Causes of the emergence of the Yalta Potsdam system. Characteristics of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations. New frontiers in Europe

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations is the designation of the system of international relations adopted in geopolitics, fixed by the treaties and agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. This system of international relations existed throughout the second half of the 20th century. The conference in Yalta can be considered the beginning of the formation of a new system of international relations. On February 4-11, the "Big Three" Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, tried to reach an agreement on the fate of the world and, first of all, of Europe. In fact, there were two main problems: to choose a political regime for the liberated countries and to draw their borders. The Yalta Declaration on a "Liberated Europe" was very clear, at least with regard to the first one: the liberated countries were to choose their own governments through free elections. In addition, the fate of post-war Germany was decided at the conference. The question arose about the joint occupation of its territory. It was also agreed on the amount of reparations (about 20 billion dollars, half of this amount was due to the USSR). The participants in the Yalta Conference declared that their adamant goal was to destroy German militarism and Nazism and create guarantees that "Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace", "disarm and disband all German armed forces and destroy the German General Staff forever", " seize or destroy all German military equipment, liquidate or take control of all German industry that could be used for military production; subject all war criminals to just and speedy punishment; wipe out the Nazi Party, Nazi laws, organizations and institutions; eliminate all Nazi and militaristic influence from public institutions, from the cultural and economic life of the German people. The fate of post-war Europe was decided, in particular, such important issues as the fate of post-war Germany, the Polish question and the Balkans were touched upon, and the situation in the Far East was discussed. A new "League of Nations" was formed with a new name for the UN. A provision on post-war cooperation between the USA and the USSR was also stipulated. In principle, Stalin and Roosevelt did not deny such a possibility, but was it possible? Everything was very ambiguous. On the one hand, the adoption of agreed decisions at the conference showed the possibility of cooperation between states with different social systems. There was a strong alliance against a common enemy. In this regard, the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition began to think about creating an organization that could prevent future conflicts like World War II.

The Yalta-Potsdam order did not have a strong contractual and legal basis. The agreements that formed the basis of the post-war order were either oral, not officially recorded, or were fixed mainly in a declarative form, or their full implementation was blocked as a result of the acuteness of contradictions and confrontation between the main subjects of post-war international relations. The system worked for almost the entire second half of the 20th century, providing some balance in the world, but in the end, like any mechanism that has expired, the Yalta-Potsdam system stopped its work. The process of the collapse of the Yalta-Potsdam system began with the end of the Cold War. The policy of M. S. Gorbachev, associated with "perestroika", "glasnost" and "new thinking", was aimed at concessions to the capitalist countries, moreover, the concessions were unilateral. That is why to this day the United States believes that they won the Cold War. Despite the loss of the Soviet Union in the Cold War, its end meant the end of confrontation, the arms race, interference in the internal affairs of the Eastern European states, and hence it follows that the confrontation between the two camps - the capitalist and the socialist, has ended due to the collapse of the latter camp. The end of the bipolarity generated by the Yalta-Potsdam system. But, the collapse of the USSR, namely the Belovezhskaya agreement on December 8, 1991, which changed the situation in the world, became the decisive stage. Together with the Soviet Union, the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations also sank into oblivion. Was it possible to maintain this system of international relations? If we imagine that there was no Belovezhskaya agreement and the Soviet Union did not collapse in 1991, then the Yalta-Potsdam system would still not be able to function for a long time, because it was created under different conditions, when the Soviet Union was in Stalin's "hedgehogs" and represented threat to the capitalist world. The fact is that the Yalta-Potsdam concept functioned throughout the second half of the 20th century, correcting the shortcomings of the former world and the former system, erasing the remnants of the past, but, in the end, this system itself gave rise to new difficulties and created shortcomings. As a result, by the end of the 20th century, the system was outdated and could no longer meet the requirements of the modern world. That is why the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations could not be preserved, since it no longer corresponds to the present. The world has ceased to be bipolar, we live in an age of globalization and integration, and in order to maintain the new world, a new system is needed, formed from the experience of past years, but at the same time adapted to our modern times. Question 8 Swedish model of social states

The term "Swedish model" appeared in the late 60s, when Sweden began to successfully combine rapid economic growth with extensive political reforms against a background of relative social conflictlessness. This image of a successful and serene Sweden contrasted particularly strongly then with the growth of social and political conflicts in the surrounding world. The Swedish model was identified with the most developed form of the welfare state.

Another way of defining the Swedish model came from the fact that two dominant goals were clearly distinguished in Swedish economic policy: full employment and income equalization. Its results have been an active policy in a highly developed labor market and an exceptionally large public sector (in this case, primarily the sphere of redistribution, and not state property), which is engaged in the accumulation and redistribution of significant funds for social and economic purposes.

Economists define the Swedish model as a combination of full employment (official unemployment below 2% of the active population) and price stability through restrictive economic policies complemented by selective measures to maintain high levels of employment and investment. This model was introduced by trade union economists in the early 1950s and was used to a certain extent by social democratic governments.

Finally, in the broadest sense, the Swedish model is a model of socio-economic development, it is the whole complex of socio-economic and political realities in the country with its high standard of living and wide scale of social policy.

The main goals of the Swedish model for a long time were full employment and income equalization. This is due to the special strength of the Swedish labor movement. From 1932 to the present (with the exception of 1976-1982 and 1991-1994), the Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party (SDRPSH) has been in power. For decades, the Central Association of Trade Unions of Sweden (TSOPS) worked closely with the SDRPSH, which strengthened the reformist labor movement in the country. In addition, the Swedish model was based on a spirit of compromise and mutual restraint between the labor movement (trade unions and social democrats) on the one hand and large industrial companies on the other. This spirit of harmony was based on the realization that small Sweden can only survive in a big competitive world if all sides join forces.

Several national character traits can also be noted: rationalism, self-discipline, careful study of approaches to solving problems, the desire for common agreement and the ability to avoid conflicts.

In the post-war period, the development of Sweden was favored by numerous factors: the preservation of industrial potential in conditions of neutrality, a steady demand for export products, a skilled workforce, a highly organized and ethnically homogeneous society and a political system dominated by one large party that pursued a pragmatic line and formed a strong government. Under such favorable conditions, during a period of relatively high economic growth rates (3–5% per year) from the late 1940s to the late 1960s, the private sector grew and the well-being of the population increased.

