for democratic institutions. The weaker the world position of England became, the more haughty island "superiority" seized Mr. Forsyth - this was beautifully shown by Galsworthy in the last books of his Saga. Anxiety about the colonies intensified racism. The fear of the people, the "crowd", the liberation storms of the era gave rise to the desire to withdraw into one's own environment, to escape from insoluble (for the bourgeois) social problems into the area of ​​intimate experiences, religion, irrationalism. Ultimately, it was this pessimism of a history-doomed class that underlay the cynical and anti-humanist tendencies that characterized modernist art in the 1920s and beyond.

The national originality of English painting was almost completely lost, dissolving in a pan-European, cosmopolitan decadence. At first glance, the paintings and murals of S. Spencer (1891-1959) had something in common with ornaments from medieval miniatures or with the works of the Pre-Raphaelites. But this is only an outward appearance. The chaotic heap of deformed images, in essence, had nothing to do with the fruits of folk fantasy, captured in miniatures. In the same years, the sculptor G. Moore (b. 1898), the creator of deformed figures, more human-like than human, began to gain fame.

The deformation of the human body in painting and sculpture is just as aimed at debunking a person, as is the depiction of deliberately illogical and disgusting actions and emotions in James Joyce's sensational novel Ulysses (1922). In this work there are elements of satire on bourgeois society, but vulgarity, hypocrisy, petty-bourgeois imitation of thoughts and feelings appear before the reader not as socially conditioned phenomena, but as features that seem to be inherent in man from eternity. Belonging to the "stream of consciousness" school, Joyce exaggerates the randomness of thought; in the same way, surrealist artists, creating absurd combinations of objects, imposed on the viewer an idea of ​​the chaos of the world in general. The famous realist writer Richard Aldington (1892-1962) had every reason to say that Joyce's Ulysses was "a monstrous slander of humanity."

Meanwhile, "Ulysses" became the banner of modernist art. He was raised to the shield by the “psychological school”, which considered the only task of art to penetrate into the depths of the subconscious. The credo of this school was formulated by Virginia Woolf, a gifted writer who, however, gave her talent to non-social, non-historical and therefore unpromising psychoanalysis: “Let's draw patterns that leave fleeting impressions and even insignificant events in our minds, no matter how incoherent and unclear they seem” . The anti-humanism of Joyce, Woolf and other writers of this trend was combined with anti-democratism. It was expressed in the extreme complexity of the form, and therefore - in the calculation of a narrow circle of readers, the intellectual elite.

This anti-democratic tendency was perhaps most clearly manifested in the poetry and journalism of Thomas Eliot, one of the leaders of the ideological reaction. In the poem "The Waste Land" "(1922), he confronts real people of our time with the heroes of myths and literature. A kaleidoscope of names that are not known even to a reader who has gone through the classical school of Eton and Oxford, multilingual quotations, historical and literary hints, understandable only to an extremely narrow circle "high-browed", - all this expresses contempt for the reader, for "uneducated democracy". "The Waste Land" is a poem of horror before the death of civilization, the expectation of a catastrophe. With all the vague symbolism of the poem, it is not difficult to see where his pessimistic forecasts came from to the author. Not so the image of "hordes in pointed helmets swarming on the endless plains" is already hazy! The October Revolution, the revolutionary upsurge in England and throughout the world - this is what gives rise to the feeling of the impending collapse of bourgeois civilization,

In the 1920s, "mass culture" became widespread; decadent art and literature with their modernist currents were an excellent tool for the intellectual and political disarmament of the intelligentsia, but other means were needed for the same impact on millions of working people - entertaining reading of a detective or erotic nature, shallow but exciting spectacles, jazz music. To stupefy consciousness, to entertain, not to let a person think - such is the social function of "mass culture", skillfully planted by "commercial" publishing houses, theaters, newspaper and magazine empires. A huge role in the complex of ideologically poisonous means was played by young cinematography. While his outstanding artistic abilities were proven by the brilliant films of Chaplin and Eisenstein, entertainment films of Hollywood origin dominated the English screens.

In the struggle against reactionary, degrading bourgeois culture and ersatz culture produced for mass consumption, a genuinely people's democratic culture grew and strengthened. The outstanding realist writers of the older generation Hardy, Shaw, Galsworthy, Wells remained true to the realistic tradition and continued to develop it in the new conditions. During this period, Galsworthy wrote the last novels of the Forsyte Saga and the three novels that made up the Modern Comedy cycle. Thus, the main work of his life was completed - an artistic history of the degradation of the English bourgeoisie was created.

No matter how complex and contradictory the ideological and artistic searches of G. Wells were, he nevertheless resolutely opposed political reaction. Together with Hardy and Shaw, he joined the international organization of the progressive intelligentsia Klarte, which fought against anti-Soviet intervention. During a famous visit to Soviet Russia (1920), he did not understand much, and this was reflected in the pages of the book Russia in the Dark. But here the honest writer declared: "The Bolsheviks are morally superior to everything that has hitherto fought them."

Shaw made the greatest ideological evolution during these years: socialist construction in the USSR and the general crisis of world capitalism deepened his doubts about "Fabian socialism." In contrast to the modernist apolitical and asocial Shaw, it was during these years that he switched to political satire, caricature, and the grotesque. The upper strata of the political hierarchy - party leaders, ministers and the real bosses behind their backs - the monopolists, are subjected to merciless exposure. In the political "extravagant" - "The Apple Cart" - the bourgeois democracy itself finds itself before the court of the satirist.

Somewhat unusual for Shaw was the image of Joan of Arc created by him in the play "Saint Joan". Rejecting mystical layers in the interpretation of Jeanne's "miracles", Shaw creates a heroic folk character, charming, pure. Unconditionally recognizing the people's right to a national liberation, just war "Show remains a satirist in portraying traitors to the motherland. Jeanne is written as the heroine of a folk tragedy, gaining a spiritual victory over her enemies. Of course, for Shaw, the controversy is important not so much with other interpretations of the image of Jeanne, but with the decadent idea of ​​the insignificance of a person. Here she is - a big personality, " said Shaw with his play; a person with strength, wisdom, a poetic worldview characteristic of the people. No wonder this play immediately entered the repertoire of theaters that adhered to the realistic method. In 1924, Jeanne was played by the famous actress Sybil Thorndike. In 1929, in the theater " Old Vic" 25-year-old actor John Gielgud played Hamlet for the first time, and, according to contemporaries, he put all the throwing of the "lost generation" into this image. An actor of extraordinary talent, possessing excellent technique, Gielgud subsequently played many Shakespearean roles and - as a director - staged many performances.

Theaters turn not only to Shakespeare, but also to other classics of English and world drama. The craving of progressive directors and actors for realism, for the deep embodiment of the "dialectic of the soul" increased interest in Russian drama, especially in Chekhov. In England, the works of K. S. Stanislavsky are published, his “system” is carefully studied and mastered by the masters of the English stage. Although modernist trends affected some figures of the English theater, in general, during this period, he took a step towards deepening the artistic analysis of reality.

During the 1920s, elements of socialist culture grew within the framework of democratic culture. But especially great was the rise of progressive culture in the next decade.

Mikhailova Ekaterina Mikhailovna
postgraduate student of the Department of Regional Studies
Faculty of Foreign Languages ​​and Regional Studies
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

British house of the 1920s - 1930s as a space of everyday life

The First World War marked the onset of a new era and led to fundamental changes in the culture of everyday life in most countries, including Great Britain. The changes affected the social structure of society, the position of women, views on marriage, parenting and family values, etiquette, manners and lifestyle of people in general. The report examines the reflection of these phenomena in the interior of an English house, the atmosphere of which demonstrates the complex interweaving of traditional views and values ​​with the trends of modern times.

Keywords Keywords: culture of everyday life, Great Britain, English house, residential interior.

