Who started the Cold War? What does this mean? Prove the guilt of the USSR in the Cold War.

Lesson topic: Who started the Cold War?

“Find the beginning of everything, and you will understand a lot.”

Purpose of the lesson: development critical thinking In the process of studying historical events and the reasons for their occurrence, students have the ability to see a problem and solve it.

1.development of students’ active work skills in the process of acquiring new knowledge through working with memoirs, historical and documentary literature;

2.development of students’ ability to draw independent conclusions on the topic of the lesson through comparison of historical documents;

3.continue to develop the ability to defend one’s point of view and respect for the opinions of others.

During the classes.

1.Opening speech by the teacher.

2.Work with the concept of “cold war”.

3. Students work in groups. Working with documents, tables.

4. Discussion of group work.

5. Conclusions on the topic of the lesson “Who started the Cold War?”

6.Evaluation of student work.

8. Reflection.

9.Homework.

1. Teacher's opening speech: Repetition.

After the end of World War 2, great changes took place in the world. One of the main results of the war was the emergence of 2 superpowers on the international scene.

Name these states (USA and USSR)?

Bipolar world. What is a bipolar world?

Distribute into groups:

Capitalist camp. Socialist camp: camp:

USA USSR; April 1949 NATO May 1955 ATS;

USA, Canada and other countries of the USSR, Albania, Bulgaria,

Countries of Western Europe. Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia.

What was their power based on?

Answers: USA: economic power, dollar - an international unit, international currency bank, atomic bomb, military-technical power, 60% of the entire world industrial. products.

USSR: powerful army, developed military industry, undeniable authority.

Causes of the conflict:

Ideological differences: capitalism and socialism.

The world community was in a state of new local wars and anticipation of a new world war.

The years from 1946 to 1991 are commonly called the Cold War period.

What does this term mean?

One influential American journalist called the conflicts between the great powers the “Cold War.” The press picked up this phrase and it quickly came into use.

« Cold War"- a system of international relations based on the political, ideological confrontation between the two world superpowers, the USA and the USSR and their allies, balancing on the brink of a real war. (Entry in dictionary)

The Cold War is a terrible period in world history - a period of accumulation nuclear weapons, political intrigues and incredible ideas, spy revelations and incredible tension in the political life of the world. The bipolar world, in which the opposing sides were adherents of diametrically opposed views, made the history of that period a series of conferences and disputes, intrigues and concessions. It was a time when the fate of all mankind was decided by by and large, several states are in diplomatic negotiations, not yet fully realizing what responsibility they have.

The period was not monotonous. Periods of thaw and reconciliation were followed by periods of tension and intensity of such intensity that the world was on the verge of a world war. Countries developed plans for nuclear attacks with an incredible number of bombs, outlined bombing targets, created entire underground cities for life in a nuclear war, and educated the population. And if at least 1 of these plans were realized, the world would plunge into the next period... the period of nuclear winter.

Why did this happen? Who is to blame for the aggravation of the international situation? Can we today give an objective assessment of the activities of politicians in the leading countries of the world, those who determined the climate on the planet?

2. transition to learning new material.

What is the main problem we should consider in this lesson? "Who is to blame for starting the Cold War"

3. Workshop .

There are different points of view on this issue. Questions about what caused the Cold War and the nuclear arms race associated with it, whether it could have been avoided, and who was the first to take the path of confrontation have been debated for decades. foreign literature. And in our country, these problems began to arise from the late 80s of the 20th century.

We will try to answer some of these questions today, relying on the opinions of contemporaries of those events, politicians, and modern historians.

So, 3 points of view on the problem were offered to your attention. We need to discuss these positions and formulate our view of the problem. What needs to be done for this? – Objectively consider the arguments in favor of all positions. For this

each group receives documents, excerpts from memoirs, historical documents, studies them and draws conclusions.

Draw conclusions based on facts and arguments:

From the proposed documents, choose the one that best suits your opinion.

We write down the main facts in the table.

An example table on the board:

(Column 1: arguments against the USSR; Column 2: arguments against the USA

4. Workshop. The role of the USA and the USSR in the outbreak of the Cold War

1st point of view:
USA is guilty

Creation of the atomic bomb and development of the Dropshot plan

Fulton Speech by W. Churchell

Truman Doctrine

Creation of military bases along the USSR border

Creation of the Federal Republic of Germany

Creation of NATO

Participation in the Korean War

The Truman Doctrine provided:

Providing economic assistance to European countries

Creation of a military-political alliance of Western countries under the leadership of the United States

Deployment of a network of US military bases along the borders of the USSR

Support for internal opposition in countries of Eastern Europe

Use of nuclear weapons

2 project

The USSR is guilty

Stalin's course towards confrontation with the West and a new war

Establishment of Soviet control over Eastern European countries

Blockade of West Berlin

Participation in the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the War in Afghanistan.

Creation of the atomic bomb and entry into the arms race

Leadership of the international communist movement

Project

The USSR and the USA are guilty

division of the world into spheres of influence

arms race

intense ideological struggle and image creation external enemy;

struggle for spheres of influence in the world and local armed conflicts

division of the world into spheres of influence

5. Conclusion: The unilateral accusation is not unfounded; both superpowers contributed to the outbreak of the Cold War. In support of a quote from an article by the American scientist Geddis: “...History is rarely so simple that it can be presented in the categories of “white” and “black.” When considering such complex issue like the origins of the Cold War, it is illogical and unwise to try to completely whitewash one side and place all the blame on the other.”

6. So, what did we learn in the lesson?

Conclusion:

Many of the events of the Cold War that we talked about in our lessons confirm our conclusions on the problem we are studying.

D.Z. 1. “Cold War” according to memoirs

my loved ones.

2. Image of the era in the form of an emblem-symbol.

Annex 1.

Text No. 1. An excerpt from an article by Soviet historians D. Bezymensky and V. Falin “Who started the Cold War?” (1998).

