The alignment of socio-political forces and their attitude to the Second World War. The new balance of power in the world after the end of World War II

World War II is a coalition war. Along with the main and decisive force - the USSR, a great contribution to the overall victory over the fascist bloc was made by the USA, Great Britain, France and other capitalist states that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition, whose armies, having significant human and material resources, conducted a number of major operations in North Africa , the basins of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and in Europe.

True, the bourgeois countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, above all the USA and Britain, only partially used their potential in the interests of fighting the fascist bloc. This was due to the very nature of state-monopoly capitalism, the class structure and the alignment of socio-political forces, as well as the policy pursued by the ruling circles of these states both in relation to their ally - the USSR, and in relation to a common enemy.

The ruling classes of the bourgeois states of the anti-Hitler coalition, the military-industrial complex that had developed in the United States, even during the war years, sought to defend and strengthen the positions of capitalism. They subordinated to their interests the strategic planning of operations and the timing of their implementation. One of the main ones was the calculation to place the main burden of the war on the Soviet Union and its Armed Forces. In deciding to support the USSR in the war against Nazi Germany, President F. Roosevelt, in the opinion of one of the prominent US diplomats A. Harriman, hoped to limit his country's participation "mainly by the use of naval and air forces" (125) .

The war contributed to the further development of state-monopoly capitalism, the participation of monopolists in the state apparatus and government increased, which influenced the development and implementation of the government course.

The process of economic concentration developed especially rapidly in the United States. The giant monopolies actually controlled the state machine, its most important administrative links. For example, the chairman of the board of directors of the United States Steel Corporation, E. Stettinius, headed the Lend-Lease Administration for a number of years, and then the US State Department. In the military oil department, a representative of ARAMCO (Arabian-American Oil Company) held a leading position. The vice-president of another American oil company, Bahrain Petroleum, was a member of the government commission on oil issues and, in addition, a special assistant to the undersecretary of state. Many directors of firms during the war were on public service USA.

In Great Britain, the war years are also characterized by the energetic intrusion of the main groups of the financial oligarchy into the sphere of government controlled. Responsible posts in ministries, military and military-economic departments were occupied by heads of monopoly associations. The part of big capital associated with American concerns was gaining more and more weight in the affairs of the British state.

Closer ties between the monopolies and the state apparatus were also established in other capitalist countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. In Canada and Australia the big bourgeoisie has consolidated its influence; at the same time, the dependence of both countries on US imperialism increased. With the help of the system of united bodies of state-monopoly control, which took shape during the war, the integration of the economies of the USA and Canada, which was beneficial for the American monopolies, was carried out.

The development of state-monopoly capitalism, the expansion of the functions of the bourgeois state during the war years, caused a significant growth of its apparatus and the complication of its structure. Special bodies for managing the military economy, various ministries, government commissions, and councils appeared. Bureaucratization and centralization of state power intensified.

The solution of important state questions, including military ones, was placed in the hands of a small number of persons and committees, directly or indirectly representing the interests of the monopolies. In England, for example, the system of war cabinet committees became the central link of the entire government apparatus. The concentration of executive power was also achieved due to the fact that the Prime Minister simultaneously performed the duties of the Minister of Defense.

The importance of elective institutions in the political structure of bourgeois states has noticeably declined. In the UK, this was further facilitated by the pre-election "truce" between the main bourgeois and Labor parties. Only in rare cases did parliament have a real influence on decision-making: in May 1940, for example, it refused to trust the discredited government of N. Chamberlain.

In an effort to direct the legislative bodies in the right direction, finance capital retained its representation in them. In the English parliament of the 1935 convocation (in wartime its composition did not change), 775 directorial posts in various banks, companies and trusts were held by 181 conservatives. They held key positions in the British economy (126) In the parliament elected in July 1945, among the 611 deputies there were 117 directors of companies, industrialists, merchants. The subordination of the Parliament to the monopolies was also ensured with the help of the "lobby" system - behind-the-scenes agents of large monopolies (127) . Not limited to direct participation in the work of the congress, control over parties, monopolistic associations and individual concerns recruited special persons to "process" congressmen and senators, and the number of lobbyists was steadily increasing. This system, which became widespread in the United States, was essentially a kind of "third chamber" of Congress.

The leading monopoly associations, which possessed enormous material resources and the main levers of economic power, determined all the activities of the bourgeois governments. The main directions in the military-economic sphere were connected with the mobilization of resources and the establishment of military production, the organization of defense and armed struggle, as well as the preparation of reconversion. State regulation of the economy was carried out on terms favorable primarily to big capital, which received all sorts of benefits. The US government, for example, from June 1940 to September 1944 gave private industrialists $175 billion worth of military orders (128).

In the course of the war, the bourgeois countries were able to reorganize their economies on a war footing. However, the capitalist mode of production ruled out the possibility of a full and rational use of resources in the interests of the speediest defeat of the enemy. The owners of the largest monopolies dictated to the governments their conditions and terms for mobilizing the economy for the needs of the war, which often contradicted the needs of the front and rear. Even after the completion of the restructuring of the economy, at the moments of the "peak" of military production, the use of resources in the interests of conducting an armed struggle against the enemy was not effective enough.

The struggle between individual monopoly groupings and their connections had a restraining effect on military and economic efforts. Thus, monopoly cartel deals hindered the creation of the synthetic rubber industry even in 1942, when America lost its main markets for the purchase of natural rubber in Asia. The oil companies were opposed, and in Congress - a bloc of large farmers who promoted their technology for producing rubber based on agricultural products. It was only at the end of the year that the construction of enterprises for the production of synthetic rubber began in Texas and other states (129).

In the course of the war and as a result, the ties between the monopolies, representatives of science and the military leadership became stronger. main role monopolies played in this alliance, which controlled the process of creating an atomic bomb. Even before the end of the war, an administrative elite formed from among businessmen, which in the post-war period also maintained a connection between industrialists and military circles. It is not surprising that it was D. Eisenhower - the commander-in-chief of the allied expeditionary forces in Europe in 1944 - 1945, and later (1953 - 1961) the President of the United States - who called this union a "military-industrial complex" (130) .

The bourgeois political parties were not interested in the maximum use of material and spiritual forces to fight the fascist bloc. The war affected their activities, but did not change their main political line. In the USA, Great Britain and a number of other capitalist countries, the system of two or more parties has retained the significance of an institution designed to consolidate the rule of the ruling class. For example, in the United States of America, legislation was drafted that met the needs of state-monopoly capitalism, and by the end of the war, a bloc of the conservative wing of the Democratic and Republican parties had formed and strengthened in Congress. The shift to the right in the US two-party system was noted in confidential documents by the British Embassy in Washington (131). In a political review for the fourth quarter of 1943, Lord Halifax wrote: "Extremely conservative forces, represented by certain banking circles and the old guard in the Republican party machine, hope to take advantage of the upcoming elections and the expected end of the war with Germany in order to establish extreme conservatism in power." (132) .

President Roosevelt could not - and did not set a goal - to overcome dependence on the reactionary bipartisan bloc in Congress. True, in the summer of 1944 he planned to create a "coalition of liberals" from members of the Democratic and Republican parties (133). However, this plan was not realized. The retreats of Roosevelt and his like-minded people from the liberal course in the domestic policy of the country weakened their position in the state-political structure of the United States.

Since the end of the war, right-wing forces in both parties have gone on the offensive. One of the leaders of the Republican Party, Senator A. Vandenberg, wrote in his diary on January 2, 1945: “I believe that the country badly needs such a political party that would stand “to the right” and not “to the left” of the center” (134) . With the arrival in White House President H. Truman, big business began to energetically turn the state machine in the direction of strengthening internal reaction and the policy of the Cold War.

In Great Britain, the parties of big monopoly capital, which compromised themselves in the 1930s by the reactionary internal and foreign policy, found it expedient to block with other parties. From May 1940 to May 1945 the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberals and Labor. Nevertheless, with the majority of seats in parliament, they played a leading role in the government. But, despite the facade of the "national" coalition, the influence of the conservatives on the voters in 1942 - 1945. fell; the bulk of the party underestimated the growth of democratic sentiment in the country.

The Conservative Party of Canada in 1942 renamed itself Progressive Conservative. True, organizational restructuring measures, as well as attempts to update ideological and political doctrines, did not help it significantly strengthen its position in the country.

Far-right organizations and pro-fascist groups continued to exist in a number of capitalist states (in the United States, for example, these included the American Freedom League and America First).

A characteristic political situation has developed in France. Even before the war, pro-fascist elements began to infiltrate the traditional parties. Part of the right-wing leaders of the French Socialist Party formed a group of "neo-socialists", which had a negative impact on public opinion. Progressives, especially those who advocated strengthening cooperation with the Soviet Union, were not only criticized by the "neo-socialists" but also publicly insulted. They believed that it was not necessary to prevent the aggression of the Reich in Central and South-Eastern Europe. The ruling circles of France, refusing to cooperate with the USSR and organize a collective rebuff to the aggressor, predetermined the military defeat of the “Third Republic” in 1940.

The most reactionary part of the bourgeoisie, which supported Hitler, handed over power to the Vichy government, a regime of fascist mud that was pleasing to the occupiers. With its establishment, the influx of representatives of the financial oligarchy to government posts increased, and ties between French and German military-industrial trusts and concerns expanded. The "classical" right-wing parliamentary parties supported the head of the Vichy regime, F. Petain. The French Socialist Party was divided: most of the socialists were on the side of this regime, the other part joined the resistance movement. In 1943, the Socialist Party was reorganized and all the Peténists were expelled from its ranks.