The First World War marked the beginning of a new epoch and resulted in fundamental changes in the culture of everyday life in most countries including the Great Britain. The changes in the social affected structure, women "s position in the society, views on marriage, children" s upbringing and family values, etiquette, manners, and the way of life in the whole. The article concerns the reflection of these events in the interior of the English house which setting demonstrates the complicated combination of traditional views and values ​​as well as trends of the new age.

key words: culture of everyday life, the Great Britain, the English house, dwelling interior.

The space of the house in all cultures is one of the most stable and conservative phenomena. For many centuries, it has remained a place of existence of national, regional, local and family traditions. Ever since the second half of the 19th century, which marked the era of technological progress, urbanization and the acceleration of life, the traditional attitude towards living space has been shaken by new social conditions, the development of mass production and popular culture in general. After the end of the First World War, a new, modern stage began in the history of the country and its culture, which is clearly reflected in the daily life of people and in the space of the English home.

Compared to the everyday culture of Victorian England, the British home of the 1920s-1930s is a little-studied problem, but a number of researchers still touch on this topic in their works: D. Jeremiah, F. McCarthy, A. Massey, T.M. McBride and others.

One of the forms of representation of what the house was in its regional variants and historical forms was the print media, which, having “penetrated” into the space of the house in the middle of the 19th century, not only reflected, but also largely influenced the formation of mass ideas. , norms, ideals. Literally from the first steps, mass magazines printed articles with advice, recommendations, instructions and were the conductors of brands, technologies, the psychology of prestigious consumption, thanks to which we can judge the ideas about the ideal home for each historical stage.

At the beginning of the 20th century, and especially during the First World War, magazines, like other mass media, received a strong impetus in development. In the 1920s, both professional and popular magazines are constantly increasing in number, they become more diverse and accessible, while people have more free time to read them. At this time, the readership of magazines is growing rapidly, which is associated with the expansion of the middle class due to the ever-increasing number of middle managers, office and government employees.

The image of the British home of the first half of the 20th century, presented on the pages of mass magazines, reflects both the general European situation of this period and the features of the traditional culture of this country, which for the first time has undergone so much shock under the influence of new social conditions.

For the first time, the consequences of the war affected civilians on such a large scale. Mobilization affected representatives of absolutely all classes. Numerous houses and private properties were damaged. The war led to the impoverishment of the masses, the spread of disease and unemployment and had a great impact on the estate system of society as a whole, accelerating the process of smoothing out the inequality between the most affluent representatives of society and the middle class, but this time towards the impoverishment of both estates, which led to that the theme of economy and simplicity in the design of the space at home becomes even more relevant at this time.

Nevertheless, despite the damage caused by the war, economic and material difficulties, the topic of acquiring and decorating a house in the culture of everyday life in Great Britain has not lost its relevance. On the contrary, the standard of living of people gradually increased, accelerated and cheaper housing construction allowed many to acquire their own housing, and actively developing mass production and design provided houses with everything necessary. As the editor of Our Homes and Gardens noted in 1919, “Everyone dreams of making his home both comfortable and elegant and as comfortable as means will allow; and the main task of the magazine will always be to help you in this intention.

However, compared with Victorian England, the appearance, size and comfort of the houses change markedly. The focus of the magazines is on affordable housing options available to the middle class. The main advantage of periodicals devoted to design and decoration is their focus on a person who is limited in funds, and therefore in need of advice on economical construction and decoration of housing.

The reduction in the size of houses and the number of rooms in them was the result of the need to save money, as well as the reduction in the number of members in the average family, not to mention the servants, mention of which at this time almost completely disappears from the pages of magazines.

The number of rooms in the average house decreases, but its various spaces turn out to be multifunctional. The living room plays an increasingly important role, gradually acquiring the significance of a medieval hall. Here they work, relax, read and have fun. Often this room is combined with the dining room and kitchen, which causes numerous discussions and disagreement of the British.

Another striking feature of the English attitude to the house is the fact that, even when it comes to small and inexpensive housing, it is not an apartment that will be preferable for an Englishman, but his own house in the suburbs, which at this time are continuously growing and gaining great popularity largely due to the expanding railroad system, which is especially true for office workers and government employees who could not afford a car. With the ever-increasing number of small, state-sponsored homes, decor magazines are not only giving them attention, but suggesting to the public that they are the ideal in terms of modern comfortable housing due to their compactness and economy in maintenance, while large houses are beginning to be associated with old and unreasonably expensive, which does not correspond to common sense. Thus, if in the Victorian era, the middle class mimicked the aristocracy, striving to acquire large and luxurious housing, now they develop their own criteria for a “good” home, which should be compact, not containing “spatial excesses”, rationally organized and comfortable.

Another bright trend, reflecting the trends of the new time, is the significantly increased requirements for comfort compared to the Victorian era. This concept at this time becomes closely associated with the functional equipment of the house, which saves time and effort to create home comfort. Indeed, the technical innovations that are developing at this time are transforming the traditional space of the home and the life of society as a whole with incredible speed, introducing new, previously unseen opportunities for home activities and recreation. There is a technological and material improvement of the space of the house.

An increase in interest in the functional component of the situation is a striking characteristic of this period - it is no coincidence that the word "decor", which is rather superficial in terms of decorating the space of a house, was replaced by the term "design" at that time, which carries the semantics of creating not only beautiful, but also functional, high-quality and not overpriced item. In addition to visual appeal, usability and hygiene, quality, functionality and cost-effectiveness are becoming key elements.

In connection with this noticeable change in the idea of ​​​​the ideal space at home is the emergence of such a concept as saving time and labor, which is determined by new social conditions, when most people have to give up servants, and women receive more rights and freedoms and begin to work on an equal basis with men. , which reduces the time they can devote to household chores. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the main concern for the house, including its construction, falls on the shoulders of the woman, as the authors of magazine articles often write about: “Probably nine-tenths of the changes in the house come from the face of his mistress. The husband either takes it indifferently—before the job is done, when he gets enthusiastic credit for the idea—or vetoes the project, concluding, "We can't afford it." Throughout the 20th century, women remain the main audience of magazines, and it is to them that articles are addressed, devoted to innovations that can save them time on housework.

Many rooms of the house, which were previously ignored by magazines, pretending that they do not exist, acquire a new meaning and a completely different status. We are talking primarily about the kitchen and bathroom.

As for the kitchen, from a utility room for servants, it becomes not only one of the most important, but also the most technically equipped room in the house. The forces of numerous manufacturers of kitchen furniture and constantly improving technology are directed specifically to kitchen equipment that can reduce the time spent by the hostess in this room and make it more enjoyable. Now the kitchen is not a remote servant's room, but the most important part of the home space.

Special attention is paid to the comfort and safety of children's rooms, which is associated with a change in attitude towards children and the problem of childhood in general. If earlier the brightest and most comfortable rooms were given over to the living room, now such rooms are becoming children's rooms. Despite the increased employment of women outside the home, it is clear that more attention is paid to children by parents. Childhood is no longer perceived as a disadvantage, but turns into an important period in a person's life.

As for the interior decoration of the premises, at this time the traditional approach to the design of living space is becoming a thing of the past. Periodicals advocate the need for a new, more modern design for the home that meets the requirements of modernity through both aesthetic and functional aspects.

However, the high role of the house in the culture of Great Britain leads to the fact that the English living space does not fit into the trends coming from Europe. So, responding to the need for inexpensive and fast housing construction, in European countries at this time the idea of ​​​​standardized economical housing is born that can satisfy the needs of a modern person at a minimum cost. At the same time, the luxurious Art Deco style becomes a reaction to people's nostalgia for the past, when the beauty that surrounded a person, thanks to the approval of the Art Nouveau style and the expansion of opportunities for decoration, reflected a high standard of human life. The British undoubtedly saw examples of the use of new styles in public buildings, but none of them took root in Great Britain due to the foreignness of these ideas for this country. If Art Deco was economically inaccessible to the bulk of the British, requiring the use of expensive and exotic materials, then minimalism was contrary to English traditions, which required individuality and comfort in every home. In the minds of the inhabitants of the UK, a house cannot be exclusively functional, but carries an important emotional load: “Rooms are inevitably a reflection of the people who live in them. Even in the most empty room, devoid of such personal details as flowers, photographs or favorite books - and such rooms, called rational, appear recently - show, to say the least, an expressionless and extremely unpleasant, pathetic soul. The house where happy and successful people live will not have a dark corridor or a gloomy and austere living room, but it will be filled with interesting things, old and new, harmoniously combined and self-sufficient symbols against an integral background of light, color and comfort for them. Thus, the house, according to English traditions, continues to be endowed with human qualities and individuality, reflecting the soul of its owners.