“...The Cold War broke out because it was greatly desired. Those who were eager to replace the contenders for world domination who had just been knocked out of the saddle and to make the earth at least 85% (H. Truman’s expression) similar to the American standard wanted it. The Cold War was not our choice. She could not be the choice of the USSR after the most brutal war and the enormous human sacrifices made by the people in order to remain themselves and live at their own discretion..."

Text No. 2. G.M. Kornienko. Article "Cold War: origins, causes, consequences."

“..Stalin and the then leadership of the country did not make enough efforts to develop favorable relations with the United States. The USSR allowed itself to be drawn into the arms race after World War II, not always using political means adequately, although undoubtedly the main responsibility for starting the Cold War lies with the United States.”

Appendix 2.

Text No. 3. Excerpt from the text of the textbook “ Recent history."20th century A.A. Creder.

^ The idea of ​​collective security.

The new world order was based on old idea collective security. It was personified by the UN, and was implemented through the granting of broad powers to the 5 leading powers acting as “world policemen.”

The functioning of such a system could only be ensured on the basis of the sincere desire of all great powers to make decisions unanimously.

However, further developments showed that the Soviet leadership, after the unsuccessful experience of the 1930s, did not believe in the possibility of collective security. Since 1939 Stalin firmly took the traditional path of ensuring security - the path of power politics, territorial expansion and the creation of spheres of influence, and steadily followed this path.

Anxiety in the West.

All this could not go unnoticed. The USSR clearly sought to use the collective security system to expand its power. This could not but cause alarm, given the situation in Europe. In France and Italy the Communist Parties became large political parties in their countries. Here and in a number of Western European countries, communists were part of the governments. In addition, after the withdrawal of American troops from Europe, the USSR became the dominant military force. All this favored the plans of the Soviet leadership.

Appendix 3.

Document No. 4. From the memoirs of V.M. Molotov:

“...Stalin reasoned like this: The First World War tore one country out of social slavery. The Second World War created a socialist system, and the Third World War will put an end to imperialism forever.”

“In recent years, Stalin began to become a little arrogant and in foreign policy I had to demand what Miliukov demanded - the Dardanelles!

Stalin: “Come on, press in order of joint ownership.”

I told him: “They won’t let me!” - “And you, try it!”

We needed Libya. Stalin says: “Come on, press!.. It was difficult to give an argument.

At one of the meetings of foreign ministers, I announced that a national liberation movement had arisen in Libya. But it is still weak, we want to support it and build our military base there.”

“At the same time, Azerbaijan claimed to almost double their republic at the expense of Iran. We started to probe - no one supported us. We also had an attempt to try the area adjacent to Batumi, because in this Turkish area there was once a Georgian population. And they wanted to give Ararat to the Armenians. It was difficult to make such demands back then... But it was hard to scare people.”

Appendix 4.

Document No. 5. B. Greiner, West German historian.

“...There was a group in Washington that was completely

it doesn’t matter what the USSR or Stalin think and do. These are the developers of military plans. Since the summer of 1945 at the latest, they knew their enemy firmly and mass-produced military plans. In 1948-1949, it was considered possible to put an end to the Soviet Union by destroying its 70 cities and industrial centers with atomic bombs. All the details were spelled out with maniacal precision: 1,947 targets would be attacked, and within 30 days, 2.7 million people were planned to be killed and 4 million to be wounded. In March 1954 the command of the strategic military forces saw itself at the peak of power. If necessary, it undertook to rain down 750 bombs on the USSR from all directions of the world and within 2 hours turn it into “smoking radioactive ruins.” Under this scenario, the United States would not suffer in any way.”

“The Russians need to show an iron fist and speak in a strong language. I think we should not make any compromises with them now.”

“...The United States will only agree to such changes in the world as they consider correct.”

Our main goals regarding Russia:

A) reduce the power and influence of Moscow to the point where it will no longer pose a threat to the peace and stability of international relations;

B) radically change the theory and practice of international relations, which is supported by the government in power in Russia;

C) we are talking, first of all, about the Soviet Union being weak in political, military and psychological relations compared to external forces beyond its control...

D) the war will begin before April 1, 1949. Atomic bombs will be used on such a scale as is possible and desirable.

Appendix 5.

Text No. 7.

Quotes from an article by American scientist J. Geddis:

“...History is rarely so simple that it can be presented in the categories of “white” and “black.” When considering such a complex issue as the origins of the Cold War, it is illogical and unwise to try to completely whitewash one side and place all the blame on the other.”

“...Let's assume that neither side wanted a Cold War, and both the USA and the USSR cared about their security. And the tragedy was that each side achieved its goal unilaterally instead of acting together...

Exercise: convincingly prove the guilt of Western countries (USA, UK) for starting the Cold War

Use the following facts to prove it:

• 
  W. Churchill's speech on March 5, 1946 in Fulton;
• 
  Truman Doctrine;
• 
  Marshall Plan;
• 
  nuclear blackmail;
• 
  From the article by L. Bezymensky, V. Falin “Who started the Cold War”;
• 
  Opinion of the American historian J. Geddis;
• 
  From an article by West German historian B. Greiner.

"Who is guilty?"

From the speech of W. Churchill on March 5, 1946 in Fulton (USA)
From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, the Iron Curtain descended across the continent. Behind this line are stored all the treasures of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia - all these famous cities and the populations in their areas are in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another not only to Soviet influence, but also to a large extent to the increasing control of Moscow ... With the exception of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States, where communism is in its infancy, the Communist Parties, or fifth columns, are a growing menace and danger to Christian civilization ... our old doctrine of the balance of power is untenable. We cannot afford to rely on a slight superiority in strength, thereby creating a temptation to test our strength...
If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealth of Nations were added to the United States, and what such co-operation would mean at sea, in the air, in science and industry, no precarious and dangerous balance of power would exist. I drive away the thought that new war inevitable or, moreover, that a new war is looming... I do not believe that Soviet Russia wants war. She wants the fruits of war and the unlimited spread of her power and her doctrines. But what we must consider here today is a system for preventing the threat of war, providing conditions for the development of freedom and democracy as quickly as possible in all countries...”