After the liberation from the invaders in France, a new structure of state power began to take shape, which by the end of the Second World War had not yet fully taken shape. A distinctive feature of the political situation in the country was a sharp undermining of the positions of the forces of reaction and collaborationism, that is, the monopolists, the top of the army, the church and the bureaucracy. In the Provisional Government of the French Republic, formed in June 1944, representatives of the main political parties associated with the resistance movement, both with its left, democratic, and bourgeois forces, took an active part.

During the war years, the political system of other European countries experienced a deep crisis, which was the result of the anti-national policy of the ruling classes. The territory of many of them was subjected to full or partial occupation, because the state, as the most important link in the political system, as well as the armed forces, were unable to organize a rebuff to the aggressor.

The broad masses of the people were the social force in the bourgeois countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, ready to fight to the bitter end against fascism. In this struggle the proletariat, communist and workers' parties acted most consistently. If until December 1941, writes W. Foster, the majority of the American people supported Roosevelt's policy of "neutrality" and the use of "any means, but not war", then after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the people of the United States "fully willingly joined the armed fight. He, without stint, gave his sons and daughters and his material values ​​”(135) . The workers of Great Britain insistently demanded an end to the government's policy of "limited war commitments". It was they who "resolutely supported unlimited efforts to achieve victory" (136) .

In the USA, Great Britain and other bourgeois countries, the working class has shown its readiness to make great sacrifices in the name of defending national independence and defeating the aggressors as soon as possible. At the same time, the anti-fascist character of the war on the part of the anti-Hitler coalition did not and could not remove the most acute contradictions in the internal political, socio-economic life of the bourgeois countries. Deep conflicts between workers and entrepreneurs, the strike struggle reflected the contradictions of the capitalist system.

In the struggle against the working people, the bourgeoisie, the parties and government circles that represented its interests, also resorted to social maneuvering. So, for example, the Churchill government, after a long resistance, promised to start implementing social reforms, but only after the end of the war. Big capital preferred, as a rule, the frontal attack method. In the United States, an influential part of the bourgeoisie, opposed to the New Deal neo-liberals, sought to use state power to attack the democratic rights of workers and their organizations. In 1943, Congress approved the Connally-Smith Act, the first federal labor statute that was actually aimed at banning strikes against trade unions as a social institution. Anti-worker laws were also adopted in other bourgeois countries of the coalition, and a phenomenon remained characteristic, which even V. I. Lenin noted as "antagonism between imperialism that denies democracy and the masses striving for democracy" (137) .

However, it should be noted that in the context of the anti-fascist struggle, the level of organization of the labor movement increased, the number of working-class parties and trade unions increased, which became a serious factor in socio-political life. Social changes in England, for example, also found expression in the growth of the political activity of the electorate.

In many countries the Communist Parties have substantially strengthened their ranks and influence among the masses. In 1945, during the parliamentary elections, over 100,000 people voted for the British Communists (four times more than in 1935), two Communists were elected to Parliament. The Workers' Progressive Party of Canada received more than 100,000 votes in the 1945 elections; for the first time, a communist became a member of the federal parliament.

1939 - 1945 were an important stage in the development of the Social Democratic parties. The political prestige of representatives of the left currents of social democracy, who joined the general anti-fascist struggle, increased. At the same time, right-wing leaders were given, through their participation in bourgeois governments, greater opportunities for pursuing a reformist course.

A significant event in the public life of Great Britain was the victory of the Laborites in the general elections in July 1945. About 12 million votes, or 48 percent, were given for them. total number voters. This allowed them to get 393 deputies into parliament, that is, 239 more than in 1935 (138). The reason for such a major victory is the rise of democratic sentiments among the broad masses, their desire for radical social transformations. The influence of the Labor Party among the working people was especially strengthened by the fact that it advocated friendship with the USSR. A strong attraction to the ideas of socialism, as the government authorities were forced to note in 1942, received an impetus "thanks to the successes of the Russians" (139) on the Soviet-German front. The results of the 1945 elections reflected the general process of the growth of democratic forces and their influence among the masses, not only in Great Britain, but throughout the world.

However, it should be taken into account that during the war years a noticeable shift to the left occurred only among the rank and file members of the Labor Party. The party apparatus, and especially its top leadership, became even more closely linked with the system of state-monopoly capitalism. The process of differentiation within the party was accelerated by the involvement of Labor leaders in government.

In the United States, the influence of the labor movement on the Democratic Party was noticeable. Roosevelt's re-election for a fourth term in office was greatly facilitated by the Political Action Committee created by the Congress of Industrial Unions. Wide sections of the American people connected with the personality of Roosevelt hopes for the active participation of the United States in the defeat of fascism, the establishment of a lasting peace and long-term cooperation with the USSR.

However, a certain regrouping of socio-political forces did not change the basic bourgeois-democratic institutions. They have remained the same. The change of ruling circles did not affect the class essence of the bourgeois state, nor the nature of the activity of its legislative organs. In Great Britain, after the end of the war, big business increased its direct control over Parliament. A similar situation was observed in the USA.

Despite the growth and activation of democratic forces, political institutions the authorities in the capitalist countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, as before, primarily defended the interests of the exploiting classes. This significantly limited the contribution of these states to the overall victory.

In the sphere of international relations, they directed their main efforts towards achieving the maximum weakening of the Axis powers as their competitors and pretenders to world domination. Churchill, for example, frankly stated that after the war, England "intends to some extent to take the place of Germany in Europe as a producer of goods for small European countries" (140). Even during military campaigns (in North Africa, Western Europe, South-East Asia etc.) The USA and Great Britain tried to ensure their long-term economic and political goals, to take advantageous frontiers for post-war expansion.

For its own selfish interests, the United States collected strategic data in theaters of war. Convincing evidence in this regard is a letter from Secretary of War G. Stimson to General D. MacArthur dated March 31, 1944. It says: “In order to collect specific information regarding certain natural resources that may be found in your theater, I send Mr. . Hall. He is charged with personally dealing with this issue” (141). Of course, we are talking about uranium ore, because in the United States at that time they were hard at work on creating nuclear weapons. The further text of the letter leaves no doubt on this score: “Due to the very special and absolutely secret nature, I, unfortunately, cannot devote you now to the details regarding the need and purpose of this mission, related to complex international aspects” (142) . So the US stretched its tentacles to the uranium sources of Southeast Asia.

In the actions of US imperialism, claims to a leading role in the world and the desire to include many regions in the sphere of national interests were more and more clearly manifested. In order to bring under their control, for example, the politics of France, its navy and colonial possessions, the ruling circles of the USA supported the reactionary Vichy regime for a long time.

To strengthen its positions in Latin America and Asia, and in the Near and Middle East, American monopoly capital used various means: overt interference in the internal affairs of other states, undermining their economic ties and concluding enslaving treaties, creating a wide network of military bases and strongholds. The United States, relying on its increased military and economic potential and temporary monopoly on atomic weapons, sought to establish a new world order after the war, which would correspond to their global plans and plans.

Of course, the governments of the United States and England up to last day The fight against the Wehrmacht made a lot of efforts to preserve the Soviet-German front for a longer time. In addition, they were interested in obtaining the consent of the USSR and its entry into the war against Japan (143) . The dependence of Washington and London on the course and outcome of the struggle of the Armed Forces of the USSR, as well as the speech of the broad masses of many countries in support of the Soviet people, prompted the ruling circles of the United States of America and Great Britain to strengthen relations with the Soviet state.

At the same time, deep hostility to socialism and a desire to weaken the position of the USSR in the international arena underlay those tendencies that ran counter to the interests of a joint struggle against German fascism and Japanese militarism. As soon as the Soviet Army won the Battle of Kursk, representatives of the US and British high command began to think about the possibility of conspiring with the Nazis "in the event of overwhelming Russian success." "Will the Germans," General J. Marshall asked his British colleagues, "to facilitate our entry into the territory of their country in order to repel the Russians?" (144) . Marshall's anti-Soviet sentiments were also shared by General A. Brooke, Chief of the British Imperial General Staff.

The United States and Britain also paid great attention to measures aimed at preventing the growth of the working-class and communist movement in France, Italy and other countries. In the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, they sought to restore the old, only slightly modernized regimes, and actively supported the reactionary bourgeois-landlord circles in their struggle against the democratic forces.

The interests of the war against the fascist bloc were also hindered by the efforts of the Western European states aimed at maintaining their colonial rule. Despite the growth of the national liberation movement, monopoly circles tried in every possible way to perpetuate the system of colonialism. They refused to satisfy the legitimate demands of the peoples of Asia, Africa, the Near and Middle East for independence. This is how M. Gandhi characterized the hypocrisy of Western policy. “I continue to believe,” he wrote to President Roosevelt on July 1, 1942, “that the Allied declaration that they are fighting for a world in which human freedom and democracy will be secured will remain an empty phrase as long as Great Britain exploits India and Africa, and America will not solve the Negro problem at home" (145).

The ruling circles of the United States, "flirting" with the leaders of the national liberation movement, hoped to oust their European competitors in the colonies. American statesmen liked to talk about soon end colonial empires. In fact, especially in the last years of the war, the United States was increasingly inclined to support British and French colonialism. Roosevelt, for example, refrained from exerting serious pressure on England on the colonial question (146).