Despite the new social conditions, the increased mobility of the population and changed values, the idea of ​​an ideal home remains as the embodiment of stability and permanence, the stronghold of the family and family values. Such a house reflects the best that is in a person, and serves its owners throughout life: “By a family nest, we mean a house in which a man invests the best that he has, in the hope of making it his permanent home and place, where his children will grow up. This is very different from a house bought because it seemed pleasant to the future owners at the moment, from one they will leave if the mood leads them to move to another part of the country or turn to another architectural style, or if they are offered a good price.<…>It is essential that the family home continue to exist; the healthier the nation becomes, the more the need for family homes increases.

Thus, over the course of the 20th century, a new, more practical attitude towards the space of the home is emerging in Great Britain, most clearly manifested in the media, seeking to capture any changes in people's attitudes and habits and use these observations to interact more effectively with their readers and impose on them new ideas, products and services. Against the background of serious social changes provoked by the First World War, democratic sentiments and a decrease in class inequality, the development of mass production and a gradual increase in the standard of living of most of the population by the 1930s, ideas about such concepts as comfort and design come to the fore among the mandatory ones. and economy. However, despite the penetration of numerous technical innovations into the homes of the British and the spread of the popular idea of ​​modernity, the attitude of the British towards the house will remain quite traditional, conservative, which is due, on the one hand, to the loss of primacy by English design and the desire to meet the tastes of the majority of the population - with another. Traits such as a love of country life, home building and DIY decorating, the individuality of the living space, and the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement will not only persist in English everyday culture, but will also influence the further development of design in this country.

Bibliography:

1. E.N. The family House and Garden – Home Entertainment // The Ideal Home. 1937 Vol. XXXVI(5).
2. Family House // The Ideal Home. 1937 Vol. XXXVI(5)
3. Ideal home. London: 1920, Vol. 1(1)
4. Jeremiah D. Architecture and Design for the Family in Britain, 1900-70. Manchester, NY, Manchester University Press, 2000.
5. MacCarthy F. All Things Bright & Beautiful. Design in Britain 1830 to Today. London, George Allen & Unwin LTD.
6. Massey A. Interior Design of the 20th Century. NY, Thames & Hudson, 1990
7. McBride T.M. The Domestic Revolution. The Modernization of Household Service in England and France 1820-1920. London: Croom Helm, 1976.
8. Prendergarde T.K. The Financial Side of the Question // The Ideal Home. 1937 Vol. XXXVI(1).

The consequences of the First World War for Great Britain are determined primarily by the fact that she emerged victorious from this war, thanks to which she achieved a lot. For example, the danger of Germany ceased to exist. The power of the navy of Great Britain has increased, and its influence in the world has grown. In the League of Nations, she occupied one of the leading places. The mandate system introduced by the League of Nations has benefited the UK the most. For example, most of the colonies of the defeated countries, Germany and Turkey, went to Great Britain. Great Britain received the right to govern Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq in the Middle East. In Africa, she received the right to manage part of Tanganyika, Togo and Cameroon. In addition, the dominions of Great Britain did not stand aside. In particular, the League of Nations transferred the right to manage the South African Union of German South-West Africa; Australia - German colonies in New Guinea; and New Zealand - the islands of Western Samoa.

However, it should be emphasized that the war not only brought great success to Great Britain, it also caused great damage to its international position and leading positions in international trade. Now she was not leading in the financial sector either. As a result, the UK has turned from a creditor country into a debtor country. For example, the internal public debt of Great Britain in 1914 rose from 650 thousand pounds to 8 billion pounds. It owes $5 billion to the United States alone.

Industrial production dropped sharply. The volume of the country's foreign trade has halved due to a sharp decline in the competitiveness of manufactured products.

After that, the UK was no longer able to restore the title of "queen of the sea." The naval power of Germany was broken, now the United States was trying hard to increase its naval power. As a result, Great Britain in 1920 was forced to abandon the maintenance of a fleet equal to the navy of the two states. These factors and the national liberation movement in the British colonies led to a crisis in the colonial system.

Changes in the economic life of the country

The ruling circles of Great Britain tried in every possible way to change the situation in the country. By the end of 1918, an economic recovery began in the country, which continued until the middle of 1920. This was achieved due to the growing demand of the population for consumer goods and the need to restore the destroyed economy.

This was evidenced by the growth of foreign trade. For example, during this period, exports rose to 38.1%, but such a rise was not observed for long. In the autumn of 1920, an economic crisis began that engulfed all sectors of the country's economy. In 1921, the volume of industrial production fell by a third and amounted to 68%. Coal production amounted to 30%, the volume of foreign trade fell by half compared to the pre-war level.

The sharp decline in production led to unemployment. For example, if the number of unemployed in 1920 was 375 thousand people, then in 1921 - about 2.2 million. In 1922-1923, the economy continued to stagnate.

In 1924-1929. in the economic situation of developed countries began a period of recovery. However, the UK economy stood still. For example, the volume of industrial production in 1929 hardly reached the level of 1913, thanks to the development of new industries - mechanical engineering, aircraft building, chemical and automotive.

If in 1913 the share of Great Britain in the volume of industrial production of developed countries was 14.8%, then in 1929 it fell to 9.8%.

The main reason for the backwardness of Great Britain in the economy was the small expenditure of funds for the renewal of capital, the large contribution of investments in "overseas" countries, and the uncompetitiveness of the equipment used in industry. The ruling circles of England did not consider these factors in time. Due to the technical backwardness, Great Britain was gradually losing its positions in the world market, exports were declining, and the volume of foreign trade was 87% of the pre-war level. The share of imports kept growing. This, of course, had a negative impact on the standard of living of the common people, which dropped noticeably, as did the level of wages.

Political life of the country

Political life in the country during this period was determined by the struggle of three political parties: liberal, conservative and labor. The Liberal Party, which was at the head of the government during the First World War, was losing ground day by day. The leader of the Liberal Party, Prime Minister D. Lloyd George (1863-1945), in order to maintain the positions of his party, held parliamentary elections in December 1918. Thanks to the victory in the First World War, the Liberal Party had an impressive weight among the military. The Liberal and Conservative parties went to the polls together.

They participated in the elections under the slogan of economic and political reconstruction of the country, promising voters jobs, fair wages, cheap housing, peace and social transformation.

The Laborites promised voters the construction of a new society, which would create the possibility of socializing the means of production, the creation of a government of workers, a national transport, the purchase of energy resources and banks from their private owners in order to nationalize them.

The election was won by an alliance of liberals and conservatives. They took 477 out of 707 seats in Parliament (of which 136 seats belonged to the Liberals). Labor won 62 seats: 5 times as many as in 1910. 2.5 thousand voters voted for them. Thus, this party in the political arena of struggle began to put pressure on the liberal party.

Lloyd George took over as prime minister and led the government until 1922. During this period, the government faced setbacks both at home and abroad. It failed to deliver on promises made to voters. As a result, the first powerful strikes of workers began. More than 2.5 thousand people took part in this movement in 1919.

The workers demanded a 40-hour work week and continued wages. Particularly large were the miners' strikes, which demanded a 30% increase in wages and the establishment of a 6-hour working day.

