The period under review was peaceful and stable for the countries of Western Europe and the United States compared to the first half of the century, which had several European wars and two world wars, two series of revolutionary events. The dominant development of this group of states in the second half of the XX century. considered to be a significant progress along the path of scientific and technological progress, the transition from industrial to post-industrial society. However, even in these decades, the countries of the Western world faced a number of complex problems, crises, upheavals - all that is called "challenges of the time." These were large-scale events and processes in various fields, such as the technological and information revolution, the collapse of colonial empires, the global economic crises of 1974-1975. and 1980-1982, social performances in the 60-70s. XX century, separatist movements, etc. All of them demanded some kind of restructuring of economic and social relations, the choice of ways for further development, compromises or toughening of political courses. In this regard, various political forces were replaced in power, mainly conservatives and liberals, who tried to strengthen their positions in a changing world.
The first post-war years in European countries became a time of acute struggle, primarily around issues of social structure, the political foundations of states. In a number of countries, for example in France, it was necessary to overcome the consequences of the occupation and the activities of collaborationist governments. And for Germany, Italy, it was about the complete elimination of the remnants of Nazism and fascism, the creation of new democratic states. Significant political battles unfolded around the elections to constituent assemblies, the development and adoption of new constitutions. In Italy, for example, the events associated with the choice of a monarchical or republican form of state went down in history as a “battle for the republic” (the country was proclaimed a republic as a result of a referendum on June 18, 1946).
It was then that the forces that most actively participated in the struggle for power and influence in society over the next decades declared themselves. On the left flank were the Social Democrats and the Communists. At the final stage of the war (especially after 1943, when the Comintern was dissolved), members of these parties collaborated in the resistance movement, later - in the first post-war governments (in France in 1944 a conciliation committee of communists and socialists was created, in Italy in 1946 . an agreement on unity of action was signed). Representatives of both left parties were part of the coalition governments in France in 1944-1947, in Italy in 1945-1947. But the fundamental differences between the communist and socialist parties persisted, moreover, in the postwar years, many social democratic parties excluded from their programs the task of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, adopted the concepts social society, in essence, switched to liberal positions.
In the conservative camp since the mid-40s. the parties that combined the representation of the interests of large industrialists and financiers with the promotion of Christian values as enduring and uniting different social strata of ideological foundations became the most influential. These included the Christian Democratic Party (CDP) in Italy (founded in 1943), the People's Republican Movement (MPM) in France (founded in 1945), the Christian Democratic Union (since 1945 - CDU, with 1950 - CDU / CSU bloc) in Germany. These parties sought to gain broad support in society and emphasized adherence to the principles of democracy. Thus, the first program of the CDU (1947) included the slogans of "socialization" of a number of branches of the economy, "complicity" of workers in the management of enterprises, reflecting the spirit of the times. And in Italy, during a referendum in 1946, the majority of CDA members voted for a republic, not a monarchy. The confrontation between the right, conservative and left, socialist parties formed the main line in the political history of Western European countries in the second half of the 20th century. At the same time, one can notice how changes in the economic and social situation in certain years shifted the political pendulum either to the left or to the right.
From recovery to stability (1945-1950s)
After the end of the war, coalition governments were established in most Western European countries, in which representatives of the left forces - socialists and, in some cases, communists - played a decisive role. The main activities of these governments were the restoration of democratic freedoms, the cleansing of the state apparatus from members of the fascist movement, persons who collaborated with the invaders. The most significant step in economic sphere was the nationalization of a number of sectors of the economy and enterprises. In France, 5 largest banks, the coal industry, the Renault automobile plants (the owner of which collaborated with the occupation regime), and several aviation enterprises were nationalized. The share of the public sector in industrial output reached 20-25%. In the UK, where in power in 1945-1951. Laborites were in power, power plants, coal and gas industries, railways, transport, individual airlines, steel mills passed into state ownership. As a rule, these were important, but far from the most prosperous and profitable enterprises, on the contrary, they required significant capital investments. Besides former owners nationalized enterprises were paid significant compensation. Nevertheless, nationalization and state regulation were seen by social democratic leaders as the highest achievement on the path to a "social economy".
Constitutions adopted in Western European countries in the second half of the 40s. - in 1946 in France (the constitution of the Fourth Republic), in 1947 in Italy (entered into force on January 1, 1948), in 1949 in West Germany, became the most democratic constitutions in the history of these countries. Thus, in the French constitution of 1946, in addition to democratic rights, the rights to work, rest, social security, education, the rights of workers to participate in the management of enterprises, trade union and political activity, the right to strike “within the framework of the laws”, etc. were proclaimed.
In accordance with the provisions of the constitutions, many countries created systems social insurance, including pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits, assistance to large families. A 40-42-hour week was established, paid holidays were introduced. This was done largely under pressure from the working people. For example, in England in 1945, 50,000 dock workers went on strike to achieve a reduction in the working week to 40 hours and the introduction of two weeks of paid holidays.
The 1950s constituted a special period in the history of Western European countries. It was a time of rapid economic development (production growth industrial production reached 5-6% per year). Post-war industry was created using new machines and technologies. A scientific and technological revolution began, one of the main manifestations of which was the automation of production. The qualifications of the workers who operated automatic lines and systems increased, and their wages also increased.
In the UK, the level of wages in the 50s. increased by an average of 5% per year with an increase in prices by 3% per year. in Germany during the 1950s. real wages doubled. True, in some countries, for example, in Italy, Austria, the figures were not so significant. In addition, governments periodically “froze” salaries (forbidden their increase). This caused protests and strikes by workers.
The economic recovery was especially noticeable in the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy. In the post-war years, the economy here was adjusted more difficult and slower than in other countries. Against this background, the situation in the 1950s regarded as an "economic miracle". It became possible thanks to the restructuring of industry on a new technological basis, the creation of new industries (petrochemistry, electronics, the production of synthetic fibers, etc.), and the industrialization of agrarian regions. American assistance under the Marshall plan served as a significant help. A favorable condition for the rise in production was that in the postwar years there was a great demand for various manufactured goods. On the other hand, there was a significant reserve of cheap labor (at the expense of immigrants, people from the village).
The economic recovery was accompanied by social stability. Under conditions of reduced unemployment, relative price stability, and rising wages, workers' protests were reduced to a minimum. Their growth began in the late 1950s, when some of the negative consequences of automation appeared - job cuts, etc.
The period of stable development coincided with the coming to power of the conservatives. Thus, in Germany, the name of K. Adenauer, who held the post of chancellor in 1949-1963, was associated with the revival of the German state, and L. Erhard was called the "father of the economic miracle." The Christian Democrats partly retained the façade of "social policy", they spoke of a welfare society, social guarantees for working people. But state intervention in the economy was curtailed. In Germany, the theory of the "social market economy" was established, focused on supporting private property and free competition. In England, the conservative governments of W. Churchill and then A. Eden carried out the re-privatization of some previously nationalized industries and enterprises (motor transport, steel mills, etc.). In many countries, with the coming to power of the conservatives, an offensive began on the political rights and freedoms proclaimed after the war, laws were passed in accordance with which citizens were persecuted for political reasons, and the Communist Party was banned in the FRG.
Changes in the 60s
After a decade of stability in the life of the Western European states, a period of upheaval and change has begun, connected both with the problems of internal development and with the collapse of colonial empires.
So, in France by the end of the 50s. there was a crisis situation caused by the frequent change of governments of socialists and radicals, the collapse of the colonial empire (the loss of Indochina, Tunisia and Morocco, the war in Algeria), the deterioration of the situation of workers. In such a situation, the idea of "strong power", an active supporter of which was General Charles de Gaulle, received more and more support. In May 1958, the command of the French troops in Algiers refused to obey the government until Charles de Gaulle returned to it. The general declared that he was "ready to take over the power of the Republic" on condition that the 1946 constitution be repealed and emergency powers granted to him. In the fall of 1958, the constitution of the Fifth Republic was adopted, which provided the head of state with the broadest rights, and in December de Gaulle was elected president of France. Having established a "regime of personal power", he sought to resist attempts to weaken the state from within and without. But on the issue of colonies, being a realistic politician, he soon decided that it was better to carry out decolonization “from above”, while maintaining influence in the former possessions, than to wait for a shameful expulsion, for example, from Algeria, which fought for independence. De Gaulle's readiness to recognize the right of the Algerians to decide their own fate caused an anti-government military mutiny in 1960. All in 1962, Algeria gained independence.
In the 60s. in European countries, speeches by different segments of the population under different slogans have become more frequent. in France in 1961-1962. demonstrations and strikes were organized demanding an end to the rebellion of the ultra-colonialist forces opposed to the granting of independence to Algeria. In Italy, there were mass demonstrations against the activation of neo-fascists. The workers put forward both economic and political demands. The fight for higher wages included "white collars" - highly skilled workers, employees.
The high point of social action during this period was the events of May - June 1968 in France. Starting as a protest by Parisian students demanding the democratization of the higher education system, they soon developed into mass demonstrations and a general strike (the number of strikers in the country exceeded 10 million people). Row workers automobile factories Renault occupied their enterprises. The government was forced to make concessions. The strikers achieved a 10-19% increase in wages, an increase in vacations, and the expansion of trade union rights. These events proved to be a serious test for the authorities. In April 1969, President de Gaulle put forward a bill on the reorganization of local self-government to a referendum, but the majority of those who voted rejected the bill. After that, Charles de Gaulle resigned. In June 1969, a representative of the Gaullist party, J. Pompidou, was elected the new president of the country.
The year 1968 was marked by an aggravation of the situation in Northern Ireland, where the civil rights movement became more active. Clashes between representatives of the Catholic population and the police escalated into an armed conflict, which included both Protestant and Catholic extremist groups. The government brought troops into Ulster. The crisis, sometimes aggravating, sometimes weakening, dragged on for three decades.
A wave of social action led to political change in most Western European countries. Many of them in the 60s. Social Democratic and Socialist parties came to power. In Germany, at the end of 1966, representatives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) joined the coalition government with the CDU / CSU, and since 1969 they themselves formed the government in a bloc with the Free Democratic Party (FDP). In Austria in 1970-1971. For the first time in the history of the country, the Socialist Party came to power. In Italy, the basis of the post-war governments was the Christian Democratic Party (CDA), which entered into a coalition with the parties of the left, then with the right. In the 60s. its partners were the left - the social democrats and socialists. The leader of the Social Democrats, D. Saragat, was elected president of the country.
Despite the differences in situations in different countries, the policy of the Social Democrats had some common features. They considered their main, "never ending task" to be the creation of a "social society", the main values of which were proclaimed freedom, justice, solidarity. They considered themselves as representatives of the interests not only of workers, but also of other segments of the population (from the 70-80s, these parties began to rely on the so-called "new middle strata" - the scientific and technical intelligentsia, employees). In the economic sphere, the Social Democrats advocated a combination different forms property - private, state, etc. key position their programs was the thesis of state regulation of the economy. The attitude towards the market was expressed by the motto: "Competition - as much as possible, planning - as much as necessary." Special meaning given to the "democratic participation" of the working people in solving questions of the organization of production, prices, wages.
In Sweden, where the Social Democrats had been in power for several decades, the concept of "functional socialism" was formulated. It was assumed that the private owner should not be deprived of his property, but should be gradually involved in the implementation public functions through the redistribution of profits. The state in Sweden owned about 6% of production capacity, but the share of public consumption in gross national product(GNP) in the early 70s. was about 30%.
Social-democratic and socialist governments allocated significant funds for education, health care, and social security. To reduce the unemployment rate, special programs for the training and retraining of the workforce were adopted. Progress in the solution social problems was one of the most significant achievements of the Social Democratic governments. However, the negative consequences of their policy soon appeared - excessive "overregulation", bureaucratization of public and economic management, overstrain state budget. A part of the population began to assert the psychology of social dependency, when people, without working, expected to receive in the form of social assistance as much as those who worked hard. These "costs" drew criticism from conservative forces.
An important aspect of the activities of the social democratic governments of the Western European states was the change in foreign policy. Particularly significant steps in this direction have been taken in the Federal Republic of Germany. The government that came to power in 1969, headed by Chancellor W. Brandt (SPD) and Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs W. Scheel (FDP), made a fundamental turn in the “Ostpolitik”, concluding in 1970-1973. bilateral treaties with the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, confirming the inviolability of the borders between the FRG and Poland, the FRG and the GDR. These treaties, as well as the quadripartite agreements on West Berlin, signed by representatives of the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France in September 1971, created a real basis for expanding international contacts and mutual understanding in Europe. 4. The fall of authoritarian regimes in Portugal, Greece, Spain. In the mid 70s. Significant political changes have taken place in the states of Southwestern and Southern Europe.
In Portugal, as a result of the April Revolution of 1974, the authoritarian regime was overthrown. The political upheaval carried out by the Movement of the Armed Forces in the capital led to a change of power on the ground. The first post-revolutionary governments (1974-1975), which consisted of the leaders of the Movement of the Armed Forces and the Communists, focused on the tasks of defashization and the establishment of democratic orders, the decolonization of the African possessions of Portugal, the agrarian reform, the adoption of a new constitution of the country, improving the living conditions of workers. The nationalization of the largest enterprises and banks was carried out, workers' control was introduced. Later, the right-wing block Democratic Alliance (1979-1983) came to power, which tried to curtail the transformations that had begun earlier, and then the coalition government of the socialist and social democratic parties, headed by the leader of the socialists M. Soares (1983-1985).
In Greece, in 1974, the regime of "black colonels" was replaced by a civilian government, which consisted of representatives of the conservative bourgeoisie. It didn't make any major changes. In 1981 -1989. and since 1993, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) party was in power, a course of democratization of the political system and social reforms was pursued.
In Spain, after the death of F. Franco in 1975, King Juan Carlos I became the head of state. With his approval, the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one began. The government headed by A. Suarez restored democratic freedoms and lifted the ban on the activities of political parties. In December 1978, a constitution was adopted proclaiming Spain a social and legal state. Since 1982, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party has been in power, its leader F. Gonzalez headed the country's government. Particular attention was paid to measures to increase production and create jobs. In the first half of the 1980s. the government carried out a number of important social measures (reduction of the working week, increase in holidays, adoption of laws expanding the rights of workers in enterprises, etc.). The party strove for social stability, reaching agreement between different layers Spanish society. The result of the policy of the socialists, who were in power continuously until 1996, was the completion of the peaceful transition from dictatorship to a democratic society.
Neoconservatives and liberals in the last decades of the 20th - early 21st century.
Crisis of 1974-1975 seriously complicated the economic and social situation in most Western European countries. Changes were needed, a restructuring of the economy. There were no resources for it under the existing economic and social policy, state regulation of the economy did not work. Conservatives tried to give an answer to the challenge of time. Their focus on a free market economy, private enterprise and initiative was well aligned with the objective need for extensive investment in production.
In the late 70s - early 80s. conservatives came to power in many Western countries. In 1979, the Conservative Party won the parliamentary elections in Great Britain, the government was headed by M. Thatcher (the party remained ruling until 1997) - In 1980, Republican R. Reagan was elected president of the United States, who also won the 1984 elections. In 1982 In Germany, a coalition of the CDU / CSU and the FDP came to power, G. Kohl took the post of chancellor. The long-term rule of the Social Democrats in the countries of Northern Europe was interrupted. They were defeated in elections in 1976 in Sweden and Denmark, in 1981 in Norway.