^ Document. January 5, 1946 new US President G. Truman state. Secretary J. Byrnes:

“Russians need to show an iron fist and speak in a strong language. I think we should not make any compromises with them now.”

“...The United States will only agree to such changes in the world as they consider correct.”

A widely known saying Harry Truman: “If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as many as possible, although I do not want to see Hitler under any circumstances in the winners" (New York Times, June 24, 1941). America did not fear a military threat from the USSR [. The threat was the loss of potential markets for American industry, which had caught up with the pace of the war: first of all, the European market, and then markets in peripheral countries freed from colonial dependence.

^ Document. From the directive of the National Council

Our main goals regarding Russia:

A) reduce the power and influence of Moscow to the point where it will no longer pose a threat to the peace and stability of international relations;

B) radically change the theory and practice of international relations, which is supported by the government in power in Russia;

C) we are talking, first of all, about the Soviet Union being weak in political, military and psychological relations compared to external forces beyond its control...

D) the war will begin before April 1, 1949. Atomic bombs will be used on such a scale as is possible and desirable.

^ Doctrine of Allen Dulles, director of the CIA.
US CIA Directive 1945
We will throw everything we have, all the gold, all the material power and resources, into fooling and fooling people.
The human brain and people's consciousness are capable of change. Having sowed chaos in Russia, we will quietly replace their values ​​with false ones and force them to believe in these false values... We will find our like-minded people, our assistants and allies in Russia itself. Episode after episode, the grandiose tragedy of the death of the most rebellious people on earth, the final irreversible extinction of their self-awareness, will play out...
From literature and art, for example, we will gradually erase their social essence, alienate artists, discourage them from engaging in depiction, investigation (research), perhaps, of those processes that occur in the depths of the masses.
Literature, theaters, cinema, the press - everything will depict and glorify the basest human feelings, we will in every possible way support and raise the so-called artists who will plant and hammer into human consciousness the cult of violence, sadism, betrayal - in a word, all immorality.
We will create chaos and confusion in the management of the state, quietly, but actively and constantly we will promote the tyranny of officials, bribe-takers, unscrupulousness, we will elevate bureaucracy and red tape into a virtue. We will ridicule honesty and decency - no one will need them, they will turn into a relic of the past. Rudeness and arrogance, lies and deceit, drunkenness and drug addiction, animal fear of each other and shameless betrayal, nationalism and enmity of peoples, above all enmity and hatred of the Russian people - we will deftly and imperceptibly cultivate all this, all this will bloom in full bloom .
And only a few, very few, will guess or even understand what is happening. But we will put such people in a helpless position, turn them into a laughing stock, find a way to slander them and declare them the scum of society...
We will thus undermine generation after generation... We will fight for people from childhood and adolescence, we will always place the main emphasis on youth, we will corrupt, corrupt, corrupt them. Let's make cynics, vulgarities, cosmopolitans out of them...

^ From an article by West German historian B. Greiner
There was a group in Washington that was completely indifferent to what the USSR or Stalin thought and did. These are the developers of military plans. Since the summer of 1945 at the latest, they firmly knew their enemy and mass-produced military plans. In 1948-1949, for example, it was considered possible to put an end to the Soviet Union by destroying its 70 cities and industrial centers with atomic bombs. All the details were spelled out with maniacal precision: 1,947 targets would be attacked, and within 30 days, 2.7 million people were planned to be killed and 4 million to be wounded. In March 1954, the Strategic Air Forces command saw itself at the peak of its power. If necessary, it undertook to rain down 750 bombs on the USSR from all directions and turn it into “smoking radioactive ruins” within two (!) hours. Note that in this scenario the United States would not suffer in any way.

Assignment: Prove with reason the guilt of the USSR for starting the Cold War.

Select facts to support:

a) expansion of the USSR after the war:

explain the concept of “expansion” (dictionary);

show on the map the territories that became part of the USSR after the war (map);

what other territories were claimed by the Soviet Union after the war;

confirm your facts with the memories of V.M. Molotov;

b) the Soviet Union's escalation of the arms race:

testing and improvement of nuclear weapons;

c) The practice of intensifying ideological struggle:

• 
  creation of Cominform;
• 
  Zhdanov doctrine;
• 
  the purpose of the Cominform.

"Who is guilty?"

“...Stalin reasoned like this: The First World War tore one country out of social slavery. The Second World War created a socialist system, and the Third World War will put an end to imperialism forever.”

“In recent years, Stalin began to become a little arrogant and in foreign policy I had to demand what Miliukov demanded - Dardanelles!

Stalin: “Come on, press in order of joint ownership.”

I told him: “They won’t let me!” - “And you, try it!”

We needed it Libya. Stalin says: “Come on, press!.. It was difficult to give an argument.

At one of the meetings of foreign ministers, I announced that a national liberation movement had arisen in Libya. But it is still weak, we want to support it and build our military base there.”

“At the same time, Azerbaijan claimed to enlarge their republic by ^ Iran almost 2 times. We started to probe - no one supported us. We also had an attempt to try the area adjacent to Batumi, because in this Turkish area there was once a Georgian population. And the Armenians wanted Ararat give away. It was difficult to make such demands back then... But it was hard to scare people.”