Under these conditions, in October 1920, the country's parliament issued emergency powers to the government to suppress the labor movement. The owners of the mines, who did not want to satisfy the demands of the miners, declared a lockout on April 1, 1921. The government declared a state of emergency and sent army units to the mines.

The railway and transport workers, in solidarity with the miners, also went on strike. However, the protests of the workers were suppressed.

Lloyd George's government, as noted above, also failed in foreign policy. The national liberation movement blew up the British colonial empire from within. For example, in 1919, India's struggle for independence intensified, in 1919-1921. there were uprisings in Egypt, in 1919 a war for independence began in Afghanistan against Great Britain. The ruling circles of Great Britain were forced to make concessions in order to preserve the colonial empire. In particular, in 1918, changes were made to the constitution, which gave the right to local Indian personnel to take part in the government of the country. At the Paris Peace Conference, the dominions were granted the right to participate as an independent entity. The independence of Afghanistan was forced to be recognized. Egypt, albeit in words, was also recognized as an independent state. The UK government is in big trouble with regard to Ireland.

The ruling circles of Great Britain this time again remained true to their traditional slogan "divide and rule". There was a split in the national liberation movement in Ireland. His right wing entered into negotiations with Britain. In 1921, an agreement was signed between Ireland and Great Britain. In accordance with it, Ireland split into two parts. Southern Ireland, with Dublin as its capital, was granted dominion rights. Northern Ireland remained part of the UK. After that, the country became officially known as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

The struggle of the British government against Soviet Russia ended in failure. In addition, on March 16, 1921, she was forced to conclude a trade agreement, which in fact meant the recognition of Russia.

In addition, the aggression organized by Great Britain together with Greece against Turkey was defeated. Patriotic forces led by Kemal Atatürk were able to maintain Turkey's independence.

Such a defeat in foreign policy greatly disturbed the Conservative Party, it decided to withdraw from the coalition government. On October 19, 1922, British Prime Minister Lloyd George was forced to resign. The chair of the Prime Minister was briefly occupied by the leader of the Conservative Party B. Low, and then he was replaced by S. Baldwin. The main task of the government of S. Baldwin was to bring the country out of the economic crisis. Only in this case it would be possible to put an end to the main disease of society - unemployment and to launch enterprises at full capacity.

To this end, the government began to apply the method of protectionism. However, this did not give the desired results. On the contrary, by the end of 1923, the British economy reached a dead end, which, naturally, caused discontent among the people. Under these conditions, elections were held in the country in 1923. Although the Conservative Party won them (258 seats), the Labor Party also achieved an impressive victory (191 seats). This party promised its voters the nationalization of the coal industry.

The Labor Party together with the Liberal Party (together 158 seats) expressed no confidence in the government of S. Baldwin. As a result, the government was forced to resign.

Now, for the first time in British history, the right to form a government has been given to the Labor Party. In January 1924, such a government under the leadership of the leader of the Labor Party R. Macdonald (1866-1937) was created. It did not last long, because, under pressure from big capital, it could not fulfill the promises made to voters (nationalization of the coal industry, reduction of unemployment, construction of housing for workers, etc.).

On October 8, 1924, MPs from the Conservative Party expressed no confidence in the Labor government, which did not have a majority of votes. R. MacDonald was forced to resign. The Conservatives won the parliamentary elections on October 29 with 415 seats. In November, S. Baldwin again took the chair of the Prime Minister.

Events of 1926.

During the tenure of S. Baldwin (1924-1929) as prime minister, there were no noticeable changes in the UK economy. Although industries such as automotive, electrical and chemical industries have developed rapidly. Traditional industries like shipbuilding and coal were still in stagnation.

The British capitalists preferred to export their capital rather than invest it in the reconstruction of the country's industry in a modern way. Great Britain was unable to restore its pre-war position in the world, in the dominions and colonies their national production began to develop, the import of American currency increased.

Once flourishing in the UK industry - coal was in particularly difficult conditions. Before the war, 1 million 200 thousand people worked in this industry, 290 thousand tons of coal are mined in the country annually. After the war, the situation deteriorated sharply, this industry has become one of the most backward. The main reasons were that many small mines had closed and their equipment was outdated. In addition, the cost of the land on which the coal deposits were located was very high, for which it was necessary to pay the owners of the land a huge amount. These factors led to an increase in the cost of coal in the country. As a result, expensive English coal could not compete with cheap German and Polish.

The owners of the mines tried to increase their profits by reducing the wages of workers and increasing the length of the working day, the workers strongly resisted this. But in 1925 they still managed to reduce wages. On July 31, 1925, the miners decided to go on strike, they were supported by transport and railway workers, declaring their solidarity with them. The government of S. Baldwin, in order to prevent a nationwide strike, decided to give subsidies to the owners of the mines. However, this government subsidy was only enough for 9 months.

In April 1926, the owners of the mines issued an ultimatum to the workers. It outlined the following requirements - a reduction in the wages of miners, an increase in the length of the working day by 1 hour, an agreement to annul the agreement between the owners of the mines and trade unions (trade unions). In case of refusal, they threatened to announce a lockout. The ultimatum caused sharp discontent in the country, but nevertheless, on May 1, 1926, a reduction in wages was announced.

In response, on May 4, a general strike began in the UK. In total, 6 million people took part in this strike. The trade unions put forward purely economic demands. However, there was a danger that the general strike would turn into a political conflict.

Foreign workers also expressed their solidarity with the British. They stopped loading goods destined for Great Britain, began to raise funds in order to transfer them as material assistance to British workers.

The Supreme Council of Trades Unions, fearing that the general strike would develop into a political conflict, decided to declare May 12 as the day of the end of the general strike and enter into negotiations with the government. The workers were compelled to submit to the decision of the Supreme Council of Trade Unions. The miners continued to fight until December, but they, in the end, stopped the strike. Thus the general strike of 1926 was defeated.

This happened because the leadership of the trade unions supported the existing socio-political system and sought to preserve it. The ruling circles decided to strengthen their positions. For example, they passed a law prohibiting strikes. In accordance with it, a strike could be held at one enterprise or in any one branch of industry.

Second Labor government

In May 1929, another parliamentary election was held in Great Britain. The Labor Party won by a small margin (287 seats, the Conservative Party - 260).

This victory was won by the Laborites through their promises made in 1927 to the trade unions to nationalize the coal industry, transport, banks, reduce unemployment and restore the 7-hour day. In June, R. Macdonald formed his second Labor government.

The global economic crisis that began in the autumn of 1929 made it difficult for the government to fulfill these promises. The economic crisis in Great Britain began in 1930, and in 1932 it reached its climax. This year, the volume of industrial output in comparison with 1929 decreased by 20%, the number of unemployed reached 3-3.5 million people. The exchange rate of the pound sterling fell by a third, and so did real wages. The volume of agricultural production also decreased.

The same situation was in foreign trade. The process of exclusion of Great Britain from traditional sales markets has intensified.

But despite this, even in such conditions, the government fulfilled part of the promises. For example, in coal mines, a 7-hour working day was established, a new law on unemployment benefits was passed, the period for receiving unemployment benefits was extended from three months to one year.

A ministry to combat unemployment was formed, and a new special committee for the employment of the unemployed was set up. These measures contributed in some way to improving the situation of the unemployed. However, under the pressure of big capital, the issues of reducing wages and unemployment benefits and indirectly raising taxes were on the agenda. This provision led to a split in the Labor Party.

R. MacDonald, a supporter of the above issues, formed a new coalition government on August 25, 1931 (it included representatives of the National Labor, National Liberal and Conservative parties). In October 1931, special parliamentary elections were held, which were won by the Conservative Party (740 seats). A national government was formed (1931 - 1935). It was again headed by R. Macdonald. The government began to implement a program to overcome the crisis by reducing the cost of wages and social issues. The government, frightened by the flight of British capital abroad, canceled the exchange of the pound sterling for gold. At the same time, US and French banks lent the UK £80 million.