The figures who came to power during this period were not in vain called the new conservatives. They have shown that they can look ahead and are capable of change. They were distinguished by political flexibility and assertiveness, appeal to the general population. Thus, the British conservatives, led by M. Thatcher, came out in defense of the "true values of British society", which included diligence and thrift; neglect of lazy people; independence, self-reliance and striving for individual success; respect for laws, religion, the foundations of the family and society; contributing to the preservation and enhancement of the national greatness of Britain. The slogans of creating a "democracy of owners" were also used.
The main components of the neoconservatives' policy were the privatization of the public sector and the curtailment of state regulation of the economy; course towards a free market economy; cuts in social spending; reduction in income taxes (which contributed to the revitalization of entrepreneurial activity). Equalization and the principle of redistribution of profits were rejected in social policy. The first steps of the neoconservatives in the field of foreign policy led to a new round of the arms race, an aggravation of the international situation (a vivid manifestation of this was the war between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1983).
The encouragement of private entrepreneurship, the course towards the modernization of production contributed to the dynamic development of the economy, its restructuring in accordance with the needs of the unfolding information revolution. Thus, the conservatives proved that they are capable of transforming society. In Germany, the most important historical event was added to the achievements of this period - the unification of Germany in 1990, participation in which put G. Kohl among the most significant figures in German history. At the same time, during the years of the Conservatives' rule, protests by various groups of the population for social and civil rights did not stop (including the British miners' strike in 1984-1985, protests in the FRG against the deployment of American missiles, etc.).
In the late 90s. In many European countries, conservatives have been replaced by liberals. In 1997, the Labor government headed by E. Blair came to power in Great Britain, and in France, following the results of parliamentary elections, a government was formed from representatives of leftist parties. In 1998, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, G. Schroeder, became Chancellor of Germany. In 2005, he was replaced as chancellor by the representative of the CDU / CSU bloc A. Merkel, who headed the “grand coalition” government, consisting of representatives of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. Even earlier in France, the left-wing government was replaced by a right-wing government. However, in the mid-10s. 21st century in Spain and Italy, right-wing governments, as a result of parliamentary elections, were forced to cede power to governments led by socialists.
USSR and BSSR in the second half of the twentieth century.
1.
2.
1. International relations after World War II. BSSR in the international arena.
After the Second World War, Germany and its allies lost their positions in world politics. The United States began to claim the role of leader: during the war they concentrated more than ¾ of the world's gold reserves, 60% of world industrial production, in addition, nuclear weapons were developed, which made it possible to act from a position of strength. On the other hand, the USSR advanced to the leading positions, despite the huge losses in the war: it had the strongest army at that time, in addition, by creating pro-Soviet states in Europe and Asia, it was able to form a powerful socialist bloc. One third of the world's population lived in it, these countries were called "the world system of socialism (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Korea, Vietnam, East Germany, China, Cuba). They were opposed by Western capitalist countries led by the United States. In 1949, a military alliance was formed - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). A military, economic, ideological confrontation between the two systems began, which was called the Cold War. The foundation was laid in 1946, when in the city of Fulton, in the presence of US President G. Truman, former British Prime Minister W. Churchill accused the USSR of seizing and isolating of Eastern Europe and called for a crusade against the USSR. A year later, in March 1947, Truman formulated a program to support "free peoples" and contain communism. It consisted in the fact that the United States had the right to interfere in the internal affairs of states in the presence of the threat of communism. An arms race began, the "Iron Curtain" was installed, the world was once again teetering on the brink of war. Back in December 1945, the Pentagon developed a plan for a nuclear strike on the USSR, but testing the Soviet atomic bomb in 1949 (Kazakhstan) became a powerful deterrent for the states. To strengthen its influence, the United States carried out the "Marshall Plan", which consisted in economic support for European countries in exchange for following a certain political course recommended by the States. After the war, the colonial system collapsed (England and France): Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Guinea and others were the first to gain independence. By 1961, about 40 states with a population of 1.5 billion people became independent .
changed after the war international status BSSR. On February 1, 1944, she received the opportunity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states. In 1946, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was formed, headed by K.V. Kiselev. On April 27, 1945, the republic participated in the creation of the UN, as well as in the activities of various international organizations - UNESCO, IAEA, in the preparation and adoption of international treaties and conventions. Participation in the UN made it possible to solve some internal problems (significant material assistance). The republic advocated a ban on nuclear weapons, demanded general and complete disarmament and destruction of chemical weapons, and was elected a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Another important area of international activity of Belarus was the establishment of trade and economic relations with Western countries, the republic participated in international fairs and exhibitions. In the 70-80s. 80% of exports fell to the socialist countries, and only 20% to the capitalist ones. Cultural ties have become an important area of international relations - cooperation in the field of literature (publishing works abroad and publishing foreign literature in Belarusian and Russian), science and education. Despite the expansion of international relations, it should be taken into account that the foreign policy of the BSSR was determined by the foreign policy of the USSR, and the independence of the Republic was limited by the union.
2. Restoration and development of the national economy of Belarus. Socio-political life and attempts to reform the economy in the 1950s-1960s.
The Second World War had severe consequences for Belarus: the Germans destroyed and burned 209 cities and 9,200 villages; in terms of the general level of development, the country was thrown back by 1928. The restoration of the national economy began in the autumn of 1943 and continued until 1955, when the pre-war level. Reparations in the amount of $1.5 billion were sent to Belarus, money was allocated from the Union budget, in addition, equipment for factories, agricultural machinery, building materials came to Belarus. The main burden of restoring the economy fell on the people. There was an acute shortage of labor, for example, only 400 people remained in Vitebsk at the time of liberation. In September 1946, the fourth five-year plan was adopted, which aimed to reach the pre-war level of the economy, as well as to restructure it. More attention began to be paid to heavy industry, including the creation of new industries in Belarus - automotive, tractor, hydraulic turbines, etc. During the years of the five-year plan, a tractor, automobile, motor and bicycle plant and others were built. large enterprises, in 1950 the volume of industrial production exceeded the pre-war level by 15%. During the years of the fifth (1951-1955) five-year plan, the volume of production doubled, more than 150 large enterprises and 200 small ones were built.
The situation in agriculture was more difficult. Mostly women, teenagers and children remained in the villages. There was not enough draft power, and in the first post-war spring, the collective farmers manually dug up 150 thousand hectares of land, due to a lack of fertilizers, the yields were very low. Despite the help of the townspeople in carrying out agricultural work, the five-year plans were not fulfilled. In 1949, collectivization began in western Belarus. Labor productivity grew very slowly, and only by 1955 did the main indicators reach the pre-war level. The main reasons for this are the weak material interest of labor, insufficient funding, since the main funds were directed to the development of industry.
Despite these successes, the industry lagged behind scientific and technological progress, agriculture developed at a slow pace, in addition, there were problems in the social sphere. After the war, the Stalinist regime was strengthened. It was implemented in two directions: 1) new repressions (prisoners of war, intelligentsia (V. Dubovka, Grakhovsky village, M. Ulaschik, A. Zvonak), the population of Western Belarus); 2) party control over socio-political and cultural life (selection and placement of personnel - with the knowledge of the party, puppet state of the Soviets, ideological orientation in literature, art, science (the main theme is military), Sovietization of the western regions of Belarus).
All this required the implementation of socio-economic reforms, which began after the death of Stalin. In September 1953, N.S. was elected Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Khrushchev. In February 1956, at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Stalin's personality cult was condemned, the rehabilitation of the repressed began (700,000 people, including 29,000 Belarusians), a course towards democratization was announced in the country, the rights of the republics were expanded (independence in planning, industrial management, legislative rights).
In the economy of the 50s. a course was taken for the development of new non-metal-intensive industries - instrument making and electronics, fixed assets were updated and modernized, old equipment was replaced with new ones, as a result, in 1960 the total volume of industry increased by 4.2 times compared to the pre-war one. However, a contradiction gradually began to appear between the achieved level of development and the old methods of management. In 1957, an attempt was made to replace the system of administration through ministries with a territorial one. In Belarus, instead of 9 ministries, one economic management body was formed - the Council of the National Economy of the BSSR. However, the attempt was unsuccessful, it was not possible to bring management closer to production, on the contrary, there was a break in economic relations and ties.
1950-60s became the time of the formation of the chemical industry, new enterprises were built (Soligorsk potash plant, Gomel chemical plant, Polotsk chemical plant, etc.). This greatly increased the power of the economy, but environmental problems began. In parallel, the development of agriculture was going on, although the food problem was not completely solved: collective farmers were transferred to cash wages, purchase prices for agricultural products were increased, investments increased, reclamation of swamps was carried out, which negatively affected the ecology of Polesie. Despite this, there was not enough sown area, and the country's government decided to expand the sown area through the development of virgin lands (60 thousand Belarusians). At first, this gave certain yields, but the soils quickly became depleted, and Khrushchev tried to solve the food problem by planting corn, including by reducing the sowing of other crops. This increased the food supply for animals, but led to a shortage of other crops.
Housing was being built at a rapid pace (it did not differ in quality - communal apartments, Khrushchevs), wages increased, working hours decreased, a transition was made to a five-day working week, and medical care for people improved. By the mid 50s. the restoration of the Belarusian economy was finally completed, new industries appeared. All this has turned the republic into an industrial state with a relatively dynamic level of development. However, the sluggishness of the centralized management system and insufficient incentives for labor slowed down the rapid rooting in production. scientific developments. In addition, Belarus did not have enough raw materials and energy sources, and gradually fell into economic dependence on the center and became the assembly shop of the USSR. Attempts to reform did not give anything, as they were half-hearted, were not stimulated financially and did not find a response from the population.
Political and socio-economic development of the BSSR in the 60-80s.
In 1964, there was a change in the party leadership and political course. Khrushchev, having failed the agrarian reform, was accused of voluntarism and subjectivism, and was relieved of his post. L.I. became the Secretary General. Brezhnev, from 1965 to 1980 the Communist Party of Belarus was headed by P.M. Masherov. The core of the political system remained the communist party, belonging to which was the way to improve the social status and career growth of the individual. At the same time, ordinary communists were excluded from decision-making. The leadership apparatus is characterized by centralization and bureaucracy, huge funds were spent on its maintenance, abuse of office and corruption spread among officials, the highest group of senior workers turned into a closed caste, which was called the "nomenklatura".
The economy of the USSR and the BSSR developed under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, which swept most countries of the world. Priority development in the BSSR was given to science-intensive industries: instrument making, electronic and radio-electronic industry, production of communications. In general, the development of the Belarusian economy corresponded to the global one, but it had its own characteristics, first of all, the fact that the industry of Belarus was more than half associated with the production of products for the military-industrial complex, and the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution slowly took root in non-military industries.
In agriculture, the scientific and technological revolution contributed to the expansion, first of all, of mechanization and chemicalization, which increased labor productivity, but in general, the effectiveness of the use of scientific and technical achievements remained low. Specific gravity manual labor in industry was 40%, in agriculture - about 70%.
The main trend in the development of the economy of the USSR and the BSSR remained the extensive path, and the methods of intensification did not achieve their goals ( extensive the growth factor is realized due to the quantitative increase in the resource (for example, due to the increase in the number of employees). At the same time, the average labor productivity does not change significantly. Extensive factors of growth include an increase in land, the cost of capital and labor. These factors are not connected with innovations, with new production and management technologies, with the growth of the quality of human capital. Intensive economic growth factors are determined by the improvement and improvement of the quality of management systems, technologies, the use of innovations, the modernization of production and the improvement of the quality of human capital). For example, the reform of 1965 (the initiator of this reform, Alexei Nikolaevich Kosygin) provided for the transition from territorial to sectoral management, increasing the economic independence of enterprises, and stimulating the production of quality products. The councils of the national economy were liquidated and the ministries were restored, which bore full responsibility for the state of the sectors of the economy. The planning system was improved and the degree of independence of enterprises increased (they were transferred to self-supporting), the main indicator of the work of the enterprise was the volume of products sold. Enterprises could freely dispose of part of the profits, which meant costing housing, kindergartens, and sanatoriums for employees, which stimulated the work of people. The implementation of the reform gave quick results, and the five-year period 1966-1970. was so successful that it was called "golden". In the 70s. The GDP of the BSSR exceeded the corresponding indicators of most of the republics of the Soviet Union, as well as Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The priority direction of development of the economy of the BSSR in the 70s - 80s. was agriculture. Thanks to the great Mr. subsidies, the material and technical base was strengthened, almost all collective farms became profitable, were focused on animal husbandry. Agriculture was transferred to an industrial basis, it was mechanized, and the volume of output increased. The last signs of Soviet serfdom for collective farmers were finally eliminated - they finally received passports, the right to a pension and guaranteed wages. The main ways of reforming agriculture are the creation of livestock complexes, land reclamation and chemicalization.
Nevertheless, with a general increase in the standard of living of the population, the number of scarce goods increased, because. in a planned economy, it is impossible to predict the real need for certain types products. The chronic problem was the low quality of goods, a poor assortment. The planned system of economic management did not accept new management methods, and the growing confrontation with Western countries revealed the problem of strengthening the country's defense capability. Under the influence of Brezhnev, financing of heavy industry and the military-industrial complex resumed again, the curtailment of the reform began and a return to management by administrative methods. The country began a period of stagnation.
In connection with the coming to power in the USSR of a new leadership, conservative tendencies intensified in the socio-political life of the country. The elements of the independence of public organizations were curtailed and the role of party structures increased, the persecution of dissidents (dissidents) intensified, concentration camps were replaced by prisons and psychiatric hospitals.
In 1977, the Constitution of the USSR was adopted, and in 1978, the Constitution of the BSSR, where the leading role of the Communist Party in society was legally formalized for the first time. The main value, according to the constitution, was the policy of protecting social human rights. In the sphere of national interests, the text was based on the proposition that nations and nationalities are drawing closer and a new community is emerging - the Soviet people. The Constitution of the BSSR of 1978 was built in full accordance with the all-union constitution.
Some changes took place in public and political life after Yu.V. Andropov. He sought to restore order and strengthen discipline in the country. Cases of corruption, trade abuses were launched, all of which anticipated future publicity. However, after Andropov's death two years later, Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko became secretary. Andropov's reforms were curtailed, the country returned to the old methods of government. Negative phenomena gradually increased not only in the economy, but also in socio-political life: ideological control over all spheres of culture, especially the press, which reported only positive aspects of the country's life, increased.
With the coming to power in April 1985, M.S. Gorbachev, political and economic reforms began, which went down in history as "Perestroika" (an attempt to preserve the socialist system with the help of elements of democracy and market relations, without affecting the foundations of the existing political system). At the end of the 80s. reforms began to be accompanied by a gradual destruction of the existing economic mechanism (transition to a market economy): the transfer of enterprises to self-financing began, which contributed to their greater independence. Enterprises, having received relative freedom, began to set high prices for their products and withdraw cheaper ones from production. In conditions of artificially formed prices that do not correspond to reality, this event did not produce results. In addition, there were no specialists (managers, marketers). The deficit reached such an extent that the government had to introduce a card system, prices began to rise and inflation began. The situation worsened even more in connection with the Chernobyl accident (April 26, 1986). More than 2 million people ended up in the eviction zone, 415 settlements were liquidated, in general, the total losses amounted to about $ 235 billion or 32 of the annual budget of the BSSR. A program was adopted to eliminate the consequences of the accident, resettle people, and improve their health, especially children.
In parallel, Gorbachev announced a course towards the development of glasnost and democracy, and the rehabilitation of the repressed resumed. In the summer of 1988, the 19th party conference was held in Moscow, which was an attempt to democratize the CPSU: the practice of alternative elections was introduced, a course was taken towards the creation of a rule of law state, as well as the revival of relations with religious organizations. Glasnost opened up the possibility of criticizing the activities of power structures, national processes were growing in the republics, political and national opposition appeared, which began to call for an exit from the USSR.