The degree of contribution of the capitalist countries of the anti-Hitler coalition to the defeat of the aggressors was influenced by their ideology and propaganda in a peculiar and contradictory way. During the war, Britain and the United States significantly expanded the scope of propaganda directed against the states of the fascist bloc and their armies. However, it was not and could not be effective enough. The politicians and ideologists of the Western powers obscured the deepest socio-economic and class roots of the aggressive policy of the fascist states. Attention was drawn mainly to external circumstances. Thus, fascism was either identified with traditional Prussian-German militarism, or portrayed as "the eternal desire of the Germans for war." Italian fascism and Japanese militarism were "explained" to the masses in a similar way.

Distorting the essence and character of the modern era, bourgeois ideologists argued that its main contradiction is the contradiction between "democracy" and "totalitarianism" and the struggle between them constitutes the axis of international politics. At the same time, "democracy" was understood as a bourgeois multi-party system, and "totalitarianism" - any one-party system. Such an interpretation was intended to obscure the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, to substantiate the idea of ​​"class peace" under capitalism, as well as the claims of the United States and Britain to dominance in the post-war world.

However, the specific conditions of the struggle against fascist Germany and its allies, the pressure of public opinion forced the governments of Britain and the United States to a certain flexibility in the use of ideological weapons. Proclaiming anti-fascist slogans, they carefully disguised their true political goals in the war. At the same time, the propaganda organs operated with general concepts, such as “freedom” and “democracy”, “Christian virtue”, etc. Statesmen and politicians, ideologists of the bourgeoisie in their speeches did not skimp on calls for a fight against abstract evil, for the triumph of principles of "tolerance, decency and freedom", for freedom of religion. All this had an impact on part of the population, making it difficult for them to correctly understand the goals of the fight against fascism. However, the media could not hush up the heroic struggle of the Soviet people and its Armed Forces against a common enemy. That is why the propaganda organs of the USA, Britain and other capitalist countries were compelled to give more or less reliable information about events in the world, about the contribution of the USSR to the fight against fascism and militarism.

In the post-war years, the politicians and ideologists of imperialism, especially in the USA, launched an intense ideological struggle against the Soviet Union. With the help of various kinds of fabrications, they distort the role of the USSR in the course of the war and in achieving victory over the fascist-militarist bloc, and seek to arouse distrust in the Soviet people and their Armed Forces.

Spreading myths about the "Soviet military threat", "the hand of Moscow", etc., the ideologists of the West, with the help of the propaganda machine, want to lull the vigilance of the peoples, justify the policy of the most aggressive circles of imperialism and sow fear and mistrust in relations between countries and peoples.

Thus, although the USA, Britain and other bourgeois states of the anti-Hitler coalition made a great contribution to the defeat of German fascism and Japanese militarism, for political reasons they did not use all the opportunities to hasten the overall victory.

4. Change in the alignment of political forces in the world after the Second World War. Beginning of the Cold War

As a result of the Great Patriotic War and World War II, the situation in the world changed radically. Germany and Japan were defeated and temporarily lost the role of the great powers of the country, the positions of England and France were significantly weakened. At the same time, the share of the United States grew immeasurably. During the war years, their industrial production not only did not decrease, but even increased by 47%. The USA controlled about 80% of the gold reserves of the capitalist world, they accounted for 46% of world industrial production.

The war marked the beginning of the collapse of the colonial system. Within a few years, such major countries as India, Indonesia, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon, and Egypt gained independence. In total, 25 states gained independence in the post-war decade.

Left-wing, democratic forces came to power in seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The new governments created in them were headed by representatives of the communist and workers' parties.

The most important feature of the post-war period was the people's democratic revolutions in the countries of Eastern Europe and a number of Asian countries. In the course of the struggle against fascism, a united front of democratic forces was formed in these countries, in which the communist parties played the leading role. After the overthrow of the fascist and collaborationist governments, governments were created that included representatives of all anti-fascist parties and movements. They carried out a series of democratic reforms. IN economic area a mixed economy has developed - the coexistence of the state, state capitalist, cooperative and private sectors. In the political field, a multi-party parliamentary form of political power was created, in the presence of opposition parties, with the separation of powers. It was an attempt to transition to socialist transformations in its own way.

There has been a shift to the left in the political spectrum of European countries. Fascist and right-radical parties left the stage. The influence of the communists grew sharply. The role of the Soviet Union, a country that made a decisive contribution to the defeat of fascism, grew immeasurably. Not a single international problem was solved without his participation.

After the war, the foundations were laid for the split of the world into two opposing camps, which determined the entire world practice for many years. During the World War, an alliance of great powers was formed - the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France. The presence of a common enemy made it possible to overcome differences and find compromises. The decisions of the Tehran (1943), Crimean (1945), Potsdam (1945) conferences were of a general democratic nature and could become the basis for a post-war peace settlement. The formation of the United Nations (1945) was also of great importance, the charter of which reflected the principles of peaceful coexistence, sovereignty and equality of all countries of the world. However, this unique chance to create a lasting peace for many generations remained unused. The Second World War was replaced by the Cold War.

The very term "cold war" was coined by US Secretary of State D.F. Dulles. Its essence is political, economic, ideological confrontation between the two systems, balancing on the brink of war.

The beginning of the Cold War is usually dated by W. Churchill's speech in the American city of Fulton in March 1940, in which he called on the people of the United States to jointly fight against Soviet Russia and its agents, the Communist Party.

The economic reasons for the change in US policy was that the US had grown immeasurably rich during the war years. With the end of the war, they were threatened by a crisis of overproduction. At the same time, the economies of European countries were destroyed, their markets were open to American goods, but there was nothing to pay for these goods. The United States was afraid to invest in the economies of these countries, since the influence of leftist forces was strong there, and the environment for investment was unstable.

Against the block Western states An economic and military-political union of socialist countries began to take shape. In 1949, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was established - a body for economic cooperation between the states of Eastern Europe. It included Albania (until 1961), Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and since 1949 the GDR. Moscow was the seat of the CMEA Secretariat. One of the reasons for the creation of the CMEA was the Western countries' boycott of trade relations with the USSR and the states of Eastern Europe.

The confrontation of the parties was clearly manifested in 1947 in connection with the Marshall Plan put forward by the USA. European countries were offered assistance to restore the destroyed economy. Loans were given for the purchase of American goods; the proceeds were not exported, but invested in the construction of enterprises on the territory of these countries. The Marshall Plan was adopted by 16 states of Western Europe. The political condition for the assistance was the removal of communists from governments. In 1947, the Communists were withdrawn from the governments of Western European countries. Assistance was also offered to Eastern European countries. Poland and Czechoslovakia began negotiations, but under pressure from the USSR, they refused to help. At the same time, the United States tore up the Soviet-American agreement on loans and passed a law prohibiting exports to the USSR. The Soviet government regarded the Marshall Plan as a weapon of anti-Soviet policy.

The ideological basis of the Cold War was the Truman Doctrine, according to which the conflict between Western democracy and communism is irreconcilable. The tasks of the USA are the struggle against communism all over the world, "containment of communism", "rejection of communism into the borders of the USSR". American responsibility was proclaimed for events taking place around the world, all these events were viewed through the prism of confrontation between communism and Western democracy, the USSR and the USA

One of the manifestations of the Cold War was the formation of political and military-political blocs. In 1949, the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) was created. It included the USA, Canada and several states of Western Europe. Two years later, a military-political alliance was signed between the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

The Soviet Union carried out work against the propaganda of a new war. The main arena of his activity was the United Nations (UN). It was created in 1945 and united 51 states. Its goal was to strengthen peace and security and develop cooperation between states. At UN sessions, Soviet representatives came up with proposals for the reduction of conventional types of weapons and the prohibition of atomic weapons, and for the withdrawal of troops from the territories of foreign states. All these proposals, as a rule, were blocked by representatives of the United States and its allies. The USSR unilaterally withdrew its troops from the territories of several states, where they were introduced during the war years.

In May 1955 - the Warsaw military-political treaty. The split of the world into two opposing camps took shape. The split of the world into two camps affected economic ties. After the adoption of the Marshall Plan and the formation of the CMEA, there were actually two parallel world markets, little connected with each other. USSR and Eastern Europe were isolated from developed countries which adversely affected their economy.

Regulations on the two camps, on the confrontation on the world stage of two social systems was the basis of the foreign policy views of the party-state leadership of the USSR. Stalin pursued a tough policy within the socialist camp itself, consistently implementing the principle "he who is not with us is against us." Inside the socialist countries, reprisals against dissidents were carried out. If the leadership of the country occupied a special position, then this country was excommunicated from the socialist camp, tore apart from it. foreign relations, as happened in 1948 with Yugoslavia, whose leadership was trying to pursue an independent policy.

Actions of the USSR - the elimination of the US nuclear monopoly. The atomic bomb in the USSR was tested in 1949, in 1953 a thermonuclear bomb was created (earlier than in the USA). The creation of atomic weapons in the USSR was a response to American atomic blackmail, but marked the beginning of an arms race between the USSR and the USA.

US plans: atomic bombings of the USSR, the doctrine of containment and rejection of socialism. American historians, without denying the existence of such plans, say that it was only about operational military plans that are drawn up in any country in case of war. But after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the existence of such plans could not but cause a sharp response from the Soviet Union, since this atomic bombing was not so much military operation how much of a political act to put pressure on the USSR.