The Swedish model provided for the active role of the state. Its implementation was the merit of the Social Democrats, who relied on raising living standards through gradual reforms within the framework of capitalism with a pragmatic attitude towards both goals and means to achieve them, taking into account practical expediency and a sober consideration of real possibilities.

After the foundations of the Swedish model were formulated in the trade union movement in the early 1950s, they became the core of the economic policy of the Social Democrats. The main principle of this policy was: there is no reason for the socialization of the means of production and the rejection of the benefits of an efficient market system of production for the sake of ideological postulates. The pragmatism of this policy is more simply expressed by the well-known saying: "There is no need to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."

What are the results? Sweden's success in the labor market is undeniable. The country maintained exceptionally low unemployment in the post-war period - right up to the 90s, including from the mid-70s, when serious structural problems led to massive unemployment in most of the developed countries of the West.

There have been some achievements in the long struggle in the area of ​​equalizing incomes and living standards. This happened in two ways. First, the wage solidarity policy was aimed at achieving equal pay for equal work. From the end of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1990s, wage differences between different groups in the TSOPS were reduced by more than half. They also dwindled between workers and employees. Second, the government used progressive taxation and a system of extensive public services. As a result, equalization in Sweden has reached one of the highest levels in the world.

Sweden has achieved less success in other areas: prices have risen faster than in most developed countries, since the 1970s GDP has grown more slowly than in a number of Western European countries, and labor productivity has grown weakly. Inflation and relatively modest economic growth were the price paid for full employment and equality policies.

At one time, the successful functioning of the Swedish model depended on a number of domestic and international factors. The main and most important prerequisite was a high and constant rate of economic growth, which made it possible to expand private and public consumption. The second prerequisite was full employment and the fact that the state had to provide social security to only a very small part of the citizens. Therefore, the welfare system could be financed by taxation. The third premise was that in the labor market people were employed on a permanent basis throughout the working day. These prerequisites persisted from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s.

Question Prague Spring.

(January-August 1968) For almost eight months in 1968, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Czechoslovakia) experienced a period of profound change, unprecedented in the history of the communist movement. These transformations have become a natural result of the growing crisis in this relatively prosperous and developed country, in whose political culture predominantly democratic traditions are deeply rooted. The process of democratization in Czechoslovakia, prepared by the reformist forces within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, for a number of years went almost unnoticed by most analysts and politicians of the West and East, including the Soviet leaders. In 1968, the "Prague Spring" began in Czechoslovakia. The new leadership of this republic, headed by A. Dubcek, proclaimed a course towards "socialism with a human face." Within the framework of this course was: the abolition of censorship, the creation of opposition parties, the pursuit of a more independent foreign policy. But this could not please Moscow, which believed that this could lead to a split in the socialist bloc.

Therefore, it was decided to send troops of the Warsaw Pact countries to Czechoslovakia in order to change the leadership of the republic. And on August 21, Operation Danube began. Within one day, the troops captured all the main objects on the territory of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak army offered no resistance. But ordinary citizens offered passive resistance: they blocked the streets, staged sit-ins, and so on. In early September, the operation ended and the troops were withdrawn.

New and Recent History #2, 2002

© V.K. Volkov

"NEW WORLD ORDER"
AND THE BALKAN CRISIS OF THE 1990s

VK. Volkov
Volkov Vladimir Konstantinovich - corresponding member RAS, Director of the Institute of Slavic Studies RAS.

Contemporaries and participants in the events are far from always fully aware of the scale of the events experienced and their socio-political consequences. The last decade, which has brought such profound changes to the life of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, has not been an exception. Internal changes in them during 1989-1991, which resulted in the collapse of the communist regimes, the collapse of multinational states - the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, as well as the "divorce proceedings" of Czechs and Slovaks that soon followed, marked the beginning of a new era not only in their historical development, but also in the development of the whole world. These epochal shifts and the widespread democratic euphoria associated with them, to a certain extent, veiled the second process that took place simultaneously with the first, namely, a deep shift in the balance of power on the world stage and the formation of a new concrete historical system of international relations. This process had global consequences, especially taking into account Eurocentrism, which has not yet been completely overcome in the world.

DECAY OF THE YALTA-POTSDAM SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Over the past four centuries, a change in the system of international relations is observed in Europe for the fifth time.

The first concrete historical system of international relations that arose out of medieval fragmentation and testified to the onset of a qualitatively new stage in the development of the continent was the system laid down by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which summed up the Thirty Years' War - in fact the first all-European war. At the same time, the foundations of international law arose, which were reflected in the famous book of Hugo Grotius "On the Law of War and Peace" (1625). This system, characterized by constantly changing coalitions that were at war with each other - which maintained the system of international balance of power - lasted for almost a century and a half, until the French Revolution of the 18th century. and the Napoleonic Wars.

The Congress of Vienna in 1815, which ended the era of the Napoleonic Wars, marked the birth of the second concrete historical system of international relations. The tone in it was set by the five great powers of that time, the so-called "pentalgia" - Great Britain, France, Russia, the Austrian and Ottoman empires. Later, this "club" included united Germany and Italy. Within the framework of the existing "European concert" for a long time the function of "arbiter of balance" was played by Great Britain - the only world power at that time. International law has been further developed. Having existed for almost 100 years, the system led to the formation of two opposing alliances - the Entente and the Triple Alliance - and ended with their conflict, which resulted in a world war.

The Versailles system, founded in 1919, became the shortest system known to us. Its brevity - only 20 years - has led some observers to speculate whether it was in fact a 20-year truce between two world wars, which together could be called a new edition of the Thirty Years' War? There are arguments in favor of such thoughts. However, the way it functions, going beyond the European framework - after the United States and Japan are connected to it, it would be more accurate to call it the Versailles-Washington system - new norms of international law, the emergence of a world universal organization - the League of Nations (even if the first experience was unsuccessful) - all this testified to its originality. A new feature was the split of the world into two opposite socio-political systems - capitalism and socialism - after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia and the formation of the Soviet Union. Another form of division of the world was the formation of authoritarian regimes in a number of European and Asian countries with their aggressive foreign policy aspirations. At the same time, the secret archives thrown out of hiding places after the defeat of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and their allies, which became the property of historians, made this system the most studied of all. Her research became a kind of laboratory, which made it possible to create a theory of international relations on the basis of a huge empirical material. The latter made it possible to take a fresh look at this specific sphere of human life. In this respect, the emergence of such a theory can be compared with the emergence of algebra along with the old arithmetic.