In the field of foreign trade, the government took the path of protectionism (protection of the national economy). In accordance with this, it was established that when goods are imported into the territories that are part of the empire, customs duties on English goods are set 10% lower than on goods imported from other states. This event strengthened the position of Great Britain in the markets of the empire.

The measures taken by the government have paid off. And from the end of 1932, some recovery of the economy began. By 1934, the volume of industrial output reached the level of 1929.

In the parliamentary elections held at the end of 1935, the Conservative Party won (385 seats). The leader of this party, S. Baldwin, formed a national government for the second time, which continued the policy of a complete recovery of the economy. In particular, the policy of protectionism was continued, which had a positive impact on the development of the automotive, aviation, electrical and chemical industries.

The continuation of the refusal to exchange the pound sterling for gold also gave its positive results, this prevented the export of English capital abroad. Now the capitalists tried to invest their capital within the country. For example, if in 1936 the export of capital from Great Britain amounted to 61 million pounds, then inside the country 217 million pounds were invested. This, in turn, led to an even more accelerated development of industry. The placement of private capital in the domestic market was helped by the government's financial policy. In particular, the government has introduced a procedure for lending by banks to entrepreneurs 2%. (Earlier it was 10-12%).

However, the UK has not been able to fully cope with the economic crisis. Since the autumn of 1937, the volume of production began to fall again, for example, in 1938 it decreased by 12% compared to the level of 1937. The number of unemployed remained high. Thus, by the end of the 1930s, the economic position of Great Britain in the world had declined significantly. Now, not only the United States were its competitors, but also Germany, Italy and Japan.

Foreign policy 1924-1939

R. MacDonald began his political career when Great Britain was a strong state, and ended his activity when only memories remained of her former greatness. Due to the fact that R. MacDonald was a realist politician, he understood well that it was impossible to revive the former greatness and power of Great Britain. But despite this, he wanted to see Great Britain in the future as a state capable of implementing its aspirations and did everything for this. Although he was against the Soviets, he proceeded from the real state of affairs - he recognized this state in 1924, establishing diplomatic relations with it.

Great Britain was one of the initiators of the event in 1925. conferences in Locarno. This conference served as a pretext for the reconciliation of Germany with the rest of the Western countries. At the same time, the Western countries did not create a system of guarantees to prevent the free advance of Germany to the east of Europe.

On March 24, 1927, Britain intervened militarily against China. Its goal was to establish the government of Chiang Kai-shek in China, which was established on April 18 in Nanjing.

In the 1930s, British foreign policy faced two major problems. Firstly, the aggressive policy of Germany in Europe. Secondly growing in colonial countries: national liberation movement.

Great Britain, trying to weaken the influence of France in Europe, began to use Germany for this purpose. As proof of this, on June 30, 1935, Great Britain signed a naval treaty with Germany. In accordance with it, Germany acquired the right to create its own fleet, constituting 1/3 of the British Navy. This was an open violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

Even with the entry of German troops into the Rhineland, Great Britain remained a silent observer of what was happening. This was tantamount to allowing Germany to continue such attacks in the future. While in 1936 Germany extended a helping hand to Spain in establishing the fascist dictatorship of Franco, Great Britain pursued a policy of non-intervention in the affairs of Spain. This policy was confirmed by the fact that Great Britain suspended the export of weapons to the legitimate government of Spain, thereby helping fascism to come to power in Spain.

In 1937, the leader of the Conservative Party N. Chamberlain (1869-1940) came to power in Great Britain. During his 3-year tenure as Prime Minister, he initiated the policy of "appeasement" of Hitler.

Therefore, in fact, Great Britain helped Germany in the conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia. She repeatedly repeated that with her small "concessions" she saved the world for a whole generation.

However, rumors soon reached the UK that Germany was going to attack the Western countries first of all, and not the Soviet Union. Now Great Britain began to intensively prepare for war. She doubled her military spending.

In addition, Great Britain developed a new military doctrine, in which it planned to protect France along with itself. On April 15, 1939, for the first time in peacetime history, Great Britain declared universal conscription. In the event that Germany attacks Poland, Great Britain will provide her with military assistance. She gave the same guarantees to Greece and Rumania.

To this day, however, Chamberlain has not given up the hope of coming to terms with Germany. Its purpose was to direct the spearhead of aggression against the Soviet Union. After Germany occupied Prague, Chamberlain's hopes were dashed. Now war was inevitable. This provision forced Britain to negotiate with Moscow. But due to the fault of both sides, these negotiations ended in vain. In particular, the goal of Great Britain and France was to impose unilateral obligations on the Soviet Union, draw it into a war with Germany, and remain outside observers themselves.

But Moscow has received information that Britain is conducting secret negotiations with Germany on dividing the world into spheres of influence. As a result, the Soviet government, in response to this, began to look for ways of rapprochement with Germany. And on August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed a mutual non-aggression pact. Germany, having consolidated its positions in the east, attacked Poland in September 1939. Britain and France 2-3 September declared warGermany. Thus, World War II began. Britain was now reaping the fruits of Chamberlain's policy of "pacifying" Germany.

Position in the colonies and dominions

The colonies of Great Britain never ceased their national liberation struggle, while the dominions continued their struggle to expand their rights. Therefore, Great Britain was forced to keep a large army there. In April 1930, the Indian National Congress called the Indian people to civil disobedience (the first stage took place in 1919-1922). This led to large-scale mass demonstrations. The British administration severely punished the leaders of this demonstration.

In 1931, Great Britain was forced to accept a document annulling the restrictions on the rights of its dominions. This document went down in British history as the Statute of Westminster. The document declared the complete independence of their domestic and foreign policy.

Now the decisions taken by the dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) did not have to be approved by the British Parliament. Thus, the law was repealed, prescribing the passage of the decision taken by the dominions in the Parliament of Great Britain, which could annul it. However, Great Britain was in no hurry to give the status of the dominion of India. At the same time, the government sought to keep the dominions in its sphere of influence,

In accordance with the "Statute of Westminster", the dominions united with Great Britain in the "British Commonwealth of Nations". (This commonwealth exists to this day. The leaders of the former dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are still appointed by the Queen of Great Britain today). In the 1930s, the situation in Ireland became more complicated again. In 1937, Southern Ireland declared itself an independent state, while Northern Ireland remained a part of the empire.

• Hello Lord! Please support the project! It takes money ($) and mountains of enthusiasm every month to maintain the site. 🙁 If our site helped you and you want to support the project 🙂, then you can do this by transferring funds in any of the following ways. By transferring electronic money:

1. R819906736816 (wmr) rubles.
2. Z177913641953 (wmz) dollars.
3. E810620923590 (wme) Euro.
4. Payeer Wallet: P34018761
5. Qiwi wallet (qiwi): +998935323888
6. DonationAlerts: http://www.donationalerts.ru/r/veknoviy

• The help received will be used and directed to the continued development of the resource, Payment for hosting and Domain.

Great Britain in 1918-1939 Updated: November 22, 2016 By: admin

Reformatory activity of Lloyd George.

From 1905 to 1922 - the last rise of the liberal party. This period was marked by the implementation of a policy of liberal reformism, associated primarily with the name D. Lloyd George. Liberal reformism is becoming the main tool in the fight against the spread of radical sentiments and, at the same time, a way of modernizing society.

1) He became the initiator of a fairly wide social legislation(to solve the "working issue") - the most developed system of social insurance at that time.

Unemployment, sickness, disability insurance - contributions on a parity basis), old age from 70 years old (at the expense of the state)

8 hour working day for miners

Prohibition of night work for women

Labor protection measures: constant monitoring of hazardous industries (11)

Free primary education, free meals in schools for children from poor families

2) measures to recreate an almost extinct class smallholders(buying land from landlords and transferring it for life use to landless or landless peasants in small plots)

3) " revolutionary budget» 1909 (to cover the costs of social policy + for the army and navy): introduced income tax, tax on land property, on large inheritances.