The standard of living of the population. 2.1. The main directions of the social policy of the Soviet leadership in the post-war period. Measures to solve the main problems of society. The most important task in the social policy of the Soviet leadership in the postwar years was the solution of all major problems to the maximum extent possible. short term. To do this, on March 18, 1946, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR approved the adopted by the government ...

The final chord was the entry of the FRG into NATO, and the GDR into the Warsaw Treaty Organization. As the divergence between yesterday's allies in building the post-war world increased, the attitude of the Soviet leadership to the forms of control over the situation in the countries of "people's democracy" also changed. They gradually became elements of the world socialist system. The positions of the USSR in the countries ...

Significant changes took place in the political life of Western countries with the end of World War II and the collapse of totalitarian regimes. Of particular historical importance was the revival of the democratic system. This happened in Italy, liberated from fascism, and most of Germany, although in both cases, to a large extent, due to outside interference. The restoration of the liberal state order with a multi-party system, parliamentarism and a guarantee of the rights of citizens brought a number of institutional innovations, which were reflected, in particular, in the constitutions of the Fourth French Republic of 1946, Italy of 1947, Germany of 1949.

In the post-war period, the configuration of party-political systems changed. With the end of the war, the political movements involved in the establishment of totalitarian regimes in their countries and the unleashing of a global military conflict left the political scene. In most countries, the party-political structure of the interwar period has been preserved or revived, but inside there has been a redistribution of social significance and the influence of individual political subjects. New parties that arose after the war built their political platforms in line with traditional ideological and political trends, modernizing them to the conditions of the present. Has undergone changes in the post-war decades and the nature of inter-party relations. In them, the importance of ideological differences decreased, as a result of such factors of the past as confrontation and class conflicts. The growth in party politics of tendencies towards mutual understanding on the basis of national interests contributed to more tolerant relations in the political life of Western countries.

Conservatism as a political movement survived after the Second World War. However, the conservative parties of continental Europe, which did not take part in the resistance movement or even collaborated with the occupiers, were extremely discredited. This circumstance seriously impeded the revival of conservative political environments after the National Socialist and Fascist era. In socio-political thought, a view was even born of the relationship of fascism and conservatism, although German conservatives could bring counterarguments of the opposite nature regarding their behavior during the years of the Third Reich.

The Conservative Party of Great Britain remained the only one of the conservative parties of the old kind, which in the era of world wars and in post-war times played a great historical role. Having lost power as a result of the 1945 elections, the British Conservatives in 1951 again came to the helm of the state. In their government policy, the conservative cabinets (1951 - 1964, 1970 - 1974) preserved the traditions of British politics, which was largely facilitated by the outstanding figure of British conservatism of the 20th century. Winston Churchill.

Conservative parties under the proper name, except for Great Britain, existed as the successors of the tradition only in Canada and in northern countries Europe. These were, as a rule, right-wing groups of bourgeois parties, who occupied mainly an opposition position.

How modern version conservative political direction can be considered various forms of ґolіzmu. It began in April 1947, when Charles de Gaulle officially announced the creation of the Association of the French People "(OFN), which should become not so much a party as national movement. The first success came to the OFN already in the communal elections in October 1947 - about 40% of the votes received. The center of the movement was the charismatic and authoritarian face of the general, who hoped, in the event of a successful development of the case, to unite the entire nation. The successes of the OFN were impressive, but did not last long: due to a lack of financial sources, the numerous party apparatus found itself without the means to continue its activities. Big capital later supported the traditional right and saw Holism as a radical, irresponsible movement. But the OFN remained an influential political force, which in 1951 occupied the largest faction in parliament. Actually, this circumstance - the transformation of the OFN into a normal party - prompted Charles de Gaulle to dissolve the movement (1953).

The renaissance of holism as an organized political environment came at the end of the 50s, when the supporters of Charles de Gaulle, after his return to leadership of the state in 1958, founded the Union for a New Republic (SNR). The new association became a well-organized mass party, a reliable support for Charles de Gaulle, who in December 1958 was elected President of France. Already at the first parliamentary elections in November 1958. The SNA has achieved significant success with 188 mandates. The party for a long time remained the leading ruling party, from the ranks of which from 1959 to 1974 came all the leaders of governments and the second president of the Fifth Republic, Georges Pompidou (1969 - 1974). Despite the strong contradictions between the right and the left, the Union represented in its program and policy national conservative tendencies with an emphasis on French national independence, internal political solidarity and cooperation of social groups.

Although the best times of liberalism as a political trend and organization were already in the past, the ideas of liberalism triumphed in the socio-political life and socio-economic sphere of Western countries. Specifically liberal principles were embodied not only in constitutions, legislative orders of states, but also spread to other political parties and movements. After the Second World War, a number of ideas of liberalism were adopted by social democracy, which acted as the main initiator and factor of social reforms. Western European Christian people's parties oriented their political platforms and practical activities towards the liberal principles of economic policy. A striking example of this is the liberal economic course of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), carried out in the 1950s and 1960s under the leadership of Ludwig Ergard. At that time, the teachings of the British economist J. M. Keynes, which was based on the postulate of the need to supplement the main provisions of classical liberalism - individualism, free competition, free market, etc. - were widely known and greatly influenced among the various areas of reformism at that time, with a system of state regulation in the most important areas of society. On this basis, in the late 40's - 50's pp. a kind of liberal-conservative agreement (consensus) was formed between the moderate wing of the conservative camp and various reformist groups, including liberals. Despite the commonality of the basic principles, each of the national varieties of consensus occupied its own specifics.

The classical liberal parties, most of which arose in the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries, lost their leading role in political systems and numerous supporters in Western countries during the interwar period. Only in France did the left-liberal party of radical socialists retain its key positions in political life until the end of the Third Republic. None of the liberal parties could become a mass organization after the Second World War (the only exception is Canada).

The introduction of universal suffrage in 1918, the growth of the influence of the Laborites undermined the position of the British liberals. The Liberal Party of Great Britain after 1945 has never been part of a government coalition. Since the 60s, the number of votes cast for the liberals has been increasing: in 1964, the party received 11.2% of the vote, in 1974 - 19.3%. Despite this increase in voter support, British suffrage did not allow the Liberal Party to increase its representation in the lower house of Parliament.

In Italy, after the restoration of democracy, the liberal factions that represented the Liberal and Republican parties took part (by 1958) only in coalition governments led by the Christian Democrats. Subsequently, the liberal parties degraded to the state of small groups that were in opposition. Liberalism, due to a lack of organizational capacity and in connection with the dispersion of forces, found itself in a disadvantageous position among the large mass parties.

The German liberals were able to overcome the split and unite after the Second World War. Free Democratic Party, arose in 1946, became an obligatory component in the creation of a parliamentary majority in Germany. In the process of concentration of the party system, the FDP was able to secure an important and often decisive position in the center of the party-political spectrum between the large parties on the left and right flanks. This party in the post-war period, with the exception of two cases (1956 - 1961 and 1966 - 1969), participated in all government coalitions at the federal level. The long-term strategic orientation of the FDP towards the exercise of governmental power also had a negative impact on its liberal self-awareness: the party often yielded to ideological principles.

Despite the general affinity of the liberal parties, certain differences are outlined between them, which manifest themselves in program provisions and practical policies. Under this overview, one can speak of centre-right, center-left and center parties. At the same time, there are divisions within the liberal parties themselves. For example, the SVDP more or less clearly distinguishes between the factions of "economic liberals", which emphasize the restoration of free market relations, and "social liberals", who emphasize the role of the state in the social sphere.

After World War II, there has been a convergence of American liberal and conservative environments, whose political spokesmen are the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States, with related European political forces. At the same time, there is competition within the American two-party system between neo-liberals and neo-conservatives, who have evolved in the direction of seeking some form of coexistence. As a result, a peculiar form of mutual understanding developed between the moderate wing of the new conservatism and the right-wing faction of the new liberalism - the so-called conservative-liberal, and later liberal-conservative consensus. Describing the essence of such a compromise political course, D. Eisengauer, having become president in 1952, argued that his government would be "conservative in terms of economic policy" and "liberal" in terms of "achieving the welfare" of the people.

Neoconservatism, which in the post-war years defined the nature of the conservative-liberal consensus, was essentially an American version of reformist conservatism. It differed from the neoliberal course of F. D. Roosevelt both qualitatively and quantitatively. His social policy was modest, it reduced the share of taxes from industrial associations, limited the scope of state intervention in the economy and social relations. On the whole, D. Eisenhower's administration had to admit that the basic principles and achievements of Roosevelt's "new course" were inevitable. The socio-economic policy of the Republicans, like the policy of the "new course", was based on the neo-liberal methods proposed by the British economist John. Keynes. The consensus, in principle, was maintained even after the Democrats came to power for J. Kennedy and L. Johnson. In it, however, there was a change in the places of terms in the consensus formula: it became liberal-conservative.

The liberal-conservative consensus was also preserved for President Richard Nixon. Being a conservative in his views, G. Nixon, without significant adjustments, adopted the methodology of state regulation from his predecessors, that is, he led political course within neoliberal reformism.