In the BSSR, the process of democratization of society was slower than in other republics, however, opposition organizations (Talaka, Tuteishya) also appeared here. June 24-25, 1989 In Vilnius, the founding congress of the Belarusian Popular Front was held, which began to act from anti-Soviet and anti-communist positions, demanding the achievement of Belarus' sovereignty and democracy.
An attempt was made to return full power to the Soviets and make them independent of the party. In 1989, elections were held for people's deputies of the USSR, on March 4, 1990 - to the Supreme Council of People's Deputies of the BSSR and local councils of the republic. For the first time, elections were held on an alternative basis. Most of the seats were won by the communists, but representatives of the opposition also received a part. The Supreme Council was headed by N. Dementei, S. Shushkevich was elected his deputy, the Council of Ministers was headed by V. Kebich. Thus, at the turn of the 80-90s. the political and economic crisis intensified, which later resulted in the liquidation of the Soviet system. The final fate of the Soviet Union was decided by the 1991 coup d'etat in Moscow, which showed the complete inactivity of the authorities.
The collapse of the USSR and the declaration of independence of the Republic of Belarus.
In 1990, the government of the USSR developed a program for the economy to emerge from the crisis and transition to market relations, which meant a transition to a new political and economic course. A similar decree “On the transition of the Byelorussian SSR to a market economy” was adopted on October 13, 1990 by the Supreme Council of the BSSR, in accordance with which enterprises were transferred to full independence, various cooperatives, commercial institutions, banks, etc. began to be created, where state money was transferred. At the same time, in conditions of hyperinflation, the efforts of powerful political and economic groups began the privatization of state funds, the creation of private firms, joint-stock companies, etc., as a result of which a deep economic crisis began. The deterioration of the economic situation of people, combined with the unstable political situation, caused mass protests in individual union republics (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania), which were suppressed with the help of law enforcement agencies, interethnic conflicts began, in fact, there was a civil war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. M. Gorbachev made mistakes in resolving these conflicts, for example, the use of military units against the civilian population to solve the problem of the opposition did not give positive results and hit the reputation and authority of the allied leadership. A real threat to the existence of the USSR as a single state was revealed. The so-called "parade of sovereignties" began. Estonia was the first to announce its withdrawal from the USSR (1988), then Lithuania, Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia, Armenia. Anti-Soviet rallies were also held in Belarus. On July 27, 1990, the Supreme Council of Belarus adopts the "Declaration on the State Sovereignty of the BSSR".
On March 17, 1991, an all-union referendum was held on the question of the fate of the USSR. 76% of people were in favor of maintaining the unity of the country. Negotiations began among the country's leadership on signing a new union treaty. On August 14, 1991, the text of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States was printed. Its signing was scheduled for August 20, 1991, and on August 19 a group of politicians made an attempt to remove Gorbachev from office, the State Committee for the State of Emergency was created, the participants announced the transfer of power to the committee in the country. However, B. Yeltsin opposed this, he declared the seizure of power illegal and criminal, and established control over the situation: he subjugated the executive authorities and law enforcement agencies, and Gorbachev voluntarily appointed the post of state secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.
These events prompted the disintegration of the USSR, the parliaments of a number of union republics adopted resolutions on sovereignty and secession from the USSR: on August 25, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Belarus gave the status of a constitutional law to the declaration of sovereignty, which in fact meant the legal registration of the independence of Belarus. In addition, a resolution “On Ensuring the Political and Economic Independence of the BSSR” was adopted. According to the second document, ministries and departments of republican significance were created in Belarus: the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the KGB, the Ministry of Defense, the State Customs Committee, and the republic received enterprises and organizations that previously had federal significance. The August events and the suspension of the activities of the Communist Party led to the resignation of Dementei, his position was taken by Shushkevich. On September 19, 1991, the Supreme Council adopted a law on the name of the BSSR, according to which it became known as the Republic of Belarus. The coat of arms "Pursuit" and the white-red-white flag became state symbols.
At a meeting of the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine (Yeltsin, Shushkevich, Kravchuk) on December 8, 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha in Viskuli, Pruzhany district, Brest region, a decision was made to create the Commonwealth of Independent States, an appropriate agreement was signed, which was joined by other allied republics except Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. On December 21, 1991, in Alma-Ata, at a meeting of representatives of 11 republican delegations, the 1922 treaty on the formation of the USSR was denounced.
Topic 22 world in the second half of the 20th century - early XXI in.
§ 95. Post-war structure of the world. Beginning of the Cold War
Decisions of the Potsdam Conference.
The Conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, the USA and England in Potsdam worked from July 17 to August 2. A system of quadripartite occupation of Germany was finally agreed upon; it was envisaged that during the occupation the supreme power in Germany would be exercised by the commanders-in-chief, the armed forces of the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France - each in his own zone of occupation.
A bitter struggle flared up at the conference over Poland's western borders. The western border of Poland was established along the Oder and Neisse rivers. The city of Königsberg and the area adjacent to it were transferred to the USSR, the rest of East Prussia went to Poland.
US attempts to make diplomatic recognition of some Eastern European countries contingent on a reorganization of their governments ended in failure. Thus, the dependence of these countries on the USSR was recognized. Three governments have confirmed their decision to bring the main war criminals to justice.
The generally successful solution of important political problems for the USSR in Potsdam was prepared by the favorable international situation, the successes of the Red Army, and the US interest in the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan.
Formation of the United Nations.
The UN was created at the final stage of World War II at a conference in San Francisco. It opened on April 25, 1945. Invitations were sent to 42 states on behalf of the four great powers - the USSR, the USA, Britain and China. The Soviet delegation managed to organize an invitation to the conference for representatives of Ukraine and Belarus. A total of 50 countries participated in the conference. On June 26, 1945, the conference ended its work with the adoption of the UN Charter.
The UN Charter obliged the members of the organization to resolve disputes among themselves only by peaceful means, to refrain in international relations from the use of force or threats to use force. The charter proclaimed the equality of all people, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the need to observe
of all international treaties and obligations. The main task of the UN was to promote world peace and international security.
It was established that a session of the UN General Assembly should be held annually with the participation of delegates from all UN member countries. The most important decisions of the General Assembly must be taken by a 2/3 majority vote, less important decisions by a simple majority.
In matters of maintaining world peace the main role assigned to the 14-member United Nations Security Council. Five of them were considered permanent members (USSR, USA, England, France, China), the rest were subject to re-election every two years. The most important condition was the established principle of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council. Their consent was required for any decision to be made. This principle protected the UN from turning it into an instrument of diktat in relation to any country or group of countries.
Start"cold war".
Already by the end of the war, the contradictions between the USSR, on the one hand, and the USA and Great Britain, on the other, were sharply outlined. The main issue was the question of the post-war structure of the world and the spheres of influence of both sides in it. The tangible superiority of the West in economic power and the monopoly on nuclear weapons made it possible to hope for the possibility of a decisive change in the balance of power in their favor. Back in the spring of 1945, a plan of military operations against the USSR was developed: W. Churchill planned to start World War III on July 1, 1945 with an attack by Anglo-Americans and formations of German soldiers against Soviet troops. Only by the summer of 1945, due to the obvious military superiority of the Red Army, this plan was abandoned.
Soon, both sides gradually switched to a policy of balancing on the brink of war, an arms race, and mutual rejection. In 1947, the American journalist W. Lippman called this policy the "cold war." The final turning point in relations between the USSR and the Western world was W. Churchill's speech at the military college in the city of Fulton in the USA in March 1946. He called on the "English-speaking world" to unite and show the "Russians strength." US President G. Truman supported Churchill's ideas. These threats alarmed Stalin, who called Churchill's speech a "dangerous act". The USSR actively increased its influence not only in the countries of Europe occupied by the Red Army, but also in Asia.
The beginning of the formation of a bipolar (bipolar) world.
In 1947, relations between the USSR and the USA continued to deteriorate. Europe then lay in ruins. Under conditions of human suffering, the influence of the ideas of communism and the prestige of the USSR grew. To undermine these sentiments, the United States adopted a program of assistance to Europe - the Marshall Plan (named after US Secretary of State J. Marshall. The condition for assistance was its use under US control. This condition was unacceptable for the USSR. Under its pressure, Hungary, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Finland refused to participate in the Marshall Plan.
In response to the Marshall Plan and with the aim of strengthening Soviet influence in the world, in the autumn of 1947, the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties (Cominform) was created - a kind of Comintern dissolved in 1943. Soon, Stalin decided to abandon the course towards the gradual transition of the Eastern European countries to socialism by parliamentary methods. With the active intervention of the Soviet military and diplomats, pro-Moscow governments from the communists came in 1947-1948. to power in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In 1949, the civil war in China ended with the victory of the communists. Even earlier, the Communists came to power in North Vietnam and North Korea.
The USSR, despite the colossal internal difficulties, provided all these countries with enormous material assistance, which allowed them by the beginning of the 50s of the twentieth century. Basically overcome the post-war devastation. In 1949, to coordinate development issues, a Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). At the same time, in these countries, which were called the countries of "people's democracy", repressions were carried out against political forces, including the leaders of the Communist parties, suspected of trying to take their states out of the control of the USSR. As a result, all the countries of "people's democracy" became dependent on the Soviet Union. Only the ruler of Yugoslavia, I. Tito, managed to defend his right to an independent policy, which caused the rupture of relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia in 1948.
The Marshall Plan and the USSR's response to it led to a further division of the world into two opposing parts - East and West (a bipolar world).
The first international crises.
In 1948, the United States decided to consolidate the division of Germany by creating a separate West German state. Prior to this, Stalin sought to implement the decisions of the Yalta Conference on a united democratic Germany, hoping to make it a neutral buffer between West and East. Now the Soviet Union had to take a course to strengthen its positions in East Germany. Soviet troops blocked the communication routes linking Berlin with the western occupation zone. The West created an "air bridge" through which the western part of Berlin (the zone allocated for the Allied occupation forces) was supplied for almost a year.
The Berlin crisis brought the world to the brink of war and led to the final division of Germany. On September 20, 1949, the western occupation zone of Germany was declared Federal
Republic of Germany (FRG). On October 7, 1949, the pro-Soviet German Democratic Republic (GDR) was formed.
Even earlier, in April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) was signed, which formalized the military-political alliance of Western countries under the leadership of the United States. It included 11 states:
USA, England, France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Iceland and Canada.
Korean War. After the defeat of Japan, its former colony of Korea was divided along the 38th parallel into the Soviet and American zones of occupation. After the withdrawal of troops, both the northern government of communist Kim Il Sung and the pro-American southern government of dictator Lee Seung-min wanted to extend their power to all of Korea. On June 25, 1950, the troops of North Korea (DPRK) began to successfully move south. In September 1950, troops from 15 countries, led by the United States under the UN flag, landed troops in the rear of the DPRK army. During fierce fighting, the UN forces reached almost to the Korean-Chinese border. Rescuing the DPRK, "volunteers" from China acted on its side, Soviet aviation successfully operated (Soviet fighters destroyed 1097 enemy aircraft, the Americans destroyed 335 Soviet aircraft).
The US military was going to start a war with China, drop atomic bombs on it, but did not dare to do so. In 1951, the front line was established in the area of the same 38th parallel. In 1953 an armistice was signed. The Korean War gave impetus to a new stage in the arms race.
development science culture post-war year
The development of science and culture in the second half of the 20th century
Cultural life in the mid 40's - early 60's. Culture and power in the postwar years. The war caused significant damage to the national culture and its material base. Thousands of schools, hundreds of universities and museums were destroyed, hundreds of thousands of books were burned or taken out of the country. Many talented scientists, writers and artists did not return from the front. The output of specialists in universities has decreased. In the difficult conditions of the post-war period, the state sought funds for the development of science, public education, art. The revival of the destroyed centers of culture began immediately after the expulsion of the enemy from the occupied territories and continued in subsequent years. A characteristic feature of the development of culture in the post-war years was the increased interference of the party and state apparatus in the cultural life of society. The sphere of ideology was seen as a kind of "ideological front", where the main blow should have been directed against the remnants of bourgeois views and kowtowing to the culture of the bourgeois West, against the retreat from Marxism in science, literature and art. The requirements for the works of the creative intelligentsia were reflected in the resolutions of the Central Committee of the party of the second half of the 40s on questions of literature and art. Among the first to appear was the decree “On the magazines Zvezda and Leningrad” (1946). The reason for it was the publication in the magazine "Murzilka" of the story of M.M. Zoshchenko "The Adventures of a Monkey", reprinted later literary magazine"Star". Political assessment of the children's story by M.M. Zoshchenko was given at a meeting of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party, where I.V. Stalin, Secretary of the Central Committee for Ideology A.A. Zhdanov, other ideological workers, writers. Novels, stories and poems by a number of authors were recognized as incompatible with the socialist worldview. MM. Zoshchenko was accused of being unprincipled, vulgar and apolitical. The resolution and publications explaining it contained political accusations and insults against A.A. Akhmatova, M.M. Zoshchenko and other Soviet writers. A one-sided, unjustifiably harsh assessment of the work of a group of talented playwrights and composers, theater and film workers was contained in the resolutions of the Central Committee of the party "On the repertoire of drama theaters", "On the film" big life”, “On the opera“ The Great Friendship ”by V. Muradeli ”, etc. This decision had a heavy impact on the creative fate of individual cultural figures, on the subsequent development of literature and art. At the turn of the 1940s and 1950s, the Central Committee of the Party organized discussions on questions of philosophy, political economy and linguistics. Along with representatives of science, the leaders of the party and the state took part in them. So, in a discussion organized to discuss the book by G.F. Alexandrov on the history of Western European philosophy, was attended by A.A. Zhdanov. He accused the author of the textbook of worshiping Western bourgeois philosophy and called on Soviet scientists “to lead the fight against the corrupt and vile bourgeois ideology. At the end of the 1940s, a struggle began for the Soviet national culture, against cosmopolitanism. The pages of newspapers and magazines were filled with articles directed against "bourgeois cosmopolitanism" and its bearers. Cosmopolitans were declared representatives of science, literature and art, in whose work "admiration for everything Western" was seen. This campaign affected historical science especially strongly. Many well-known Soviet scientists (I.I. Mints, I.M. Razgon and others) were accused of distorting the history of Soviet society. The works of these authors were accused of belittling the role of the USSR in the world historical process, belittling the role of the Russian people and the Russian working class in the victory of the October Revolution and the civil war, in building a socialist society. The fight against cosmopolitanism was accompanied by "studies" and administrative measures against well-known researchers. It led to the fact that in science for many years the concepts of historical development that developed in the 30-40s remained untouched. The slightest deviations in the works of scientists from established views, their attempt to take a fresh look at scientific issues were considered as a violation of the principle of partisanship in science. Administrative intervention in the creative activity of representatives of culture, the fight against "bourgeois ideology", political assessments artistic creativity and scientific work caused profound deformations in the development of the spiritual life of society.