^ Doctrine of A. Zhdanov : the world is divided into two camps - “imperialist” (led by the USA) and “democratic” (led by the USSR)

1947Creation of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties (Cominform) - an organization that had political and ideological goals of opposing the West

^ Opinion of the American historian J. Geddis
But, recognizing the West's partial responsibility for the Cold War as a result of the mentioned mistakes, we should not lose sight of the mistakes made by the Soviet side, and this inevitably leads us again to the question of Stalin and the creation he created. political system. Stalin, to put it mildly, did not suffer from excessive gullibility, and the days when the “cult of personality” was at its zenith, this trait of his character could not help but be reflected in Soviet diplomacy. The West had legitimate reasons for alarm when Stalin insisted after June 1941 on maintaining control over the territories acquired as a result of the 1939 pact with Nazi Germany. The West had reason to be alarmed when free elections in Poland, promised by Stalin at the Yalta Conference, never took place. The West had reason to be alarmed when, in 1945, Communist parties across Europe suddenly abandoned the wartime line of cooperation with the West.

c) write down the signs in the diagram;

Option 1.

Option 2.

Scheme



 “HV” 



Assignment: find out the concept of the “Cold War” (“CW”), its essential features.

a) carefully read the proposed options for the concept of “HB”;

b) compare these concepts and highlight the essential features of “HV” in them;

c) write down the signs in the diagram;

d) based on the signs, formulate own concept"XV" and write down

(it should be brief, reflecting the essence of the Cold War)

Option 1.

The Cold War is a global rivalry between the USSR and the USA: both sides

They were preparing for a “hot war”, viewing each other as

The enemy competed in all regions and in all types

Option 2.

The Cold War is an ideological and political confrontation between

Former allies, which is characterized by: separation

Peace into military-political blocs, led by

Propaganda ideological war, active participation in

Fighting on the periphery, arms race.

TOPIC 19. “COLD WAR”

The concept of the Cold War.

The term “Cold War” was introduced by the American journalist W. Lippman.

- The Cold War is a state of intense confrontation in relations between capitalist and socialist countries led by the USA and the USSR.

- The Cold War was accompanied by:

1) the arms race and intensive preparations for a “hot” war;

2) rivalry in all areas public life;

3) acute ideological struggle and the creation of an image of an external enemy;

4) the struggle for spheres of influence in the world;

5) local armed conflicts.

2. Chronological framework of the Cold War. –

1946-1991.

Causes of the Cold War.

The absence of a common enemy among the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The desire of the USSR and the USA to dominate the post-war world.

Contradictions between capitalist and socialist socio-political systems.

Political ambitions of the leaders of the USSR (Joseph Stalin) and the USA (Harry Truman).

The beginning of the Cold War.

A cooling in relations between the USSR and the USA appeared immediately after the end of World War II.

On the one hand, the United States was concerned about the growing influence of the USSR and the spread of socialism in the world.

On the other hand, victory in the war, powerful economic potential, and possession of atomic weapons gave the American leadership the opportunity to declare the right of the United States to rule the post-war world.

The Cold War began in March 1946 with a speech in Fulton by former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in which he declared the need to pit the Soviet Union against the might of the Anglo-Saxon world to protect Western democracies from communism.

The proclamation in 1947 by US President Henry Truman of a doctrine to contain and roll back socialism further worsened the USSR's relations with its former allies.

Churchill's Fulton speech and the Truman Doctrine were perceived by the Soviet leadership as a call for war against the USSR.

Truman Doctrine.

US President G. Truman outlined a program of measures to prevent Soviet expansion in the world.

The Truman Doctrine provided:

1) Providing large-scale economic assistance to European countries.

2) Creation of a military-political alliance of Western countries under the leadership of the United States.

3) Placement of a network of US military bases along the borders of the USSR.

4) Support for internal opposition in Eastern European countries.

5) Use of nuclear weapons to blackmail the Soviet leadership.

The planned measures were supposed to prevent the further spread of socialism and push socialism back to the borders of the USSR.

The degree of guilt of the superpowers in starting the Cold War.

There are three points of view on the issue of the guilt of the superpowers in starting the Cold War.

-1st point of view: the United States is to blame for starting the Cold War. Arguments:

1) Creation of an atomic bomb and development of plans for waging war against the USSR using atomic weapons (Dropshot plan, etc.).

2) W. Churchill’s Fulton speech, delivered in the presence of US President G. Truman.

4) Creation of military bases along the borders of the USSR.

5) Creation of the Federal Republic of Germany.

6) Creation of NATO.

7) Participation in the Korean War.

-2nd point of view: the USSR is guilty of starting the Cold War. Arguments:

1) J.V. Stalin’s course towards a tough confrontation with the West and a new war.

2) Establishment of Soviet control over the countries of Eastern Europe and attempts to expand the sphere of Soviet influence in other regions of the world.

3) Blockade of West Berlin.

4) Participation in the Korean War.

5) Creation of the atomic bomb and inclusion in the arms race.

6) Leadership of the international communist movement.

-3rd point of view: the USSR and the USA are equally responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War.

Consequences of the Cold War for the USSR.

Huge expenses for the arms race.

Large expenses for supporting satellite countries (states included in the ATS).

Establishment of the “Iron Curtain”, restriction of contacts with Western countries.

Lack of access to the latest foreign technologies, technological lag behind Western countries.

Toughening of domestic policy.

Its beginning was associated with atomic weapons. The American military, thinking in the usual categories of naked force, began to look for the appropriate means to strike the “enemy,” that is, the Soviet Union. The philosophical stone in solving a problem that seemed insoluble in the recommendations dating back to 1943-1944 was atomic weapons. Support for the position of the United States by the majority of countries in the world was combined with their exceptional position as holders of a monopoly on the atomic bomb: the Americans again demonstrated their power by conducting test explosions on Bikini Atoll in the summer of 1946. Stalin made a number of statements during this period in order to downplay the importance of the new weapon. These statements set the tone for all Soviet propaganda. But the behavior of the representatives of the Soviet Union in private showed their great concern in reality.

