Battle of Kursk, Tehran Conference. Meetings of the Big Three

Tehran Conference Having completed negotiations in Cairo, Roosevelt and Churchill went to Tehran, where they met with the Soviet delegation headed by Stalin. For four days - from November 28 to December 1, 1943 - the heads of government of the USSR, USA and England exchanged

Tehran Conference- the first conference of the “Big Three” during the Second World War - the leaders of three countries: F. D. Roosevelt (USA), W. Churchill (Great Britain) and J. V. Stalin (USSR), held in Tehran on November 28 - December 1 1943.

The historical significance of the conference can hardly be overestimated - it was the first meeting of the Big Three, at which the fate of millions of people and the future of the world were decided.

Conference goals:

The conference was called upon to develop a final strategy for the fight against Germany and its allies. The conference became an important stage in the development of international and inter-allied relations; a number of issues of war and peace were considered and resolved at it:

• an exact date was set for the Allies to open a second front in France (and the “Balkan strategy” proposed by Great Britain was rejected),
• discussed issues of granting independence to Iran (“Declaration on Iran”)
• the beginning of the solution to the Polish question was laid
• about the beginning of the USSR war with Japan after the defeat of Nazi Germany
• the contours of the post-war world order were outlined
• a unity of views has been achieved on issues of ensuring international security and lasting peace

Tehran Conference (1943) Franklin Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill
Yalta Conference (1945) Franklin Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill
Potsdam Conference (1945) Harry Truman, Stalin and Churchill
In 1943, in Tehran, Franklin Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill discussed mainly the problem of achieving victory over the Third Reich; in Potsdam in July-August 1945, the allies resolved issues of peaceful settlement and division of Germany; in Yalta, major decisions were made on the future division of the world between countries -winners.

47. USSR in the post-war years: restoration and development of the national economy and social life.

With the end of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet people had to do a huge amount of work to restore the economy, raise the material standard of living of people, and begin peaceful creative work.

Measures were taken aimed at resuming normal work in enterprises and institutions. Mandatory overtime work was abolished, the 8-hour working day and annual paid leave were restored. The state budget for the third and fourth quarters of 1945 and for 1946 was revised. Appropriations for military needs were reduced and expenditures for the development of civilian sectors of the economy increased. In August 1945, the USSR State Planning Committee received the task of preparing a draft plan for the restoration and development of the national economy.

The restructuring of the national economy and social life in relation to peacetime conditions was completed mainly in 1946.

In March 1946, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR approved a plan for the restoration and development of the national economy for 1946-1950. It defined

ways of revival and further development of the economy. The main objective of the five-year plan was to restore the areas

countries subject to occupation to achieve the pre-war level of industrial development and agriculture and then surpass them

(by 48 and 23%, respectively). The plan provided for the priority development of heavy and defense industries. Significant financial resources, material and labor resources were allocated here. It was planned to develop new coal regions and expand the metallurgical base in the east of the country. One of the conditions for fulfilling planned targets was the maximum use of the achievements of scientific and technological progress.

Enterprises were equipped with new technology. The mechanization of labor-intensive processes in the iron and steel and coal industries has increased. Electrification of production continued. By the end of the Five-Year Plan, the electrical output of labor in industry was one and a half times higher than the 1940 level.

The end of the Great Patriotic War had a significant impact on the socio-political development of society. Over the course of three and a half years, about 8.5 million former soldiers were demobilized from the army and returned to civilian life. Over 4 million repatriates returned to their homeland - prisoners of war, residents of occupied areas driven into captivity, and some emigrants.

Having endured the incredible hardships of wartime, the population expected improved working and living conditions, positive changes in society,

softening of the political regime. As in previous years, for the majority these hopes were associated with the name of I.V. Stalin. Upon completion

war I.V. Stalin was relieved of his duties as People's Commissar of Defense, but retained the post of Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. He continued

remain a member of the Politburo and the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party of the Soviet Union). The authority of I.V., which increased during the war years. Stalin was supported by the entire system of the administrative-bureaucratic and ideological apparatus. In 1946-1947 on behalf of I.V. Stalin, projects were being developed

the new Constitution of the USSR and the VKShchb Program). The constitutional project provided for some development of democratic principles in the life of society. Thus, simultaneously with the recognition of the state form of ownership as the dominant one, the existence of small peasant farming based on personal labor was allowed. During the discussion of the draft Constitution in the republican party and economic structures, wishes were expressed for the decentralization of economic life. Proposals were made to expand the economic independence of local management organizations. It was proposed to supplement the draft Program of the VKShchb with a provision on limiting the terms of elective party work, etc. However, all proposals were rejected, and subsequently work on the draft documents ceased. The population's expectations for changes for the better were not destined to come true. Soon after the end of the war, the country's leadership took measures to tighten its internal political course.