"Thaw" and the artistic intelligentsia. The liberalization of social and political life gave a powerful impetus to the development of literature and art. The ideological influence on the work of the artistic intelligentsia was weakened. In 1958, the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a resolution "On correcting errors in the evaluation of the operas" Great Friendship "," Bogdan Khmelnitsky "," From the bottom of my heart ". Many cultural figures were rehabilitated - victims of political repression. A book by A. Vesely, P.N. Vasilyeva, N.E. Babel and others. The emergence of new creative unions contributed to the revival of the spiritual life of society. The Union of Writers of the RSFSR, the Union of Artists of the RSFSR, the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR were formed. Previously unpublished literary, artistic and socio-political magazines "Moscow", "Neva", "Foreign Literature", "Youth", etc. appeared in the capital. Moscow art theatre. Literary evenings were held famous writers and poets. In the late 50s - early 60s, several meetings of party and state leaders with representatives of the artistic intelligentsia took place. N.S. took part in them. Khrushchev and Secretary of the Central Committee for Ideology L.F. Ilyichev. Relations between the head of state and figures of literature and art were not easy. The work to restore the rule of law, to rehabilitate innocently convicted persons brought N.S. Khrushchev wide popularity. However, his attempts to interfere in the creative laboratory of cultural workers, incompetence and categorical assessment of their work led to the loss of his authority. A certain role in this was played by N.S. Khrushchev persecution of the talented writer and poet B.L. Pasternak. In 1958, for the novel "Doctor Zhivago", banned for publication in the USSR and published abroad, B.L. Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. In the same year, he was expelled from the Union of Writers of the USSR and forced to refuse the Nobel Prize. One of the consequences of the liberalization of the foreign policy course was the deepening of international relations of cultural figures. Representatives of science and art, university professors were sent for internships in different countries of the world. The exchange of information between research institutes and their mutual cooperation in solving important problems of science and technology have expanded. In the USSR, exhibitions were organized from the largest art galleries in the world. There were performances by the best foreign theater and musical groups. In Moscow, the first international competition of musicians and performers named after. P.I. Tchaikovsky. International tourism has developed. In the early 1960s, the ideological pressure on cultural life and methods of diktat in its management intensified. The censorship authorities stepped up their work. The democratization of socio-political and cultural life declared by the "collective leadership" of the country turned into its temporary liberalization.
Public education and higher education. The restoration of destroyed and the construction of new schools made it possible by the end of the 1940s to significantly expand the contingent of students. We have developed a school for working youth. They made it possible to complete school education for teenagers who were forced to interrupt their studies during the war. In order to provide the national economy with a skilled labor force, the scale of training workers was increased through factory training schools, trade and railway schools. Only in 1946-1950. they trained about 3.4 million workers. The war-interrupted transition to universal compulsory seven-year education was resumed. At the end of the 1950s, public education was restructured to strengthen the ties between the school and production. The existing seven-year plan was transformed into an eight-year polytechnic school, the initial four-year school was replaced by a three-year one. The term of study in high school increased: she became eleven years old. Work in production was included in the process of teaching high school students. For this purpose, training workshops and sections were created at the enterprises. However, the restructuring of the school proved to be untenable and ineffective. It led to an overload of curricula and a decrease in general level educational preparation of students. In this regard, in 1964 it was decided to return the school to a ten-year term of study. The growing need for qualified specialists has contributed to the expansion of the scope and quality of their training. New high schools and universities were opened in Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Nalchik and other cities. Only in 1950-1955. 50 new universities began to operate. In 1959-1965. higher educational institutions trained and sent to work in the national economy more than 2.4 million graduates. The intensification of ideological work did not go unnoticed for the secondary and higher schools. They introduced new social disciplines: "Social Science" for high school students and "Fundamentals of Scientific Communism" for university students. In such ways it was supposed to improve the communist education of the younger generation. To raise the level of political knowledge of the adult population, the network of political schools and universities of Marxism-Leninism was expanded.
Development of science. Immediately after the end of the Great Patriotic War, work began on the restoration of scientific centers. The Academies of Sciences in the Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belarus began to operate again. Academies of Sciences were created in Kazakhstan, Latvia, Estonia. New research institutes were opened, including atomic energy, physical chemistry, precision mechanics, and computer technology. Research centers were created related to industries working for defense. Soviet scientists have carried out the synthesis of a controlled nuclear reaction in an atomic reactor. In 1949, an atomic bomb was tested in the USSR. The dictatorship in the spiritual and ideological sphere had a heavy impact on the development of science. Researchers involved in quantum mechanics, cybernetics, and genetics faced great difficulties. With the knowledge of the leaders of the country, a real rout of genetic scientists was organized. At the VASKhNIL session in August 1948, they were declared pseudoscientists, and their works were outlawed. Reforms in the social and political life of the period of Khrushchev's "thaw", changes in cultural policy created more favorable conditions for the development of science. The entry of the Soviet Union into the era of the scientific and technological revolution required the expansion of the network research institutions, creation of new sectoral institutions. In order to develop the productive forces of Siberia and the Far East, the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences was organized. Appropriations for scientific purposes increased. The scientific and technological revolution required the development of industries scientific knowledge directly related to the creation of new technology, with the use of atomic energy for the needs of the national economy. Much attention was paid to the development of radiophysics, electronics, and theoretical physics. In 1954, the first industrial nuclear power plant began operating in the USSR. In the city of Dubna, near Moscow, an international center was set up to carry out research in the field of nuclear physics and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Famous physicists A.P. Alexandrov, D.I. Blokhintsev, I.V. Kurchatov. The design of new, ultra-high-speed aircraft was carried out by aircraft designers A.N. Tupolev, S.V. Ilyushin and others. Soviet scientists worked successfully in the rocket and space field. Under the leadership of S.P. The Queen created a ballistic missile and manned spacecraft. On October 4, 1957, the first in the world was launched in the USSR artificial satellite Earth. April 12, 1961 Yu.A. Gagarin was the first to fly around the globe on the Vostok spacecraft. In subsequent years, several flights of multi-seat spaceships. Astronaut flights opened up opportunities for further study outer space. Researchers have achieved significant results in the field of cybernetics, electronics and computer technology. For his work in the field of quantum electronics A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Bass - together with American physicist C. Townes - were awarded the Nobel Prize. Academicians N.N. Semenov (together with the American researcher S. Hinshelwood), L.D. Landau, P.A. Cherenkov, I.E. Tamm, I.M. Franc. results research work chemical scientists A.N. Nesmeyanov and IL. Knunyants are widely used in the national economy. The speeches of Soviet scientists at international scientific congresses and conferences have become a practice. It became obvious that the "Iron Curtain" separating East and West was beginning to collapse. The XX Congress of the CPSU created the prerequisites for the formation of new approaches to the knowledge of society. The opportunity to get acquainted with previously closed documents for researchers contributed to positive changes in the social sciences. There are interesting publications on national history. Their authors tried to revise some dogmatic assessments of the events of the recent past, to eliminate "blank spots" in science ("Essays on historical science in the USSR", "History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. 1941-1945" and others). But, as before, in the way of the development of history (as well as philosophy and economics) there were certain attitudes and requirements, the development of science, the first flight into space and, mainly, the development of weapons. For example, a Kalashnikov assault rifle.
In the early 1960s, attempts were made to put anti-religious propaganda on a "scientific" basis. Religion was seen as the main opponent of the scientific worldview, as a relic of the past and the result of the activity of "bourgeois propaganda". In order to strengthen the atheistic education of citizens, the journal "Science and Religion" was published, and Houses of Scientific Atheism were opened. The Institute of Scientific Atheism was created at the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the CPSU. A new discipline "Fundamentals of scientific atheism" was introduced in universities. The circulation of anti-religious literature increased. All these measures, according to the authorities, should have contributed to the education of the Soviet people in the scientific and materialistic worldview.
Literature and art. The victory of the Soviet country in the Patriotic War had a decisive influence on the development of artistic creativity in the postwar years. The military theme has taken a large place in literary works. Significant books about the war were published, such as "The Tale of a Real Man" by B.N. Field, story by V.P. Nekrasov "In the trenches of Stalingrad". The theme of the Patriotic War was addressed by the writers of the "front-line generation" - G.Ya. Baklanov, V.V. Bykov. The events of the war years were the main theme in the work of many screenwriters and film directors (“The feat of the scout” by B.V. Barnet, “The Young Guard” by S.A. Gerasimov, etc.). At the same time, in the literature and art of the late 40s, works appeared that distorted historical events and glorified the head of state I.V. Stalin. Their appearance was facilitated by the practice of severe control over the work of the artistic intelligentsia by the party and state authorities. An example of this is the revision by the writer A.A. Fadeev after criticizing the novel "Young Guard" from above. The reason for criticism of the book was the "insufficient" reflection of the leading role of the party in organizing resistance to the enemy in the Donbass during the Patriotic War. In the literature of the 1950s, interest in man and his spiritual values increased. From everyday life with its collisions, complex relationships between people, the heroes of D.A. Granin ("Searchers", "I'm going into a thunderstorm") and Yu.P. Herman (“The Cause You Serve”, “My Dear Man”), etc. The popularity of young poets E.A. Evtushenko, A.A. Voznesensky, B.Sh. Okudzhava. The literature was replenished with interesting works about the life of the post-war village (essays by V.V. Ovechkin “Regional weekdays” and “Notes of an agronomist” by G.N. Troepolsky). The novel by V.D. Dudintsev "Not by Bread Alone", where for the first time the topic of illegal repressions in the Soviet state was raised. However, this work received a negative assessment from the country's leaders. During one of the meetings with figures of literature and art N.S. Khrushchev sharply criticized the author and his novel. But the theme of repressions, Stalin's camps has not left the literature. The most significant work on this previously forbidden topic was the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich". Architecture developed in complex ways in the post-war years. Several high-rise buildings were built in Moscow, including the Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov (1949-1953, architects L. V. Rudnev, S.E. Chernyshev, P.V. Abrosimov, A.F. Khryakov). Architects participated in the construction and design of Moscow and Leningrad metro stations (A.V. Shchusev, V.D. Kokorin and others). In those years, metro stations were also considered as a means of aesthetic education of people. Hence the use of sculpture and painting for their design. The artistic decoration of many stations did not correspond to their functional purpose, multiplying the cost of construction work. Architectural "excesses" were present in some residential and administrative buildings built on individual projects, houses of culture and health resorts. At the end of the 50s, with the transition to standard construction, “excesses” and elements of the palace style disappeared from architecture. In the early 1960s, the exposure of the "ideological vacillations" of literary and artistic figures intensified. The feature film by M.M. Khutsiev "Zastava Ilyich". At the end of 1962, N.S. Khrushchev visited an exhibition of works by young artists in the Moscow Manege. In the work of some avant-garde painters, he saw a violation of the "laws of beauty" or simply "daub". The head of state considered his personal opinion in matters of art to be unconditional and the only correct one. At a later meeting with cultural figures, he harshly criticized the works of many talented artists, sculptors, and poets. In general, the years of the “thaw” had a beneficial effect on the development of national culture. The social upsurge of this time contributed to the formation of the creativity of the figures of literature and art of the new generation. The expansion of contacts in the field of science, literature and art with foreign countries enriched the cultural life of the country.
Conditions of cultural life (1965-1984). The development of culture in the period after Khrushchev's "thaw" was contradictory. New schools and universities, cinemas and houses of culture were opened, research institutes were created. In the period from 1965 to 1980 alone, more than 570 new museums began to operate. Mass media developed: radio, television. Fiction and scientific literature was published in 89 languages of the peoples of the USSR and 66 languages of the peoples of other countries. At the same time, subsidizing culture from the state budget has always been insufficient; by the beginning of the 1980s, it was carried out according to the "residual" principle. The administrative influence on culture has increased, its management by state authorities, primarily the Ministry of Culture. The resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU ("On Literary and Artistic Criticism", "On Work with Creative Youth" and others) defined the tasks of literature, art and science, assessed the successes and miscalculations in their development. Guardianship on the part of the party and state bodies provoked protests from many cultural figures. The strengthening of ideological pressure, the tightening of censorship led to the emergence of two types of artistic creativity. Only literary works were printed and became known to a wide circle of readers, which did not deviate from the principles of socialist realism and contributed, in accordance with the guidelines from above, to the communist education of the working people. Works contrary to these principles, regardless of their artistic merit, did not receive official permission for publication. Unable to publish in the USSR, some writers published their books abroad. All such publications were considered by the official authorities as a "betrayal" of the authors of the books. This is how the appearance in the West of the stories of the writers A.D. Sinyavsky and Yu.M. Daniel (the works of both were published under pseudonyms). They were arrested, put on trial, and then sent abroad. The trial of Yu.M. Daniel and A.D. Sinyavsky caused a wave of public protest in the Soviet Union. The end of the “thaw” in the spiritual life of society was evidenced by the condemnation of the book of the historian A.M. Without shouting "June 22, 1941". In it, the author tried to show the reasons for the heavy defeats of the Soviet Union in the first months of the Patriotic War. The book was subjected to undeservedly harsh criticism, and its author was expelled from the ranks of the CPSU (1967). In the 70s, the confrontation between the party-state leadership and representatives of science, literature and art intensified. The deepening of conservative principles in the management of culture contributed to the growth of oppositional sentiments among a part of the intelligentsia.
Culture and Perestroika. At the turn of the 80-90s, there were changes in government policy in the spiritual life of society. This was expressed, in particular, in the refusal of the bodies of culture management from the administrative methods of managing literature, art, and science. The periodical press became the arena of heated discussions of the public - the newspapers Moskovskiye Novosti, Argumenty i Fakty, and the magazine Ogonyok. In the published articles, attempts were made to understand the causes of the "deformations" of socialism, to determine one's attitude to the "perestroika" processes. The disclosure of previously unknown facts of Russian history of the post-October period caused a polarization of public opinion. A significant part of the liberal-minded intelligentsia actively supported the reformist course of M.S. Gorbachev. But many groups of the population, including specialists and scientists, saw in the ongoing reforms "treason" to the cause of socialism and actively opposed them. Different attitudes towards the transformations taking place in the country led to conflicts in the governing bodies of creative associations of the intelligentsia. In the late 1980s, several Moscow writers formed an alternative committee to the Writers' Union of the USSR, "Writers in Support of Perestroika" ("April"). An identical association was formed by the Leningrad writers ("Commonwealth"). The creation and activities of these groups led to a split in the Writers' Union of the USSR. The Union for the Spiritual Revival of Russia, created on the initiative of scientists and writers, declared support for the democratic transformations taking place in the country. At the same time, some members of the intelligentsia reacted negatively to the course towards "perestroika". The views of this part of the intelligentsia were reflected in the article by N. Andreeva, a teacher at one of the universities, “I cannot compromise my principles.” The beginning of "perestroika" gave rise to a powerful movement for the liberation of culture from ideological pressure.