The new concrete-historical system of international relations that arose after the Second World War was called the Yalta-Potsdam system. A characteristic feature of this system, which came into being as a result of the collapse of the anti-Hitler coalition, was the split of the world into two socio-political camps and, accordingly, into two military-political blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Their confrontation led to an unprecedented arms race, the creation of nuclear missiles and other types of weapons of mass destruction, and for the first time in the history of mankind, the threat of general destruction loomed over it. At the same time, this race gave an unprecedented acceleration to scientific and technological progress, resulted in a scientific and technological revolution (NTR), which left a mark on the further development of mankind. Huge shifts have taken place in the socio-political structure of the world. The colonial system collapsed, and many new independent states arose on its ruins. To a large extent, such transformations came as a result of what we once called "the competition between two socio-political systems." They allowed the countries of the "Third World" to develop, led to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, which gave a powerful impetus to the democratization of the system of international relations.

This system lasted a little more than four decades and left a deep mark on the destinies of all mankind. For the first time in history, it ceased to exist not as a result of a global conflict ("hot war"), but as a result of the collapse of one of the poles that determined its development and functioning. This happened in 1989-1991. The "peaceful nature" of the collapse of the old system led to the slow, drawn-out formation of a new system of international relations, soon called "new world order". He became the fifth system known in the history of Europe and the world. The new system soon showed its own features, different from those of the previous era. For their clarification and better understanding, it is necessary to dwell at least briefly on the main reasons that led to its formation, namely, on the circumstances that contributed to the collapse of the "world socialist system" and the Soviet Union.

The relationship between the two military-political blocs that emerged after the Second World War is best described by the term "cold war". For decades, these relations experienced great fluctuations and were of a pendulum nature. After the war, the international prestige of the Soviet Union was extremely high. The blood shed by the Soviet people in their heroic struggle against the fascist aggressors covered for some time the stains of shame on the Stalinist regime. ("Winners are not judged!"). The strict centralization of the planned economy made it possible in a short time to restore the national economy destroyed by the war and achieve significant success in the further development of industry, especially in the branches associated with the production of weapons. A similar situation was observed in other people's democratic (socialist) countries. Successes in the economy in the first 10-15 post-war years veiled the rigidity of the communist regime, its inability to solve many major problems (an example is the failed policy in agriculture), the growth of political tension in society, especially in the Eastern European socialist countries. The discontent accumulated here led to the first systemic crisis of the "socialist camp" in 1956, which resulted in a change of political leadership in Poland and a popular uprising in Hungary. At the same time, the launch in October 1957 of the first artificial Earth satellite, and in April 1961 of the first man in space flight, demonstrated the scientific capabilities and industrial potential of the USSR. At the turn of the 1950s and 1960s, a military-strategic balance was established in the world, which was maintained later.

In the international relations of that time, periods of detente ("thaw") alternated with crisis situations. The most serious was the Caribbean crisis at the end of 1962, caused by the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. In its course, humanity for the first time actually found itself on the brink of a nuclear war between two superpowers. A retrospective look at the events of the Cold War shows that the Caribbean crisis was a turning point in its history. Although the arms race continued, the main means of struggle have changed. They were economic methods, tough information-psychological warfare and various subversive campaigns. The initiators of the new methods were the Western powers, primarily the United States, which were determined to use their considerable economic superiority. Moreover, since the beginning of the 1960s, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries began to experience increasing economic difficulties.

The scientific and technological revolution that unfolded from the beginning of the 1960s immediately revealed the weaknesses of the Soviet-type planned economy with its command-administrative methods of managing both the national economy and society. The revolution in computer technology and radio electronics clearly showed the backwardness of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in development and especially in the introduction of the latest technologies. At the same time, a general lag of the socialist countries in terms of the rate of development and the standard of living of the population began to be observed. This was clearly manifested when comparing these indicators with neighboring countries that were previously closely associated with them, in particular, Austria with Czechoslovakia and Hungary, Greece with Bulgaria, the GDR with the FRG, etc. It was clear that these countries needed serious reforms. However, attempts to implement them, especially in Poland, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, have shown that they are associated with changes in the political organization of society. In Czechoslovakia, this led to the first attempt to restructure social life, which resulted in the "Prague Spring" of 1968. The entire "socialist community" found itself in a state of political crisis, which demonstrated the unpreparedness of the leadership of the socialist countries for political and economic changes and even the determination to resist them. The result was the armed intervention of five socialist states in Czechoslovakia in August 1968, which discredited the very idea of ​​political and economic reforms in a socialist society. The era of "stagnation" has begun, stretching for two decades.

The events in Czechoslovakia were not the first manifestation of a crisis in the "socialist community." There have been crises before - the rupture of relations with Yugoslavia by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in 1948-1949, the June events of 1953 in Berlin, the events of 1956 in Poland and Hungary - but none of them had such an impact on the future development of all socialist countries. If we add to this the break in relations with China in the mid-1960s, the picture will be complete. The entire "socialist commonwealth" entered a period of crisis development, which at first proceeded in a latent form. It spilled out during the political crisis in Poland in 1980-1981, which ended with the introduction of martial law in the country in peacetime.

The international alignment of forces in the 60-70s of the 20th century, according to the definition of Western political scientists, was characterized by the existence of two geopolitical triangles: the USA - Europe (European NATO countries) - the USSR (more precisely, the "socialist community" in Europe) and the USA - Japan - THE USSR. Both triangles closed on the USA and were directed against the USSR. If in the military-strategic plan the USSR could maintain parity at the cost of considerable efforts, mainly due to the nuclear missile complex, then in the economic field the Western powers had an undoubted and huge advantage. And they were ready to use this advantage for political purposes.

Without stopping the arms race, the Western powers, in pursuing a new course, moved away from confrontation with force. The result was a marked relaxation of international tension, especially since the early 1970s. It also brought benefits to the socialist countries, which in the early 70s concluded a number of agreements with the FRG that were important for the legal consolidation of the post-war structure of Europe and the recognition of existing borders. The culmination of the period of détente was the signing on 1 August 1975 in Helsinki of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. He not only gave a further impetus to the development of international law, but also to a large extent codified the achievements in this area that had been available by that time. These were universal human achievements and values. However, some of the provisions included in it, primarily on "human rights", almost immediately began to be used by Western propaganda in the information-psychological war against the socialist countries, which has never been interrupted.