48. The world and the USSR in a state of “cold war”: the main directions of foreign policy in the post-war years.

Changes in the international arena. The foreign policy activities of the Soviet state in the second half of the 40s took place in an atmosphere of profound changes in the international arena. Victory in the Patriotic War increased the authority of the USSR. In 1945, it had diplomatic relations with 52 states (compared to 26 in the pre-war years). The Soviet Union took an active part in resolving the most important international issues, and above all in resolving the post-war situation in Europe.
In seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe, leftist, democratic forces came to power. The new governments created in them were headed by representatives of the communist and workers' parties. Leaders of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania. Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia carried out agrarian reforms in their countries, nationalization of large industry, banks and transport. The established political organization of society was called people's democracy. It was seen as one of the forms of proletarian dictatorship.
In 1947, at a meeting of representatives of nine communist parties of Eastern European countries, the Communist Information Bureau (Cominformburo) was created. He was entrusted with coordinating the actions of the communist parties of the people's democracies, which began to call themselves socialist. The documents of the meeting formulated the thesis about dividing the world into two camps - imperialist and democratic, anti-imperialist. The concept of two camps, of confrontation on the world stage between two social systems lay at the heart of the foreign policy views of the party and state leadership of the USSR. These views were reflected, in particular, in the work of J.V. Stalin “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR.” The work also contained the conclusion about the inevitability of wars in the world as long as imperialism exists.
Treaties of friendship and mutual assistance were concluded between the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe. Identical treaties linked the Soviet Union with the GDR, created on the territory of East Germany, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the People's Republic of China (PRC). The agreement with China provided for a loan of $300 million. The right of the USSR and China to use the former CER was confirmed. The countries reached an agreement on joint actions in the event of aggression by any of the states. Diplomatic relations were established with states that gained independence as a result of the national liberation struggle that unfolded in them (the so-called developing countries).
The beginning of the Cold War. With the end of the Patriotic War, changes occurred in the relationship of the USSR with its former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. “Cold War” - this is the name given to the foreign policy pursued by both sides towards each other during the second half of the 40s - the early 90s. It was characterized primarily by hostile political actions of the parties. Forceful methods were used to solve international problems. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the USSR in the initial period of the Cold War were V. M. Molotov, and since 1949 - A. Ya. Vyshinsky.
The confrontation between the parties clearly manifested itself in 1947 in connection with the Marshall Plan put forward by the United States. The program developed by US Secretary of State J. Marshall provided for the provision of economic assistance to European countries that suffered during the Second World War. The USSR and people's democracies were invited to participate in a conference on this matter. The Soviet government regarded the Marshall Plan as a weapon of anti-Soviet policy and refused to participate in the conference. At his insistence, the countries of Eastern Europe invited to the conference also announced their refusal to participate in the Marshall Plan.
One of the forms of manifestation 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 Western European countries. Two years later, the military-political alliance between the United States, Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) was signed. The formation of these blocs contributed to the strengthening of the US position in different regions of the world.
In the context of intensifying confrontation in relations between former allies, the Soviet Union worked against the propaganda of a new war. The main arena of his activities was the United Nations (UN). This international organization was created in 1945. It united 51 states. Its goal was to strengthen peace and security and develop cooperation between states. At UN sessions, Soviet representatives made proposals to reduce conventional weapons and ban atomic weapons, and to withdraw foreign troops from the territories of foreign states. All these proposals, as a rule, were blocked by US representatives and their allies. The USSR unilaterally withdrew troops from the territories of several states where they had been deployed during the war years.
Representatives of Soviet public organizations actively participated in the peace movement, which took organizational form in the late 40s. More than 115 million citizens of the country signed the Stockholm Appeal adopted by the Standing Committee of the World Peace Congress (1950). It contained demands for the prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of international control over the implementation of this decision.
The confrontation between the former allies reached its greatest intensity at the turn of the 40s and 50s in connection with the Korean War. In 1950, the leadership of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea made an attempt to unite the two Korean states under its leadership. According to Soviet leaders, this association could strengthen the position of the anti-imperialist camp in this region of Asia. During the preparation for the war and during hostilities, the USSR government provided financial, military and technical assistance to North Korea. The PRC leadership, at the insistence of J.V. Stalin, sent several military divisions to North Korea to participate in combat operations. The war was ended only in 1953 after lengthy diplomatic negotiations.
USSR and Eastern European countries. One of the leading directions of foreign policy in the post-war years was the establishment of friendly relations with the states of Eastern Europe. Soviet diplomacy provided assistance to Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in the preparation of peace treaties with them (signed in Paris in 1947). In accordance with trade agreements, the Soviet Union supplied grain, raw materials for industry, and fertilizers for agriculture to Eastern European countries on preferential terms. In 1949, in order to expand economic cooperation and trade between countries, an intergovernmental economic organization was created - the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). It included Albania (until 1961), Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and since 1949 the GDR. The seat of the CMEA Secretariat was Moscow. One of the reasons for the creation of CMEA was the boycott by Western countries of trade relations with the USSR and the states of Eastern Europe.
The main directions of relations between the USSR and Eastern European countries were determined by bilateral agreements between them. Military and other types of assistance were provided in case one of the parties became involved in hostilities. It was planned to develop economic and cultural ties and hold conferences on international issues affecting the interests of the contracting parties.
Already on initial stage During the period of cooperation between the USSR and the states of Eastern Europe, contradictions and conflicts appeared in their relations. They were mainly associated with the search and choice of the path to building socialism in these states. According to the leaders of some countries, in particular W. Gomulka (Poland) and K. Gottwald (Czechoslovakia), the Soviet path of development was not the only one for building socialism. The desire of the USSR leadership to establish the Soviet model of building socialism and to unify ideological and political concepts led to the Soviet-Yugoslav conflict. The reason for it was Yugoslavia’s refusal to participate in the federation with Bolshaya recommended by the Soviet leaders. In addition, the Yugoslav side refused to fulfill the terms of the agreement on mandatory consultations with the USSR on issues of national foreign policy. Yugoslav leaders were accused of retreating from joint actions with socialist countries. In August 1949, the USSR broke off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia.

The results of the USSR's foreign policy activities in the second half of the 40s and early 50s were contradictory. Its position in the international arena has strengthened. At the same time, the policy of confrontation between East and West significantly contributed to the growth of tension in the world.
Difficulties in the economic sphere, ideologization of socio-political life, increased international tension - these were the results of the development of society in the first post-war years. During this period, the regime of personal power of I.V. Stalin became even stronger, and the command and administrative system became more stringent. During these same years, the idea of ​​the need for change in society became more and more clearly formed in the public consciousness. The death of J.V. Stalin (March 1953) facilitated the search for a way out of the contradictions that entangled all spheres of public life.