The most significant new development in post-war European politics was the rise of Christian Democracy to the position of a leading political force. The Christian People's Parties presented conservative ideas and programs with significant liberal components, in particular in the area of ​​economic policy. Confessional-oriented parties were not only a product of the post-war period, but also imitated a long tradition. Among their past predecessors were the Center Party in Germany, the People's Party in Austria, the Catholic Party in Belgium, the People's Party in Italy. They were, as a rule, right-wing parties with a religious orientation, which served them more as a signboard. They represented conservative and clerical interests. On the other hand, the Christian popular parties of the post-war period tried to show that they are more a new version former political factions.

Only the Catholic People's Party of Holland continued to focus on the confessional aspect. Other parties abandoned this tradition and, unlike their predecessors, were significantly less under direct ecclesiastical influence. This was manifested in the new ideological and political guidelines of the Christian Democrats. The Christian parties of the pre-war period were imbued with an anti-socialist and anti-liberal spirit, which was largely a reaction to the anti-clericalism of their political opponents. Now, however, conservative ideas and programs were presented in the Christian People's Parties, combined with significant liberal components, in particular in the field of economics. At the same time, in some parties there were left groups that were oriented towards trade unions and cooperation with social democracy.

Historically, the oldest and most significant representative of political clericalism was the German Catholic Center Party, which played an important role in the political life of the German Empire and the Weimar Republic. With the creation of the Christian Democratic Union after the Second World War and the related Bavarian organization of the Christian Social Union (CSU, 1945), the founders abandoned the confessional definition of their creation. After the collapse of National Socialism and the revival of Christian worldview values ​​for their carrier - the CDU / CSU bloc - a great hour has come. It became the leading political force of West German citizenship. This leading role of the Christian Democrats in the political and state life of the FRG was ensured not least by the borrowing of the neoliberal ideas of the "social market economy" in the programs and political practice of the CDU/CSU. A prominent figure in the camp of the German Christian Democrats was Konrad Adenauer, who for 14 years headed the government, simultaneously holding the post of party chairman. Behind his feelings and convictions, K. Adenauer was a conservative, and this was well suited to the mentality of the majority of his compatriots, who approved of his election slogan "no experiments." At the same time, he took into account the bitter experience of the Weimar Republic.

The same influential political force was in the post-war period the Christian Democratic Party (CDA) of Italy. It arose in 1943 in line with the tradition started by the Italian People's Party founded in 1919, with the advent of fascism to power, ceased its activities. Christian Democratic Party until 1953. occupied an absolute majority in the Italian parliament and acted at that time as the only government party. Unlike the CDU / CSU, which were marked by a high degree of intra-party consolidation, the Italian Christian Democracy, claiming the position of popular representation, tried to integrate different groups and directions in its ranks - from the left wing associated with trade unions to the right liberal environment, relied on a rich citizenship.

There was also a strong conservative grouping in the party that defended the idea of ​​"authoritarian democracy" represented by the Catholic activists Luigi Gedda and Ricardo Lombardo. This diversity of the social composition later revealed a serious shortcoming in the inner-party life of the CDA. The party has inherited the traditional practice of the Italian party system of creating a cell of supporters around certain politicians, with its inherent constant fluctuations between these groups. Having emerged as a party of the center, it later deviated from the original political line and, under the influence of the leading party elites, maneuvered to the right, subsequently evolved to the left, and finally faced the question of a "historic compromise" with the Communist Party. During the leading position of the CDA in the Italian state-political system of the first post-war decades, a number of prominent party figures succeeded each other as chairman of the government: Alcide De Gasperi, Amintore Fanfani, Mario Schelba, Aldo Moro and others. Some of these politicians represented the right, and the rest left wing of the party.

The competition between various factions for dominating influence in the party and the state escalated after the death in 1953 of one of the founders of the CDU and the longtime head of the Italian government. De Gasperi. This internal trial of strength continued, with short pauses, for many years and significantly weakened the party. Although the Christian Democrats initially acted as a party of radical reforms, in practice it did not go beyond the policy of insignificant steps. Despite this, it managed, primarily due to the disunity of the left parties, to stay in power. Providing a sufficient minimum of political stability in the country in the 1950s, the CDA, as a government party, made a successful restructuring of the national economy, and as a result, a long-term restructuring of Italian society.

Christian democracy as a political trend was also represented in France. The only new political party that was born out of the struggle against the occupation regime was the People's Republican Movement (NRM). Among the leading figures of the party were prominent figures of the Resistance Movement Georges Bidault, Maurice Schuman and others. From the beginning of the Fourth Republic to its end, the NRM played a key role in French politics. Same. Bidault (1946, 1949 -1950) and G. Schuman (1947 - 1948) headed governments or successively replaced each other as foreign ministers. The NRM began as a party of the left, which, in the words of one of its members, tried to combine the "tradition of 1789" with the Christian teaching. At the beginning of the republic, they advocated the nationalization of key sectors of the French economy. The NRM tried to take on the role of a "third force", first of all between the communists and their opponents, later between Sh. where Goll and his opponents. At first, the party did not deny the possibility of cooperation with the communists, was inclined to maintain good relations with the USSR, and only after the sharp attacks of the communists in 1947-1948. she changed her position. Different political directions coexisted in the NRV: along with numerous supporters of the left orientation, many of its members adhered to conservative views. In 1946, the party received 26% of all votes in the parliamentary elections, but when de Gaulle first moved to power a year later, a significant part of his supporters went over to his camp. In 1951, the share of votes cast for the NRM was halved, and it could not recover from this setback. The MRP, although weakened, remained a significant force in French politics until the end of the 50s.

A characteristic feature that unites the great Christian popular parties of the post-war decades is the gradual weariness of power and through power, as well as the depreciation of basic Christian ideas as a single integration factor in the era of general secularization. As a result, programmatic conservatism is preserved only in a part of their supporters. The type of "people's party" exemplified primarily by the CDA in Italy, the CDU in Germany, is under increasing threat that instead of strong principles, pure pragmatism may take over from them, dictated mainly by the desire to retain power.

Christian parties existed and continue to exist in almost all Western European countries. They are of greater importance in the Netherlands, in Belgium, a country with a long tradition of Christian-liberal democratic politics, and in Austria (Austrian People's Party), where it is the only alternative to the socialist party.

After World War II, he retained his positions and continued to develop the socialist movement. Social-democratic and socialist parties operated in a number of countries. In some countries, socialists were part of governments. In all countries of Western Europe, with the exception of Italy and France, the Social Democratic parties outnumbered the Communist ones. The socialist movement had a significant impact on the situation in the world and, in particular, in Europe. In 1968 - 1969 There were 58 socialist parties in the world, which numbered about 14 million members. The activities of the parties were coordinated by the Workers' and Socialist Committee. In December 1947, the Committee of International Socialist Conferences was founded at the Antwerp conference. From 1951 the Socialist International was active.

The Social Democratic parties maintained close ties with the trade unions. They headed the main trade union associations in Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Austria, had a significant influence in the trade union movement in Italy, France, Germany. The trade union center associated with the Socialist International (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions) united about 57 million members.

Having emerged in the last third of the 19th century, the social democratic and socialist parties were the heirs of the Marxist tradition. In the post-war period, policy documents, congress decisions, and the rhetoric of party leaders contained allegations of devotion to the teachings of Marx. Thus, in the preface to the Dortmund Program of Action of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), party chairman Kurt Schumacher wrote in 1952: “We, as social democrats, have absolutely no reason to throw Marxism completely overboard ... In both of its most important forms - an economic view of history and the class struggle - it is not outdated ... because reality confirms it." However, later on in the socialist movement there was an ever greater divergence between orthodox revolutionary theory and reformist practice. As a result, most parties broke with Marxism. Considering experience totalitarian regime in the USSR, they resolutely rejected Leninism and Soviet system, did not consider the Soviet Union a socialist state.

On the other hand, the social democratic parties preferred the values ​​of the rule of law, democratic pluralism, and the ideas of democratic socialism. The programs of many socialist and social democratic parties in the postwar period included demands for the destruction of the remnants of fascism, the democratization of political life, and the nationalization of large industrial enterprises, improving the social insurance system and raising the living standards of the population. The Social Democrats believed that social transformations could be carried out without a revolution, through reforms. As the main means of realizing their program goals, they considered the competition for government power as a result of victory in the elections. Therefore, social democratic parties pay special attention to participation in election campaigns. In the parliamentary elections, an average of 60-70 million voters voted for the Social Democratic parties.

From the First World War, the workers' parties began to take responsibility for government policy. After World War II, this activity intensified significantly. In the post-war period, parties of the social democratic type participated in the governments of 12 Western countries. Particularly in a favorable position under this review was the British Labor Party, which, in cases of successful performance in elections to the lower house, created the government on its own, without seeking the support of other parties. So in the parliamentary elections of 1945, the Labor Party of Great Britain collected 12 million votes and thus received a majority in the House of Commons, which allowed it to create the third workers' government in the history of the country. These favorable prerequisites with the British Laborites were shared only by the socialist parties of the Scandinavian countries, each of which for a long time occupied a majority in the parliament of Sweden (1940 - 1944, 1960 - 1964, 1968 -1970), Norway (1945 - 1965), Denmark (1947 - 1950, 1953 - 1968, 1971 -1973). Socialists often participated in coalition governments. For example, the Social Democratic Party of Germany was part of the grand coalition government in 1966-1969.