Confrontation with the House of Lords. The result - the parliamentary reform of 1911: the House of Lords was removed from solving financial issues, non-financial laws could be rejected twice, but if the House of Commons passed for the third time, they came into force. As a result of this reform, the liberals were given more room to carry out their course.

Outcome: At the beginning of the twentieth century. England's position in world markets has weakened, the country is forced to change, but gradually, through reforms.

England, compared with France, withstood the test of the First World War. Despite the loss of life, the US debt, the loss of industrial and commercial monopolies, and the general weakening of its position in the world, it maintained its position as a great world power:

1) England not only defended its colonies, but also expanded its colonial possessions;

2) the English navy remained the strongest in the world;

3) the deterioration of the financial situation was relative (England owes the States, Europe owes England)

4) the defeat of the main pre-war competitor - Germany, the high international prestige of the winner in the war.

England: 1) a new electoral law, in particular, women from the age of 30 received rights, 2) an allowance for demobilized soldiers, 3) universal compulsory primary free education, 3) a housing program for the poor, 4) a program to help the unemployed, benefits for military workers industry (due to conversion).

Until 1922, the coalition government, formed during the war years, remained until the conservatives decided to break off cooperation with the liberals.

After the war, the place of the Liberals was gradually taken by the Laborites, whose influence noticeably increased. The program, adopted in 1918, proclaimed the establishment of public ownership of the means of production as its goal, and the expansion of social legislation and the democratization of the political system as its immediate task. In 1924, for the first time, the Laborites, having won the elections, formed a government - but not for a long time, only for a few months (they did not have a clear majority in the House of Commons, they could only act very carefully). From 1924 to 1929, the Conservatives were in power - the government of Stanley Baldwin.

From 1924 to 1929 The Conservative Party was in power The Baldwin era"(Stanley Baldwin).

the main task- to raise the English economy (overcome the structural crisis) and return to England the role of the financial center of the world.

1) amplifies the process monopolization economy (the creation of monopolies capable of successfully competing in world markets). For example, the Imperial Chemical Trust, the English Steel Corporation.

2) To increase the competitiveness of their products in world markets - rationalization of production, modernization of the technical and technological base of traditional industries. But the process of rationalization was complicated by the presence of a huge number of old enterprises and old equipment, the replacement of which required large investments (coal, steel, textile, shipbuilding)

Therefore, in terms of development rates (and volume of production), the British economy lagged behind the economies of other countries - the USA and Germany, its share in the world economy was falling.

Another problem- Relations with trade unions. May 4, 1926 - the first general strike in the history of England (miners started, they were supported by railway workers, transport workers, printers, in total about 4 million strikers). The reasons are the reduction of wages, the rejection of a fixed minimum wage when concluding collective agreements. The government used not only the police, but also the troops. On May 12, the General Council of Trade Unions announced the end of the strike, but the miners continued to strike for another 7 months, but eventually accepted the conditions of the entrepreneurs. Since then, the practice of resolving labor disputes peacefully has become the norm.

Outcome: the adoption in 1927 of the law on trade unions and industrial conflicts, according to which general strikes were declared illegal, control and restriction of the activities of trade unions, including over the financial resources of trade unions, was established.

Abstract plan:

2. Economic downturn

1. The form of government and the state structure of Great Britain

Great Britain is a parliamentary monarchy headed by a queen. The legislature is a bicameral parliament (Monarch + House of Commons and House of Lords - the so-called King (Queen) in Parliament system). Parliament is the highest authority throughout the territory, despite the fact that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own administrative administrative structures. The Government is headed by the Monarch and directly administered by the Prime Minister, appointed by the Monarch, who is thus the President of His Majesty's Government.

A distinctive characteristic is the absence of any single document that could be called the fundamental law of the country, there is no written Constitution, moreover, there is not even an exact list of documents that would relate to the Constitution. Relations between the people and the government are regulated by legislative acts, unwritten laws and conventions, and British imperialism was one of the main culprits of the First World War.

In this war, the British bourgeoisie hoped to find a way out of the deepest social and political crisis in which England, like other imperialist states, found itself in the second decade of the 20th century. During the First World War, British imperialism sought to strengthen the class positions of the bourgeoisie in Great Britain itself and strengthen the British colonial empire, expand its possessions by capturing new territories.

2. Economic downturn

The war of 1914-1918 started by the imperialists of all countries led to the most unexpected results for them. The war further intensified the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in each of the countries participating in the war and created the prerequisites for the maturation of a revolutionary situation in a number of countries. Since the first imperialist world war and the Great October Socialist Revolution, the capitalist world has entered a period of a general crisis of capitalism.

The split of the world into two camps and the falling out of one-sixth of the globe from the capitalist system, the revolutionary impact of the Great October Socialist Revolution on the peoples oppressed by capitalism, significantly weakened the position of British imperialism. The general crisis of capitalism manifested itself in a particularly acute form in England, which was a classic example of a country of decaying capitalism.

True, England continued to be one of the largest colonial powers. She captured most of the German colonies and territories of the former Ottoman Empire. But the English bourgeoisie has irretrievably lost its former monopoly in the world industrial and financial markets. The center of the financial exploitation of the capitalist world has shifted from England to the United States of America, which had become enormously enriched by the war.

England entered the war with a public debt of £650 million, and in 1919 her national debt reached the enormous sum of £7,829 million. After the war, England's external debt to the United States alone rose to $5.5 billion.

The material and human losses suffered by England (together with the colonies and dominions) in the First World War were very significant. Great Britain lost about 3 million people in the war (875 thousand were killed, more than 2 million were wounded). During the war, 70 percent were sunk. merchant marine of England.

Compared with other social classes, the proletariat of England suffered the greatest number of victims, since the English army consisted mainly of workers. But even after the end of the war, the British bourgeoisie sought to shift the entire burden of military spending onto the working masses. The war debts were paid, first of all, by the working class, forcibly drawn into the war and most of all suffered from this war.

At the same time, the bourgeoisie, having greatly profited during the war, continued to enrich itself in the post-war period. The loans made by the British government during the war became one of the main sources of enrichment for the British and American financial oligarchy. The British government borrowed from American and British bankers on very unfavorable terms for England. The interest paid by the British government on war debt was 2-3 times higher than on the international stock exchange.

Subsequently, over the years, the British government annually spent 40 percent. expenditure budget (about £350 million) to pay interest on war loans. The process of concentration of capital, the merging of banking and industrial capital, and the merging of monopolies with the state apparatus has intensified. Stockbrokers, bankers and big industrialists occupied high government positions and exerted a decisive influence on the policy of the British government. The robbery of the working masses of Great Britain and its colonies could not save the British capitalist economy from a severe economic and chronic financial crisis, which took place on the basis of the general crisis of capitalism. After the First World War, the British economy is characterized by an ever-increasing decline in the main industries (coal, textile, metallurgical), chronic underutilization of enterprises and the presence of millions of unemployed armies, which have turned from reserve into permanent armies of the unemployed. The clearest expression of the crisis in the English economy was the situation in industry.

During the 20 years after the war (from 1918 to 1938), British industry hardly exceeded the level of 1913. During this period, the industry of England as a whole was trampling around the level of 1913. Only in the last years before the Second World War was there a certain upswing in British industry, but this upswing was connected with the revival of the military situation and the preparation of the imperialist countries for a new war.

The state finances of capitalist England also found themselves in an extremely difficult state. The pound sterling has lost stability forever on the international stock exchange. If in 1913 the British pound sterling was equal to almost 5 dollars, then in 1920 - a little more than 3 dollars. The hardships of the war and the October Revolution in Russia led to the scope of the mass labor movement. The short-term economic recovery in England was replaced in the second half of 1920 by an economic crisis. The index of industrial production has fallen, unemployment has grown. Parliament adopted the Law on the introduction of a state of emergency in the country. To suppress the movement of workers, the government could use the police and the army. An attempt to maintain British influence in the Middle East by concluding an agreement with Iran also failed. The Greek-English invasion of Turkey was defeated. On October 19, 1922, the King of Great Britain for the first time entrusted the formation of a government to Labor leader Ramsay MacDonald. The Labor government had to carry out a number of measures in the interests of the working people. Among them was a plan to increase the appropriations for housing construction. The insurance system for the unemployed was somewhat improved, and pensions for old people with disabilities were increased. Considering the mood of the masses, the government of R. MacDonald on February 2, 1924 established diplomatic relations with the USSR.