All the contradictions that existed in relations between the two socio-political blocs, as well as in the socio-political structure of the USSR and other socialist countries, came to the surface with the outbreak of the Afghan war in December 1979. The Western powers, primarily the United States, launched a political and propaganda campaign against the "Empire of Evil", as US President R. Reagan dubbed the USSR. A new outbreak of the Cold War followed, accompanied by attempts at an economic blockade. The latter showed the vulnerability of the Soviet economy with its one-sided orientation towards the development of military branches and heavy industry, the country's food dependence on foreign markets and the instability of its foreign trade solvency, tied to world oil prices - "petrodollars". The backwardness of Soviet industry in the latest technologies soon became apparent in the course of hostilities in Afghanistan. The war itself was a heavy burden on the country's economy.

Under such conditions, the idea of ​​the inevitability of carrying out large-scale reforms, primarily in the economy, gradually began to mature in the Soviet leadership. However, the implementation of these plans was hampered by such subjective factors as the rapid aging of members of the Soviet leadership and leapfrog with the change of leaders. After the death of L.I. Brezhnev in November 1982, who, with his cunctor policy, slowed down even the initial consideration of urgent problems, Yu.V. Andropov led a firm fight against corruption, and also began to carefully approach the development of plans for economic reform. His actions were inconsistent and contradictory. But for 15 months, of which half the time he was bedridden by a fatal illness, his tenure in power, he gave a solid impetus to the beginning of reflection and recognition of the need for reform in the country. K.U., who succeeded him. Chernenko, to whom fate released only 13 months - from February 10, 1984 to March 10, 1985 - did not show himself in anything. With his departure from the political scene, not only the "five-year plan for a magnificent funeral" ended, but also the era of Brezhnev's and post-Brezhnev's "stagnation."

With the name of the new General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev, who was elected to this post on March 11, 1985, was bound by public opinion to carry out significant changes urgently needed in society. And the first steps inspired hope for the transformations needed in all spheres of life. The following years, 1985-1991, were subsequently called "perestroika". However, a retrospective look shows that in the minds of the people who were called "foremen of perestroika", in fact, there was no thought-out plan of action, there was no clear picture of what to strive for. All their actions were spontaneous, improvised, one slogan was replaced by another without proper justification.

Following the slogan "acceleration of the country's socio-economic development" - without a deep analysis of the reasons for its deceleration in the previous period - followed the slogan "glasnost", interpreted as a way to improve the work of all parts of the state apparatus and economic management. The absence of real shifts was observed against the backdrop of rising prices, deterioration in the supply of the population and a drop in its living standards. In an environment of heightened public expectations and general excitement generated by journalism about the "blank spots" of Soviet history, of which there were a sufficient number, this led to the appearance of signs of a crisis in the country. They quickly grew in the economy, and in the political sphere, and in ideology, and in the field of interethnic relations.

The latter, especially after the outbreak of the Karabakh conflict in February 1988, which led to the emergence of major contradictions between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as both of these republics with the federal center, quickly found themselves in the focus of the country's political life. They resulted in numerous national movements, as well as openly separatist tendencies in the Baltic republics. The Soviet leadership, headed by Gorbachev, did not understand the meaning of the events at all. Being a victim of its own propaganda about "the solution of the national question in the USSR," it failed to see that behind these events was a special political layer created by the Soviet government over the long years of its domination in all the union and autonomous republics - the ethno-nomenklatura. It turned out that the Soviet leadership had no real idea even of the social anatomy of the society it led. The result turned out to be tragic for him: the core of the Soviet political structure - the party, the party apparatus - began to gradually stratify, disintegrate and separate along national lines. This was a formidable omen of the possible collapse of the country. Its first signs appeared in the summer of 1988, but were not evaluated and taken into account.

The new leadership of the USSR tried to compensate for domestic political miscalculations and failures with active foreign policy activities. But here it showed its amateurish qualities in an even more vivid form. Proceeding from the correct statement of the world's fatigue from the Cold War and the general conviction of the need to reduce nuclear weapons, Gorbachev came up with the concept of "new thinking", which preached the primacy of universal human values, and the ideas of a "common European home". Neither Gorbachev nor E.A. Shevardnadze had no diplomatic experience. Their activity in the field of foreign policy in specific questions of disarmament and the solution of bilateral problems, as a rule, resulted in unilateral concessions and was hardly compensated by reciprocal steps by the other contracting party. Gorbachev's idealistic demeanor was skillfully used by pragmatic figures in the West, who did not skimp on the highest praises addressed to him. Thus, the very principle of equality of the contracting parties was deformed, the process of detente was deformed, during which the Western partners received unilateral and unjustified advantages. Reveling in their "successes" and being in a state of euphoria, the Soviet leaders at the same time mercilessly exploited the hopes for peace that were widespread among the Soviet people. The flip side of this policy was the silencing of critical voices who spoke out against the inferiority of the current course.

Especially two-faced was the policy of the Gorbachev leadership in relation to other European socialist countries. Relations with them have long needed to be revised, to release them from paternalistic guardianship on the part of the USSR, as well as to streamline economic relations with them and between them. As you know, within the framework of the "socialist division of labor" organized by the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), the European socialist countries received raw materials from the USSR at prices significantly lower than world prices and used its market to sell their products that were not in demand elsewhere. "Perestroika" in the Soviet Union was greeted by the public of the European socialist countries not only with interest, but also with the hope that their own leaders would follow the example of their "big brother". However, this did not follow. Documents and other evidence did not convey a single fact that would indicate an attempt by the Soviet leadership to coordinate or discuss their policy with the allies. It is not surprising that the leaders of these countries felt abandoned, and the most conservative part of them considered such behavior of the Soviet leadership as a betrayal of their interests.

Characteristically, already in 1987, part of the Soviet leadership had the idea of ​​withdrawing Soviet troops from the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. She matured in a narrow circle. On November 12, 1988, it was considered by the USSR Defense Council, and on its behalf, the Ministry of Defense developed appropriate plans by the end of December of that year. At present, historians do not have any documents or evidence that such ideas were considered or discussed by the Soviet leaders with any of the leaders of the Eastern European countries or at any forum in the Warsaw Treaty Organization (OVD). The very fact that such problems are discussed without representatives of the countries concerned speaks volumes. The dependence of their regimes on Soviet support is well known. The absence of consultations with them is an indicator of the readiness of Gorbachev and his inner circle to sacrifice the interests of their allies and actually go for the liquidation of the Warsaw Pact without any agreement with the Western powers on reciprocal and similar steps on the part of NATO. What caused such readiness and haste? Considering that all this took place at least a year before the "velvet revolutions" in these countries, it is difficult to get rid of the thought of the deep interconnection of these events. Even a mere leak of information about such musings to the Kremlin could have far-reaching consequences.