Setting the goal of building a just society of democratic socialism, in the implementation of which the state should play a key role, European social democracy achieved significant success in the post-war decades. In a number of countries where social democratic parties were in power or had significant influence in parliaments, numerous reforms were carried out on their initiative: the key role of the state in production processes and the distribution of produced goods was strengthened, large enterprises, banks, and means of communication were won; much attention was paid to the problems of limiting unemployment, regulating wages, social insurance, self-government, labor protection for women and youth; a program of general and free education was implemented.

The model for the socialist movement is the relations that have developed in Sweden, where the Social Democrats from the early 30s to the mid-70s were in power for long periods of time and were able to realize many of their program slogans. In a relatively short period of time, a highly efficient economy has been created in the country, the basis of which is an organic combination of a private capitalist market economy and a socially oriented system of redistribution of the produced product. Thanks to the growth in the share of national income spent on social purposes, wages and, accordingly, the living standards of the population have risen. Significant progress has been made in the areas of social security, health care, education, training, housing and the like.

During the war years, the communists became the leading force in the anti-fascist resistance movements and gained many new supporters. With this in mind, and in connection with the military victory of the Soviet Union, communism has acquired considerable prestige throughout Europe. The Communists successfully took advantage of this favorable circumstance and in 1945 were practically out of competition compared to other political forces. They were also benefited by the fact that the right-wing liberal-conservative parties that did not take part in the Resistance, and sometimes even collaborated with the occupiers, were extremely discredited. Some parties that began to rebuild their positions after the war, such as the Social Democrats, clearly lacked political momentum. The number of communist parties and their voters in the first post-war years increased significantly. If in 1939 there were 1,750,000 communists in Western countries, then in 1946 their number reached 3.7 million people. In general, 14 million voters voted for the Communists at that time.

Particularly significant were the successes of the communists in France and Italy. The French Communist Party (PCF) soon after the war had over 800,000 members. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) has become the largest communist party in Western countries. The PCI was the most powerful political force in all major cities, with the exception of Milan, which for some time remained a stronghold of the socialists. Both parties in the parliamentary elections in the post-war years received about a quarter of the total number of votes: the PCF in 1945 - 26%, 1946 - 28.6%; IKP in 1948 - 31.1%, 1953 - 22.6%.

Even in Belgium and Holland and in the Scandinavian countries, where communism had played a rather modest role before the war, it was now a force to be reckoned with. In Denmark and Sweden, the communists in the elections of 1945 noted a significant increase in votes in their favor. The result of the growing influence of the communists, their success in elections was participation in governments. In many European countries, representatives of the communist parties entered the coalition governments created after the liberation, and their partisan departments (for example, in France, the detachments "frantir" eriv ") were integrated into regular armed forces. In France and Italy, where the communists were in the forefront of the resistance movement , communist politicians, including party leaders Maurice Thorez and Palmiro Togliatti, were part of the post-war governments in both countries.In addition, the communists participated in government coalitions in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Luxembourg.

Immediately after the war, there was no international organization to lead the communist movement. The leaders of the communist parties, however, recognized the leading role of the CPSU(b) and J. Stalin. They referred to the principles of Marxism-Leninism formulated by him. Stalin argued that the capitalist system was in decline; instead of it, a socialist system should be built as much more just and perfect. He stated that there is a class struggle going on in the world on a global scale, which will eventually lead to a social revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. J. Stalin rejected the evolutionary path of development, in particular its parliamentary version.

The intensification of Soviet policy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, where, with the support of Moscow, the Communists usurped power, the beginning of the Cold War put the Western European Communist Parties in a rather difficult position. On them, in the views of the public, the responsibility for the Kremlin's policy in the international arena fell. It became increasingly difficult for the communist parties to combine their stay in coalition governments with the radical positions imposed by the Soviet leadership. As a result - during 1947 - 1948. representatives of most communist parties were forced to leave the government. The Communists of Western Europe later went over to the opposition.

Activities in the role of the opposition did not have a significant impact on the position of the largest communist organizations. In the following decades, the PCF and the PCI were able, despite a certain fluidity, to maintain their numerical fortune, organizational capacity and electorate. Based on real historical circumstances, the communists were forced to make adjustments to their strategy and tactics. The conditions of the parliamentary-democratic system, which require political forces to be more open to voters, the need to win votes, prompted Western European communist parties to be flexible in determining the ideological and political foundations of their activities. Without abandoning the theoretical propositions of Marxism-Leninism about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the building of socialism, they no longer put forward these demands as an immediate political task. They considered the creation of a democratic society, which provided for cardinal socio-economic, political transformations, including the nationalization of banks and large industrial associations, the solution of the land issue in favor of the peasantry, the participation of workers in the control and management of enterprises, and the like, as their main goal.

Hard trials befell the fate of the communist movement in connection with the criticism at the 20th Congress of the CPSU of the personality cult of I. Stalin and subsequent Soviet interventions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. A great discussion unfolded in the communist parties about these events. Many communists quit the parties in protest against the Soviet invasions. Meanwhile, the old generation of communist leaders was leaving the political scene. In October 1964, N. Khrushchev, head of the CPSU and head of government, was removed from his post, and in the same year, the long-term leaders of the ICP P. Tolyatti and the PCF M. Torez died. Young party leaders were much more radical. Western European communists tried to free themselves from the ideological influences of Moscow.

On the basis of these discussions in the communist movement, a current of so-called European communistism was formed. The leaders of these environments were criticized. Stalin and Stalinism, emphasized the sovereignty of their own parties, defended the special role and mission of the European movement on a global scale. Among the prominent figures of Eurocommunism stood out the leader of the Spanish Communists Santiago Carillo, the leaders of the Italian and Portuguese Communists Enrico Berlinguer and Alvaro Cunhal. There were splits in some parties.

At the same time, left-wing views became more active, which became widespread among the youth. At the end of the 1960s, a student revolt broke out. He gained a powerful force in Western European countries and the United States of America. Students suffered from a lack of labor and livelihoods, took part in political life, but had no influence on their own educational institutions. Young people who aspired to participate in the formation of curricula and in the management of educational institutions were effectively deprived of the right to vote. On the basis of dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs, a new ideology and a new socio-political movement were formed. There were mass student organizations of the left wing: in France - the Regional Union of French Students, in Germany - the Socialist Union of German Students, in the USA - the Students' Movement for a Democratic Society. They created their own subculture and their own ideology of rebellion; read the works of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Leon Trotsky. In their political preferences, student environments took as a model the activities of Fidel Castro, Ernest Che Guevara. Anarchist, Maoist, Marxist-Leninist groups and communes arose.

After long period activization of students' interest in politics and the growth of the radicalization of its public sentiments at the turn of 1967 - 1968. a wave of mass political demonstrations arose. On June 2, 1967, a student demonstration took place in West Berlin; they protested against the visit of the Shah of Iran. During the dispersal of the demonstration, the police shot and killed student Benno Ohnesorg and wounded many people. In response, there were demonstrations of mourning and protest organized by the Republican Club. In the spring of 1968, new mass demonstrations by German students took place. After Rudi Dutchke, the conductor of Zahidnoberlin students, was wounded on April 11, 1968, thousands of protest demonstrations took place in many cities of Germany. their participants demanded a reform of higher education, condemned nationalist tendencies, and popularized supranational, cosmopolitan models.

The student movement reached its apogee in France in May - June 1968. The leadership of the French student union passed into the hands of a paramilitary group, among whose leaders David Cohn-Bendit stood out. The situation in the country worsened in early May. The reason for this was the official visit of Prime Minister Zhe. Pompidou to Tehran. Protests took place in the following days;

attempts by students to occupy university buildings were brutally suppressed by the police. The students responded with numerous protests supported by teachers' and professors' unions, Catholic unions, and intellectuals. On May 13, 1968, a grandiose demonstration of the population of Paris took place against the Dutch regime. Political committees sprang up everywhere, and student councils appeared at many universities.

Events in France and Germany gave impetus to student movements in other countries. But they did not cause a mass movement anywhere and limited themselves mainly to universities.

Later, student political activism underwent a transformation. Terrorist organizations began to form on its soil. This is how the Red Brigades appeared in Italy, and the Red Army Faction in Germany. The work of their hands were numerous assassination attempts, kidnappings, political assassinations.

Fascism with its ideology, terrorist policy of suppression, extreme nationalism, as a result of the military defeat of its main centers in Germany and Italy, faded into oblivion. But he left behind favorable ideological and political models for imitation. Therefore, soon after the end of the war, ultra-right organizations began to appear, whose political platforms contained borrowings from the ideological baggage of the fascist parties. The first groupings of such a headquarters in the western zones of German occupation arose and acted under the guise of conservative associations. So, in June 1946, the German Right Party, the Conservative Association, was founded in Hamburg, renamed in 1949 to the German Right Party - the German Conservative Party (NPP-NKP). In October of the same year, the Socialist Imperial Party (SIP) arose in Germany, which stood quite close to the ideological tradition of National Socialism. Among the founders and leading figures of the SIP were former NSDAP veterans and activists. The German Right Party - the German Conservative Party and some other related organizations united in the SIP. Her program preached the idea of ​​creating a totalitarian state under the title of so-called "people's socialism", contained demands for the revival of Germany within the borders of 1937, the cessation of denazification. The German government banned the activities of the Socialist Imperial Party.