49. Implementation of political and economic reforms in 1953-1964. Period of collective leadership. XX Congress of the CPSU. Reforms of N.S. Khrushchev in the field of agriculture and industrial management. Political loss of N.S. Khrushchev.

Political reforms of N, Khrushchev

After Malenkov’s removal, Khrushchev became the de facto head of state. The 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956 and N. Khrushchev’s speech at it on Stalin’s personality cult became a turning point in history, the beginning of partial de-Stalinization and democratization of the country’s life. The report cited examples of the lawlessness of the Stalinist regime, which were associated mainly only with the activities of certain specific individuals, but did not raise the question of the existence of a totalitarian system. This speech strengthened Khrushchev's authority, which caused discontent among other party leaders. In June 1957, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, Voroshilov and Kaganovich tried to remove Khrushchev from the leadership. But thanks to the support of party leaders, opposition representatives were condemned by the communists as an “anti-party group.” At the same Plenum, Khrushchev achieved the introduction of new persons into the Presidium of the Central Committee who supported him in difficult times - Brezhnev, Zhukov, Ignatov and others.

Continuing his reformist line, Khrushchev managed to take radical steps in restructuring the ruling party. At the XXII Congress in October 1961, changes were made to the Charter of the CPSU, which concerned the democratization of the party itself, the conditions for admission to it, the expansion of the rights of local party organizations, and the expansion of the rights of union republics. In 1957, the rights of peoples deported under Stalin were restored; in the late 50s. various forms of public self-government began to emerge, etc.

Economic reforms of N. Khrushchev (50s - mid-60s)

Having achieved relative political stability through the course of some liberalization of the regime, Khrushchev was faced with intractable economic problems. It was decided to start reforms Withagriculture. It was planned to increase state purchase prices for collective farm products and expand sown areas to include virgin and fallow lands. The development of virgin lands initially provided an increase in food supply. On the other hand, it was carried out to the detriment not only of traditional grain-growing areas, but was not scientifically prepared. Therefore, "virgin lands soon fell into disrepair. In March 1955, reform of agricultural production planning began. The goal was declared to be a combination of centralized management of agriculture With expansion of rights and economic initiative at the local level, i.e. decentralization of government of the republics. Almost 15 thousand enterprises were transferred to the jurisdiction of republican administrative bodies. In 1957, the government began to abolish sectoral ministries and replace them with territorial government bodies. SNK (National Economic Councils) were created in the republics. The central apparatus for managing the national economy became the USSR Council of National Economy and the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR. At the end of 1962, one of the most unsuccessful reforms was carried out: party organizations were divided into industrial and rural.

In development industry Much attention was paid to the development of light industry, the result was an increase in the gross output of the food industry by 1.5 times. A significant place in Khrushchev's overall strategy was given to scientific and technological progress in the development of heavy and light industry.

Serious shortcomings of economic reforms were management miscalculations, increased spending on military needs, politicization and ideologization in managing the national economy. Such experiments as the so-called “Ryazan meat experiment”, “corn epic”, the eviction of agricultural scientists from Moscow to villages, etc. are widely known. The increase in crisis phenomena led to social destabilization (suppression of workers’ protests in Novocherkassk in 1962, dispersal of student demonstrations in 1958). In order to reduce tension, the authorities decided to increase wages in the public sector, double pensions, lower the retirement age, and reduce the working hours. The crisis of the management system was obvious, but Khrushchev laid all the blame on the rural party organizations. The situation was aggravated by the significant growth of the bureaucratic apparatus, mixing! functions, duplication of solutions, etc. The reform of the central apparatus for managing the national economy (the creation of economic councils) had the same consequences.

Thus, Khrushchev’s economic and political reforms were limited in nature to democratization and. boiled down to a formal structural reorganization, which inevitably led to crisis phenomena. The crisis of reforms led to the emergence of conservative tendencies and the restoration of some elements of totalitarianism. Khrushchev's line of sole rule of the party and state apparatus was regarded by the party and state apparatus as a desire for a new dictatorship. As a result, in October 1964, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, Khrushchev was removed from his posts in the party and government.

Officially, after Stalin's death, the so-called "collective leadership", the dictator's inner circle. On March 6, 1953, at a joint meeting of the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the following members of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee were approved: G. M. Malenkov (Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR), L. P. Beria (First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Minister Internal Affairs and State Security), V. M. Molotov (First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and Minister of Foreign Affairs), K. E. Voroshilov (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR), N. A. Bulganin (First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR) , A. I. Mikoyan (Minister of Trade), M. V. Saburov (Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR) and M. G. Pervukhin (Minister of Power Plants and Electrical Industry).

Great value in the beginning of liberalization of socio-political life had XX Congress of the CPSU(February 1956). The report on the work of the Party Central Committee and the directives of the sixth five-year plan for national economic development were discussed at the congress. Due to the sharply negative

the position of V. M. Molotov, K. E. Voroshilov, L. M. Kaganovich and G. M. Malenkov, the question of Stalin was not raised.

As a result of the compromise, the report “On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences” was read at a closed meeting of the congress (first published in 1989). The report contained information collected by P. N. Pospelov’s commission about the mass executions of innocent people and the deportation of peoples in the 30-40s. They talked about repression, torture, the death of prominent people, about V.I. Lenin’s letter to the congress and Stalin’s neglect of the collective leadership, about the difficult situation of agriculture, about the defeats of the Red Army at the initial stage of the war. Remaining captive to ideological dogmas, Khrushchev explained all these events solely by Stalin’s personal qualities. By limiting itself to criticism of the “cult of personality,” the new party leadership preserved the very system of socialist society intact and closed the path to a real restructuring of Soviet society for many years.