Education and science. In the 1970s, preparatory work began in the country for the introduction of universal secondary education. New schools were built in the city and in the countryside, their number exceeded 140 thousand. The number of teachers increased. In order to improve the general education of students, changes were made to the curricula. Starting from the fourth year of study, the study of the fundamentals of science by schoolchildren was introduced. During the tenth five-year plan, the transition to compulsory universal secondary education was completed. However, according to experts, school graduates were poorly prepared for independent work. In this regard, in 1984, a law was passed on the restructuring of the school. It provided for measures to supplement general secondary education with general vocational education. Compulsory computer training for schoolchildren was planned. However, the weakness of the material and technical base of schools did not allow the plan to be fully implemented. Higher education developed in complex ways. The network of universities expanded; many institutes were transformed into universities. Workers' faculties were re-created to provide assistance in enrolling working youth in universities. The network of evening and correspondence education has increased. In the mid-1980s, 33 million specialists worked in the sectors of the national economy. But the level of training of many of them did not always meet the requirements of the time. At the same time, as the number of university graduates grew, difficulties arose with their employment. Many young specialists worked outside their specialty. During the years of “perestroika”, contractual obligations between universities and enterprises for the training of specialists of a certain profile began to enter into practice. This innovation did not lead to positive changes in the development of higher education and its links with production. It was not easy to develop domestic science. Since the end of the 1960s, some of its branches have lagged behind. This is exactly what a group of Soviet scientists drew attention to in a letter sent to L.I. Brezhnev. One of the reasons for the backwardness of science was the lack of freedom of creativity and obtaining information necessary for the activities of scientists. Its development was also constrained by a weak material base, underdevelopment scientific instrumentation . In the 1970s, investments in science were increased, which made it possible to overcome the lag in some of its areas. The development of scientific programs begun in previous years continued. In particular, space research was actively carried out. Long flights of people into space have become a practice. The results of space surveys were widely used in the national economy, in particular, in geology and fisheries. Research was carried out in the field of electronics and laser technology. Several nuclear reactors were built. The works of Soviet researchers in the field of radio engineering and electronics (V.A. Kotelnikov), thermodynamics (V.A. Kirillin), applied mechanics and automation (A.Yu. Ishlinsky) received wide recognition. In 1978, academician PL was awarded the Nobel Prize for scientific discoveries in the field of physics. Kapitsa. The solution of national economic problems required a closer connection between science and production. Research and production associations (NPOs) became the main form of their merger. They were created both in industry (for example, the Leningrad optical-mechanical united theater-studios. New theater groups tried to find their way in art. Exhibitions of artists little known to a wide range of spectators of the 80s were organized - P.N. Filonova, V .V. Kandinsky, D.P. Shterenberg. With the collapse of the USSR, the all-Union organizations of the creative intelligentsia ceased their activities. The culture of Russia in the first half of the 90s developed in conditions of a sharp reduction in state appropriations for its needs. The legislation of the Russian Federation assigned 2% to culture federal and about 6% of the local budget. However, less than one percent was actually allocated for it. In such an environment, the federal program "Preservation and Development of Culture and Art" began to operate. The main attention was paid to saving the most important objects of national culture. In accordance with the program, restoration work on the conservation and restoration of monuments of the past in Moscow, Novgorod, Veliky Ustyug. The museums of S.A. were restored. Yesenin in Konstantinov and the Decembrists in Yaloturovsk, the estate of A.K. Tolstoy in the Bryansk region. The trends in the development of science, literature and art, formed at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, persisted. The commercialization of culture has intensified. Many research institutes and universities, theater and musical groups have taken up commercial activities. Art galleries and salons based on private enterprise appeared. The results of "perestroika" for the national culture turned out to be complex and ambiguous. Cultural life has become richer and more diverse. At the same time, the “perestroika” processes for science and the education system turned out to be significant losses. Market relations began to penetrate into the sphere of literature and art. Overcoming financial difficulties, struggling with the dictates of the market and Westernization of culture, literary and artistic figures sought to preserve in their work the best traditions of Russia's cultural heritage.
In the second half of the XX century. science and technology have become the leading forces of civilization. The discovery and peaceful use of atomic energy, space exploration, the emergence of new technologies are fundamentally changing the material and social productive forces. Impressive successes have been achieved in physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine (transplantation of internal organs is being successfully carried out; in different countries, they are working on creating an artificial heart). The development of the scientific and technological revolution has led to an unprecedented acceleration of socio-economic processes in the world, especially in industrialized states. Science has become a priority in state policy. She was enriched with new personnel and branches of knowledge, made many discoveries that changed the face of the entire human civilization. It contains about 15 thousand disciplines. Man put nuclear power, computers, lasers, robotics, heavy-duty materials, satellite communications into his service, began the exploration of near-Earth space. Science has become a direct productive force. Many of her discoveries have become the property of practice. On their basis, the newest science-intensive branches of the national economy have been created, which have become basic - electronics, biotechnology, the production of new materials, computer science. At present, microprocessors have found universal and widespread use; in many countries, computer science serves the entire national economy. It is no coincidence that the current stage in the development of scientific and technological revolution is called the information or microprocessor revolution. Telecommunication means of communication and computer technology for receiving, processing, storing and transmitting information have acquired paramount importance in the internationalization of economic life. Personal computers qualitatively raise the creative potential of intellectual labor. Fundamental changes are taking place in the way people live and think. Electronic means mass media, satellite communications, providing almost instantaneous transmission of information to all corners of the globe, create a feeling of simultaneity and omnipresence. With the deployment of the technological and industrial revolution, industrialization and urbanization, and then the scientific and technological revolution of the second half of the 20th century. an unprecedented acceleration of historical and social time began and intensified. Accordingly, the pace of scientific and technological progress is also increasing. For example, if in the 70s it was customary to say that the volume of scientific information doubles every 5-7 years, then in the 80s - every 20 months, and by the end of the 90s - annually. The meaning of scientific, technological and social progress was the gain in time. Satellites, computers and faxes contribute to the densification of information flows. Telecommunication networks that connected the most remote points of the globe provided an opportunity to overcome time. A person has acquired the ability to be in different places at the same time and to be a participant in events that take place far beyond his actual physical presence. The uncontrolled growth of the economy comes into conflict with the life of nature. Metallurgy, chemistry, cars destroy forests, soil, infect water and air. Man-made disasters caused irreparable damage to the health of millions of people, damage to the national economy. The areas of this ecological disaster are the regions of Chernobyl and the Southern Urals, the territories of nuclear test sites, large chemical plants. In the last decade, it has been realized that a radical change in attitude to nature is necessary: not to conquer it, but to interact with it. Today, an urgent direction in the development of scientific and technological revolution is the solution of global problems - the global environmental crisis, lack of resources, demographic imbalance, hunger and poverty, epidemics in the countries of the "third world", crime and drug addiction. In broad public circles, the new meaning of the ancient saying of Prota-goras is becoming more and more realized, that "it is man who is the measure of all things." The information revolution also leads to social consequences - an increase in unemployment. But a high level of national income allows developed countries provide the unemployed with a guarantee of a living “social minimum”. The latest technology requires a qualitatively new employee - with a solid level of general education and professional training, without which catastrophes such as Chernobyl can occur. Hence the gradually growing variety of creative specialties and activities. The intellectual life of a person consists of two cultures - scientific and artistic, they must be in harmonious interaction. Science, having become a powerful factor of progress, cannot completely fill the human soul. Art uses figurative means to solve questions about the meaning of life, about conscience and duty, about the assessment of good and evil. Complex processes take place in the second half of the 20th century. in artistic culture. During the Second World War, many cultural figures with weapons in their hands fought against the Nazis for the freedom and national independence of their countries (French writers L. Aragon, A. Camus, German writers A. Zegers, V. Bredel, was twice wounded at the front by E. Hemingway). Comprehension of what is happening and the results of the war, its cruel everyday life, the behavior of people in extreme conditions has become an important topic of world art. Under the conditions of the Cold War, the confrontation of forces in artistic culture intensified, the ideological side of creativity prevailed over the artistic side. The importance of the culture of developing countries in the world artistic culture (Indian cinema, African and Latin American melodies) grew. One of the consequences of scientific and technological revolution was the accelerated development of mass media, which created the material conditions for the flourishing of mass culture and the emergence of rock music. In the second half of the 20th century, a variety of critical realism arose - neorealism. The neorealists set as their goal the display of “make-up life”. Neorealism influenced world cinema - the work of Akira Kurosawa, Andrzej Wajda, Alexei German. The theme of the triumph of the humanistic principle in the “little” man permeated the later works of E. Hemingway, especially the story-parable “The Old Man and the Sea”, for which the author was awarded the Nobel Prize. The best works of Lion Feuchtwanger "Foxes in the Vineyard", "The Wisdom of an Eccentric", "Goya" are devoted to understanding the fate of the creative intelligentsia in critical eras. Since the second half of the 1940s, so-called “socialist realism” has become widespread in a number of European countries. Its main features are considered to be: the presence of a new hero - a revolutionary proletarian, a communist; party membership is a reflection and evaluation of life phenomena from the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Many researchers today deny the existence of social realism as an independent artistic method, considering it not an artistic phenomenon, but an ideological one or one of the ideological and substantive varieties of critical realism. The work of the French writer Louis Aragon, the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda (the fate Latin America, the interweaving of pathos and lyrics) shows that socialist realism existed as an independent movement. This direction was especially fully reflected in the Soviet culture of the 20th century. In the 1950s and 1960s, a campaign was launched against avant-garde movements. The work of masters who did not fit into the framework of socialist realism was ignored. This led to an increase in the emigration of cultural figures. In the countries of Eastern Europe, after the events in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), persecution against political and artistic dissent intensified, and the scope of forbidden topics expanded. The creative intelligentsia became one of the influential forces in the democratic revolutions of 1989-1990 in the countries of Eastern Europe. The development of mass media stimulated the unprecedented development of mass culture (public and entertainment). Genres of mass culture - show, thriller, hit, comics. The cult of "stars" is an artificial creation of popularity, a means of entertainment. Propaganda of violence, sex contributed to the degradation of morals. New directions in art were formed largely under the influence of the philosophy of existentialism (existence), the art of the absurd arose. Their ideologists were Zh.P. Sartre and A. Camus. In their opinion, “being cannot be understood, but can only be felt”. The focus of their attention is the personality and its relationship with the world, society, God, the denial of human values and hopes for changing the world. “Theater of the Absurd” by Ionesco - lack of a plot, life ideals, spontaneity and inexplicability of the actions of the characters, the meaninglessness of the dialogues. In the sphere of artistic life, the main directions of modernism, primarily surrealism and abstractionism, received further development. One of the relatively new trends in contemporary art is pop art. Young artists offered to depict everyday objects and technical products surrounding a person, the modern urban environment - in the hope of making art understandable to a wide audience, popular. But if the subjects depicted by pop artists are really popular ( cans , bottles of Coca-Cola, etc.), then this cannot be said about their works. These pictures frightened off the public and critics with their vulgarity and hopelessness. Pop art ideas contributed to the development of the advertising poster. The development of engineering knowledge has made it possible to use the latest building and finishing materials, such bold solutions as ceilings suspended on steel cables or concrete gratings or concrete domes over huge exhibition and sports halls, stadiums, etc. An example is the concrete dome of the Olympic Palace of Sports in Rome. In the second half of the XX century. the principles of urban planning have been updated. What was new was the freer location of residential buildings, the preservation of the natural environment, the concentration of everything necessary for daily life in microdistricts, pedestrian-only streets, expressways, the location of industrial areas away from residential areas, etc. The squares and other open spaces demonstrate their modernity with monuments of current artists. But understanding their quality often remains the monopoly of the elite. A striking phenomenon in the artistic life of the second half of the 20th century was the rock movement that appeared in the early 60s in England and the USA and swept the whole world. The creators of rock are Elvis Presley, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones. Rock music expressed the spontaneous protest of young people against social disorder, war and militarism, and racial discrimination. Their stage and everyday appearance was emphatically democratic. Rock music has become a force that can unite diverse youth movements and groups. Thus, the music of the Beatles is distinguished by the sophistication of melody and rhythm, depth, brevity, and sincerity of the songs. The songs “All you need is love”, “Give peace a chance” have become unofficial international youth anthems. Rock is associated with advanced social movements. The International Rock Festival in 1968 condemned the Vietnam War. Concerts “Rock Against...” (racism, militarism, drug addiction...) have become popular, rock musicians participate in charity events. Rock has also infiltrated classical culture. A notable event in the musical life was the production of the rock opera by E.L. Webber and Rice "Jesus Christ Superstar", which combined the achievements of rock with the traditions of classical opera. In the 70s, the formation of national rock movements took place. Rock has become not only a phenomenon in artistic culture, but also a way of life and thinking of young people. It was characterized by openness, inner and outer freedom, rejection of falsehood, pacifism, God-seeking. Art culture in the late 80s and early 90s, it received wide scope for development, which was facilitated by the democratization of public life. On the other hand, the commercialization of the mass media contributed to the expansion of American popular culture, replacing genuine art and national culture. The reassessment of many events in recent history gives rise to an indiscriminate denial of the achievements of the art of socialist realism, which was clearly manifested in the destruction of monuments symbolizing the “socialist choice” and its inspirers. Only barbarians, slaves and fanatics fight against monuments. Crushing the monuments, they destroyed the traces of former slavery and humiliation, but remained slaves in their souls. The national revival of peoples is capable of causing a powerful cultural upsurge, but it is fraught with the danger of religious fanaticism and nationalism. It is important for society to overcome the existing contradictions.
During this period, our country restored those losses and expenses of the consequences of the Second World War. People began to look at Europe. Culture copied everything that was in the cultures of European countries. Subcultures began to spread. And science has become more advanced.
Conditions for the development of historiography. Two milestones stand out in the development of Soviet historiography in the second half of the 20th century - the mid-1950s and the second half of the 1980s.
In the first post-war decade, historical science continued to be dominated by an ideological interpretation that fettered a creative and unbiased analysis of the past. Party and ideological slogans prescribed historiography a strictly defined coverage of the main problems, events and characterization of the main characters. Political and ideological criteria determined mainly the significance of historical works and their evaluation from the point of view, mainly, of ideological and political impeccability.
The work of historians was enclosed in a rigidly defined framework, determined by the provisions of party documents and resolutions, various speeches and statements of party leaders, primarily I.V. Stalin. The line between history as a science and political propaganda was largely erased, especially in those areas that were of practical political interest, history was reduced to the actual service of certain party-ideological needs. A simplified and one-dimensional historical consciousness was formed in society, into which an embellished conformist picture of events and processes was implanted.
After the death of I. V. Stalin and the report of N. S. Khrushchev in February 1956 at the XX Congress of the CPSU on the cult of personality and the need to overcome its sinister legacy, a painful process of rethinking the past began. The decisions of the 20th Congress emphasized the need for a serious struggle against dogmatism and subjectivism in the interpretation of the historical process, an objective study of the events of the past, without deviating one step from the principle of Marxist-Leninist party spirit.
A new editorial board of the then only general historical journal Voprosy istorii was formed, headed by a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which indicates the importance attached to this issue, A. M. Pankratova, it included mainly well-known specialists in national history B. D. Grekov, M. N. Tikhomirov, N. M. Druzhinin, I. A. Fedosov, and others.
Historical periodicals have increased: since 1957, the journals History of the USSR, New and Newest History, and Questions of the History of the CPSU began to appear. In the 50s - 60s. a number of new academic institutions appeared - the Institute for Africa (1959), the Institute of Latin America (1961), the Institute of the International Labor Movement (1966), the Institute of Military History (1966), the Institute of the USA (1968, since 1971 the USA and Canada). But a truly radical update never happened. On the contrary, there soon emerged a trend of a practical rollback, which was especially clearly manifested in the events around the journal Voprosy istorii, which initiated a broad discussion of urgent problems and unresolved issues of Russian historiography.
At conferences organized by the journal in January and June 1956, demands were made to lift the ban on the study of many important issues, to free ourselves from the captivity of dogmas and ossified patterns. On the contrary, at the discussions of the state of historical science, held at a number of university departments of the history of the CPSU and at the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the CPSU, accusations were made against the journal in the spirit of 1937 and 1949. in the anti-party platform. In these discussions, the adherents of the old set the tone, demanding a resumption of the struggle against the notorious "cosmopolitan views"; Voprosy istorii's course to renew and purify historical science was declared a "revisionist undermining the Party."