Later, the neo-Nazis regrouped. A significant part of the members of the SIP became part of the German Imperial Party (NIP), created in 1950. This party, about half of whose members were active Nazis in the past, tried not to advertise its ideological connection with National Socialism. However, in interpreting the tasks of domestic and foreign policy, the NIP program echoed the totalitarian ideological and political models of fascism. But the NIP and other right-wing organizations failed to achieve noticeable political influence.

In November 1964, the founding congress was held in Hannover, at which the National Democratic Party of Germany (NDP) was created. The new party included a number of right-wing organizations, and some of the neo-Nazi groups also found themselves under its ideological and political influence. In 1968, there were 40 thousand members in the ranks of the NDP. Former members of the National Socialist Party played a leading role in the governing bodies of the NDP: out of 18 members of the board, there were 12 of them. They accounted for 61% of the functionaries of the district organizations. At the same time, the party was actively replenished with young people. In 1967, half of the NDP members were under 35 years of age. In the party program, along with the statement about the support of parliamentary democracy and the struggle for social justice, it was about the intentions of creating a strong authoritarian power capable of putting into practice the idea of ​​"German messianism". In the propaganda actions of the NDP, there was a desire to rehabilitate the Third Reich and relieve it of responsibility for unleashing the Second World War. But in its policy, and especially in propaganda, the party did, nevertheless, place special emphasis on modernity. Much attention was paid to the acute problems of West German society: the bureaucratization of the ruling elites, economic difficulties, which were intensified under the influence of a change in the social structure, and problems in political life. The NDP appealed to the struck national feelings, tried to use the deep disappointment of young people with the ideals of society. Although the NDP subsequently experienced an internal crisis and its political influence drastically weakened, it did not disappear from the political arena and remained one of the most significant right-wing radical organizations in Germany.

With the split in the ranks of the National Democrats and the exit from the party of a group of its active members, the formation of one of the main directions in the modern right-wing radical movement of Germany coincides. In January 1971 Gerhard Frey, publisher of the Deutsche National Zeitung, announced the creation of the German People's Union (NNS). It included a number of right-wing radical and right-wing conservative organizations and groups. The NNS did not become a party, but acts as a kind of political association, attracting into its ranks those who, for some reason, turned out to be outside the right-wing parties. All right-wing radical and conservative environments unite under the "roof" of the NNS, function independently, but they are united by some general principles of activity: anti-democratism and objections to the parliamentary-democratic system, ideas of national solidarity and extreme nationalism, preaching hostility to other nationalities, and the like.

The ultra-right in Italy were also not going to put up with their defeat. Just like in West Germany, soon after the end of hostilities, underground and semi-legal groups began to emerge, consisting mainly of former fascist activists, blackshirts. The official registration of the neo-fascist movement took place on December 26, 1946. On this day, the supporters of By. Mussolini gathered in the premises of the former bureau of the Roman Federation of the Fascist Party and proclaimed the creation of the Italian Social Movement (ISR). The name of the newly appeared party echoed the name of the regime (“Italian Social Republic”) established by By. Mussolini in 1943 in northern Italy, known as the "Republic of Salo". And one more eloquent detail: the abbreviation of the name of the party (in the Italian transcription ASh) resembled the abbreviation of Mussolini's surname.

Giorgio Almirante, who served as Assistant Minister of Culture in the "Italian Social Republic", was elected General Secretary of the IMR. Active cooperation with the fascist regime was behind the shoulders of many other leading figures of the ISR. In the program declaration and other official documents of the ISR, there were many veiled borrowings from the program of Italian fascism in 1919 and the manifesto of By. Mussolini, uttered after the creation of the "Italian Social Republic". So, along with the demands of the right of citizens to work and the participation of workers in the management of enterprises, the declaration contained calls for the protection of private property by the state, "restoration of the authority of the authorities" and the abolition of the "state of emergency", that is, laws that provided for the removal of former active workers from the state apparatus fascists.

Unlike Germany, where the creation of a single right-wing radical party dragged on for almost a decade, in Italy the neo-fascist movement was organized and formed in the very first post-war years. In the early 1950s, the ISR became the most numerous pro-fascist organization in the countries of Western Europe. Within the Italian social movement there was a struggle between "moderate" and "extremist" currents. At first, the influence of representatives of the "hard" line, headed by the leader of the party, J. Almirante, prevailed. In 1950, the "moderates" took over and J. Almirante was forced to resign. The former Deputy Minister of Communications in Mussolini's government A. Gde Marsanich, a supporter of legal activities, became the Secretary General of the ISR. Four years later, he was replaced in this position by A. Michelini, who during the years of Mussolini's regime was deputy secretary of the Roman Federation of the Fascist Party.

The Italian social movement sought to strengthen its political influence and in the way of parliamentary activity. In the elections to the Italian parliament in 1953, neo-fascists collected about 1.5 million votes (5%), receiving 29 deputy mandates in the Chamber of Deputies and 9 in the Senate.

Slower than in Germany and Italy, the right-wing radical movement in Austria revived at first. The consequences of a more decisive implementation of denazification in the country affected. But even here at the turn of the 40s - 50s. various nationalist societies, sports unions, associations and student corporations of a pro-Nazi type begin to emerge. 1951 The Union of Free Students (SVS) was founded, uniting most of these organizations under its leadership. SVS was headed by N. Burger. In the 60s. neo-Nazis organized a number of terrorist attacks in South Tyrol. In 1966 right-wing extremist groups in Austria united in the National Democratic Party. its basis was the SVS, and N. Burger headed the newly minted party.

Arising in different countries ah right-wing radical parties and organizations established contacts with each other, trying to coordinate their actions. One of the ideological centers in which right-wing extremist groups from different countries collaborated was the monthly magazine Natsion Europa (European Nation). Simultaneously with the beginning of the publication of the journal in 1950, the first international congress of right-wing radical parties and organizations was convened in Italy. At the second congress, held in the Swedish city of Malmo the following year, the creation of an international neo-fascist association called the "European Social Movement" was announced.

The first group - work with materials on the UK.

Fill out the "visiting card" of the UK.

1. Determine the position of Great Britain in the world by the beginning of the 20th century. 2. What is the development of mass democratic movements connected with and what consequences did these movements lead to for the country? 3. How would you rate the ongoing reforms in the country? 4. What are the most productive ways to retain its numerous colonial possessions used by Great Britain? 5. Explain the concepts: dominions, conservatives, liberals, suffragettes, pacifists.

The second group - work with materials on Germany.

Fill in the "visiting card" of Germany:

1. Determine the main reason why Germany was able to come up with the slogan of the redistribution of the colonies by the beginning of the 20th century. 2. On what basic ideas is the theory of "Pan-Germanism" based? Think about which segments of the population and for what reasons could support it. 3. Was it possible to combine the interests of Germany in foreign policy with the interests of other states? Why? 4. Explain the concepts: Chancellor, Reichstag, Catholic Party, Social Democracy, Agrarian Party, Pan-Germanism.

The third group - work with materials on France.

Fill out the "visiting card" of France:

1. Why was there a rapid change of governments in France? Explain what positive and negative consequences of such a change for the development of the country can be identified. What consequences do you think prevail? 2. Why was the return of Alsace and Lorraine one of the most urgent problems for the country? 3. Assess those strong moments in the development of France, on which she could rely in the war with Germany. Do they seem sufficient to you to achieve victory? Why? 4. Explain the concepts: unitary state, moderate republicans, radical republicans.

The fourth group - work with materials on the USA.

Make a "visiting card" of the USA:

1. Determine the factors of the rapid development of the United States at the beginning of the 20th century. 2. What role did the state play in regulating the development of the economy? How can the position of the state be assessed? 3. What are the general and specific features of US foreign policy can be called? Is it possible to consider the country's foreign policy at the beginning of the 20th century. successful? 4. Is it possible to speak of a special, American way of development? 5. Explain the concepts: immigration, "big stick politics", "dollar diplomacy".

The fifth group - work with materials on Austria-Hungary.

Make a "visiting card" of Austria-Hungary:

1. Explain why and what was the originality of Austria-Hungary. 2. How did the multinational composition of the empire's population influence its development and what problems did it create for the authorities? 3. Explain the concepts: dualistic monarchy, national oppression.

The sixth group - work with materials on Italy.

Make a "visiting card" of Italy:

1. Think about what features - national or common - more determined the development of the country at the beginning of the 20th century. 2. Can the reforms carried out in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century be called radical and why? 3. Suggest how stable royalty and democratic reforms can be combined. 4. Explain the terms: modernization, "the era of Giolitti."

Topic 1.1 Post-war peace settlement in Europe

Goals: To give an idea of ​​the post-war structure of the world.

Plan

1. Interests of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France in Europe and the world after the war. Development of a coordinated policy of the Allied Powers in Germany.

The USA and the USSR created their own spheres of influence, securing them with military-political blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Although the United States and the USSR never entered into a direct military confrontation, their rivalry for influence often led to outbreaks of local armed conflicts around the world.

Churchill in March 1946 in Fulton in the United States delivered a speech regarding the USSR, and stated that relations between the USSR on the one hand and the United States and Great Britain on the other hand should be based on the military superiority of English-speaking countries. Churchill first of all decided to strengthen relations with the United States, since they had a monopoly on nuclear weapons. This statement aggravated the confrontation between the USSR and the West.

In 1949, the NATO military-political bloc was formed, which included the United States and most of the countries of Western Europe.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, the North Atlantic Alliance is the world's largest military-political bloc, uniting most of the countries of Europe, the United States and Canada. Founded April 4, 1949 in the USA. One of NATO's stated goals is to provide deterrence or defense against any form of aggression against the territory of any NATO member state.