But the American monopoly on nuclear weapons lasted only four years. In 1949, the USSR tested its first atomic bomb. This event was a real shock for the Western world and an important milestone in the Cold War. In the course of further accelerated development in the USSR, nuclear and then thermonuclear weapons were soon created. Fighting has become very dangerous for everyone, and is fraught with very bad consequences. The nuclear potential accumulated over the years of the Cold War was enormous, but the gigantic stockpiles of destructive weapons were of no use, and the costs of their production and storage were growing. If earlier they said “we can destroy you, but you cannot destroy us,” now the wording has changed. They began to say “you can destroy us 38 times, and we can destroy you 64 times!” The debate is fruitless, especially considering that if a war broke out and one of the opponents used nuclear weapons, very soon there would be nothing left not only of him, but of the entire planet.

The arms race was growing at a rapid pace. As soon as one of the sides created some fundamentally new weapon, its opponent threw all its forces and resources into achieving the same thing. Crazy competition affected all areas of the military industry. They competed everywhere: in the creation of the latest small arms systems (the US responded to the Soviet AKM with the M-16), in new designs of tanks, aircraft, ships and submarines, but perhaps the most dramatic competition was in the creation of rocketry. The entire so-called peaceful space in those days was not even the visible part of the iceberg, but a snow cap on the visible part. The USA has overtaken the USSR in the number of nuclear weapons. The USSR overtook the USA in rocket science. The USSR was the first in the world to launch a satellite, and in 1961 it was the first to send a man into space. The Americans could not bear such obvious superiority. The result is their landing on the moon. At this point, the parties reached strategic parity. However, this did not stop the arms race. On the contrary, it has spread to all sectors that have at least some connection with weapons. This could, for example, include the race to create supercomputers. Here the West took unconditional revenge for lagging behind in the field of rocket science, since for purely ideological reasons the USSR missed a breakthrough in this area.

The arms race has even affected education. After Gagarin's flight, the United States was forced to reconsider the foundations of the education system and introduce fundamentally new teaching methods.

The arms race was subsequently voluntarily suspended by both sides. A number of treaties were concluded limiting the accumulation of weapons.

The article "On the evolution of the foreign policy course of the Soviet leadership in the conditions of the beginning of the Cold War: the Eurasian paradigm" was published in the publication "Bulletin of ChSU. Oriental Studies. Eurasianism. Geopolitics" No. 3 (76) 2006.
Quite a lot has been written about the period of the Cold War, its causes and forms, about the winners and losers. This is not surprising: for many decades, our country, Europe, and the whole world lived in conditions of a planetary confrontation between two blocs, which threatened a global catastrophe and called into question the very existence of humanity.

Besides

The outcome of the Cold War predetermined the new world order in which we all now live. So this topic does not concern “events of bygone years.” But studying it can help to understand the world order in which Russia, the heir to the defeated superpower, the USSR, is destined to live, and to evaluate the foreign policy approaches and priorities that guided the government of our country. Perhaps they will be relevant for our time.

It is noteworthy that the words of politicians, journalists, and trade union bosses of the late 40s. XX century can be used to illustrate the foreign policy, military and diplomatic strategy of the United States at the beginning of the 21st century. Thus, military observer H. Baldwin wrote in 1945: “Today we are a banker nation, a creditor nation, an exporter nation, a great sea and air power, the center of world communications. If Rome at one time was the center of the then existing world, then to an even greater extent Washington is the center of the Western world in the 20th century.” Very eloquent comparisons!

And the most important thing. It is interesting how the Soviet leadership, led by I.V. Stalin, reacted to the “diplomacy of force.” Obviously, the situation was very difficult. What assessment did Stalin give it, what was the General Secretary’s approach to the problem? We admit that it is the latter that interests us most. Without pretending to absolute truth, let's try to find the answer to this question.

The fact is that in Western historiography, and today in domestic history, the blame for the beginning of the Cold War is clearly placed on the post-war policy of the Soviet Union, which was supposedly of an aggressive nature. The fact that the myth about the aggressiveness of the USSR, lying in ruins after the terrible and great war, was beneficial to the ruling circles of the West for whipping up hatred in society towards the geopolitically strengthened USSR, everyone in the USSR knew. But in modern Russia, after the coming to power of those who, like B.N. Yeltsin, consider Churchill’s Fulton speech “the most brilliant speech in history,” the obvious things have to be proven. Such obvious facts include the assertion that the fault of the USSR in the eyes of the West was that it opposed the creation of a “cordon sanitaire” around itself in order to isolate it from Europe. This was called the “policy of containment”, the construction of the “iron curtain” (by “misunderstanding” the USSR is associated with this policy, while the “curtain” was erected Western countries against our country). Wherein ruling circles The United States and its allies understood that the Soviet leadership did not think of starting a new world war, which, for example, was admitted by the adviser to the US Embassy in Moscow, J. Kennan, who developed a memorandum proclaiming a “policy of force” in relation to the USSR. Such a memorandum was expected in Washington, and it was drawn up by Kennan, who, however, already in 1958 wrote that the USSR was not inclined to start a world war.

The Cold War manifesto was the infamous Fulton speech (March 1946). In it, W. Churchill called on the British Association of English-Speaking Peoples to jointly combat the threats to “Christian civilization” (including taking into account the nuclear factor) from communist states. Since, Churchill said, the Russians respect only force, Western countries must move away from the policy of balance and move towards creating a significant superiority in military power over the Soviet Union. However, such an advantage has already developed:

W. Churchill's Fulton speech, which ended with the singing of the former British Prime Minister, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, of the American anthem and a masquerade ball, was only the final chord of an ideological campaign that ended with the proclamation of an anti-Russian " crusade" Already at the end of 1945, G. Truman declared the United States’ determination to be “the leader of all nations.” It is the force factor - “nuclear diplomacy”, and not negotiations, that becomes the diplomatic toolkit of the “civilized world” against Soviet people. On November 28, 1945, the head of the Military Affairs Committee, Senator E. Jones, spoke as follows: “With strategic airfields located throughout the territory from the Philippines to Alaska on the shores of Asia, from Alaska to the Azores in the South Atlantic, we can, at the first order, reset atomic bombs to any place on the surface of the earth and return to our bases. Atomic bomb in the hands of the United States will be a big cudgel of American diplomacy.”