The significance of this unprecedented step that Khrushchev decided to take was enormous. Having overthrown Stalin from his pedestal, Khrushchev at the same time removed the “halo of immunity” from the first person and his entourage in general. The system of total fear was largely destroyed. The seemingly unshakable faith in the infallibility of the supreme power was greatly shaken.

The 20th Congress was the beginning of a critical rethinking of world socialist practice and the development of the international communist movement. The process begun by the 20th Congress subsequently led to a split in the almost monolithic (the only exceptions were the Communist Parties of Yugoslavia and a few Trotskyists) communist movement.

Groups of parties were formed:

1) admitting some of Stalin’s “mistakes” and focusing on the CPSU;

2) those who do not recognize Stalin’s criticism and are oriented towards the Communist Party of China;

50. USSR in the mid-1960s - first half of the 1980s. L.N. Brezhnev. Economic (Kosygin) reform of 1965. Increasing crisis phenomena in the economic, political and socio-spiritual spheres.

Socio-economic development of the USSR. Mistakes made by N.S. Khrushchev, voluntarism in his policy facilitated the rise to power of conservative forces, which completely blocked the nascent democratic movement. October 14, 1964 at the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee N.S. Khrushchev was removed from all posts. L.I. became the first secretary (since 1966 - General Secretary) of the CPSU Central Committee. Brezhnev, who expressed the interests of the party apparatus and a powerful layer of the economic bureaucracy. Since 1977, he held another post - Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Therefore, the main factor that determined the internal life of the country in the mid-60s was the search for ways of further economic and social development. The largest attempt to rebuild the economy in the entire post-war period was the economic reform of 1965, carried out under the leadership of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygina. The reform affected industry, construction, and agriculture. The industrial management reform was approved by the September (1965) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. Its main directions were: new administrative centralization: abolition of economic councils and restoration of industrial ministries (sectoral management); introduction of cost accounting at enterprises; changes in the industry and construction management system: reduction in the number of indicators planned from above; introduction as a core assessment; development

economic stimulation of enterprises. Enterprises that switched to the new system generally improved their performance. Period 1966-1970 was the best in the last 30 years. The volume of industrial production increased by one and a half times. Subsequently, the extensive nature of the economy led to the accelerated development of the fuel and energy complex of the USSR. If in 1971-1975. it amounted to 11% of the total volume of capital investments, then in 1992 - 21%. In 1980, the complex provided 10% of world oil and gas production. With the coming to power of L.I. Brezhnev also increased funding for defense programs. 45% of the budget funds allocated to industry were spent annually on the needs of the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial sector accounted for 80% of machine-building plants. Against the backdrop of the global economy, management realized the need to transition to intensive production methods. From 1970 to 1985 the share of industries that determined scientific and technological progress in the national economy (mechanical engineering, metalworking, chemistry and petrochemistry, electric power) in gross output increased from 25% to 38% (while in industrialized countries their share reached 55-65% ). Along with the creation of scientific and production associations, new industries emerged - robotics, microelectronics, nuclear engineering, etc. But these trends did not become decisive for the development of the economy. The agricultural policy of the USSR was characterized by large investments in agriculture, exceeding 1/5 of all investments. Among the measures taken were the following: control over collective farms was weakened, prices for agricultural products were increased (on average by 20%), a firm government procurement plan was established for 6 years, and a 50% premium was introduced for above-plan production. In general, in 1960-1969. There was an increase in agricultural production. At the same time, the emphasis was on agro-industrial integration - the unification of agriculture with the industries that serve it. The created agroindustrial complexes, however, did not become viable economic organisms, turning into a purely administrative structure (the USSR State Agricultural Industry was created in 1985). Since the second half of the 70s, the situation in agriculture began to take on a crisis character. The growth rate of agricultural production in the first half of the 60s. were 4.3%, in the first half of the 80s - 1.4%. Most collective and state farms were unprofitable. The standard of living in the USSR slowly increased until the mid-70s, and then did not decline for more than five years. However, financing of the social sphere continued exclusively on a residual basis. Since 1970 The main economic indicators began to decline. By the end of the 70s, signs of a commodity famine emerged and the deficit increased. The growth rate of national income fell from 7.7% in the Eighth Five-Year Plan (1965-1970) to 3.8% in the Eleventh (1981-1985). Accordingly, the growth rate of labor productivity fell from 6.8% to 3%.

Socio-political situation. Period 70's - early 80's. in the history of Soviet society received the definition of “stagnant”. The reasons for stagnation and crisis phenomena, along with the subjective factor (the personality of L.I. Brezhnev and his entourage), lay in the socio-economic relations that prevailed in the country, the model of society that was formed back in the 30s. In the new Constitution of the USSR in 1977, the party abandoned the idea of ​​a quick transition to communism and the withering away of the state. The modern political period was defined as “developed socialism.” The Constitution declared the creation of “a new social and international community - the Soviet people.” Its 6th article legally secured the monopoly position of the CPSU in the political system, and the party itself was defined as

“the guiding and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of the political system.” From 1966 to 1985 the number of the CPSU increased from 12.4 to 19 million people. During the Brezhnev period, a process of further centralization of the party apparatus and strengthening of the power of the partyocracy took place. Phenomena such as corruption, criminalization, etc. completely undermined the authority of the authorities. The ideological dictate of the CPSU restrained the development of creativity and encouraged unanimity. There was a return to neo-Stalinism in ideology, literature, science, and culture. In society

Social apathy was growing, caused by double standards and growing social injustice. The dissident movement continued to be a radical expression of disagreement with the existing situation in the country.