NATO Goals:

· be the basis of stability in the Euro-Atlantic region;

· serve as a forum for consultations on security issues;

· to deter and protect against any threat of aggression against any of the NATO member states;

· promote effective conflict prevention and actively participate in crisis management;

· to promote the development of all-round partnership, cooperation and dialogue with other countries of the Euro-Atlantic region.

The northern coalition included: North Korea and its armed forces; Chinese army; The USSR, which also did not officially participate in the war, but largely took over its financing, and also sent Air Force units and numerous military advisers and specialists to the Korean Peninsula

From the South, South Korea, the United States, Great Britain and a number of other countries took part in the war as part of the UN peacekeeping forces.

Consequences of the war.

The Korean War was the first armed conflict during the Cold War and was the prototype of many subsequent conflicts. She created a model of local war, when two superpowers fight in a limited area without the use of nuclear weapons. The Korean War added fuel to the fire of the Cold War, which at that time was more associated with a confrontation between the USSR and some European countries.

1. "Cold War" is:

1) The system of repressions created in the USSR during the years of Stalinism

2) One of the military operations during World War II

3) The system of relations established by the m. socialist and capitalist countries after the Second World War

4) An attempt by the Western powers to isolate our country after the Brest peace

2. The period of the "cold war" refers to the years:

3. UN created:

4. Which of the American presidents started the "containment policy" of the USSR?

1) Herbert Hoover

2) Franklin Roosevelt

3) Harry Truman

4) Dwight Eisenhower

5. In 1945, only:

3) France

4) Germany.

6. The system of international relations, characterized by a balance of approximately equal forces of rival great powers, was called:

1) monopolar;

2) global;

3) bipolar;

4) international

7. The Truman Doctrine, announced in 1947, boiled down to:

A. creation of a military-political union of Western countries under the auspices of the United States

B. renunciation of the production of nuclear weapons

B. the creation of military bases near the borders of the USSR

G. strengthening friendly relations with the USSR

D. support for internal opposition in European countries

E. renunciation of economic relations with the countries of socialism

8. Effective assistance to the DPRK in the Korean War () was provided by:

2) USSR and China

3) PRC and Hungary

4) Poland and the USSR.

9. In what year did the UN troops land in Korea?

Questions and tasks:

1. Define the Cold War

2. Formulate the main goals of NATO.

3. What are the consequences of the Cold War?

Used Books:

1. History. (Textbook for colleges), etc. 2007.

2. http://ru. wikipedia. org

Topic 1.3. Third World countries: the collapse of colonialism and
struggle against backwardness.

Goals: Find out the reasons for the collapse of the colonial system

Plan:

1. The growth of the anti-colonial movement.

2. The formation of new independent states as a result of the collapse of colonial empires. The influence of the Cold War on the liberation movements.

3. Difficulties in overcoming backwardness.

One of the distinguishing featuresXX century- the elimination of the colonial system and the emergence of dozens of new independent states.

The creation of new states on the site of former colonies is the result of the victory of national liberation movements, which in a number of countries had a peaceful character. Their main achievement was the transfer of state power from the hands of the apparatus of the colonial powers to the hands of the national forces of the former colonies.

A number of factors contributed to hastening the collapse of colonialism in the post-war years:

1. Extreme aggravation of contradictions between colonies and mother countries;

2. The growing international influence of the successes of socialist construction in the USSR;

3. The balance of forces in the world arena changing in favor of socialism;

4. Weakening of the positions of capitalism as a result of the Second World War

5. Deepening his general crisis.

6. Education, formation and successful development of the world system;

The crisis of the colonial system began after the First World War.

Already in the in a number of countries in Asia and the Arab East (Indonesia, India, Iran, Iraq, etc.) powerful popular uprisings took place.

In most colonies, the leadership of the liberation movement was taken over by the national bourgeoisie, and sometimes by a few intelligentsia, who created their own political organizations, which led the struggle for political independence. In India, back in 1885. The National Congress Party was formed in Indonesia in 1927 the National Party was born in Tunisia in 1934 a left-wing nationalist party was formed New Dustur.

The victory of the Soviet Union in World War II:

Influenced the search for ways to develop third world countries,

And the search for models of their post-war device.

China has already 1957 departs from the pro-Soviet policy and independently strives for hegemony over the third world.

In the 1970s, the Communist Party of Vietnam began to gradually shift to Chinese positions, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "Chinese model of socialism" was established in the economic sphere of the country.

Mongolia moved to the construction of the Soviet model in the post-war period and in 1962 joined the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, an international economic organization of the socialist countries under the leadership of the USSR.

The second stage of became the final in the political collapse of colonialism.

Belgium granted independence to the Congo (Zaire), although the riots that escalated into a civil war hampered the process of granting independence. The tragedy of the Congo (Zaire) did not stop the process of the liberation of Africa.

March 1960 England granted independence to Nigeria, the largest country in terms of population.

In March 1962, France had to stop the war in Algeria and recognize its independence. After the overthrow of the dictatorship of a totalitarian type in Portugal, its colonies - Mozambique and Angola - became independent.

In the 1960s alone, 44 former colonial possessions gained independence. With the liquidation of the Portuguese colonies in 1975, there was a complete collapse of the colonial system. The post-colonial development of the Third World countries began.

Leaving the colonies, the former metropolitan countries sought to maintain their influence there in one way or another.

Western countries are beginning to use more camouflaged methods of exploiting the newly liberated countries.

Various forms of neo-colonialism are emerging.

At the second stage of the collapse of the colonial system, the restructuring of international relations between the capitalist world and the liberated countries began.

Creation in 1957, according to the Rome Accords, of the European Economic Community (now the EU) and the accession to it as associated states of all the colonial possessions of the EEC member countries reflected the desire of the West to use collective forms and methods of neo-colonial politics.

In 1958, permanent bodies of the Afro-Asian solidarity movement were established. The final organizational movement took place in April 1960 at a conference in Xnakri (Guinea), when a charter was adopted and the main goals of this movement were formulated, one of which was to accelerate the liberation of peoples and ensure their economic, social and cultural development. The growth of solidarity among the peoples of the Afro-Asian continent became one of the reasons for the elimination of colonial possessions on the Asian and African continent and ensured the transition of the collapse of the colonial system to its last phase. However, in the future, with the elimination of colonialism, the role of the Afro-Asiatic solidarity movement was constantly decreasing.

Thus, the upsurge of the national liberation movement during the Second World War, favorable international conditions for it, and the prevailing after the defeat of fascism, led to the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism in its classical forms. The anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples who have liberated themselves from colonialism is an important force that, together with the world socialist community, the international workers' and communist movement, is making a great contribution to the revolutionary renewal of the planet.

Questions and tasks:

1. Formulate the main factors that contributed to the acceleration of the collapse of colonialism?

2. What are the main forms of neo-colonialism?

3. What is the main distinguishing feature of the XX century.

Used Books:

2. The World History. Textbook for high schools. , (2009)

3. http://ru. wikipedia. org

Topic 1.4 Dictatorships in the Muslim East

Goals: To form an idea of ​​the dictatorial regimes in the East.

Plan:

1. When and why did dictatorial regimes begin to take shape? Why are they aggressive?

2. Why Islam was the basis of dictatorial regimes.

3. In which countries have such regimes developed?

Dictatorship (Latin dictatura) - form state government, in which all the fullness of state power belongs to only one political position - the ruler (dictator), the ruling party, the ruling group of persons, the ruling union or the ruling social class.

The Egyptian Constitution of 1923 formally declared him independent state and constitutional monarchy. In fact, the regime of British military occupation was maintained in the country. In 1951, the Egyptian parliament agreed to unilaterally cancel the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, which caused the introduction of British troops into the country and a deep political crisis. In this situation, in 1952, the patriotic military organization "Free Officers" led by Gamal Abdel Nasser carried out a coup d'état. All power was concentrated in its hands by the Council for the Leadership of the Revolution.

Stages of the liberation revolution in Egypt.

From 1952 to the beginning of the 60s. in Egypt, the first stage of the national liberation revolution was carried out, accompanied by the adoption of the law on agrarian reform (1952), the abolition of the old constitution (1952), the liquidation of the monarchy and the adoption of the republican constitution (1956). After the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company and the ensuing aggression of England, France and Israel (1956), a law was issued on the “Egyptization” of foreign banks and firms.

From the middle of 1961 the second stage of the revolution began. During this period, measures were taken to nationalize banks and enterprises, carry out the second agrarian reform, and introduce state planning. The Charter of National Action, adopted in July 1962, rejected the capitalist path of development, and the Provisional Constitution of 1964 proclaimed Egypt a "socialist democratic republic."

L. Johnson, who replaced John F. Kennedy, who tragically died in November 1963, embarked on the implementation of social reforms, which came to be known as the "great society" program. Its central link was the "war on poverty", aimed at improving the situation of the poorest segments of the US population. According to statistics in 1964, there were 36.4 million poor people in the country, which amounted to about 20% of the population, that is, people whose real incomes were below the "poverty level."

Of the federal programs, an important place belonged to the program preschool children of the poor.

Medical insurance for the elderly was introduced, and families with incomes below the "poverty line" became eligible for preferential conditions for medical care through special federal subsidies to the states.