But the worst thing - the declaration of war on Russia - was ahead. It was not Churchill or Truman, but more influential people who had to give the go-ahead. The Council on Foreign Relations, which since 1921 has united the most influential people in the United States and the Western world, has become the strategic center for waging the Cold War in the West. After 1945, generals from the Pentagon and NATO, figures from the CIA and intelligence agencies became members of the Council. It was there that the initiative to launch a nuclear strike on Russia was developed, when the President of the Council was A. Dulles (from 1946 to 1950 - Director of the CIA). The same Dulles who negotiated with Germany regarding the joint fight against the USSR. The same Dulles who, at one of the Council meetings, will proclaim a new doctrine of activity against the USSR by changing the consciousness of the Russian people, replacing national values ​​with false ones.

According to Dulles's plan, the United States was supposed to find assistants in Russia itself, with whose hands it would be destroyed. The ominous bet on youth, from which a network of cosmopolitans will grow, gave the West slow but sure results in destroying Soviet country. That is why, as another CIA director, S. Turner, admitted, “... by 1953, the machine of secret operations was launched at full speed, determining political and military events and disseminating propaganda in 48 countries.”

The Cold War policy had the character of a total war. Please note: both Truman, Churchill, and Dulles viewed the confrontation with Russia from the point of view of the struggle for the right to play a global messianic role, which the West will not be able to fulfill as long as an alternative civilizational project exists. Anglo-Saxon, Faustian civilization is structured this way: it believes in its own strength and intelligence, thanks to which it can remake the universe based on its ideas. Russia, as O. Spengler wrote, is internally alien to the West, and both have always understood this perfectly. The Petrine-Bolshevik elite of Russia, looking with hostility at everything Russian, will never be able to remake Russia, which instinctively defends itself from the West as from something alien. The European O. Spengler subtly felt that “fruitful, deep, primordial Russian hatred of the West, this poison in own body... insatiable hatred for all the symbols of Faustian will, for the cities - above all for St. Petersburg - which, as strongholds of this will, were embedded in the peasant element of this endless plain...”

Feeling this apocalyptic, fierce hatred of the times of the Maccabees, as Spengler pointed out, the West could not calmly look at the strengthening of Russia in the face of Stalin's USSR and, in the style of Faustian civilization, began a “crusade”, without waiting until the USSR became even stronger and when it would be more difficult for Western European civilization to lay claim to a special historical mission. The result of the “crusade,” as we know, was the disappearance of Russia’s “apocalyptic” hatred of the West.

Now let’s move on to the question of how adequate the USSR’s response to the “challenges of history” was. We are convinced that the Fulton speech and other steps of the West were not a consequence of the increasing expansionism of the USSR, but a preventive measure caused by the desire to seize the initiative in the great geopolitical game. What the West passed off as the expansionism of J.V. Stalin was the desire to prevent the creation of a “cordon sanitaire” in Eastern Europe. In a response to a Pravda correspondent on March 14, 1946, J.V. Stalin showed a deep understanding of the imperial geostrategy of Atlanticism.

But the West accused the USSR of the fact that in the countries of Eastern Europe there were not democratic governments, but communist ones. To which Stalin replied: “Mr. Churchell would like Poland to be ruled by Sosynovsky and Andere, Yugoslavia by Mihijlovic and Pavelic, Romania by Prince Stirbey and Radescu, Hungary and Austria by some king from the house of Habsburg, etc. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these gentlemen from the fascist gateway can provide “true democracy.”

As we see, Stalin was guided by a pragmatic geopolitical calculation, and not by ideologies. In this respect, he was less blinkered than subsequent communist leaders, who did not go beyond the limits of Marxist phraseology and the limitations of historical materialism. JV Stalin spoke the same language as Churchill and the Dulles brothers and Co. - geopolitical, but from the side of tellurocracy. The same cannot be said about N.S. Khrushchev, L.I. Brezhnev, M.S. Gorbachev. True, the former Secretary General and current head of the mondialist World Forum M.S. Gorbachev switched to the language of geopolitics and began to propose a “historical transition period” from an old-type civilization to an integrated global civilization, which will be managed by a “Global Brain Trust” or “Council of Wise Men” according to Earth Charter - Bill of Rights for the Planet. It would be better not to cross...

Assessing Churchill’s actions, Stalin speaks of the West’s attitude towards war with the USSR, voiced by this gentleman. The head of state sees this not as a confrontation between the capitalist and socialist systems, but as a confrontation between two civilizations that equally claim that it is their model of development that should be accepted by humanity. Stalin compares Churchill with Hitler, seeing the civilizational similarities between the latter two. They are driven not by ideologies, but by the desire to win the “war of civilizations” - Western, Tallasocratic, Romano-Germanic and Russian, Eurasian, continental.

It is curious that Stalin puts Hitler and Churchill side by side as representatives of the same race, the same civilization. This race is German, and the two world wars were a clarification of relations within it on the question: who, England or Germany, will lead humanity. The same O. Spengler wrote about the confrontation between the principles of the “Viking” Englishman and the “monarch-knight” Prussian, between whom there could be no reconciliation, since “both of them, as Germans and people of the Faustian type of the highest order, do not recognize boundaries to their aspirations and only then will they feel that they have reached their goal, when the whole world submits to their idea... the war between them will continue until one of them wins completely. Should the world economy be a world exploitation or a world organization?