The spring of 1989 proved to be fateful.

On April 6, in Poland, the so-called "round table" ended its work, which lasted two months, but in reality - political negotiations of the ruling party, the government, the opposition Solidarity, a number of other parties and public organizations. The agreement reached included the rejection of the ruling party's monopoly on power, political pluralism, major political transformation and the holding of free elections. For the first time in the practice of the socialist countries, the ruling party renounced power, which was of fundamental importance.

On May 25, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, elected on an alternative basis, opened in Moscow. It was the first time that representatives of the opposition and the "aggressively obedient" party majority clashed publicly. The days of his work shocked the entire Soviet public. People's moods were changing right before their eyes. The CPSU suffered a serious moral defeat. Both of these events, in turn, had a huge impact on other European socialist countries, giving rise to a chain reaction of similar phenomena in them. The latter resulted in revolutionary transformations.

The "velvet revolutions" of 1989 were preceded by cardinal reforms of the political system in Poland and Hungary, agreements on which were reached during negotiations with the opposition - respectively in April and August of this year. In all the Eastern European socialist countries, a large protest potential had been accumulated, which was now fueled by news of developments in the USSR, Poland and Hungary. The first revolutionary breakthrough occurred in the GDR, where social problems were intertwined with national ones ( "we are one people"). The ruling circles of West Germany had a great influence on the development of processes in this country. The flow of refugees from the GDR was accompanied by mass demonstrations that began in early November in Berlin. On November 9, 1989, the decision of the renewed government of the GDR to open the border with the FRG and West Berlin followed. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the symbol of the Cold War in the center of Europe, was not only symbolic. Subsequent events led to the steady dismantling of the socialist regime in the GDR. Further events developed according to the "domino principle". "Velvet revolutions" followed in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, and then in Romania, where, unlike other countries, bloodshed took place. The socialist regimes fell in this way in all the European socialist countries. Together with them, the socialist ideas in their orthodox version also suffered defeat.

The foreign policy consequences of the "velvet revolutions" were enormous. It became clear that the Warsaw Treaty ceased to exist, and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was in fact a foregone conclusion. Formally, the ATS dissolved itself in early 1991. The "Socialist Commonwealth" collapsed. It was an event of epochal significance. The then Soviet propaganda and the world media tried to gloss over and obscure its consequences, each for their own reasons. The question of the relationship between internal and external factors in the development of events still remains open, in particular, the real role and degree of involvement in them of both the Soviet Union and the Western powers, primarily the United States. The first visible effect was a sharp shift in the balance of power in favor of the Western powers. The documents did not convey the concern of the Gorbachev leadership in connection with the fact that the military-strategic parity of the two blocs, achieved at the cost of many years of efforts and gigantic funds, was sharply violated. The question of the fate of another bloc - NATO, the need for its reorganization, was put on the agenda, but the matter did not go beyond talk. As a result, the process of détente that was developing at that time began to resemble a one-sided game.

Indicative were the unprecedented and unjustified concessions made by Gorbachev in the unification of the FRG and the GDR, which shocked even West German politicians. Although the Soviet Union had significant moral, historical and legal rights in resolving the German issue, they were not used. As a result, the unification of Germany took place in the form of absorption of the GDR by the FRG. The military-political status of the new united state and the form of Germany's participation in NATO were not discussed, assurances about the non-proliferation of NATO to the east and the non-inclusion of any of the former Warsaw Pact countries into this bloc were not fixed in a contractual form, the interests of the USSR related to the withdrawal of his troops from German territory and the very timing of this withdrawal, no material compensation was received for the abandoned buildings and property, for the concessions made. The consequences of this came later.

While the Warsaw Pact was already living its last days, NATO leaders did not even think of reforming the military organization and turning it into a political organization. In order to somehow soften the impression of a sharp imbalance of power, which was especially striking after the reunification of Germany, proclaimed on October 3, 1990, the leaders of the Western powers made broad statements about the end of the period of confrontation, did not skimp on conciliatory gestures. Thus, on November 17, 1990, in Vienna, representatives of the member states of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), an organization established by decision of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement, signed a document on measures to build confidence and security in Europe.

Two days later, on November 19, in Paris, at a new meeting of representatives of the CSCE countries, the "Paris Charter for a New Europe" was adopted, which spoke of the inadmissibility of the use of force or the threat of force against any CSCE participating state. At the same time, the Paris Treaty was signed between NATO and the countries of the Warsaw Pact (although the latter had turned into a fiction by that time) on parity in conventional weapons based on reasonable sufficiency. The "Charter of Paris" was widely interpreted as the funeral of the "cold war", but the basis of the equality of the parties, violated by that time, had already begun to give the first distortions in the structure of international relations.

The collapse of the socialist regimes at the end of 1989 in the Eastern European countries and shifts in the international arena had a great impact on the internal situation of the Soviet Union. The ethnocratic clans in the union republics sharply intensified, which began to resolutely seek the expansion of their rights, greater independence from the federal center, embarked on the path of arbitrariness, and in some cases outright separatism, which was typical of the Baltic republics. Of particular importance was the formation of a political center in the Russian Federation, where it had not existed until that time. After Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, it was he who led the opposition to the federal center and Gorbachev. After the declaration of sovereignty by the Russian Federation on June 12, 1990, a "parade of sovereignties" of other republics followed in the country. Gradually, a strange alliance of Russian democrats of various shades began to take shape, mainly from Moscow, Leningrad and other large cities, oriented towards Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, with ethnocratic clans in the union republics. It was he who ultimately turned out to be fatal for the fate of the Soviet Union.

There is literature and testimonies of memoirists about the processes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, recreating in detail the entire history of their genesis, the atmosphere of behind-the-scenes intrigues and political combinations associated with Gorbachev's attempts by signing a new union treaty to preserve at least part of the power that eluded his hands, the "conspiracy of democrats" and the "conspiracy of the presidents", the maturation of the idea of ​​introducing a state of emergency in the country and the mediocre attempt at the putsch on August 19-21, 1991, which led to the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. The Belovezhskaya Accords of December 8, 1991, which terminated the formal existence of the USSR and also proclaimed the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), were not ignored.