Results. A characteristic feature of social production in those years was the preferential development of industries of group “A” compared to group “B” and the military-industrial complex. At the same time, the Soviet economy remained predominantly at the industrial stage, while the economies of a number of countries around the world rose to the scientific-industrial stage. The 1965 reform was replaced by counter-reforms that strengthened centralization and the position of the departmental bureaucracy. Soviet foreign policy for 1965-1985. also went through a difficult and contradictory path from harsh confrontation with the West to détente and from there to a new aggravation of international tension that brought the world to the brink of world war. It was based on the concepts of ideological confrontation and struggle between two systems. The Brezhnev leadership had two serious achievements: ensuring military-strategic parity with the United States and the policy of détente of the first early 70s. By the first half of the 80s, the USSR was drawn into another round of the arms race, which undermined the state of the Soviet economy.

Kosygin reform- industrial reform 1965-1970, aimed at strengthening economic incentives and expanding the independence of enterprises. In September 1965, the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee was held, which adopted a resolution “On improving industrial management, improving planning and strengthening economic incentives.” On the initiative of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygin, it was proposed to reform industrial enterprises in order to increase their efficiency. The reform, called “Kosygin”, provided for the introduction, along with gross indicators, of the cost of goods sold, the general wage fund, total amount centralized capital investments. To stimulate the activities of enterprises, part of the income had to remain in the enterprise. At the same time, the vertical of power was simultaneously strengthened, and central industrial ministries were restored instead of economic councils. Nevertheless, according to Academician L.I. Abalkin, in the country as a whole, according to all the most important socio-economic indicators, the period 1966-1970 was the best in all the years of Soviet power. But, as shown further development events, the reform was a set of disparate and contradictory steps, was carried out inconsistently, was hampered by local authorities, the expansion of independence was combined with the strengthening of the administrative and economic powers of the ministries. The party leaders felt a threat to their undivided power. By the mid-1970s, the reform was curtailed, a period of stagnation began, and the goals of the reform were not achieved.

After abandoning the “Kosygin reform” exclusively administrative methods of management began to dominate again, and the same type of decisions were made year after year, which ultimately led to stagnation in the national economy. The country's fundamental economic growth indicators continued to deteriorate steadily.
The arms race required an increase in the output of military products, which led to a certain militarization of the economic sphere. Military spending consumed up to 20% of the gross national product.
The gap from Western countries in scientific and technological progress accumulated, and primarily in non-military sectors, and the number of officially registered inventions in the USSR was greater than in the USA, Japan, Great Britain, Germany and other countries. However, under the existing system they were largely not introduced into the socialist economy.
The extensive raw materials-based nature of economic development continued to prevail. Since the second half of the 1960s. The unprecedented development of oil and gas fields in Siberia and the export of fuel abroad began. So-called “petrodollars” flowed into the country, which were used to patch up bottlenecks in the national economy. This process objectively increased the raw materials orientation of the domestic economy. The situation in the agricultural sector in the late 1970s. began to take on a catastrophic nature, so in 1982 agro-industrial complexes (APCs) were created. Collective farms, state farms, and enterprises for processing agricultural raw materials, located on the same territory, were united into regional agro-industrial complexes. However, over all the years of its existence, the agro-industrial complex has not justified itself, has not become a viable economic organism and has not fulfilled the food program.
Political development of the USSR in 1965-1985. proceeded within the framework of the existing one under I.V. Stalin's political system with the dominant role of the Communist Party in society. The dictates of the party-state apparatus were all-encompassing and formed the core of the country's administrative and managerial system.
In the political and ideological sphere, a return to hidden Stalinism gradually began. Name I.V. Stalin began to appear more and more often in memoirs, various books and articles. These memories were, as a rule, of an apologetic nature. A gradual drift began away from the decisions of the XX and XXII Party Congresses.
An important milestone in political development was the adoption of the USSR Constitution in October 1977. Its main provisions were:
- characteristics of the then stage of development of Soviet society, which received the official name “developed socialism”;
- fixation of the national character of the state instead of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat;
- legislative consolidation of the leading role of the CPSU in society (Article 6) as the core of the political system;
- the presence of a wide range of rights and freedoms of citizens, which were poorly implemented in real life.
Another serious problem in the functioning of political-power relations was gerontocracy (“the power of the elders”). In the 1970s the average age of the top party leadership was approaching 70 years, and, despite physical ailments and illnesses, they continued to decide the destinies of the country. Their only goal was to preserve personal power, therefore, conservation of all spheres of life of Soviet society took place, and in this sense, the term “stagnation” that subsequently appeared quite accurately reflected the situation of this period of time.
Since the mid-1960s. In our country, a dissident movement arose as a form of dissent in relation to the ideology and policies of the Soviet system, a form of public disagreement and protest.
The authorities responded by intensifying repression against dissidents. Some of them were exiled abroad (A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Bukovsky, A. Galich, etc.), while others were convicted and were imprisoned (A. Marchenko, N. Sharansky, etc.). Academician A.D. Sakharov was isolated and exiled in 1980 to the then closed city of Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod), where he remained until 1986.
Dissidents, according to today's estimates, undermined the totalitarian system and brought democracy closer to the country.
Crisis phenomena also affected the social and spiritual spheres of society. There have been major changes in the social structure of the population. A privileged position was occupied by a group of leading officials, or party state nomenklatura. Its share in the social structure of Soviet society increased 2.4 times compared to the pre-war period and by 1979 amounted to 6%. In material terms, they were the most wealthy and enjoyed all sorts of privileges.
Workers ranked first in terms of numerical strength (60% in 1979), but about half of them were employed in heavy and unskilled work. Negative influence their position was influenced by the equalizing nature of wages.
The number of village residents, due to a number of reasons, decreased three times (15% in 1979) and the question arose acutely of who would work in the agricultural sector. The townspeople, mostly civil servants and intellectuals, were sent to harvest the harvest on a massive, forced basis.
There was an increase in negative phenomena in the social sphere (drunkenness, corruption, etc.).
In the spiritual sphere, there was a loss of moral guidelines. The suppression of dissent and all freedom, including religious freedom, continued. The people and the country were experiencing a stage of spiritual crisis.