The issue was resolved by 1945, “not without the help” of the USSR, which even the authors of Soros history textbooks admit, the English line of the German race won, and the world was supposed to become a “world trust” and not be directed by “people of the type that was intended in the end of the second part of Faust.

However, no one planned Russia’s role in the new world order - therefore it had to be surrounded by an “iron curtain” and slowly die. It was this scenario that J.V. Stalin spoke out against. He made it clear that Churchill's appeal to force was a repetition of what happened during the years of foreign intervention against the RSFSR in 1918-1920. The USSR's response will be to fight for its sovereignty. Moreover, Stalin demonstrates the dialectic of national history, which is characterized by messianic thinking and empire-building. Actually, it is Stalin who defends Russia’s right to an alternative project, and not the cause of building communism.

Of course, this work does not pretend to provide comprehensive answers on this issue, but we believe that in the current international situation in the mid-late 40s. XX century, in the context of the West declaring a total “cold war” between the USSR-Russia-Eurasia, J.V. Stalin’s approaches to the foreign policy of the Soviet bloc and the Atlantic alliance were adequate. They proceeded from a geopolitical analysis of the goals of the opponents of the USSR and recognition of the need to protect an alternative global project in the spirit of the dialectics of Eurasian, national thinking, which was demonstrated by J.V. Stalin in the last years of his time in power. Unfortunately, already in the late 40s - early 50s. voices begin to be heard in the Soviet leadership about the need to abandon confrontation with the West at the global level and conclusions are drawn about the possibility and usefulness of rebuilding the system through the introduction of certain institutions in the country (for example, Molotov’s statement to foreign journalists about the possibility of weakening censorship in the USSR “on the basis of reciprocity”, which in the conditions of the Cold War was perceived as an admission that the enemy was right).

Russia's further geopolitical defeats will not be a consequence of Stalin's pro-Eurasian geopolitics, but the result of the post-Stalin leadership's abandonment of it, which is not surprising. If, even during the life of the Generalissimo, foreign policy problems were discussed in the spirit of Brzezin’s “convergence,” then one would have expected the defeat of Eurasia in the Cold War, when the United States and the Western world, with the “light” hand of Khrushchev, became a model, a criterion for domestic policy a country that began to surpass the United States in “milk and eggs.”

. Quote in: History of Diplomacy / Ed. A.A. Gromyko et al. M., 1974. T. V, book. 1. P. 243.
. Right there. P. 245.
. See: Contemporary History of the Fatherland: 20th Century / Ed. A.F. Kiseleva, E.M. Shchagina. M., 2002. T. 2. P. 280.
. Quote from: History of diplomacy. P. 244.
. Recent history... P. 281.
. Spengler O. Prussianism and socialism. M., 2002. P. 150.
. In search of our path: Russia between Europe and Asia: Reader on the history of Russian social thought of the 19th–20th centuries. / Comp. N.G. Fedorovsky. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 1997. P. 578.
. Right there. P. 579.
. Right there. P. 577.
. Spengler O. Decree. op. P. 82.
. Right there. P. 82.
. Dugin A.G. Philosophy of Politics. M., 2004. P. 486.
. Finding your way. P. 585.

Lesson Objectives
find out and understand the concept of the “Cold War”, the reasons for its occurrence, its impact on international relationships and implications for the development of world politics;
develop thinking skills : formulate a concept, highlight essential features; analyze historical events;
argue your point of view; develop skills
: systematize historical material (diagram, table); establish cause-and-effect relationships;
practice skills working with the text of the textbook, competent oral speech;
form logical thinking, development of collective activity skills (responsibility), formation of the ability to express and defend one’s point of view (independence).
Lesson type: lesson of learning new material.
Form of organization of activity:
work in groups.
Working in groups - cooperation and interaction; The ability to work in a team is in demand in the modern labor market. The class is divided into 2 groups.:
Students are offered
Rules for working in a group
Criticize ideas, but not people.
Encourage everyone to participate in the discussion.
Listen to everyone's opinion, even if you don't agree with it.
Seek to understand the point of view of others in a discussion.
Retell the other person's thought if it is not clear to you.
First, announce all the questions, then sort them out. Look for the rational in the statements of others.
Basic concepts:
cold war, expansion, confrontation.
Lesson equipment

map "Territorial changes in Europe after the Second World War";

cards with tasks for students.

DURING THE CLASSES

I. Introductory stage
1. Conversation with students
Formulate the objectives of the lesson based on the title of the topic.

What lesson did humanity learn from World War II?

What was done to maintain peace after World War II?

Students' responses are listened to.

2. Teacher's introduction The end of the Second World War and its results put the problem of creating a new system of international relations on the agenda of world politics. The most difficult war has ended. After it, the very thought of a new war seemed blasphemous. More than ever, more was done to prevent it from happening again: Germany was defeated and occupied by the victors. During the war years, cooperation was established between the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, which manifested itself in the coordination of political approaches, mutual economic assistance, and coordination of military actions.
The main lesson that humanity has learned - to preserve peace - is reflected in the creation of the UN, an international organization to maintain peace and security on the planet.
The objective development of the situation led, however, to an aggravation of contradictions between the former allies due to their desire to strengthen their positions on the world stage. The confrontation between the former allies began to grow at the end of 1945 and was clearly visible by the end of 1946. A term denoting this confrontation also appeared - “cold war”. It was first used in the fall of 1945 by the famous English science fiction writer J. Orwell, who commented on international events in the British Tribune magazine.

The study of this topic is especially relevant today, when there is only one superpower left on the political arena of the world - the United States, seeking to strengthen its influence in the world.

II. Explanation of new material

Teacher. So, task one is to clarify the concept of “Cold War”. How do you understand what the Cold War is?

Students respond by offering different options. The teacher gives each group cards with the same tasks, diagram and two answer options.