From all this variety of events and processes, for the purposes of this study, it seems essential to conclude that the Soviet Union collapsed for internal political reasons, although with the most attentive and interested attitude towards these processes and their support from outside.

Was the collapse of the USSR inevitable? as is often stated in the propaganda literature? Was there an alternative to dismembering him?

There is not a speculative, but a concrete historical answer to this question, contained in the example of "perestroika" in China. Faced with similar problems and starting from a much worse starting position, the Chinese leadership, led by DengXiaoping, first developed a well-thought-out reform plan and only then began to consistently implement it. Although the Chinese "perestroika" began earlier and by the beginning of the Soviet one had already brought the first tangible results, its experience was not in demand in the Kremlin. Their own unplanned and ill-conceived actions soon turned "perestroika" into a "catastrophe".

The collapse of a great power in 1991 became a turning point not only in the fate of the new "independent states" formed on its expanses, but also in the history of Europe and the whole world. How to characterize the changes that have taken place? Naturally, the Western powers and their propaganda apparatus welcomed the disappearance of their formidable adversary, whom they continued to distrust even after the end of the Cold War, which preceded its collapse.

But the West is not the whole world. There were also opposite opinions. At an international scientific conference held in Beijing in May 2000 on the topic "The Causes of the Collapse of the USSR and the Consequences for Europe", Chinese social scientists regarded this event as the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. with the most severe consequences for the whole world. Considering that the 20th century was saturated to the limit with fateful events and survived two world wars, then such an assessment makes one think about many things.

And in Russia itself, the collapse of the Soviet Union was regarded by many, including those who welcomed the collapse of the communist regime, as a national catastrophe and the collapse of the centuries-old Russian state. These include, for example, A.I. Solzhenitsyn. In any case, there is no doubt that many future generations of people who now live in the new state formations that have arisen on its territory will have to deal with the consequences of the collapse of the USSR.

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations is the designation of the system of international relations adopted in historiography, fixed by the treaties and agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences.

For the first time, the issue of a post-war settlement at the highest level was raised during the Tehran Conference in 1943, where even then the strengthening of the position of the two powers - the USSR and the USA, which were increasingly taking a decisive role in determining the parameters of the post-war world. That is, even during the war, the prerequisites for the formation of the foundations of the future bipolar world are emerging. This trend has already been fully manifested in Yalta ((February 4–11, 1945) - the second multilateral meeting of the leaders of the three great powers of the anti-Hitler coalition - the USSR, the USA and Great Britain)and Potsdam(from July 17 to August 2, 1945) conferences, when the two superpowers of the USSR and the USA played the main role in solving the key problems associated with the formation of a new model of the Defense Ministry.

The Potsdam era set a historical precedent, because never before had the whole world been artificially divided into spheres of influence between two states. The bipolar alignment of forces quickly led to the beginning of the confrontation between the capitalist and socialist camps, referred to in history as the Cold War.

The Potsdam era is characterized by an extreme ideologization of international relations, as well as the constant threat of a direct military confrontation between the USSR and the USA.

The end of the Potsdam era was marked by the collapse of the world socialist camp, following a failed attempt to reform the economy of the Soviet Union, and was sealed by the 1991 Belovezhskaya Agreement.

Peculiarities:

1. The multipolar organization of the structure of international relations was liquidated, a bipolar structure of post-war MODs arose, in which two superstates, the USSR and the USA, played the leading role. A significant separation of the military, political, economic, cultural and ideological capabilities of these two powers from other countries of the world led to the formation of two main, dominant "centers of power" that had a system-forming influence on the structure and nature of the entire international system.

2. Confrontational nature - a systemic, complex confrontation in the economic, political, military, ideological and other spheres, a confrontation that from time to time acquired the character of an acute conflict, crisis interaction. This type of confrontation in the format of mutual threats to use force, balancing on the brink of a real war, was called the Cold War.

3. Post-war bipolarity took shape in the era of nuclear weapons, which led to a revolution, both in military and political strategies.

4. The distribution of the world into the sphere of influence of two superstates both in Europe and on the periphery, the emergence of "divided" countries (Germany, Korea, Vietnam, China) and the formation of military-political blocs, under the leadership of the USSR and the USA, led to globalization and deep geopolitical structuring systemic confrontation and confrontation.

5. Post-war bipolarity took the form of a political and ideological confrontation, an ideological confrontation between the "free world" of Western democracies led by the United States and the "socialist world" led by the USSR. The USA wanted to establish American hegemony in the world under the slogan "Pax Americana", the USSR - asserted the inevitability of the victory of socialism on a world scale. The Soviet-American confrontation looked primarily as a rivalry between a system of political and ethical ideals, social and moral principles.

6. The post-war world has ceased to be predominantly Eurocentric, the international system has turned into a global, global one. The destruction of colonial systems, the formation of regional and subregional subsystems of international relations was carried out under the dominant influence of the horizontal spread of the systemic bipolar confrontation and the trends of economic and political globalization.

7. The Yalta-Potsdam order did not have a strong contractual and legal basis. The agreements that formed the basis of the post-war order were either oral, not officially recorded, or were fixed mainly in a declarative form, or their full implementation was blocked as a result of the sharpness of contradictions and confrontation between the main subjects of post-war international relations.

8. The UN, one of the central elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system, became the main mechanism for coordinating efforts to exclude wars and conflicts from international life by harmonizing relations between states and creating a global system of collective security. Post-war realities, the intransigence of confrontational relations between the USSR and the USA significantly limited the ability of the UN to realize its statutory functions and goals. The main task of the UN was mainly focused on the prevention of an armed clash between the USSR and the USA both at the global and regional levels, that is, on maintaining the stability of Soviet-American relations as the main prerequisite for international security and peace in the postwar period.

Theoretical schools in international studies. Real-Political School of International Relations Studies (Realism and Neorealism)

Realism

The main provisions of classical realism boil down to the following:

International relations are

interaction between states that are essentially homogeneous, are unitary participants and, as people,

selfish in their aspirations.

The interaction of states is carried out chaotically, since

there is no "supranational power center". As a result international relations are "anarchic".

· Striving for power, in particular to military superiority

stuyu, which guarantees the security of states, is the main

tiv their activities.

· States first of all proceed from their own interests. At

In this they may take into account moral considerations, but not a single

of them does not have the right to determine "what is good,

abuse of moral speculation.