3. Military-political dominance

After the signing of the Mudros Truce, almost all Middle Eastern territories came under British control. Many problems of the post-war world order, which the powers of the Entente faced, postponed the adoption of practical decisions about the future of the Middle Eastern territories for quite a long time. However, in the minds of many British politicians, the Middle East was a region of paramount importance. Because of this, discussions around the Middle East problems in the first post-war years were an important component of the coalition cabinet of D. Lloyd George, first formed at the end of 1916. During the war, the traditional system of relations between parliament and government in Great Britain underwent certain changes. In a wartime environment that required prompt decision-making, the prime minister and members of the cabinet were given considerable freedom in their actions. This fact did not exclude, however, the existence of coordinating mechanisms that ensured the cooperation of the two branches of power and the support of the government's actions from the parliamentary majority. Particularly important, in this regard, was the existence of constant interaction between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party and the head of the parliamentary majority, Bonar Law. Nevertheless, the "intervention" of the parliament in the sphere of foreign policy was very limited during the war years. All inter-allied agreements on the Middle East of this period, in which Great Britain participated, were of a secret nature and their full content was not known not only to broad public opinion, but also to many British parliamentarians. The end of the war caused lively discussions among British politicians about the future of the world order, and, in particular, the prospects for British policy in the Middle East. With regard to the Levant, the subjects of discussion were the degree of possible concessions to the French side and the nature of the relationship with the "government" of Faisal. The main difficulty for British diplomacy was, in this case, the need to follow the obligations given during the war and which were of a very contradictory nature. The absence of a clear political line caused the deterioration of Britain's relations with both the Hashemites and France, the main ally in the Entente. With regard to the Iraqi territories, the discussions were of a different nature. The British presence in this former part of the Ottoman Empire was practically not in dispute, the subjects of discussion were only specific forms and mechanisms for the future administration of Iraq. The situation was aggravated by the collision in the Middle East of the interests of several British departments. The overall coordination of policy towards the Levant was carried out by the Foreign Office. Iraq was in the sphere of competence of the Anglo-Indian government, although the degree of its influence on the situation in the region decreased compared to the pre-war period. An important factor that influenced the mindset of many British politicians in the first post-war months was the state of victorious euphoria, as well as the desire to receive maximum dividends and compensate for the losses incurred. With regard to the Middle East, Great Britain sought to fully use the factor of its military and political dominance in the territories of Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant, as well as the moral and psychological argument of its decisive contribution to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Representatives of the British leadership, primarily associated with the Anglo-Indian authorities, or who had experience in India, hoped to achieve the maximum possible guarantees for the security of Indian possessions. Discussions around the Middle East took place against the backdrop of a number of difficulties that Britain faced after the end of World War I. The financial crisis, mass demobilization, the growth of the national liberation movement in many parts of the British Empire prompted the cabinet of D. Lloyd George to look for more effective and economical methods of implementing its policy in various regions of the world, including the Middle East. The expansion of the British sphere of influence through the former Middle Eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire, as well as the reform of the system of government in India and Egypt, required significant financial expenditures. Many British politicians, in view of the complexity of the internal political situation in the metropolis, criticized the government's Middle East course. Parliament became the center of this criticism. One of the important issues discussed by parliamentarians in late 1918 and early 1919 was the reduction of the scale of the British military presence in the Near and Middle East. Control over these vast territories was possible only under the conditions of universal conscription introduced in Great Britain during the war years. Since 1916, the question of the volume and forms of reduction of the country's armed forces after the end of hostilities has been actively discussed in the British Parliament. At the same time, according to estimates made by the War Department, control over the territories occupied during the war required maintaining the strength of the British armed forces at the level of at least a million people. According to the memoirs of W. Churchill, even Bonar Law did not dare to discuss the issue of maintaining such a number of armed forces in Parliament. An important factor influencing the policy of the British Cabinet on the issue of reducing the size of the army was the position of industrial circles and trade unions, who were categorically against the extension of the laws on military service adopted during the war years. Many parliamentarians and ministers saw this as one of the main sources of reducing budget expenditures and improving the financial situation of the government. The economic difficulties faced by the mother country after the end of World War I remained a fundamental factor that determined the evolution of the British Middle East course in 1919-1920. The problems of mass demobilization were combined with ever-increasing pressure from parliament to bring military spending in line with peacetime norms. Public opinion in Great Britain, after four years of military tension, negatively perceived the persistence of a rather high level of costs for the maintenance of the armed forces, due to the difficult situation in India, Egypt, Iraq and several other parts of the British Empire. The total number of British and Indian troops in the Middle East, Iraq and Transcaucasia, by August 1919, was 225 thousand people. In addition, another 95 thousand British troops were stationed in Egypt. ;. On the territory of Iraq there was a 60,000th contingent, the cost of maintaining which amounted to about 18 million pounds in the financial year 1919-1920. Thus, an acute contradiction arose between the potential tasks of Great Britain in the Near and Middle East and its real financial and economic resources. In August 1919, the head of the military department, W. Churchill, who was at the center of parliamentary and public criticism, was forced to cancel military conscription from March 1920 and reduce the size of the armed forces to 10% of the previous level. Having abandoned the principle of compulsory military service, the British government decided, in the end, to return to the principle of recruiting arias with volunteers who entered into long-term contracts. However, the prospect of such a rapid reduction in the size of the army caused a negative reaction from politicians and the military associated with the Middle East region and defended the need to maintain a long-term military presence in this strategically significant region for the UK. All this prompted the government to constantly maneuver and search for compromise solutions. In January 1920, the cabinet of D. Lloyd George was forced to approve the state budget with a deficit of 473 million pounds. Based on the indicators approved by Parliament, the weekly expenses for the maintenance of British troops stationed in the occupied territories of the Ottoman Empire were not to exceed £750,000. at the same time, the War Department had to complete the process of demobilizing four million people. Most of the concerned British officials agreed on the desirability of organizing a system of government over the controlled Middle Eastern territories according to the Egyptian model, which assumed a sufficiently high degree of self-government of the local population. In this regard, the project of T.E. Lawrence, who proposed to create three Arab monarchies on the territory of Syria, as well as South and Central Mesopotamia, headed by the sons of the sheriff of Mecca - Faisal, Abdallah and Zeid. The controversy around the Middle East, in which high-ranking British politicians participated, was primarily due to the global changes that took place in the world after the end of World War I and the need to find new guidelines for British foreign policy. A direct consequence of these changes was the growth of the national liberation struggle in a number of British colonies and protectorates. In the context of a serious aggravation of the political situation, the head of the Ministry of Indian Affairs, E. Montague and Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, developed a draft constitutional reform designed to alleviate anti-British sentiment among the upper strata of Indian society. The difficulties associated with its implementation prompted the Anglo-Indian government to be especially receptive to the mood of the Muslim community. Despite the fact that the Muslims of India did not actively respond to the call for a "holy war", slogans in defense of the Turkish Sultan in 1918-1919. were an important component of their political demands. In this regard, in favor of a speedy settlement of Middle East problems and the conclusion of a peace treaty with Turkey, the Anglo-Indian authorities opposed the Middle East policy of the leadership of the Foreign Office, considering its geopolitical views outdated. At the beginning of 1920, in a polemic with the leadership of the Foreign Office, W. Churchill achieved a decision on the withdrawal of British troops