In the summer of 1956, as an echo of disagreements among the leadership of the party, sharply negative assessments of the critical orientation of the magazine began to appear in a number of newspapers and magazines, which were clearly coordinated. The number of attacks increased markedly after the events of the autumn of 1956 in Poland and Hungary. Various articles were regularly published in the newspaper Pravda, in the magazines Kommunist and Party Life, calling for an end to criticism of Stalinism. In March 1957, following the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU “On the journal Voprosy istorii”, where a number of its articles were characterized sharply negatively as a weakening of the struggle against bourgeois ideology and “a departure from the Leninist principles of party spirit in science”, its editorial board was actually defeated, from the initiator of many bold publications E. N. Burdzhalov, unable to withstand the attacks and harsh accusations from the secretary of the Central Committee M. A. Suslov and his slander P. N. Pospelov, the editor-in-chief A. M. Pankratova died. , ultimately, to the formation of an atmosphere of stagnation and conformism. Discussions about socio-economic formations and the Asian mode of production turned out to be curtailed. In 1966, the so-called "Nekrich Case" arose at the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences, as a result of which this scientist, who showed in the book "June 22, 1941", as Stalin's short-sighted policy led to severe defeats at the beginning of the war, was subjected to sharp criticism, persecution and was forced, like a number of other historians to leave the country. Until the second half of the 1980s. the presentation of historical problems continued to be subordinated to a streamlined system of administration and information filters. The scope of historical research was narrowed by the closeness of the archives and the vigilant supervision of the use of the meager material extracted from their funds.
At the same time, historical science outwardly presented a picture of a successfully developing and prosperous academic discipline, especially since not all areas of historical knowledge were under ideological control to the same extent. Thus, the opportunities to carry out Scientific research on the history of the ancient world, the Middle Ages and the early modern period. The main directions of Soviet historiography of world history were the study of the problems of modern and contemporary revolutions, the international labor and communist movement, the anti-imperialist and national liberation struggle, questions of the foreign policy of the USSR and international relations. Other issues have received much less attention. From the beginning of the 80s. the number of works of the historical-sociological and historical-political type began to noticeably increase, as well as - with the use of quantitative and interdisciplinary methods.
Since in 1945-1985. It was possible to study historical problems only within the framework and on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist methodology, it is clear that the works of its founders were the obligatory theoretical foundation. In the first half of the 70s. the second edition of the works of K. Marx and F. Engels was completed, the complete collection of works of V. I. Lenin was released. However, this edition was "complete" not in content, but only in name. It produced many denominations, in particular, those that omitted the author's harsh epithets to his associates R. Luxembourg, K. Radek, F. Kohn, B. Kuhn, and others. The main thing is that this collection did not include more than three and a half thousand documents that do not fit into the image of Lenin canonized by propaganda and his dominant apologetics.
The Marxist concept of the historical process has been most widely embodied in major generalizing works - "World History" and "Soviet Historical Encyclopedia".
As a reference publication, the Historical Encyclopedia represented a significant step forward. About 25,000 articles included in it quite thoroughly covered the events of national and world history. The situation was more complicated with the objectivity of assessments of historical figures, political parties, social processes, and the latest foreign social theories. Many prominent political figures of Soviet history were either omitted from the encyclopedia, or (Bukharin, Trotsky) received completely devastating characteristics. On the other hand, for the first time since years oblivion in the encyclopedia appeared articles about the leaders of the party and prominent scientists, repressed during the years of mass terror and the cult of personality.
Such politically acute problems as the origin of the Cold War, the Marshall Plan were presented too one-sidedly, and the foreign policy of the Soviet state was portrayed in a dissected apologetic form. The international workers' movement was covered in the encyclopedia, first of all, as a constant struggle between two tendencies - revolutionary and reformist. In articles devoted to the problems of the labor movement ("Anarchism", "Dogmatism", "Opportunism", "Revisionism", "Social Democracy", "Trotskyism", etc.), the assessments were not so much strictly scientific as political and ideological. .
"World History", volumes V-XIII of which are devoted to the history of modern and contemporary times, was considered proof of "the immeasurable superiority of Soviet historical science over bourgeois." The content of the historical process, with all the wealth of factual material cited, ultimately boiled down to a change in socio-economic formations on the basis of the class struggle. The primacy of the latter as an obligatory starting point determined the approach to the history of production and ideology, state and law, political processes and religion, science and art.
Designed for the general reader, "World History" reflected generally accepted concepts and assessments, and therefore problematic and debatable questions were omitted, the task of a deep theoretical analysis was not at all. Although a different tendency was clearly manifested - to play the role of the world's leading science in covering the past not only of one's own country, but also of foreign history, based on the immutable thesis about the superiority of Marxist-Leninist methodology over other teachings and theories.
The multi-volume histories of the Great Patriotic War and the Second World War also gave a dissected picture of the past. They brought to the fore not the heroism of the masses, but the leading role communist party as an organizer and inspirer of victory. There, again, a purely apologetic assessment of Stalin's activities during the war years was reanimated, his numerous mistakes and fatal miscalculations were briefly and formally mentioned or completely hushed up. negative role The closeness of many archival materials also played, without which it was impossible to reproduce the past as it really was.
In general, the development of Russian historiography over the forty post-war years presented an ambiguous picture.
On the one hand, it was a period progressive development, the accumulation of factual material, the attraction of new sources, the formation of new areas of historiography that did not exist before (American studies, Latin American studies, Italian studies, etc.). In science, many major studies have been created that have received well-deserved recognition on the world stage.
But, on the other hand, the transformation of Marxism from a scientific method of socio-historical knowledge into a collection of indisputable dogmas led to the appearance of a mass of colorless works, superficial and politically opportunistic crafts, in which general phrases, dogmatic stereotypes, hackneyed clichés, slogans dominated. Militant mediocrity, usually presented as militant partisanship and uncompromising defense of Marxism-Leninism, sharply reduced the creative potential of Soviet historiography.
At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that historians were not only the creators of apologetics and myths, but also their victims, because it was simply impossible to write otherwise. Violation of the canons that had been established and imposed from above meant, in fact, the social death of the scientist. Suffice it to recall that the ritual component of any thesis was a description of the methodological basis of the study, which could only be the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism.
Since 1985, with the beginning of changes, there has been at first a subtle, and then an accelerated weakening and gradual abolition of the only permitted communist ideology. But breaking the old historical ideas turned out to be fraught with enormous difficulties. The process of eliminating distortions of the historical picture began only with their most obvious and odious manifestations. As before, a strong ideologization remains in the works of Russian historians, who in the mass are accustomed to relying on ready-made methodological postulates and harsh assessments, under which empirical material is brought.
During the lively discussions of the second half of the 80s. among historians, three approaches to the renewal of science and historical consciousness have been identified. A significant number took a conservative dogmatic position, recognizing only the cosmetic correction of dilapidated canons, not wanting to compromise principles and actually rejecting the very idea of renewal. The other part leaned towards a negative-nihilistic platform and demanded the complete dismantling of the former historical science, not finding anything worthy of preservation in it at all. The third group of historians declared themselves to be supporters of a "creative and constructive approach", advocated a critical self-analysis of what had been done, taking into account the positive and negative lessons of their own development, and documentary argumentation of conclusions and assessments. At the same time, having put forward such correct and indisputable principles, the representatives of this group spoke out in favor of pluralism, but only "on the basis of the creative application of Marxist-Leninist methodology", thereby setting strict limits for pluralism. But true pluralism is expressed in the researcher's desire to integrate various theoretical and methodological approaches in his analysis, so that they provide an opportunity for an in-depth understanding of historical processes and phenomena.
It should be taken into account that history by its very nature is a rather conservative science, accustomed to relying on facts, sources, documents, which require a certain amount of time to study and comprehend. So, if among domestic philosophers in 1990-1991. different trends have already declared themselves - phenomenological, theological, anthropological, neo-Kantian, hermeneutic - and a number of independent philosophical journals, almanacs and yearbooks have begun to appear, then in historical science this process is much slower.
True, one can note the appearance since 1989 of the new yearbook "Odyssey", where the focus is on the person and the reader is introduced to new areas of historical thought, to the problems of culture and mentality. Since 1995, on the initiative of Academician I. D. Kovalchenko (1923-1995), the publication of Historical Notes, an almanac specially devoted to the problems of theory and methodology of historical research, has been resumed. Its editorial board, which is international, includes scientists from Russia, Great Britain, the USA, France, and Sweden.
In this regard, a noticeable increase since the end of the 80s is of great importance. the release of translated works by major foreign historians and thinkers, acquaintance with whose ideas is an important stimulus for liberation from ideological narrow-mindedness and spiritual intolerance.
History in its true ideological and ideological diversity, not constrained by the framework of illogical "socialist pluralism" is a powerful generator of cultural development and an obstacle to its self-destruction. This can only be ensured by the variety of concepts and positions presented in it, because truth is born in disputes, and not in dull unanimity and unified unanimity. Since the beginning of the 90s. this process is just beginning.
Historical institutions, archives and periodicals. In the post-war period, the number of scientific centers increased noticeably, the training of personnel expanded, and the international relations of Soviet historians revived.
The time of gathering and accumulation of forces was the first post-war decade. The material base of historical science - universities and academic institutions - remained weak. The number of scientific institutions in the field of historical research and their staff were extremely limited. Questions of modern and recent history were developed mainly at the Institute of History, the Institute of Slavic Studies (established in 1947), and the Pacific Institute (later merged with the Institute of Oriental Studies). Problems of economic history, especially of the modern era, as well as the history of economic crises in the 19th and early 20th centuries were developed at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. The number of university departments dealing with problems of modern and recent foreign history was also small. These are, first of all, the higher educational institutions of Moscow and Leningrad and some peripheral universities (Kazan, Perm, Tomsk).
In the first post-war decade, there were very few historical periodicals. The "Historical Journal", published during the war years, since 1945 was called "Questions of History". From 1941 to 1955 "Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences. Series of History and Philosophy" were published. Many articles and chapters from the prepared monographs were also published in the "Historical Notes" of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences, in the scientific works of the institutes of Oriental and Slavic studies, various collections and scholarly notes of a number of universities.
Access to archive materials remained difficult. With the termination of the publication of the journal "Red Archive" during the war, for a long time there was no periodical body for the publication of unpublished documents. The publication of the Historical Archive magazine was started and interrupted twice, because each time there were difficulties with the publication of certain inconvenient documents.
By the mid 50s. more favorable conditions developed for the expansion of historical research. This was facilitated by both the economic recovery of the country and the need for increased activity of the USSR on the world stage. During this period, the ideological pressure somewhat weakened, a new generation of young scientists came to science, less burdened by dogmatism, better acquainted with the achievements of world historiography.
New universities opened in large industrial and cultural centers of Russia - in Kalinin (Tver), Ivanovo, Yaroslavl, Kemerovo, Tyumen, Omsk, Barnaul, Krasnoyarsk, although for some of them there was neither material nor personnel base. In a number of old universities (Perm, Saratov, and others), separate departments of modern and recent history of the countries of Europe and America emerged from the departments of general history.
Historical periodicals have grown significantly. In addition to the general historical journal Questions of History, the journals New and Contemporary History, Latin America, USA: Economics, Politics, Ideology, Working Class and modern world"(now the magazine" POLIS ")," World Economy and International Relations "," International Affairs ", Bulletins of Moscow and Leningrad Universities. Deepening research led to the fact that regional studies Yearbooks began to appear - French, German, American, British, Spanish, Italian.
In the early 1990s historians' access to work in the archives became somewhat easier. This was of great importance, because Russian archives contain rich and varied sources on the problems of the history of foreign countries.
The Archive of Russian Foreign Policy (AVPR) is one of the most important for historians of this profile. Among the more than 1.5 thousand of the richest funds stored here with 650 thousand files are documents of institutions, both located within the country and abroad, that were in charge of Russia's international affairs in the 18th - early 20th centuries. This is the correspondence of the tsarist government with its diplomatic and consular representatives in a number of countries in Europe, America and Asia, as well as reports of Russian diplomats and agents about major events in their country of residence. In the AVPR, as in other archives, there are many separate sets of newspapers, magazines, brochures, clippings of articles sent by Russian representatives.
In 1990, a government decree was adopted, according to which all the documents of the former WUA of the USSR (now the WUA of the Russian Federation), for a few special occasions, after 30 years of storage are considered declassified. Thanks to this, in 1990-1992. collections of documents The Year of the Crisis, 1938-1939 (two volumes) and Plenipotentiaries Report were published, as well as the long-delayed regular volumes of documents on the foreign policy of the USSR devoted to 1939, giving an updated picture of the eve of the Second World War.
The Central State Archive of the October Revolution, the highest bodies of state power and bodies of state administration of the USSR (TsGAOR) has more than three million files. Of particular interest are copies from the archives of foreign countries (correspondence of diplomatic, trade, military foreign representatives in Russia, covering many events of modern times).
The Central State Historical Archive (TsGIA) contains funds of major statesmen and central institutions of Russia, which contains documentary material on political and economic ties with many foreign countries.
The Central Party Archive of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism (in 1992, on its basis, the Russian Center for the Storage and Study of Documents of Contemporary History - RTSKhIDNI was created) contains both fairly complete collections and individual materials from the funds of prominent figures of the working and socialist international movement, representatives of the communist thoughts - K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, G. Babeuf, A. Saint-Simon, P. J. Proudhon, A. Bebel, K. Kautsky, P. Lafargue, F. Lassalle, K. Liebknecht, R. Luxembourg, A. Gramsci and others, as well as collections and documents on the history of the Great French Revolution and the European revolutions of 1848-1949, the Paris Commune, the Three Internationals, the Cominform, etc.
Materials on modern and recent history are also available in the Central State Military Historical Archive (TSGVIA), the archive of the Navy (TSGAVMF), in the departments of manuscripts of the State Library of the USSR. V. I. Lenin (now - the Russian State Library), the State Public Library. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (now - the Russian National Library), the State Public Historical Library, etc.
Problems of methodology and research in the history of historical science. Interest in the theory and methodology of historical science increased noticeably in the early 60s, when the desire to abandon the dogmatically interpreted Marxism urgently required a serious and creative development epistemological problems historical knowledge, theoretical understanding and interpretation. Already forgotten, since it was believed that Marxism once and for all gave a final answer to it, the problem of the meaning of history arose again, which disappeared from domestic science after the infamous expulsion abroad in 1922 of a group of brilliant Russian thinkers and scientists.
On the initiative of M. Ya. Gefter, A. Ya. Gurevich, B. F. Porshnev and other historians, in 1964, a sector of the methodology of history arose at the Institute of History, the very name of which irritated dogmatists, because the methodology of history was considered historical materialism, i.e. historical materialism. e. the realm of philosophy, not history. The first discussion after a long break on the problems of the methodology of history took place between historians and philosophers in January 1964.
Problem groups of theoretical source studies, social psychology, structural analysis and typology, cultural studies were created under the sector. Thus, in a form rethought on a materialistic basis, the pre-revolutionary tradition of the systematic development of theoretical and methodological problems of historical knowledge was revived, which was interrupted by the end of the 20s. Although all the problems discussed in the sector remained within the limits of the Marxist concept, the correctness of which was not questioned by anyone then, the very atmosphere of open discussions, the "new reading" of the theoretical heritage of the founders of Marxism, free from vulgar dogmatization, could not but lead to a certain revision of some traditional postulates. Marxism and the realization of its insufficiency for the study of new non-traditional problems and subjects. But this did not fit into the framework of the existing administrative-bureaucratic system and contradicted its very spirit.