51. Main directions of foreign policy of the USSR in 1965-1985. "Brezhnev Doctrine". Events in Czechoslovakia 1968. Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1972-1975). Troop entry into Afghanistan 1979

In the context of increasing nuclear potential in the world, one of the main directions of Soviet foreign policy was the struggle to achieve military-strategic parity between East and West. And although it was achieved in 1969, the Soviet leadership still considered the buildup of weapons and their improvement as component struggle for peace.

The change in the foreign policy course of the Soviet state had a positive impact on relations with the West. Contacts with France expanded.

One of the priority directions of Soviet foreign policy was relations with third world countries. In an effort to strengthen its influence in various regions of the planet, the USSR provided them with large-scale assistance. It covered the military, financial, technical and other spheres: military and civilian specialists were sent here, huge preferential loans were given, and cheap weapons and raw materials were supplied. Only for the first half of the 1970s. In the “liberated countries”, about 900 industrial enterprises were built with the help of the USSR. The USSR was particularly active in the Middle East (Syria), Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique) and Southeast Asia (Laos, Cambodia). Thus, the USSR inspired the Cuban intervention in Angola, helped the Popular Liberation Front of Mozambique, and directly intervened in the conflict in the Horn of Africa, first on the side of Somalia and then on the side of Ethiopia. In 1979, through the mediation of Cuba, the USSR supported the partisans in Nicaragua, who achieved the overthrow of the pro-American regime of dictator Somoza in that country. The Soviet leadership was sympathetic to the countries that proclaimed a course towards building socialism. Such “help” led to the siphoning of colossal funds from the country’s national budget and became one of the reasons for its economic collapse.

In the early 80s. The foreign policy of the USSR brought mostly disappointing results, erasing the successes of the period of detente.

Brezhnev Doctrine- a description of the foreign policy of the USSR of the 60-80s formulated by Western politicians and public figures. The doctrine was that the USSR could interfere in the internal affairs of the countries of Central-Eastern Europe, which were part of the socialist bloc in order to ensure the stability of the political course, built on the basis of real socialism and aimed at close cooperation with the USSR.

The doctrine remained in force until the late 1980s, when under Mikhail Gorbachev it was replaced by a different approach, which was jokingly called the “Sinatra Doctrine” (referring to Frank Sinatra’s song “My Way”).

The actual end of the doctrine is attributed to the meeting between USSR President M. S. Gorbachev and US President George W. Bush in Malta in December 1989.

In 1968 in Czechoslovakia the process of renewal began, the rejection of deformed socialism, which bore all the features of the Stalinist model. Re-forms were started by some of the leaders of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, led by A. Dubcek, under the slogan of building “socialism with a human face.” Initially, the Soviet leadership welcomed the Prague Spring. However, articles soon began to appear in the Soviet press expressing concerns whether the rapid process of renewal in Czechoslovakia would lead to the abandonment of socialist principles. The concepts of “pluralism” and “diversity of models of socialism”, widely used in the Czechoslovak press, which were regarded as a departure from the Soviet model, received a sharply negative assessment in propaganda. On August 21, 1968, units of the Soviet Army crossed the border of Czechoslovakia. Together with them there were parts of the GDR, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria. This was an aggressive action against a sovereign country.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE) - the most representative regional organization, created to discuss critical issues international security in modern Europe. The OSCE arose as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe at the initiative of the USSR and socialist countries. The first round of the Meeting took place 1972–1975. and ended with the signing in Helsinki of the Final Act and the Declaration of Principles that should guide the signatory states international documents. The CSCE was created as a permanent forum of representatives European countries, the USA and Canada to develop measures to reduce military opposition and strengthen security in Europe.

In early December 1979, the Minister of Defense of the USSR, Marshal of the Soviet Union D. F. Ustinov, informed the leadership of the General Staff that in the near future a decision would probably be made to send up to 75 thousand Soviet troops to Afghanistan. people
The final collapse of discharge occurred after entering Soviet troops in Afghanistan in December 1979, KGB special units captured the palace of X. Amin, the President of Afghanistan, who was quite loyal to the USSR, but suspected of sympathizing with China. Amin was killed. President B. Karmal, who was imprisoned with Soviet help, approved the entry of Soviet troops with the appropriate “invitation.” Such an ill-conceived decision was made by only a few members of the Soviet leadership, led by Brezhnev. Even some members of the government learned about this from the newspapers, not to mention the whole people. The world community sharply negatively assessed the actions of the USSR in Afghanistan. An emergency session of the UN General Assembly declared a violation by the Soviet Union of the sovereignty of Third World states. According to official data (which will have to be studied and thoroughly verified), more than 15 thousand Soviet soldiers died in this undeclared war, 35 thousand were wounded, more than 300 were missing or captured. The total losses of the Afghan people amounted to about 1 million people. The participation of the Soviet Union in the Afghan War led to a decline in its authority in the international arena. His contacts with Western countries and the United States have decreased. One of the indicators of this was the refusal of the US Senate to ratify the treaty signed with the Soviet Union on the further limitation of the nuclear arms race (SALT-2). Thus, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in 1965-1985. passed a difficult path - from a tough confrontation with the West (in the second half of the 60s) to détente of international tension (70s) and from there - to a new aggravation of international relations (in the late 70s and early 80s. ), which brought humanity to the brink of a new world war. The main reason for this was not only the mutual distrust between East and West, the continuation of the arms race, but also the extreme ideologization of foreign policy.