The political reality is different from the economic one: for

power is the main thing for politics, wealth is for the economy.

In the world of international relations dominated by power

factor, states should always be on full alert.

Morgenthau's Six Principles of Political Realism:

1. the probabilistic nature of political activity in the field of international relations.

2. the principle of national interests, understood in terms of power and might.

3. Foreign policy cannot be viewed through psychological phenomena.

4. political realism recognizes the moral significance of political action

5. Political realism denies the identity of the morality of a particular nation and universal moral laws.

6. The political sphere is autonomous;

Common to representatives of political realism are the following key provisions:

1. The main participants in international relationsare sovereign states. The realists believe what strong states do what they can, and weak states do what the strong allow them.
2 . "National interests" - the main category theories of political realism, the main motive and key incentive for state policy in the international arena.

As for the state of peace between states, it is ideal, because it always has a temporary character.
3 . The main goal of the state in international politics is to ensure its own security. However, they can never feel safe and are constantly striving to increase their own resources and improve their quality.

4. The power of the state is inseparable from its strength, which is one of the decisive means of ensuring national security in the international arena

The most famous representatives- Reinhold Niebuhr, Frederick Schumann, George Kennan, George Schwarzenberger, Kenneth Thompson, Henry Kissinger, Edward Carr, Arnold Wolfers and others - determined the paths of the science of international relations for a long time. Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron became the undisputed leaders in this direction.

5. Is it possible to change the nature of international relations? Realists regard this question as central to the study of international politics. However, in their opinion, as long as states exist, they will remain the main participants in international politics, functioning according to their own immutable laws.

6. In other words, according to supporters of political realism, it is possible to change the configuration of political forces, mitigate the consequences of international anarchy, establish more stable and more secure interstate relations, but the nature of international relations cannot be changed.

neorealism

The main provisions of neorealism:

§ International relations are considered as an integral system functioning in accordance with certain laws. Only system analysis can reveal the nature of international relations.

§ Neorealism shifts the center of explanation of international behavior to the level of the international system. Relations between the great powers and other states are not unequivocally anarchic, as they depend mainly on the will of the great powers.

§ In addition, Waltz identified three basic principles of the structure of international relations ("structural triad"). First, states are primarily driven by the motive of survival. Secondly, only states remain participants in international relations, since other actors have not caught up and have not surpassed the leading powers in terms of the presence of powers and power capabilities. Thirdly, states are heterogeneous, and differ in capabilities and potential.

§ Neorealism seeks to find and isolate economic relations from political ones.

§ striving for methodological rigor.

§ The main actors are states and their unions.

§ Them main goals - protection of national interests, the security of the state and the preservation of the status quo in international relations.

§ The main means of achieving these goals are force and alliances.

§ The driving force of international relations lies in the harsh, deterrent effect of the structural constraints of the international system.

Similarities between neorealism and political realism:

§ Both realists and neorealists believe that, since the nature of international relations has not changed for thousands of years, there is no reason to believe that they will acquire any other character in the future.

§ Both theories believe that all attempts to change the international system, based on liberal-idealistic grounds, are doomed to failure in advance.

YALTA-POTSDAM SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - the order of the world order that arose after the Second World War. Its basis was laid by the agreements of the victorious great powers that recognized each other's spheres of influence in the world conflict, formalized at the Yalta (1945) and Potsdam (1945) conferences. The main features of this system are bipolarity, due to the relative military-political and economic superiority of the two superpowers (the USSR and the USA); the presence of weapons of mass destruction capable of repeatedly destroying the new poles of the world order; military-political blocs formed around the superpowers that were in confrontation.

Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations , - like the previous ones, was recognized as part of the Westphalian model of the world. Position on the balance of power, which at one time the League of Nations tried to oppose principle of collective security, again became one of the key elements of the world order in the second half of the 20th century. However, in geopolitical and military-strategic terms, the world was divided into spheres of influence between two superpowers - the USSR and the USA - and their allies; for the preservation and spread of this influence was a fierce struggle, largely due to ideological considerations. Subsequently, such a structure of the world order was defined as bipolar(bipolar).

During the war years, the major Allied Powers—the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and China—took steps towards the creation of a new international organization based on the platform of their opposition to the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan. Adopted on June 12, 1941, at the height of the war, the Inter-Allied Declaration called for post-war international cooperation. The Atlantic Charter, signed on August 14, 1941, by US President F. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister W. Churchill, was the first sign of the intentions of Great Britain and the United States to create a new international organization immediately after the restoration of peace. The term "united nations" first appeared on January 1, 1942 in the Declaration of the United Nations, signed by 26 representatives of states in Washington, DC. The Moscow and Teheran Conferences in October and December 1943 laid the foundation for this new organization, and the Dumbarton Oaks Villa Conference in Washington (August 21-October 7, 1944) was the first meeting specifically organized to discuss its structure. In Dumbarton Oaks, Proposals were prepared for the creation of a General International Organization, which were approved by the USA, China, Great Britain and the USSR. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the Big Five powers - the United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union and China - worked out a formula for resolving disputes.

The UN was formally established at the Conference on International Organization held April 25-June 26, 1945 in San Francisco. On June 26, representatives of 50 countries unanimously adopted the Charter of the United Nations. The charter entered into force on October 24, after the majority of representatives of the signatory countries confirmed their authority to ratify this document; since then, this date has been celebrated annually as United Nations Day. Poland, not represented at the Conference, later signed the Charter and became the 51st member of the original UN.

The creation of the UN, like many other diplomatic undertakings, was a reflection of intersecting and sometimes polar interests. The major powers, in creating the new organization, hoped that they would be able to maintain after the Second World War the global power that they had established, relying on their military might, as victors. However, the Cold War, which began soon after, began to put limits on the powers of the new organization.

The UN Charter intended to turn the Organization into a "center for coordinating the actions of nations" on the path to achieving international peace. Its members pledged to support the UN in any action it undertakes and to refrain from the use of force against other nations except in self-defence.

New members are admitted to the UN on the recommendation of the Security Council, and at least two-thirds of the participants in the General Assembly must vote for their entry into the ranks of the Organization. Most of the 51 states that originally signed the Charter were Western nations. In 1955, 16 new members were admitted to the UN, including several non-Western states, and in 1960, another 17 African countries. As a result of the processes of gradual decolonization, the representation of the United Nations has become increasingly broad and diverse. By 1993, about two dozen new states had entered the UN, which emerged as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and some countries of Eastern Europe, and the number of member states reached 182. Membership in the UN became almost universal. And only a very small number of countries (Switzerland among them) are not members of the UN.