The signal for the liquidation of the sector was the release of the first after the 20s. discussion collection, against the authors of which a broad campaign was launched, accusing them of promoting non-Marxist views and distorting the historical past. Three other prepared works - "Lenin and the Problems of the History of Classes and the Class Struggle", "Problems of Structural Analysis in Historical Research" and "The Logic of the Transformation of Cultures" did not see the light at all. Creative, more or less free from the fetters of ideologization, theoretical and methodological developments turned out to be actually for many years fettered by narrow permitted interpretations and the prevailing protective trend. The principle of structural analysis, whose fruitfulness and importance was substantiated by M. A. Barg, A. Ya. Gurevich, E. M. Shtaerman, was immediately declared contrary to the theory of socio-economic typology.
Although the sector of the methodology of history suffered a sad fate, the development and study of the problems of historical knowledge, its logical-epistemological foundations and principles gradually continued. In the 70s - early 80s. Quite a lot of works of a theoretical and methodological nature appeared, in which all problems were reduced, however, to the justification of the fact that "only one theory can give a truly scientific answer to all the great questions of our time - Marxism-Leninism ...". The meaning of history was limited to "the objective laws inherent in the process of development of human society," and the task of historical science was limited to the study of the manifestation of the action of general laws in the history of a particular society or a given era.
But if we look at the thesis that "historical science studies the regularities of the spatio-temporal unfolding of the world-historical process", then we can see that such a definition, in essence, drops out a historical fact, in the case when it expresses something that is not natural, but random. In the concrete direction of the historical process, it also plays an enormous, sometimes even the main role, and, therefore, must find its own reflection in the formulation of the tasks and subject matter of history.
Nevertheless, the book by M. A. Barg was the first significant experience in the Russian historiography of theoretical understanding of the system of categorical knowledge in history. There, the categories of historical time, historical fact, a systematic approach and analysis from this point of view of theoretical problems of the history of the Middle Ages and early modern times are analyzed in detail.
Despite the desire, under the flag of the possession of scientific truth by Marxism, to reject the legitimacy of various methodological approaches to history, there was no complete uniformity among scientists. In particular, noticeable discrepancies arose in the understanding of the relationship between sociological laws and historical patterns proper. Some authors (M. A. Barg, E. B. Chernyak, I. D. Kovalchenko) insisted that there are no specific sociological and historical laws, others (A. Ya. Gurevich, B. G. Mogilnitsky) argued in detail the difference between a concrete historical regularity and a sociological law as different types social laws dealing with various aspects of the historical process. This discussion drew attention to such categories as historical contingency, possibility, alternativeness, which were practically not touched upon by Marxist thought before.
Like theoretical and methodological literature, historiographic literature for a number of years was dominated by stereotypes, according to which all non-Marxist science was brought under the general term of "bourgeois historiography", which is essentially "scientifically untenable", which usually made it possible not to bother with a deep penetration into the essence of the concepts of the side being studied. . Reasoned analysis and analysis, not in words, but in deeds, were reduced for the most part to superficial and odd criticism.
So, in one of the first major historiographic works after the war, M. A. Alpatov’s book, rich in fresh and unknown material for our reader, argued that Tocqueville was dominated by a conscious distortion of historical truth in the interests of the bourgeoisie. Tocqueville's major work "The Old Order and Revolution", the fruit of many years of careful study of the archives, was unequivocally regarded as "a simple transfer to the historical soil of the author's favorite ideas" that have no scientific value.
In the historiographic section of the collective work on the revolutions of 1848-1849. A. I. Molok and N. E. Zastenker stated that such outstanding French historians as J. Lefebvre and E. Labrousse are dominated by "absurd point of view", "anti-scientific tendency" and "extreme methodological helplessness". S. B. Kahn's fundamental work, The German Revolution of 1848/1849, was portrayed as a collection of "all without exception the vices" of bourgeois historiography, in a completely false coverage of S. B. Kahn, where the richest factual material from the archives was collected and the most detailed panorama of the revolution was given. And in another book, S. B. Kahn completely crossed out the undoubted achievements of non-Marxist German historiography, but clearly overestimated the scientific significance of the first works on the revolution, weak in a professional sense, but ideologically sustained, created by scientists of the GDR.
Even in the fundamental book by I. S. Kohn, which introduced readers to the most prominent non-Marxist theorists of the 20th century for almost the first time, the general concept boiled down to the desire to prove a permanent and constantly deepening crisis in non-Marxist historiography, a steadily descending line of its development and hostility to "truly scientific historical knowledge" .
There was also a tendentious article by E. A. Kosminsky, the leading Russian medievalist, about the views of the outstanding British scientist A. J. Toynbee, who were called "stupid and politically harmful." Its very name is very characteristic of the works of that time, and Toynbee is declared a mystic, the ideologist of the big bourgeoisie and intellectual snobs. The scientific achievements of his monumental work "Comprehension of History" were assessed as "more than dubious."
The rigid position of confrontation and the denial of anything positive in non-Marxist historical science prevailed in the generalizing historiographical works of E. B. Chernyak, who argued that all "bourgeois historiography of recent history is directly placed at the service of the interests of imperialist reaction."
However, considering domestic historiographic works, one important circumstance should be taken into account. Direct assessments of foreign historians and their concepts often had a purely political and opportunistic character. But through the prism of indispensable Marxist criticism, usually reduced to quoting one or another statement of the founders of Marxism or resolutions of the party congress, readers deprived, especially on the periphery, of the opportunity to get acquainted with original foreign works, reached, albeit in a dissected form, the concepts of non-Marxist historians, unofficial Thus, the assimilation of the latest ideas of world historical science took place, and interest in new problems, in previously untouched layers of the historical past, increased. It was precisely in a detailed and more or less correct exposition of the views of non-Marxist scientists, and not in their light-hearted criticism, that during the 50s and 60s the the positive significance of historiographic works in Soviet science.
Until the end of the 60s. criticism of foreign non-Marxist historiography was mostly limited to individual reviews and surveys. The simplest methods of analysis prevailed: some judgment of the author under study was cited, often taken out of the general context, and already known positive material or a corresponding quotation from Marx, Lenin, the latest party documents or resolutions was opposed to it. Qualified analysis and controversy on the merits of the issue were then rare exceptions, since their indispensable condition is a good knowledge of the specific historical material that formed the basis of the analyzed concept.
In the 60s. the flow of historiographic literature began to increase rapidly. Since 1963, at the initiative of A. I. Danilov, Tomsk University began to publish the collection Methodological and Historiographical Questions of Historical Science, which, however, is characterized by a tilt towards methodological rather than concrete historiographic problems. Historiographic collections were also published by the universities of Kazan and Saratov. Under the leadership of G. N. Sevostyanov, collective works on American historical science were created at the Institute of World History.
In 1967-1968. On the initiative of I.S. Galkin, a fundamental two-volume work on the historiography of the modern and modern times of the countries of Europe and America was published at Moscow University, which for the first time gave a consolidated picture of the development of world historical science from humanism to the middle of the 20th century. A number of other works of a general nature also appeared, which served as a stimulus for the further development of problems in the history of historical science in our country and abroad.
The first major study of American historical science was IP Dementiev's book "American Historiography of the Civil War in the USA (1861-1865)" (Moscow, 1963). The author detailed the complex and ambiguous evolution of American Civil War literature over the course of a century, closely (sometimes too much) linking it to the class and political struggles in American society. The concept of slavery by W. Phillips, the views of the leader of the progressive direction C. Byrd and his opponents from the schools of "conservative revisionism" and "southern Bourbons", the position of representatives of Negro historiography, primarily J. Franklin and B. Quarles, were analyzed in detail.
A critical analysis of the main trends, concepts and schools in American historiography of the second half of the 20th century was given by N. N. Bolkhovitinov in his work "The USA: Problems of History and Modern Historiography" (Moscow, 1980). He examined the views of American scholars on key issues of US history from colonial society in North America to the rapid rise of capitalism in the last third of the 19th century in connection with the development of free or western territories. Much attention is paid in the book to highlighting the positive aspects and certain shortcomings in the work of many prominent American historians from F. Turner to R. Vogel, R. Hofstadter and A. Schlesinger Jr. However, it is hardly convincing that the author denied the Marxist ideas of the prominent historian J. Genovese. The reason for this position is seen in the fact that both N. N. Bolkhovitinov and V. V. Sogrin believed that only those persons who are ready to accept this doctrine in its entirety, including not only research methods, but also political theory, can be considered Marxists. "scientific communism" with the idea of socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
But, on the other hand, V. V. Sogrin's book provides a very thorough and in-depth analysis of critical trends in American historiography of the 20th century, where he included progressive, left-wing radical and Negro historiography. The author attributed the study of the formation of self-consciousness among the US proletariat at various stages of its development to the achievements of the radical direction. The author believes that critical trends in American non-Marxist science are developing along an ascending line.
The book of Tomsk historians is devoted to the latest trends in American historical science. It reveals the role of psychohistory as a new discipline that has made a significant contribution to the analysis of mass psychology and reveals the mechanism of transformation of the unconscious principle into the actions of historical characters and masses. The authors showed the heterogeneity of American psychohistory, highlighting three directions in it - orthodox, integrationist and socio-critical. The first two have received more attention than the most interesting and ambiguous socio-critical ones. Researchers have correctly pointed out that the true value of psychohistory can be revealed not on the basis of theoretical statements, but on the basis of concrete results in practice. The latter turned out to be quite contradictory, since, on the one hand, they highlighted new aspects of the historical past, but, on the other hand, they have not yet been able to convincingly interpret the role of the unconscious and the rational, their correlation in the actions of many individuals under study.
The traditionally high level of historiographic culture is also inherent in another collective Tomsk work "Toward a New Understanding of Man in History. Essays on the Development of Modern Western Historical Thought" (1994), which shows and analyzes the main problems that characterize the renewal of methodology, methodology, and research techniques of Western scientists - postmodernism , the study of mentalities, the new social history in the United States, the traditions and trends of hermeneutics and historical anthropology in Germany. The picture given in the book proves the validity of the authors’ idea that at the end of the 20th century there is such a conceptual transformation of historical thought that is comparable in importance to the transition from the historicism of the Enlightenment to the classical historicism of the 19th century, although this idea can hardly be called completely indisputable.
The original work at the intersection of historiography, source studies and concrete historical analysis was written by V. A. Tishkov. He thoroughly studied the system of training American historians, their areas of specialization, the state of the source base, and the activities of the leading associations and societies of historians in the United States. Based on a wide range of primary sources, including personal conversations with prominent American scientists, statistical materials and sociological surveys, V. A. Tishkov, using computer processing, classified American historians according to the principle of their specialization, level of training, geography of personnel distribution, and their gender and age composition. It is curious to say that it is far from always possible to judge the political views of many American scientists by their own scientific works, which indicates elements of conformism and hidden opposition.
The first major study of the French historical, science of the nineteenth century, after the book of Alpatov, which preserved known value until now, has become a monograph by B. G. Reizov. There is given a thorough presentation of the ideas and views of almost all major historians of France in the first half of XIX century. The author clearly showed that the romantic historiography of the Restoration era made a huge step forward compared to the Enlightenment in the formation of a new historical worldview.
French historiography of the 20th century and the Annales school were illuminated in two monographs by M. N. Sokolova "Modern French historiography: Main trends in explaining the historical process" (Moscow, 1979) and Yu. N. Afanasyev "Historicism against eclecticism" that appeared almost simultaneously : French historical school "Annals" in modern bourgeois historiography" (M., 1980).
Despite the methodological similarity of positions between the authors, there were some disagreements. MN Sokolova paid the main attention not so much to general trends in the development of French historiography as to individual problems on the example of the work of a number of scientists. She emphasized that M. Blok and L. Febvre, in essence, did not create a new scientific school, but only most clearly reflected new trends in their work. F. Braudel also turned out to be separated from the "Annals", whose theory of different speeds of historical time, in the author's opinion, is connected with the "Annals" only in some details and is generally assessed as scientifically untenable.
Yu. N. Afanasiev, on the contrary, proceeded from the concept of the "Annals" as a direction with a relatively holistic view of the historical process. He gave coverage of the half-century development of the "Annals", highlighting three stages: the period of formation from the late 20s to the mid-40s, the culminating period of development in the 40s - 60s, associated with the work of Braudel and the desire to create " global history", the period of the late 50s - early 70s, when the third generation of the Annales school (E. Le Roy Ladurie, F. Furet, P. Shonyu) appeared on the scene, decisively turning, according to the author, towards the "dehumanization and parcelling" of historical science. The book shows a very positive overall attitude of the author towards Blok, Fevre and Braudel, which is quite justified. But it is difficult to agree with the poorly reasoned attacks against P. Shonyu, E. Le Roy Ladurie, M. Ferro, whose creativity and innovative nature of the concepts are clearly downplayed.
In a very broad context, the "Annals" school is covered in A. Ya. Gurevich's book "Historical Synthesis and the Annales School" (Moscow, 1993), where the problem of historical synthesis is in the center of attention. According to the author, the question of the interaction of material and spiritual life is for historical research Starting point. This leads to a rethinking of the concept of "culture" and the concept of "social", during which there is a turn from the history of mentalities to historical anthropology or anthropologically oriented history.
The monograph of A. Ya. Gurevich is not a general history of the Annales school, it is a book about how a number of representatives of the school approach the decisive and most important, in his opinion, problem - the problem of historical synthesis and what ideas they put forward. Among them, he considers a new understanding of social history by M. Blok, the problem of the connection between mentality and culture in L. Febvra, the creation of "geohistory" by F. Braudel and its relationship with economic materialism.
The author very clearly showed the circle of searches of J. Duby, in whose diverse works, one way or another, there is always a desire to organically connect the history of mentalities with the rest of history, which turns out to be completely daunting task. The same tendency towards a deep study of the system of human values and ideas is characteristic of the works of E. Lepya-Ladurie and J. Le Goff. The high level of Gurevich's book is largely determined by the fact that he showed the general methodological principles and views of the leaders of the "new historical science" not in the abstract. theoretical aspect, but through their specific historical works, because only in this case the theory acquires meaning and significance.
One of the first in the post-war Russian science began to study German historiography A. I. Danilov, who published in 1958 a major study "Problems of agrarian history in the early Middle Ages in German historiography of the late 19th - early 20th centuries." The first part of the book was devoted to the analysis of the theoretical, methodological and political ideas of German historians at the turn of the century. For its time, the book significantly advanced the study of the history of historical science, substantiating historiography as an independent branch of science with its own subject, method and principles of knowledge. However, many assessments given by the author to neo-Kantianism, Max Weber, Otto Hintze, Hans Delbrück bore the stamp of obvious politicization and are either inaccurate or incorrect.
In the book by S. V. Obolenskaya, the work of the prominent German Marxist historian F. Mehring became the object of study. She covered in detail various aspects of Mehring's historical works, their merits and a number of shortcomings. Mehring's views were given in close connection with his political activities. S. V. Obolenskaya criticized Mehring for overestimating the importance and role of Lassalle and Bakunin in the labor movement. However, it should be said that Mehring's judgments contained a large amount of truth, for he correctly discerned among the reasons for Marx's antipathy towards Lassalle and Bakunin the personal-psychological moment. Was not erroneous, contrary to the opinion of the author, Mehring's assessment of the situation in the 60s. in Germany, when it lacked the necessary preconditions for a revolution. Mehring, in contrast to Marx and Engels, reasonably believed that in reality the unification of Germany under those conditions could only be accomplished "from above" under the auspices of either Prussia or, less likely, Austria.