from the territory of Iran and Transcaucasia. In this regard, some stabilization of the position of Great Britain in the region, which was outlined, was, however, soon disrupted due to the uprising in Iraq, which clearly demonstrated the crisis of traditional imperial methods of government and the need to form new approaches to control the situation in the Middle Eastern possessions, taking into account new trends and historical specifics. region. A significant increase in financial costs caused a new wave of criticism of the cabinet's Middle East policy. The Times editorial of November 6, 1920 emphasized: "... if the Government ... believes that the policy in Mesopotamia during the last year has contributed to the prosperity of the Empire, it is the only one who thinks so." Even earlier, The Times criticized the policy of "Indianization" pursued by the administration of A. Wilson, and actively supported plans to create an Arab state and reduce the scale of the British presence in Mesopotamia. The parliamentary opposition to the Cabinet's Middle East policy was led by former Prime Minister H. Asquith. Speaking at a meeting of the House of Commons on June 23, he demanded that the government abandon a course that "... imposes unbearable duties on Great Britain." The debate over the situation in Mesopotamia reached its peak in December 1920, when Winston Churchill, with great difficulty, managed to obtain parliamentary approval for the allocation of an additional 39 million 750 thousand f.s. to stabilize the situation in Iraq and Iran. On the eve of the discussion of this issue, D. Lloyd-George made a special statement. Its essence boiled down to the fact that Great Britain bears moral responsibility for the future of Iraq and cannot leave the Iraqi people in a state of anarchy and chaos at the present moment. Along with financial problems, the British leadership, with all evidence, faced the task of forming a new system for managing mandated possessions in the Middle East. On May 1, W. Churchill addressed the head of the Cabinet with a memorandum “Budget Expenditure in Mesopotamia”, which specifically emphasized that significant progress in reducing the financial costs of Great Britain could be achieved only if the following provisions were implemented: “1. Transfer of Mesopotamia and possibly other mandated territories to the Colonial Office. 2. A clear definition of the amount of financial costs through a separate agreement between the Treasury and the Colonial Office. 3. The speedy transfer of functions to maintain order in Mesopotamia to the command of the Air Force. 4. Immediate reduction of the occupied territory and the concentration of the efforts of British troops on the protection of railway communications. According to W. Churchill, the management of Mesopotamia should be transferred "to that department that has real knowledge and experience in the administration and economic development of wild countries, which is capable of improvising in search of the most appropriate methods of control, taking into account the available forces and means." The document noted that the Colonial Office was known for its successful and very economical methods of administration in East Africa. At the same time, as W. Churchill believed, the specifics of the Foreign Office's activities, which consisted in the implementation of relations with independent states, prevented it from managing the mandated territories as effectively. On December 7, 1920, General P. Radcliffe, responsible for directing military operations in Mesopotamia, presented a report to the cabinet on the situation in the country. According to his estimates, in order to maintain stable control over the Iraqi territories, within the framework of the existing administrative system, 17,000 British and 85,000 Indian troops were required. The annual expenses for these needs were estimated by the speaker at 30 million f.s., which is 6 million f.s. exceeded the entire Iraqi budget. Based on this information, W. Churchill proposed in mid-December a project for a radical reduction in the scale of the British presence in Iraq, according to which Great Britain was to retain control only over the southern part of the country (i.e., the territory of the former Ottoman vilayet of Basra - A.S.). Such a measure would allow the military to cut its monthly spending in Iraq from £30 million to £8 million. On December 17, the Cabinet instructed P. Cox on the preparation of a plan for the evacuation of British troops and personnel from Baghdad to Basra. The debate over the Iraqi problem, largely connected with parliamentary criticism, in December 1920 brought the cabinet to the brink of crisis. Winston Churchill's proposal was criticized by E. Montague and Lord Curzon, who believed that the Kemalists would not fail to take advantage of the political vacuum that would inevitably arise as a result of the withdrawal of British troops. The situation required immediate resolution. At a cabinet meeting held on December 31, with the direct participation of D. Lloyd George, policy decisions were made regarding Mesopotamia and the entire system of managing mandated possessions in the Middle East. It was envisaged, in particular, the creation, within the Ministry of Colonial Affairs, of a separate Eastern Department, coordinating policy in relation to mandated possessions and having a separate budget. The choice in favor of this department was due to its rather effective and economical policy in the African colonies, which contrasted with the expensive actions of the Foreign Office in Transcaucasia, Persia and Egypt. In this regard, Lord Curzon's proposal to transfer the department being created to the Foreign Office was finally rejected. The leadership of the Ministry of the Colonies, which was proposed to be renamed the "Ministry of the Colonies and Mandate Territories" was entrusted to W. Churchill, known for his consistent position on the need to reform the mechanism of the Middle East policy. On January 11, 1921, following the decisions taken by the Cabinet, an Inter-Ministerial Committee was created, including representatives of the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Ministry of Indian Affairs and the War Department, headed by Secretary of Labor J. M. Smith, whose main task was to ensure a smooth transition necessary powers to the new governing body. On January 31, the committee submitted a final report, which outlined the future structure and scope of the Eastern Department being created, which was to begin its activities on March 1, 1921. It was called upon to exercise control over Iraq, Palestine (including territories east of the Jordan River) and Aden. Due to the lack of clearly fixed boundaries of mandated possessions, the territory transferred under the control of the Ministry of Colonial Affairs was limited: in the west - by the Mediterranean Sea, in the southwest - by the border of Egypt and the Red Sea, in the south and southeast - by the Indian Ocean, in the north and northeast by the coast of the Persian Gulf. Within the specified limits, the Eastern Department of the Ministry of the Colonies was authorized to carry out all the necessary completeness of the management of the mandated territories of Great Britain, control the process of demarcation of their borders, manage all British civil services and military units, and coordinate relations with the Arabian state entities (with the exception of the Hijaz - A.S. ). The staff of the Eastern Department was to be recruited from officials of related departments. In addition, the report contained a recommendation to actively involve representatives of the local Arab population in the field. The recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee were considered at a Cabinet meeting on 14 February. W. Churchill, despite the objections of Lord Curzon, managed to achieve the inclusion in the sphere of competence of the Eastern Department of most of the Arabian Peninsula. Justifying his position, he stated: "The Arab problem is one, and any attempt to divide it will inevitably cause a return to the situation that existed during the previous two years ...". The Cabinet approved, in general, the recommendations of the Smith Committee, instructing the heads of the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office to work out the final decision on the delimitation of areas of competence in Arabia through a bilateral agreement. At the same time, the composition of the Eastern Department was approved, which included such well-known experts on Middle Eastern problems as J. Schukgurg, R. Vernon, H. Young, R. Bullard, F. Adam, G. Clayton and Colonel Meinertsagen. T.E. was entrusted to head the new department. Lawrence. The transfer of all powers to manage the mandated possessions in the Middle East to a single structure was the logical outcome of several years of discussions around Middle Eastern problems that brought the British cabinet in December 1920 to the brink of crisis. W. Churchill, who headed the Ministry of Colonial Affairs from March 1921, saw as his most important goal, in combination with maintaining overall control over the situation, the gradual reduction in the level of the military and administrative presence of Great Britain in the region and bringing it into line with the financial capabilities of the mother country. The concrete implementation of this task required, first of all, in Iraq, the creation of an effective state system and the formation of a different model of relations between the mandated territories and the mandate holder power.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Great Britain: the era of reforms / Ed. A.A. Gromyko. - M.: Publishing house "Ves Mir", 2007 Democracy in a changing world. - Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing house of the Volga-Vyatka personnel center, 1995. - 150 p. Kodaneva S.I.

2. British constitutional reform: Regional aspect. Analytical review / RAS. INION. Center for social scientific-inform. research Dep. jurisprudence. - M., 2005. - 112.

3. Constitutional law of foreign countries: Textbook for universities. - M.: Norma, 2005. Manning N. Public Administration Reform: International Experience. - M .: Publishing house "Ves Mir", 2003. - 496 p. Pronkin S.V., Petrunina O.E. Public administration of foreign countries: Textbook. – M.: Aspect Press, 2001. – 416 p.