In the 1970s and 1980s, US officials, including President R. Reagan, began to show disdain for the UN. US membership dues were delayed, and the country's position, especially given the growth in the number of non-Western states, was characterized by growing isolation. The United States withdrew from UNESCO, expressing dissatisfaction with the "politicization" of this UN educational organization. However, in 1988, the former US representative to the UN, George W. Bush, was elected American president, who eventually restored the country's status as the main member of the Organization and repaid part of the contribution debts.

The new involvement in UN affairs allowed the US in 1990 to reach a consensus among the great powers on a Security Council resolution authorizing military action to restore the statehood of Kuwait, occupied by Iraq. On January 16, 1991, a coalition led by the United States took military action against Iraq under the auspices of the UN.

Although business is conducted in six different languages ​​(English, Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, French), only English and French are official languages ​​of the UN.

The Crimean Conference, on the initiative of the American delegation, adopted an addendum to the draft worked out in Dumbarton Oaks on the question of the procedure for voting in the UN Security Council. The statement of the American delegation, made on February 6, 1945 by US Secretary of State Stettinius, contained an analysis of Roosevelt's proposal that "all major decisions relating to the preservation of peace, including all economic and military coercive measures" should be taken only with the unanimity of the permanent members Council. This proposal formed the basis of Article 27 of the Charter.

At the conference, a number of important decisions were made on military issues and on the problems of the post-war order of the world, although, as at previous conferences, serious disagreements appeared in the Crimea. Plans and terms for the final defeat of enemy forces were agreed upon, as well as the coordination of military operations in Germany. Declaring that Allied strikes would be carried out until the complete unconditional surrender of the enemy, the United States, the USSR and England emphasized that their "uncompromising goal is the destruction of German militarism and Nazism and the creation of guarantees that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the whole world. ". Further, the three powers declared that they would not seek the destruction of the German people and after the eradication of Nazism and militarism, he would be able to get a worthy place in the world community. The USA, the USSR and England agreed to occupy three zones in Germany, and to create an allied administration and a special control body of the commanders-in-chief of the three powers with headquarters in Berlin for command and control. It was decided to invite France to occupy a certain zone and take part in the work of the control body - the Allies agreed that Germany would be obliged to compensate for the damage that she had caused to the Allied Powers "in kind to the maximum extent possible, for which a special reparations commission.

A large place in the work of the conference was occupied by the Polish question, which caused a sharp controversy between Stalin and Churchill, mainly about the German-Polish border. As for the eastern borders, everyone agreed that it should follow the Curzon line.

Questions about Yugoslavia were also considered in the Crimea and the "Declaration on a Liberated Europe" was adopted. The Powers have created a mechanism for constant consultation with each other. Such a mechanism was to be the conferences of foreign ministers that were constantly held in turn in the three capitals. At the suggestion of the American side, the issue of the entry of the USSR into the war against Japan was agreed upon no later than three months after the surrender of Germany under the following conditions: preservation of the existing situation of the Mongolian People's Republic, restoration of Russia's rights violated by the Portsmouth Peace Treaty (1905), transfer Soviet Union of the Kuril Islands.

The decisions of the Crimean Conference were of great importance for the speedy end of the war and for the post-war organization.

All the basic principles of the post-war settlement and solution of the question of Germany were adopted at the Potsdam (Berlin) Conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, the USA and Britain. It took place from July 17 to August 2, 1945 with a two-day break during the parliamentary elections in England. The delegations were headed: the Soviet one - by I. V. Stalin, the American one - by G. Truman, the British one - by W. Churchill, and K. Attlee was his deputy.

The Conservatives were defeated in the British parliamentary elections. Labor, which collected 48.5% of the vote, received 389 seats in the House of Commons, which accounted for 62% of all mandates. As a result, K. Attlee, having become prime minister, returned to Potsdam as the head of the British delegation.

Despite the differences in approaches to resolving a number of issues of post-war settlement in Germany, the conference managed to come to an agreement and sign agreements. The goals and objectives of the Control Council, which was the supreme authority on German territory, the principles of relations with Germany in the political and economic fields were determined. The main directions in the implementation of these principles were demilitarization, denazification and democratization.

The victorious powers in Potsdam reached an agreement on the eradication of German militarism. The complete disarmament and liquidation of all German industry that could be used for the production of armaments was envisaged. Prohibited militaristic and Nazi propaganda-1 yes. All Nazi laws were repealed.

Three countries declared that war criminals must be punished. It was decided to bring them to "a quick and fair trial" and by September 1, 1945, the first list of Nazi criminals would be published. Later, peace treaties with countries participating in the war on the side of Germany included provisions on the need to detain and extradite war criminals.

To determine the specific guilt of the persons who unleashed the Second World War, the allied states - the USSR, the USA, England and France - created the International Military Tribunal. He began work in Nuremberg on November 20, 1945 and finished it on October 1, 1946, with the death sentence on 12 major war criminals: Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sukel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, Bormann (in absentia); Hess, Funk, Reder were sentenced to life imprisonment, Spreer and Schirach were sentenced to 20 years in prison; by the age of 15 - Noirat; by the age of 10 - Doenitz.

The USSR, the USA and England agreed on reparations for Germany. The Soviet Union received as reparations industrial equipment from its zone of occupation, as well as 25% of industrial capital equipment from the western zones. The USA, England and other countries carried out their reparation claims at the expense of the western zones of occupation and German assets abroad. The Allies agreed that after satisfaction of the reparations claims, as many resources as needed for Germany to continue to exist without outside help should be left.

As for territorial issues, the city of Koenigsberg with the area adjacent to it was transferred to the USSR (in July 1946 it was renamed Kaliningrad), the border between Poland and Germany was established along the line of the Oder and Western Neisse rivers, part of East Prussia and the city of Danzig went to Poland.

The Allies decided to move part of the German population from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to Germany. At the same time, attention was paid to the fact that the Control Council should monitor the humane attitude towards him.

The issue of concluding peace treaties with Italy, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary was also resolved. To prepare these treaties, a Council of Foreign Ministers (CMFA) was established, which was also to deal with the problem of the former Italian colonies.

The decisions of the Potsdam Conference were of great importance for relations with Germany and the development of international relations in Europe, although the United States, Britain and France soon began to gradually move away from the agreed line.