52. The state of the country after the death of L.I. Brezhnev. Yu.V.Andropov. K.U. Chernenko.

53.USSR during the period of perestroika (1985-1991): reasons, goals, stages, contradictory nature of the results.

The concept of "perestroika". Under the influence of perestroika, significant ideological, political, economic, and social changes took place, changing from top to bottom the totality of state and economic structures, established after October 1917 in Russia. Politicians, scientists and publicists have different points of view on this process. Some see in perestroika a counter-revolutionary coup and betrayal of October and socialism; others - the possibility of Russia's development in line with world civilization; third - the onset of “troubled” times and the death of a huge country; fourth - the possibility of returning to the natural-historical path interrupted in 1917.

First stage(March 1985 - January 1987). This period was characterized by the recognition of some shortcomings of the existing political-economic system of the USSR and attempts to correct them with several large administrative campaigns (the so-called “Acceleration”) - an anti-alcohol campaign, “the fight against unearned income,” the introduction of state acceptance, and a demonstration of the fight against corruption. No radical steps had yet been taken during this period; outwardly, almost everything remained the same. At the same time, in 1985-86, the bulk of the old personnel of the Brezhnev conscription was replaced with a new team of managers.

Second stage(January 1987 - June 1989). An attempt to reform socialism in the spirit of democratic socialism. Characterized by the beginning of large-scale reforms in all spheres of life of Soviet society. A policy of openness is being proclaimed in public life - easing censorship in the media and lifting bans on what were previously considered taboos. In the economy, private entrepreneurship in the form of cooperatives is being legitimized, and joint ventures with foreign companies are beginning to be actively created. In international politics, the main doctrine is “New Thinking” - a course towards abandoning the class approach in diplomacy and improving relations with the West. Part of the population is overwhelmed by euphoria from the long-awaited changes and freedom unprecedented by Soviet standards. At the same time, during this period, general instability began to gradually increase in the country: the economic situation worsened, separatist sentiments appeared on the national outskirts, and the first interethnic clashes broke out.

Third stage(June 1989-1991). The final stage, during this period, there is a sharp destabilization of the political situation in the country: after the Congress, the confrontation between the communist regime and the new political forces that emerged as a result of the democratization of society begins. Difficulties in the economy are developing into a full-scale crisis. The chronic shortage of goods reaches its apogee: empty store shelves become a symbol of the turn of the 1980-1990s. Perestroika euphoria in society is replaced by disappointment, uncertainty about the future and mass anti-communist sentiments. Since 1990, the main idea is no longer “improving socialism”, but building democracy and a market economy of the capitalist type. “New thinking” in the international arena comes down to unilateral concessions to the West, as a result of which the USSR is losing many of its positions. In Russia and other republics of the Union, separatist-minded forces come to power - the “parade of sovereignties” begins. The logical result of this development of events was the liquidation of the power of the CPSU and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

54.Strategy for accelerating socio-economic development and its results. Economic reforms 1987-1988 Options for transition to a market economy

ACCELERATING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY- the strategic course of the party, aimed at a qualitative transformation of all aspects of the life of Soviet society.
The program for accelerating the socio-economic development of the country, put forward by the April (1985) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, received detailed justification in the decisions of the XXVII Party Congress and the January (1987) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. The course to accelerate the socio-economic development of the country presupposes profound transformations in the economy, the implementation of an active social policy, the consistent affirmation of the principle of social justice, the improvement of social relations, the renewal of the forms and methods of work of political and ideological institutions, the deepening of socialist democracy, the decisive overcoming of inertia, stagnation and conservatism . In the economic field, acceleration means, first of all, a decisive overcoming of the negative trends that emerged in the 70-80s and an increase in growth rates.
In the twelfth five-year plan, it is planned to increase the rate of increase in labor productivity to 23% compared to 16.5% in the eleventh five-year plan. The increase in national income will be 22.1%, real income per capita 14% compared to 16.5 and 11%, respectively. The essence of acceleration is to achieve a new quality of economic growth, that is, based on the full intensification of production, scientific and technological progress, structural restructuring of the economy, effective forms of management, organization and stimulation of labor.
By 2000, it is planned to double the country's national income without increasing the number of workers in material production and while reducing its metal intensity by 2 times and energy intensity by no less than 1.4 times. By the middle of this period, the capital intensity of production will have to stabilize and then reduce it. In the context of the intensification of social production and the consistent implementation of resource-saving policies, the acceleration of socio-economic development presupposes a focus on increasing the final economic results, improving product quality, producing fundamentally new, more productive equipment, and rapid growth in the efficiency of social labor. Important indicators of acceleration are a reduction in the time required for updating fixed production assets, the range of products, and a radical increase in their technical level and quality.
To accelerate the socio-economic development of the country, two groups of reserves and sources are put into action. The first of them includes the best use of existing production potential and available labor resources, a decisive fight against losses of raw materials and working time, establishing order, strengthening organization and discipline. The mobilization of these reserves does not, as a rule, require significant costs and produces relatively quick results. In the long term, acceleration requires the use of deep reserves of economic growth, the decisive role among which belongs to scientific and technological progress.
It is necessary to carry out a radical transformation of the productive forces, based on mastering the latest achievements of the scientific and technological revolution. Of paramount importance is the rapid renewal of the production apparatus through the widespread introduction of advanced technology, the most advanced technological processes and flexible production, which allows for a quick restructuring to produce new products and gives the greatest economic and social effect. Acceleration of the country's socio-economic development also depends on further improvement of the entire system of industrial relations, restructuring of farms and management methods, and the introduction of effective forms of material interest and responsibility. Particular attention is paid to the democratization of all public life, the development of social activity of the masses, and the cultivation of a master's attitude towards work and its results (see also The pace of economic development, Economic policy of the CPSU).