Exercise: CARD 1
understand the concept of “Cold War”, identify its essential features.
a) carefully read the proposed options for the concept of “Cold War”;
b) compare these concepts and highlight the essential features of the Cold War in them;
c) write down the signs in the diagram;
d) based on the signs, formulate your own concept of the “Cold War” and write it down in your notebook (it should be brief and reflect the essence);

e) prepare a 3-minute speech according to the outline.
Option 1

The Cold War was a global rivalry between the USSR and the USA: both sides were preparing for a “hot war”, viewing each other as an enemy, competing in all regions and in all types of weapons.
The Cold War is an ideological and political confrontation between former allies, which is characterized by: the division of the world into military-political blocs, the waging of a propaganda ideological war, active participation in hostilities on the periphery, and an arms race.

Scheme. Characteristics of the Cold War

One student from each group responds using the diagram filled out by the group, which means the concept of “Cold War”.

Students are brought to conclusion: The Cold War is a military-political confrontation between the capitalist and socialist camps.

2. Teacher's introduction Some historians (Soviet) attribute the blame for the outbreak of the Cold War to the West, others (Western) to the USSR, and still others to both sides. Students are asked to find out who is to blame? One group acts as “Western” historians, the other - as “Soviet” ones.

CARD 2

(group of “Western” historians)

Exercise: convincingly prove the guilt of the USSR in starting the Cold War.
1. Select facts confirming:
a) expansion of the USSR after the war:
explain the concept of “expansion” (dictionary);
show on the map the territories that became part of the USSR after the war (map);
what other territories were claimed by the Soviet Union after the war;
confirm your facts with the memories of V.M. Molotov;
b) the Soviet Union's escalation of the arms race:
testing and improvement of nuclear weapons;
c) the practice of intensifying ideological struggle:
creation of Cominform;
A.A. doctrine Zhdanova;
the purpose of the Cominform.
2. Draw a conclusion - start with the words: “These facts indicate that...”
3. Briefly formulate theses and write them down in the table “Who is to blame?” in the “USSR” column:

Table 1. Who is guilty?

Danilov A.A., Kosulina L.G. History of Russia XX - early XXI century, grade 9 / 8th edition,
M., Education, 2002 / § 40, p. 284.
History of RussiaXX - early XXI century, 11th grade / 8th edition,
M., Education, 2003 / § 58, p. 260.
Ulunyan A.A., Sergeev E.Yu. Recent history foreign countries, 11th grade /ed.
A.O. Chubaryan, M., Education, 2000. P. 207.

CARD 2a

(group of “Soviet” historians)

Exercise: convincingly prove the guilt of Western countries (USA, UK) for starting the Cold War.
1. Use the following facts to prove:
W. Churchill's speech on March 5, 1946 in Fulton;
Truman Doctrine;
Marshall Plan;
nuclear blackmail.
2. Conclude: “These facts indicate that.....”
3. Briefly formulate theses and write them down in the table “Who is to blame?” in the “Western Countries” column:

Table 1. Who is guilty?

4. Prepare a 7-minute speech using the sources below:

Danilov A.A., Kosulina L.G. History of Russia in the 20th - early 21st centuries, grade 9 / 8th edition,
M., Education, 2002 / § 40, p. 284-285.
Levandovsky A.A., Shchetinov Yu.A. History of Russia XX-early XXI century, 11th grade / 8th edition, M., Education, 2003 / § 58, p. 259-262.
Ulunyan A.A., Sergeev E.Yu. Contemporary history of foreign countries, 11th grade / ed. Chubaryan A.O., M., Education, 2000 / p. 200-201.

Students are brought to conclusion that both sides are the culprits, their desire for world domination and rivalry in various fields did not help ease international tension.
The reasons for the start of the Cold War can be considered the following:
The struggle of ideologies. Ideological propaganda.
Expansion of the USSR and the USA. Section of spheres of influence.
Reluctance to genuine disarmament. Arms race.
Formation of military-political alliances.

Consequences of the Cold War
for the development of world politics

Teacher. The Cold War had a profound impact on post-war world history, not only on international relations, but also on internal development states

CARD 3

(both groups)

Exercise: determine the consequences of the Cold War for world politics.
1. Confirm your conclusions with facts from textbooks (Table 2).
2. Write the facts in the table. 2.
3. Sources.
Danilov A.A., Kosulina L.G. History of Russia in the 20th - early 21st centuries, grade 9 / 8th edition,
M., Education, 2002 / § 40.
Levandovsky A.A., Shchetinov Yu.A. History of RussiaXX - early XXI century, 11th grade / 8th edition, M., Education, 2003 / § 58.
Ulunyan A.A., Sergeev E.Yu. Contemporary history of foreign countries, grade 11 / ed. Chubaryan A.O., M., Education, 2000 / § 20.

Table 2. Consequences of the Cold War

III. The final stage

Questions for consolidation
1. Why didn’t the “cold war” turn into a “hot” one?
2. Historians believe that the Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR and the socialist system in 1991. Do you agree with this statement?
Summing up the lesson. Students' work is assessed and self-evaluated.
Homework: problematic question: The Cold War continues today. Select facts from the media that confirm or refute this statement.

ANNEX 1

Scheme. Characteristics of the Cold War

Table 1. Who is guilty?

Table 2. A. Zhdanov’s doctrine: the world is divided into two camps - “imperialist” (led by the USA) and “democratic” (led by the USSR) Consequences of the Cold War

In the USA there is a witch hunt campaign. In the USSR - the “Iron Curtain”

APPENDIX 2 Document.

From the memoirs of V.M. Molotov
“In recent years, Stalin began to become a little arrogant, and in foreign policy I had to demand what Miliukov demanded - the Dardanelles! Stalin: “Come on, press! By way of joint ownership.” I told him: “They won’t give it to me.” - “And you demand it!”

...We needed Libya after the war. Stalin says: “Come on, press!”
Irina FEDORCHUK,
a history teacher
Secondary school No. 2,
Gornopravdinsk village,