The state of German historical science in the post-war twenty years and its concepts of the main problems of modern times were the first to be thoroughly studied by V. I. Salov. The first part of his book gave a lot of new information, which shows in detail the organizational structure of the historical science of Germany, the system of archives, historical institutions and organizations, historical and philosophical periodicals. But in the analysis of the theoretical and methodological foundations and specific historical concepts, along with the author's convincing and reasoned judgments, there are repeatedly unfounded assessments, most likely dictated by political and ideological requirements. The same duality manifested itself in another book by V. I. Salov "Historicism and Modern Bourgeois Historiography" (Moscow, 1977). But to a greater or lesser extent, this is typical of almost any historiographical work created in the USSR in the 40s - 80s As for Salov's work, in it such many-sided and heterogeneous phenomena (the very distinction between them is made in the book) as German idealist historicism, existentialist approach, phenomenological method, neopositivist structuralism are actually brought under the common cap of subjectivism and irrationalism and are equally accused of being anti-scientific .
A monograph by N. I. Smolensky was written about the German historians of the national-political school of the period of the unification of the country. He studied the main political categories of their historical thinking in comparison with similar concepts in modern historiography of the FRG. Thus, both a certain continuity of the line of development of German historical science is shown, as well as new interpretations that prove the evolution of this science. The first part of the book is devoted to the theoretical problem of the relationship between concept and reality. The author insists that concepts are a cast of reality and rejects the idea of them as logical means of ordering this reality. All the judgments of German scholars on this issue testify, in the author's opinion, to their "deeply anti-scientific positions" and the desire to "pervert the meaning of the categories of Marxist-Leninist historiography" at all costs.
A detailed panorama of the historiography of the German revolution of 1918-1919. gave in their books M. I. Orlova and Ya. S. Drabkin. The second work is more of a survey character, because. it covers both Marxist and non-Marxist literature, ranging from contemporaries and participants in the revolution to the works of the late 1980s. In the monograph by M. I. Orlova, the subject of study is narrower - the non-Marxist historiography of the FRG, with the promotion of the Social Democratic trend as the leading one in the study of the revolution. Naturally, in this case, the analysis of various interpretations is more detailed.
Ya. S. Drabkin did not describe in detail a huge amount of literature, but singled out five generalizing problems: the prerequisites and causes of the revolution, the nature of the November events of 1918, the problem of the power of the Soviets or the National Assembly, the essence of the events of the spring of 1919, the role and place of the German revolution in the history of the country and all of Europe. After tracing various concepts, the author made a conclusion about the particularly complex and contradictory nature of the German revolution, in which various trends were intricately intertwined. He especially emphasized the role of subjective factors of the historical process, which often determined the unpredictability of the course of events in reality.
More traditional and critically sharpened are the judgments and assessments in M. I. Orlova's book, which focuses on the social reformist concept of the revolution about the existing possibility of a "third way" - a combination of democratic parliamentarism and the system of Soviets. The author also emphasized that the West German school of "social history" carried out a fruitful study of the historical prerequisites for the revolution, showing their objective maturation. However, it is difficult to agree with the opinion that the problem of the subjective factor of the revolution consisted in the "slow formation of the proletarian revolutionary party." The simplification of this opinion was shown in his book by Drabkin. It is also obvious that the German historians H. Hürten, G. A. Winkler, K. D. Bracher criticized by M. I. Orlova had good reason to doubt in principle the possibility of a socialist revolution in a highly developed industrial state. In any case, history has so far not given a single example of this kind.
The monograph by A. I. Patrushev shows the process of transition in the 60s. leading position in the historiography of Germany from the conservative to the neoliberal direction. The author explored the content of the methodological principles of neo-liberal historians, their turn to the analysis of the social aspects of the historical process, the desire to synthesize individualizing and generalizing methods of historical research. The process of differentiation of neoliberal historiography was also noted, the emergence of a socio-critical school in it, but at the same time the preservation of significant elements of traditional German idealist historicism. However, the author's conclusion about the "deepening crisis" of the bourgeois historiography of the FRG did not follow logically from the content of the book and was dictated by ideological dogma.
In another book by A. I. Patrushev, "The Disenchanted World of Max Weber" (M., 1992), the work of this outstanding scientist and thinker is highlighted from the point of view of his positive contribution to the development of social sciences. The author argued that in Soviet literature, with the exception of A. I. Neusykhin's articles of the 1920s, Weber appeared in a completely wrong interpretation. This was especially true of Weber's theory of ideal types, his concept of Protestant ethics and the relationship of Weber's views with Marxism as a methodological approach, but not political theory. The author finds the value of Max Weber in the fact that he laid the foundations of a new, theoretical and explanatory model of historiography and sought to synthesize for this individual, the most fruitful from his point of view, elements of neo-Kantianism, positivism and the materialist understanding of history. Probably in individual cases Weber is somewhat extolled by the author, but after many years of domination of distorted ideas about this in our science leading scientist some bias of the book towards the idealization of Weber was inevitable.
Relatively few works have been written on British historiography, mostly articles in journals and collections. Two editions (1959 and 1975) were published by K. B. Vinogradov's Essays on English Historiography of Modern and Contemporary Times. The second edition is supplemented with chapters on the historiography of British foreign and colonial policy. In the spirit of the time, the author emphasized, first of all, the conservatism of British historical science, the predominance in it for a long period of personification of history and the biographical genre, empiricism and inattention to theoretical problems. Its positive features, except for the clarity and accessibility of the presentation, the author did not highlight. He noted a noticeable increase in the influence of radical, Labor and Marxist historians, starting from the 1920s and 1930s.
The monograph by I. I. Sharifzhanov is devoted to theoretical and methodological problems in British historiography. He traced the process of transition in it from conservative empiricism and factography to the theoretical concepts of E. Carr, J. Barraclow, J. Plumb, who advocated the use of history methods of related social sciences, primarily sociology.
The first comprehensive study of the modern historical science of Great Britain has also been published, where its latest trends are given, the contribution to world science of Marxist scientists E. Hobsbow, Kr. Hill, E. Thompson, D. Rude. The important thing is that Marxists are viewed not in opposition, but in unity with other leftist historiographic currents and as part of a general democratic trend. The restrained tone of the authors, the soundness of their assessments and the analysis of the concepts of British historians on the merits of the case, and not on individual snatched statements, determined the extraordinary nature of this work.
According to other national historiographies, the literature is extremely poor, it is represented only by articles, among which the works of I. V. Grigorieva, N. P. Komolova, G. S. Filatov on Italian historiography, T. A. Salycheva and V. V. Roginsky on historiography of the countries of Northern Europe, V. I. Ermolaev and Yu. N. Korolev in Latin American historical science. It should also be noted the book of V. I. Mikhailenko, which shows the modern Italian historiography of fascism and provides new and previously unknown material for us.
A number of collective works have also appeared that enrich concrete knowledge about the development of world historical science and testify to positive changes in the sphere of domestic historiography: "Bourgeois revolutions of the 15th-19th centuries in modern foreign historiography." Rep. ed. I. P. Dementiev. (M., 1986), "Modern foreign non-Marxist historiography. Critical analysis". Rep. ed. V. L. MALKOV. (M., 1989). In the last of the noted works, attention is drawn to the "new historical science" - one of the promising areas of modern Western historiography. The authors of the sections on English, French and American historiography analyzed the new trends using the development of the "new social history" as an example. AT recent times interesting works of a theoretical and historiographic nature, which are characterized by the spirit of innovation and creative search, have also been published.
A very original and unusual book "History and Time. In Search of the Lost" (Moscow, 1997) was written by I. M. Savelyeva and A. V. Poletaev. The problem investigated in the monograph is of particular importance for historical science. After all, history, among other things, can be defined as a chain of events occurring in time. It is no coincidence that the category of time attracted the increased attention of such prominent scientists as Henri Bergson, Wilhelm Dilthey, Oswald Spengler, Fernand Braudel.
On the basis of a vast range of sources and literature, the authors have shown how history constructs many complex temporal forms. Their analysis of the role of temporal representations in historical consciousness and historical knowledge made it possible to look at the evolution of European historiography and the structuring of history, the path from chronology to historiography, various schemes of world history, cycles and stages of historical development. Of great interest is the consideration of the place of history in the system of social sciences, its relationship with political science, economics, sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology, geography. For historians, this book may also be of purely practical importance, as it shows in detail the methods of dechronology and deconstruction, the methods of constructing counterfactual and experimental models, and various options for the periodization of history.
The problems of the development of modern social history are presented in a very bold and diverse way in the monograph by L.P. Repina "New Historical Science" and Social History "(Moscow, 1998). The author showed the main changes in the problems and structure of historical science of the 20th century, traditions, contradictions, transformation and new different perspectives of social history.Giving a comparative analysis of several versions of social history, L.P. Repina deploys a new model for analyzing the history of historiography as a disciplinary history.At the same time, she builds her concept on the basis of the refraction of theory through the prism of concrete studies of the history of social movements and revolutions , folk culture, the history of women, moving into a broader gender history, the history of privacy and historical biography.
9 World History, I-XIII vols. M., 1955-1983; Soviet historical encyclopedia in 16 volumes. M., 1961-1976.
10 See: Soviet historical science from the 20th to the 20th Congress of the CPSU. History of Western Europe and America. M., 1963, p. 102.
11 History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union 1941-1945. tt. 1-6. M., 1960-1965; History of the Second World War. 1939-1945, vols. 1-12. M., 1973-1982.
12 Kasyanenko V. I. On the renewal of historical consciousness. - New and recent history. 1986, no. 4, p. 9.
Historical science and some problems of the present. M., 1969.
See: Danilov A. I. On the question of the methodology of historical science. - Communist, 1969, No. 5; it is also the Materialistic understanding of history and the methodological searches of some historians. - Methodological and historiographical issues of historical science, vol. 6. Tomsk, 1969.
Marxist-Leninist theory of the historical process. M., 1981; See also: Zhukov E. M. Essays on the methodology of history. M., 1980.
Dyakov V. A. Methodology of history in the past and present. M., 1974, p. 71.
Kelle V. Zh., Kovalzon M. Ya. Theory and history (Problems of the theory of the historical process). M., 1981, p. 269.
Barg M. A., Chernyak E. B. About the category " historical law". - New and recent history, 1989, No. 3; Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. M., 1987, pp. 49-56; Gurevich A. Ya. On historical patterns. - In the book: Philosophical problems of historical Nauki, Moscow, 1969, p. 63, Mogilnitsky B. G. Introduction to the Methodology of History, Moscow, 1989, pp. 38-43.
Alpatov M. A. Political ideas of French bourgeois historiography of the 19th century. M.-L., 1948, p. 164.
Revolutions of 1848-1849, vol. II. M., 1952, p. 387, 390, 402.
Kan S. B. German historiography of the revolution of 1848 - 1849. in Germany. M., 1962.
Kon IS Philosophical idealism and the crisis of bourgeois historical thought. M., 1959, p. 399.
Kosminsky E. A. Reactionary historiosophy of Arnold Toynbee. - In the book: Against the falsification of history. M., 1959, p. 96.
Ibid, p. 70.
Chernyak E. B. Bourgeois historiography of the labor movement. M., 1960; a.k.a. Advocates for Colonialism. M., 1962; he is - Historiography against history. M., 1962, p. 363.
The main problems of US history in American historiography (from the colonial period to the civil war 1861-1864). M., 1971; The main problems of US history in American historiography. 1861-1918. M., 1974.
Vinogradov K. B. Bourgeois historiography of the First World War. M., 1962; Kosminsky E. A. Historiography of the Middle Ages. M., 1963; First International in historical science. M., 1964; Weinstein O. L. Western European medieval historiography. L., 1964; Gutnova E.V. Historiography of the history of the Middle Ages (mid-19th century - 1917). M., 1974; Dunayevsky V. A. Soviet historiography of the new history of the Western countries. 1917-1941. M., 1974.
Sogrin V. V. Critical trends in non-Marxist historiography of the USA in the 20th century. M., 1987, p. 180-182.
Mogilnitsky B. G., Nikolaeva I. Yu., Gulbin G. K. American bourgeois "psycho-history": A critical essay. Tomsk, 1985.
Tishkov V. A. History and historians in the USA. M., 1985. A similar work, but of a narrower plan, was created in relation to European science. See: Organization of historical science in the countries of Western Europe. M., 1988.
Reizov B. G. French romantic historiography (1815-1830). L., 1956.
Obolenskaya SV Franz Mehring as a historian. M., 1966.
Salov V. I. Modern West German bourgeois historiography: Some problems of recent history. M., 1968.
Smolensky N. I. Political categories of German bourgeois historiography (1848 - 1871). Tomsk, 1982, p. 87.
Orlova M. I. The German Revolution of 1918-1919. in German historiography. M., 1986; Drabkin Ya. S. Problems and Legends in the Historiography of the German Revolution of 1918 - 1919. M., 1990.
Patrushev AI Neo-liberal historiography of Germany: Formation, methodology, concepts. M., 1981.
Sharifzhanov II Modern English bourgeois historiography: Problems of theory and method. M., 1984.
Sogrin V.V., Zvereva G.I., Repina L.P. Modern historiography of Great Britain. M., 1991.
This is especially important to note, since most historiographical works are informative rather than analytical. They criticize not concepts, but individual thoughts, ideas, and even proposals, and the content is like a kaleidoscope of books and names, which is quite difficult to understand. Such, for example, are the books by A. E. Kunina "USA: methodological problems of historiography" (M., 1980) or L. A. Mertsalova "German Resistance in the historiography of the FRG" (M., 1990). A. N. Mertsalov drew attention to these and other shortcomings even earlier. See: Mertsalov A. N. In Search of Historical Truth. M., 1984.
See also: Alperovich M.S. Soviet historiography of the countries of Latin America. M., 1968.
Chapter 2
Historical science in the USA
in the second half of the 20th century. From the theory of "consensus" to "new historical science"
Second half of the 20th century became a time of significant upsurge and renewal of historical science in the United States. The development of American historiography has been ambiguous and even contradictory, and attempts at the presentist use of historical knowledge for the purposes of current politics have been far from unsuccessful. However, on the whole, not only the study of US history has made significant progress, but also the formation of new branches of historical science: Latin American studies, Slavic studies, and the history of international relations. A whole galaxy of prominent historians, sociologists and political scientists appeared in the United States, whose works acquired a very wide international resonance. Of particular importance was the formation of a "new historical science". To a large extent, taking into account the developments of European historiography (especially French and English), it developed on a truly American scale, relying primarily on the business setting of university historical education and the broad scientific and technical support of scientific work, in turn influencing historiography. other countries.
In the development of American historical science in the second half of the 20th century. two stages are distinguished - the end of the 40s - 50s and the 60s and the beginning of the 90s.
The vicissitudes of the world historical process, the confrontation between the two social systems that resulted in the "cold war", the collapse of the USSR had a profound impact on various aspects of US life, including historical science. As a result of the Second World War, the United States strengthened its position in the world: only they emerged from the war strengthened in industrial and financial relations. On this basis, global politics and ideas of "global responsibility" for the fate of the "free world" have grown. An important feature of internal development was the strengthening of the position of business, the growth of conservative sentiment in the country in the late 40s - 50s.
Historians, as well as representatives of other social sciences, were called upon to join the Cold War, giving it a sociological, economic, and historical justification. President Truman's unusual address to the American Historical Association in December 1950 proclaimed that the main task of US policy was the fight against communism, and in this matter "the work of American historians is of tremendous importance." The growth of conservative tendencies also affected the historical science of the United States in the first one and a half post-war decades. The direction based on the theory of "consensus" (agreement) has become dominant in historiography. Its adherents, starting from the provisions on "American exceptionalism", denied the importance of social conflicts in the history of the United States.
Loading...