Economic reforms. The key to the reform strategy of M.S. Gorbachev was to accelerate the rate of economic growth, scientific and technological progress, increase the production of means of production, and develop the social sphere. The priority task of economic reforms was recognized as the accelerated development of mechanical engineering as the basis for the re-equipment of the entire national economy. At the same time, the emphasis was on strengthening production and performance discipline (measures to combat drunkenness and alcoholism); control over product quality (law on state acceptance). The development of the reform was carried out by famous economists (L.I. Abalkin, A.G. Aganbegyan, P.G. Bunin, etc.), it was carried out in accordance with the concept of self-supporting socialism. The reform project included : - expansion of the independence of enterprises on the principles of self-financing and self-financing; - gradual revival of the private sector of the economy, primarily through the development of the cooperative movement; - rejection of the monopoly of foreign trade; - deep integration into the world market; - reduction in the number of sectoral ministries and departments, between which it was assumed establish partnerships; - recognition of equality in rural areas of the five main forms of management (collective farms, state farms, agricultural complexes, rental cooperatives, farms). The implementation of the reform was characterized by inconsistency and half-heartedness. During the transformation, there was no reform of the credit, pricing policy, or centralized supply system. However, despite this, the reform contributed to the formation of the private sector in the economy. In 1988, the Law on Cooperation and the Law on Individual Labor Activity (ILA) were adopted. The new laws opened up the possibility for private activity in more than 30 types of production of goods and services. By the spring of 1991, more than 7 million people were employed in the cooperative sector and another million in self-employment. The downside of this process was the legalization of the “shadow economy.” In 1987, the Law on State Enterprises (Associations) was adopted. Enterprises were transferred to self-sufficiency and self-supporting, receiving the right to foreign economic activity and the creation of joint ventures. At the same time, most of the manufactured products were still included in state orders and, therefore, were withdrawn from free sale. According to the Law on Labor Collectives, a system for electing heads of enterprises and institutions was introduced. Changes in agriculture began with the reform of state and collective farms. In May 1988, it was announced that it would be advisable to switch to rental contracts in rural areas (under a land lease agreement for 50 years with the right to dispose of the products received). By the summer of 1991, only 2% of the land was cultivated under lease conditions (based on the 1989 law on lease and rental relations) and 3% of the livestock was kept. In general, it was not possible to achieve serious changes in agricultural policy. One of the main reasons was the nature of government food policy. For many years, prices for basic food products were maintained at a low level with low growth rates in agricultural production, which was facilitated by subsidies for both the producer (up to 80%) and the consumer (1/3 of the Russian budget) of food. The deficit budget could not cope with such a load. Laws on transferring land into private ownership and increasing household plots were not adopted. Economic results showed the inconsistency of the reforms being carried out. Remaining within the framework of the socialist economic system (universal planning, distribution of resources, state ownership of the means of production, etc.), the country’s national economy also lost the administrative and command levers of coercion on the part of the party. At the same time, no market mechanisms were created. After some initial successes associated with the enthusiasm for renewal, an economic recession began. Since 1988, there has been a general decline in agricultural production. As a result, the population faced a shortage of food products, and even in Moscow their rationed distribution was introduced. Since 1990, a general reduction in industrial production began. In the summer of 1990, instead of acceleration, a course towards a transition to a market economy was proclaimed, scheduled for 1991, i.e., by the end of the 12th Five-Year Plan (1985-1990). However, in contrast to the plans of the official leadership for the gradual (over several years) introduction of the market, a plan was developed (known as the “500 days” program), aimed at a “quick breakthrough” in market relations, supported by the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, B. N. Yeltsin. The authors of the project were a group of economists - Academician S.S. Shatalin, G.A. Yavlinsky, B.G. Fedorov and others. During the first half of the term, it was planned: the transfer of enterprises to forced lease, large-scale privatization and decentralization of the economy, the introduction of antimonopoly legislation. During the second half, it was assumed that government price controls would be removed, allowing for a decline in basic sectors of the economy, regulated unemployment and inflation in order to sharply restructure the economy. This project created a real basis for an economic union of the republics, but contained significant elements of utopianism and could lead to unpredictable social consequences. Under pressure from conservatives, Gorbachev withdrew support for this program.

The practice of countries that were once part of the “world socialist system” demonstrates two main options for transforming the administrative-command system into a market economy: the first (historically earlier) is the evolutionary path of the gradual creation of market institutions (China and, to a large extent, Hungary); the second is “shock therapy,” which was used with varying degrees of intensity in Russia and most countries of Central and Eastern Europe (in its classical form in Poland).

The differences between these paths lie in the timing of systemic transformations and stabilization measures, the degree of coverage of the national economy by market mechanisms, the scope of regulatory functions of the state, etc.

The choice of an evolutionary or “shock” path of transition to a market economy depends not so much on the will of the political leadership, but on a complex of political, economic, social, historical and other factors. The evolutionary transition is supported by the presence of fairly developed agriculture and handicraft production, which employ generations of workers who have retained the skills of private entrepreneurship; the relatively low share of heavy industry and especially the military-industrial complex; stability of the financial system; the predominance among the political and economic elite of layers interested in carrying out reforms, etc.

Choosing a “shock” option is usually a necessary measure. In most cases, it is associated with the need to overcome the extremely difficult financial situation inherited from the administrative-command system, as well as an acute commodity shortage caused by accumulated structural imbalances.

55.USSR during the period of perestroika (1985-1991): reform of the political system.